See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: The J.F. K. Flap
Source:
Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard147.html
Published: Apr 5, 2007
Author: Murray Rothbard
Post Date: 2007-04-05 05:48:34 by Zoroaster
Keywords: None
Views: 878
Comments: 64
The J.F.K. Flap by Murray N. Rothbard by Murray N. Rothbard DIGG THIS This essay originally appeared in the May 1992 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report. The most fascinating thing about JFK, as exciting and well-done as it is, is not the movie itself but the hysterical attempt to marginalize, if not to suppress it. How many movies can you remember where the entire Establishment, in serried ranks, from left (The Nation) through Center to Right, joined together as one in a frantic orgy of calumny and denunciation. Time and Newsweek actually doing so before the movie came out? Apparently, so fearful was the Establishment that the Oliver Stone movie might prove convincing that the public had to be thoroughly inoculated in advance. It was a remarkable performance by the media, and it demonstrates, as nothing else, the enormous and growing gap between Respectable Media opinion and what the public Knows in its Heart. You would think from the shock of the Respectable Media, that Stone's JFK was totally outlandish, off-the-wall, monstrous and fanciful in its accusations against the American power structure. And you would think that historical films never engaged in dramatic license, as if such solemnly hailed garbage as Wilson and Sunrise at Campobello had been models of scholarly precision. Hey, come off it guys! Despite the fuss and feathers, to veteran Kennedy Assassination buffs, there was nothing new in JFK. What Stone does is to summarize admirably the best of a veritable industry of assassination revisionism – of literally scores of books, articles, tapes, annual conventions, and archival research. Stone himself is quite knowledgeable in the area, as shown by his devastating answer in the Washington Post, to the smears of the last surviving Warren Commission member, Gerald Ford, and the old Commission hack, David W. Belin. Despite the smears in the press, there was nothing outlandish in the movie. Interestingly enough, JFK has been lambasted much more furiously than was the first revisionist movie, Don Freed's Executive Action (1973), an exciting film with Robert Ryan and Will Geer, which actually did go way beyond the evidence, and beyond plausibility, by trying to make an H.L. Hunt figure the main conspirator. The evidence is now overwhelming that the orthodox Warren legend, that Oswald did it and did it alone, is pure fabrication. It now seems clear that Kennedy died in a classic military triangulation hit, that, as Parkland Memorial autopsy pathologist Dr. Charles Crenshaw has very recently affirmed, the fatal shots were fired from in front, from the grassy knoll, and that the conspirators were, at the very least, the right-wing of the CIA, joined by its long-time associates and employees, the Mafia. It is less well established that President Johnson himself was in on the original hit, though he obviously conducted the coordinated cover-up, but certainly his involvement is highly plausible. The last-ditch defenders of the Warren view cannot refute the details, so they always fall back on generalized vaporings, such as: "How could all the government be in on it?" But since Watergate, we have all become familiar with the basic fact: only a few key people need be in on the original crime, while lots of high and low government officials can be in on the subsequent cover-up, which can always be justified as "patriotic," on "national security" grounds, or simply because the president ordered it. The fact that the highest levels of the U.S. government are all-too capable of lying to the public, should have been clear since Watergate and Iran-Contra. The final fallback argument, getting less plausible all the time is: if the Warren case isn't true, why hasn't the truth come out by this time? The fact is, however, that the truth has largely come out, in the assassination industry, from books – some of them best-sellers – by Mark Lane, David Lifton, Peter Dale Scott, Jim Marrs, and many others, but the Respectable Media pay no attention. With that sort of mindset, that stubborn refusal to face reality, no truth can ever come out. And yet, despite this blackout, because books, local TV and radio, magazine articles, supermarket tabloids, etc. can't be suppressed – but only ignored – by the Respectable Media, we have the remarkable result that the great majority of the public, in all the polls, strongly disbelieve the Warren legend. Hence, the frantic attempts of the Establishment to suppress as gripping and convincing a film as Stone's JFK. Conservatives, as well as centrists, are smearing JFK because Stone is a notorious leftist. Well, so what? It is not simply that the ideology of the teller has no logical bearing on the truth of the tale. The case is stronger than that. For in a day when the Moderate Left to Moderate Right constitute an increasingly monolithic Establishment, with only nuanced variations among them, we can only get the truth from people outside the Establishment, either on the far right or far left, or even from the highly non-respectable supermarket tabloids. And it is no accident that it is an open secret that the heroic "Deep Throat" figure in JFK is Colonel Fletcher Prouty, who is certainly no leftist. And one of the outstanding Revisionist writers is the long-time libertarian Carl Oglesby. One particularly welcome aspect of JFK, by the way, is its making Jim Garrison the central heroic figure. Garrison, one of the most viciously smeared figures in modern political history, was simply a district attorney trying to do his job in the most important criminal case of our time. Kevin Costner's expressionless style fits in well with the Garrison role, and Tommy Lee Jones is outstanding as the evil CIA-businessman conspirator Clay Shaw. All in all, a fine movie, for the history as well as the cinematics. There are some minor problems. It is unfortunate that the founding Kennedy Revisionist Mark Lane, felt that he had to leave the movie-making early, with the result that the film does not bring out the crucial testimony of Cuban ex-CIA agent Marita Lorenz, who has identified right-wing CIA operative E. Howard Hunt, Bill Buckley's pal and control in the CIA, as paymaster for the assassination. (See the brilliant new book by Lane, Plausible Denial.) According to Lane, heat from the CIA during the filming led Stone to underplay the CIA's role by spreading the blame a little too thickly to the rest of the Johnson administration. As the case for revisionism piles up, there is evidence that some of the more sophisticated members of the Establishment are preparing to jettison the Warren legend, and fall back on an explanation less threatening than blaming E. Howard Hunt or the CIA: that is to lay blame solely on the Mafia, specifically on Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, and Jimmy Hoffa, none of whom are around to debate the issue. A convincing attack on the Mafia-only thesis was leveled by Carl Oglesby in his Afterward to Jim Garrison's book of a few years back (which formed one of the bases for JFK) On the Trail of the Assassins. The Mafia simply did not have the resources, for example, to change the route or call off military or Secret Service protection. Many conservatives and libertarians will surely be irritated by one theme of the film: the old-fashioned view of Kennedy as the shining young prince of Camelot, the great hero about to redeem America who was chopped down in his prime by dark reactionary forces. That sort of attitude has long been discredited by a very different kind of Revisionism – as tales have come out about the sleazy Kennedy brothers, Judith Exner, Sam Giancana, Marilyn Monroe, et al. Well, OK, but look at it this way: a president was murdered, for heaven's sake, and good, bad, or indifferent, it is surely vital to get to the bottom of the conspiracy, and bring the villains to justice, if only at the bar of history. Let the chips fall where they may. One happy result of the film was the conclusive Stoneian argument: if everything is on the up and up, why not open up all the secret government files on the assassination? It looks as if the pressure for opening will win out, but once again, phony "national security" will prevail, so we won't get the really incriminating stuff. And some of the crucial material is long gone, e.g., the famed Kennedy brain, which mysteriously never made it into the National Archives.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: noone222 (#1)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://Rense.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More Evidence Mossad Killed JFK Over Israeli Nukes The Missing Link In The JFK Assassination Conspiracy From John 9-28-3 (Note - The second item below is a letter from JFK to Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol which makes it crystal clear JFK did NOT want the Jewish state to develop nuclear weapons and that he was demanding regular US inspections of the Dimona Nuclear facility...which, as we now know, was/is used to develop Israel's enormous inventory of atomic and thermonuclear weapons. The US Air Force white paper regarding past and ongoing Israeli thermonuclear blackmail of the US is a stunning look at how Zionism has exerted such staggering domination over the US for decades. -ed) After reading: "New JFK Assassination Theory" from WND, it is obvious that it is just more dis-information diverting attention away from the more than likely perpetrators, the Mossad. It's only fair to remind or inform your readers of the theory posed by Michael Collins Piper in 'Final Judgment'. His theory makes more sense than anything. Final Judgement Reviewed by Mark Braver There seems to be a lot of misperception of what Final Judgment does and does not say about the JFK assassination. The book does not say that "the Jews killed JFK." That's horse manure. What the book does say is that: When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison charged businessman Clay Shaw with participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy Garrison stumbled upon the Israeli Mossad connection to the murder of President Kennedy. Shaw served on the board of a shadowy corporation known as Permindex. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad. What's more, the Mossad-sponsored Swiss bank was the chief "money laundry" for Meyer Lansky, the head of the international crime syndicate and an Israeli loyalist whose operations meshed closely on many fronts with the American CIA. The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada, long-time Lansky associates and among Israel's primary international patrons. In the pages of "Final Judgment" the Israeli connection to the JFK assassination is explored in frightening--and fully documented--detail. For example, did you know: * That JFK was engaged in a bitter secret conflict with Israel over U.S. East policy and that Israel's prime minister resigned in disgust, saying JFK's stance threatened Israel's very survival? * That JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, immediately reversed America's policy toward Israel? * That the top Mafia figures often alleged to be behind the JFK assassination were only front men for Meyer Lansky? * That the CIA's liaison to the Mossad, James Angleton, was a prime mover behind the cover-up of the JFK assassination? Why didn't Oliver Stone, in his famous movie "JFK" not mention any of this? It turns out the chief financial backer of Stone's film was longtime Mossad figure, Arnon Milchan, Israel's biggest arms dealer. The very fact that the Israeli lobby has gone through such great lengths to try to smear Michael Collins Piper and to try to discredit Final Judgment gives the book great credibility. If the book was really so silly or so unconvincing, it doesn't seem likely that groups such as the Anti-Defamation League would go out of their way to try to suppress the book as they have. The fact is that Piper demonstrates that Israel did indeed have a very strong motive to want to get JFK out of the way and that numerous people who have been linked in other writings to the JFK conspiracy were (as Piper documents) also in the sphere of influence of Israel's Mossad. Not only Clay Shaw in New Orleans, but also James Angleton at the CIA, who was Israel's strongest advocate at the CIA and also the CIA's liaison to the Mossad. The Israeli connection is indeed "the missing link in the JFK assassination conspiracy." The "Reader from Chicago" who wrote the review of Final Judgment posted here is really off the beam and I suspect he (or she) is deliberately distorting what Piper's book does say in order to try to discourage people from reading it. The fact is that Piper's book documents (quite clearly, in my estimation) not only the means, opportunity and the motive for Israeli Mossad involvement in the assassination (working in conjunction with the CIA), but it is also quite fascinating and very interesting read. "Boring" is the last word I'd use to describe the book, and it is certainly not "poorly written." What's more, the book is not--I repeat--not "anti-Semitic" and the book has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the Holocaust. In fact, anybody familiar with any of the standard writings on the JFK assassination will recognize the names of some of the key players in the scenario Piper documents: Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Guy Banister and James J. Angleton of the CIA--and none of them were Jewish. So where this reviewer gets off saying that Piper finds "a Jew under every rock" is beyond me. I have read literally hundreds of books and magazine articles and other material on the JFK assassination and not in a single one of them--with the exception of Final Judgment--did I ever learn that President John F. Kennedy was trying to stop Israel from building the nuclear bomb and that this literally touched off a "secret war" behind the scenes between JFK and Israel's prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who resigned (among other reasons) in disgust over JFK's policies with Israel. In fact, Israeli historian Avner Cohen in his book, Israel and the Bomb, documents this quite thoroughly. And in Final Judgment Piper also outlines some interesting Israeli connections by people who have been linked to the JFK assassination and cover-up, including Clay Shaw of New Orleans. Even Israeli journalist Barry Chamish has written in an Internet review of Final Judgment that he finds Piper's Israeli connection (via Shaw and Permindex) quite convincing. There was a controversy in the Chicago area following an attempt by the Anti- Defamation League (an Israeli lobby organization) and people associated with the ADL to prevent Final Judgment from being placed in the Schaumburg Township District Library. Chances are the Reader from Chicago is probably an ADL representative! --This text refers to the Unknown Binding edition. __________ JFK's Concern Over Israel's Nuclear Bomb Program JFK's Letter To Israeli PM Eshkol July 5, 1963 Dear Mr. Prime Minister (Eshkol), It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time. You are aware, I am sure, of the exchange which I had with Prime Minister Ben- Gurion concerning American visits (ie: inspections -ed) to Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine. We welcomed the former Prime Minister's strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel's willingness to permit periodic visits (ie: inspections -ed) to Dimona. I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion's May 27 letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits. I am sure you will agree that these visits should be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project. As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government's commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel's effort in the nuclear field. Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel's purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months. I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27 letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion's letter was in accord with this, that our scientist have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time to be allotted for a thorough examination. Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention. Sincerely, John F. Kennedy http://www.jfkmontreal.com/toc.htm Here is the US Air Force paper on Israel's nuclear blackmail of the United States and its influence on US foreign policy. One can draw additional conclusions about how such blackmail might have factored into the trillion plus US dollars that have benefited Israel since JFK's murder. Israel's 'Use' Of Nuclear Weapons Against Us Bush Must Say 'No' To Israeli Nuclear Blackmail - LaRouche Comment From George LoBuono 10-3-3 Mossad motives against JFK are probably true, but don't forget who more probably did the actual shooting and the cover-up. CIA and military-industrial fingerprints are all over the hit. Meyer Lansky may have had Permindex-Mossad ties, i.e. he sought refuge in Israel toward the end of his life, but Lansky had much more going here in the USA. For example, the United Fruit company figures in the lives of more assassination suspects than did Permindex. Col. Fletcher Prouty's naming of Gen. Ed Lansdale as the man in Dealey Plaza photos (walking past the famous hobo suspects) also points to United Fruit. Lansdale's protege in the CIA was Allen Dulles, who worked for United Fruit for years. United Fruit was owned by the Du Pont family. Incidentally, the Bronfman family which this article ties to Permindex, held a major share of Du Pont corp. stock up until a few years ago. In short, there may have been Mossad motives against JFK, but the larger hand and the triggermen appear to have been US citizens.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
Worldnetdaily is a zionazi apologist rag.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Not according to this article or anyone credible among the many JFK scholars - many of whom are not Zionist apologists to begin with.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I can well believe Mossad played a role in the JFK assassination. But, as with 9/11, I suspect they were junior partners in a much broader conspiracy.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
If a conspiracy by the US govt coup plotters - I think one of the reasons JFK's death was allowed to stand by the establishment can be explained by the fact that the Kennedy's had MANY enemies and MANY viewed JFK as a dangerous man who brought us to the brink of a nuclear exchange with the USSR because he screwed up Cuba, he was a morally bankrupt sexually - sleeping with Mafia owned whores and Nazi and possibly Soviet spies not to mention Kennedy family long time links to the mafia. It could be that the killers of JFK viewed themselves as patriots saving the country from a man who they viewed as incompetent and morally bankrupt and ethically corrupt (mafia ties - fixing elections, mafia links, etc). When I realized this then it made sense to me why no one bothered to investigate the death further - the vast majority of official DC was glad to be rid of what they viewed as the Kennedy stain.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Read Sy Hersh's The Dark Side of Camelot, and you'll see the plotters against JFK giving their excuses for what was done to the man. Most of Hersh's unnamed sources seem to have been CIA.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
We make too much of Mossad's abilities in that tehy become boogeymen. There is a more credible link that the killers were Corsican hit men. If you watch the movie Munich there is a character not well explained - the Frenchman who sells info to the Mossad hit team. That man never existed but I think he and his 'clan' were a composite of the Corsican criminal gangs worked for whoever hired them and they were hired by Soviet, Arab, CIA and European govts as hit men as well as by the mafia. The reason to discount Mossad doing the hit is that no outsider would plan the hit for fear of the plot failing and having the fall out lead back to Israel at that time in its history would have ended American support for the young state. That is why I don't think Castro or the KGB killed JFK because if the plot was exposed that would lead them open for an attack and WW3 style retaliation. The plot had to be internal to not have those kind of fears of exposure.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That's a reason to discount the Mossad doing the hit alone. If they were junior partners in a wider conspiracy involving powerful elements inside the U.S. government, they could have felt protected.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I did not know there was such a book - I will have to check it out. The book then touches upon my own feelings that far from killing JFK because he was good and they evil - in the plotters minds Kennedy was a dangerous man who almost started WW3 and was now doing to Vietnam what he did to Cuba, etc. That is a good explanation why seemingly all of the Federal govts branches just shrugged their shoulders when JFK was killed as if they were glad to be rid of him. This is what made the conspiracy look bigger than it was - even those in the govt who had no part or knowledge of the plot and could have investigated on their own pretty much agreed with the results.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Mossad at that time had no relationship with the US that would create a situation where they would be invited in on such a delicate hit - in fact the plotters would have been stupid to allow a foreign element in that could compromise them down the line. In fact the CIA and FBI - being staffed by WASP Ivy Leaguers did not trust then and still does not trust Mossad from all I have ever read about the FBI/CIA and Mossad's history. The Jewish lobby of that day was not the Jewish lobby of today in terms of power. Jews were few and far between in the corridors of power back then - a time when Hotels and Country Clubs still excluded Jews. The Jewish lobby had only reached the position of power where it could insert its members in the govt around the 80s.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I believe this could very well be true. However, incompetence and moral bankruptcy seem to be consistent with the performances of many Presidents and is generally dealt with through the election process. We are continually reminded that this is a Nation of Laws and not men, then these self-proclaimed patriots ignore their admonitions towards us and execute the President. Disintegration of society starts at the top.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
What wasn't mentioned in JFK was that the corporations, named as benefitting from the Viet Nam War, were controlled by the "Johnson Cabal." That, of course was the prototype model for the current Bush Cabal. (Wasn't the Mossad part of the Kennedy assassinations? Was it Jack Rubenstein, [Ruby] who killed Oswald?)
It appears to me that the various intel agencies actually work for the international banking elites, through governments. It also appears that one foreign intelligence agency may do the dirty work for another government in exchange for similar treatment when the situation is reversed, for a variety of reasons. I have heard it said the the CIA and the MOSSAD enjoy a seamless relationship.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
They didn't trust the Mafia either, but they certainly used it.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Exactly. What we are to the UK, Israel is to the UK and US. All are part of the same Octopus, but the UK is the head, the US the tentacles and Israel a suction cup at the end of a tentacle. Is that a bad metaphor? And something tells me that the Octopus wouldn't entirely mind if the tentacle with that festering suction cup got cut off, if it would serve the larger purpose of the head. But I'm not sure that the suction cup (or even the tentacles) fully appreciates this.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
The difference is the rise of the Military-Industrial-Complex in the context of the Cold War which changed the dynamics of power.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Being Jewish does not make you an agent of Mossad - especially when you are in a crew that answers to a Sicilian godfather.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Where did you hear that? Especially not the CIA from the 60s.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Where did you get that the CIA did not trust the mafia? The CIA and the mafia had a partnership that predated the founding of the CIA when OSS formed a partnership with Lucky Luciano - a twenty plus year relationship by the 60s. A spook group would be at great risk in seeking a favor of this magnitude from other foreign agencies because it opens your own agency to blackmail and loss of control - they instead use the black hand - mafia - criminal gangs who live by codes of silence. Lastly, evidence that this is BS is that linking of Mossad to JFK only came about late in the history of the conspiracy story because the facts of JFK had become more like myth making and the bogyman of the time - Mossad was incorporated into the mix.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Another missing link: John F. Kennedy vs The Federal Reserve http://John-F-Kennedy.net Message Board Post | Read On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid. When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage - signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency - money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America. "United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number. President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes. Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something. Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt: 1) war (Viet Nam); and, 2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal Reserve Bank. Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows: SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended - (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made. JOHN F. KENNEDY THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963 Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998: Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as amended by: EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725; EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869; EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605; EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003; EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617 The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy's 1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of Kennedy's EO 11110. A search of Clinton's 1998 and 1999 EO's and Presidential Directives has also shown no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110. The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as: "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors". The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks. Once again, according to Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money: "Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)". The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the "money" we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: "The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them". Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is exactly what the privately owned FED is! No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932: "Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs' 1990 book Crossfire:" Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency. Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks". In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963, Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy allegedly said: "The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight." In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own book... a true Profile of Courage. This research report was compiled for Lawgiver. Org. by Anthony Wayne What is the Federal Reserve Bank? What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it? by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999 The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit. There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking." Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business. In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well. Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued. Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury. This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811. The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816. The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion. Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans. Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money. The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles. Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we? Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years? Do you think they will do it again? Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses. Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases? Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle? Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836. Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank. This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913. The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created. In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York. Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money. Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free. Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars. The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it's just a computer entry in their accounting system. To put this on a more personal level, let's use another example. Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry. Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED. It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid. Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good. So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone. If "We the People" don't take some action now, there may come a time when "We the People" are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency. Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer. Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, "Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?" "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." John P. Curran Source: http://www.roc- grp.org/jfk.html
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
see 21
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Have you ever heard of James Jesus Angleton? To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
UH HUH. THERE YOU HAVE IT!
now isn't that interesting. yet no one in government does a damn thing about it. it's oh so obvious who has all the power, isn't it?
To the point of this nation becoming a fascist-style authoritarian nation run by the banks and corporations. If the people do not wake up soon, there is no hope. But, if they do, the blood of these criminals will run in the streets and many thousands of them will be left swinging from lamp posts. We need more rope.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
They're waking up ... and I think you're correct that investments in rope will generate tremendous rewards.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Eminently.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
In the JFK murder, Mosaad WAS lurking about pushing the deed but never reaching the extent of blatant, overt involvement. I think this explains Johnson's otherwise incomprehensible handling of the USS Liberty incident. Subsequent to USN jets leaving the deck of the USS America, Israel told Johnson that they would expose Johnson's complicity in JFK's violent impeachment. The fighters were recalled and the rest is history--thier version thereof.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Hummm... That makes more sense than anything else I have heard.
Israel's initial attack focused on Liberty's communications. While the attack was on-going, the Liberty crew re-established contact with the Sixth Fleet and reported that the USS Liberty was under attack by Israeli forces. Had this not occurred, the following day's headlines across America would have been along the lines of: "Egypt Sinks US Ship in Mediterranean".
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
… Ben-Gurion was desperate for a close working relationship with America, and he and Kollek went to Washington in 1950. There, they met with the director of the recently created Central Intelligence Agency, General Walter Bedell Smith. Ben- Gurion offered the Americans access to the information gathered from the Russian immigrants--not just summaries, but the transcripts of the interviews. Smith put Angleton in charge. At first, Angleton was suspicious of Kollek and the others, but over time he became impressed--and emotionally attached. The relationship was so close that it provided America with the greatest intelligence breakthrough in the history of the Cold War. … Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
I think this explains Johnson's otherwise incomprehensible handling of the USS Liberty incident. Subsequent to USN jets leaving the deck of the USS America, Israel told Johnson that they would expose Johnson's complicity in JFK's violent impeachment. The fighters were recalled and the rest is history--thier version thereof. There is little doubt of LBJ's complicity in the assassination. But one thing which is overlooked continually is the fact that JFK opposed Israel's development of nuclear weapons. Ben-Gurion was livid with JFK over this issue, and it is beyond doubt that the Israelis had a hand in the assassination. Mike Piper, in his blockbuster bestseller, Final Judgement, says that the real assassins were members of the Corsican mafia who were recruited by Mossad and surreptitiously inserted to co-opt the CIA plot of a failed attempt on JFK, which was meant as a shot across JFK's bow (to use the old naval axiom of a warning shot to heave to) to warn him off of his intended course of action. This Mossad activity has been well used on several occasions, with variations thereof. See Victor Ostrovsky's books By Way of Deception and The Other Side of Deception for more information. Another reason is JFK's move (and his intent to scatter the CIA to the "four winds") toward withdrawal from South East Asia, which would have interfered with the CIA and their heroin smuggling operation. The old saying "follow the money" holds true in this instance (Richard Armitage cut his teeth as a CIA bagman for those heroin smuggling runs.) and we are all aware of the CIA involvement in running drugs, guns and other nefarious activities which were used to outflank Congressional oversight of CIA funding. The funding of CIA black ops provided by these blatantly illegal acivities is well known.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
JFK made a lot of enemies. Don't forget the American University speech, the Test Ban Treaty, the plans for detente and an end to the Cold War, and how the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex must have reacted.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
No, MI6 did. Angleton, may have EVENTUALY turned into an advocate of Israel but in the early 60s when JFK was killed the CIA old guard distrusted and disliked the Israelis. Again focus - you are claiming Mossad helped the CIA kill JFK - I say that is highly in fact NOT likely because if the CIA did it they were the old guard who wer enot Israeli boosters. They would not trust a delicate/sensitive thing as regicide to a group they viewed as no better than Soviet catspaws. From your source: Relations with America at the time were strained. Many top U.S. intelligence, diplomatic, and military leaders believed Israel was a communist cats' paw in the Middle East. It was a socialist country, after all, and the Soviet Union was one of the first countries to recognize Israeli independence. When you people get serious and figure out how to use logic let me know. This is like having a discussion of history with a special ed class.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
In other words beyond doubt to you. Mossad was not part of the JFK hit.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Angleton's big coup through Mossad was getting the text of Khrushchev's speech. That was in 1956.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The Corsicans were used by everyone as independent agents - they did not take orders from Mossad and would do a hot for the Soviets or the Americans or the French or the British. If the CIA was behind the hit they would cetrainly have used Corsicans though in fact the hit was probably done by local Americans. Barr McClellan, father of Bush spoke's person Scott McClellan published 'Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK', a best-seller in November 2003. In the book McClellan presents facts that Lyndon B. Johnson and Edward Clark were involved in the planning and cover-up of the Kennedy assassination. McClellan also named Malcolm Wallace as one of the assassins. The killing of Kennedy, he alleged, was paid for by oil millionaires such as Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt. McClellan details how Clark got $6 million for this work. French journalist William Reymond published a book the same year in which he reaches the same conclusions as Barr McClellan. Many other authors have reached the same conclusions. The assassination of Kennedy allowed the oil depletion allowance to be kept at 27.5 per cent. It remained unchanged during the Johnson presidency. According to McClellan this resulted in a saving of over 100 million dollars to the American oil industry. Soon after Johnson left office it dropped to 15 per cent. Malcolm Wallace is, in our opinion, the key figure in the Kennedy assassination. He was positively identified by Loy Factor as one of the sixth floor gunmen, as well as the recruiter and organizer of the conspiracy. [Wallace's prints were lifted off the Italian rifle byt the FBI refused to certify this]. Madeleine Brown, the mistress of LBJ, also positively verified that Wallace was LBJ's "hatchet man" and was a professional killer. Billie Sol Estes, in the newly released "Estes documents" states that Wallace carried out eight murders at the direct command of LBJ. One of those eight murders was that of John F. Kennedy. Some things we know about Malcolm Wallace. 1. Born in 1921, he was killed in a single-car "accident" in Pittsburg, Texas, in 1971. He was 50 years old. 2. He was convicted of for the first degree murder of John Douglas Kinser in 1952. Due to a rigged jury, and the legal help of John Cofer and Polk Shelton (two of LBJ's finest attorneys) Wallace received a five (5) year SUSPENDED sentence. 3. He worked in aerospace / defense firms from 1953 to 1968. Two of his employers were Temco Aircraft and Ling Electronics - later to become Ling Temco Vought. (LTV) 4. According to Estes' statement, as well as Loy Factor's account, Wallace also recruited Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Is that beyond doubt to you?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Wow - and from there that CIA will trust a group they consider Soviets themselves with a hit of the president??? Not The Dulles brothers who had a grudge against JFK and not about to trust the hit to commie sympathizers like Mossad.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You sure are anxious to deny the possibility of any Mossad involvement in as murky a matter as the JFK assassination. I wonder why.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Comments (43 - 64) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOf course, at the time of the making of this film many details, documents and relevant facts were still unknown. The public was unaware of Oswald's lengthy history with the CIA and FBI, memorandums documenting George H.W. Bush's CIA membership and his having contacted the FBI on the day of Kennedy's murder with a phoney story about a college student in Texas planning to kill Kennedy. Was Bush establishing an alibi ?
#3. To: Zoroaster (#2)
#4. To: Zoroaster, noone222 (#2)
More Evidence Mossad Killed JFK Over Israeli Nukes The Missing Link In The JFK Assassination Conspiracy From John 9-28-3
#5. To: noone222 (#1)
#6. To: Zoroaster, noone222 (#0)
as tales have come out about the sleazy Kennedy brothers, Judith Exner, Sam Giancana, Marilyn Monroe, et al. Well, OK, but look at it this way: a president was murdered, for heaven's sake, and good, bad, or indifferent, it is surely vital to get to the bottom of the conspiracy, and bring the villains to justice, if only at the bar of history. Let the chips fall where they may.
#7. To: Destro (#6)
#8. To: aristeides, noone222, Zoroaster (#5)
I can well believe Mossad played a role in the JFK assassination. But, as with 9/11, I suspect they were junior partners in a much broader conspiracy.
#9. To: Destro (#8)
#10. To: aristeides (#7)
Read Sy Hersh's The Dark Side of Camelot, and you'll see the plotters against JFK giving their excuses for what was done to the man. Most of Hersh's unnamed sources seem to have been CIA.
#11. To: aristeides (#9)
(Edited)
If they were junior partners in a wider conspiracy involving powerful elements inside the U.S. government, they could have felt protected.
#12. To: Destro (#6)
It could be that the killers of JFK viewed themselves as patriots saving the country from a man who they viewed as incompetent and morally bankrupt and ethically corrupt (mafia ties - fixing elections, mafia links, etc).
#13. To: Zoroaster, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#0)
#14. To: aristeides (#5)
#15. To: Destro (#11)
In fact the CIA and FBI - being staffed by WASP Ivy Leaguers did not trust then and still does not trust Mossad from all I have ever read about the FBI/CIA and Mossad's history.
#16. To: aristeides (#5)
I can well believe Mossad played a role in the JFK assassination. But, as with 9/11, I suspect they were junior partners in a much broader conspiracy.
#17. To: noone222 (#12)
I believe this could very well be true. However, incompetence and moral bankruptcy seem to be consistent with the performances of many Presidents and is generally dealt with through the election process. We are continually reminded that this is a Nation of Laws and not men, then these self-proclaimed patriots ignore their admonitions towards us and execute the President.
#18. To: SKYDRIFTER, Zoroaster, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana (#13)
(Wasn't the Mossad part of the Kennedy assassinations? Was it Jack Rubenstein, [Ruby] who killed Oswald?)
#19. To: noone222, aristeides (#14)
I have heard it said the the CIA and the MOSSAD enjoy a seamless relationship.
#20. To: aristeides, noone222, Arator (#15)
(Edited)
They didn't trust the Mafia either, but they certainly used it.
#21. To: SKYDRIFTER (#13)
#22. To: christine (#21)
#23. To: Destro (#19)
Especially not the CIA from the 60s.
Beginning in 1951 Angleton was responsible for cooperation with Israel's Mossad and Shin Bet agencies, a relationship he managed closely for virtually the remainder of his career. It has been claimed that, in this capacity, Angleton directed CIA assistance to the Israeli nuclear weapons program.
#24. To: wbales (#22)
On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.
#25. To: wbales (#22)
The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.
#26. To: noone222 (#1)
Americans have a tendency to see themselves as immune to the communistic/fascistic attacks that have decimated empires throughout history. This form of denial is dangerous to say the least because a cognitive dissonance replaces reflective analysis, and allows the nonsense such as National Security to stifle real evidence that contradicts the contrived storyline.
#27. To: BTP Holdings (#26)
If the people do not wake up soon
#28. To: christine (#25)
it's oh so obvious who has all the power, isn't it?
#29. To: aristeides, christine (#23)
#30. To: wbales (#29)
otherwise incomprehensible handling of the USS Liberty incident. Subsequent to USN jets leaving the deck of the USS America, Israel told Johnson that they would expose Johnson's complicity in JFK's violent impeachment. The
#31. To: tom007 (#30)
#32. To: aristeides (#23)
#33. To: Destro (#32)
Agleton helped the Israeli set up Mossaad.
#34. To: wbales, aristeides, christine, tom007 (#29)
In the JFK murder, Mosaad WAS lurking about pushing the deed but never reaching the extent of blatant, overt involvement.
#35. To: BTP Holdings (#34)
#36. To: wbales (#33)
(Edited)
Agleton helped the Israeli set up Mossaad.
#37. To: BTP Holdings, wbales, aristeides, christine, tom007 (#34)
and it is beyond doubt that the Israelis had a hand in the assassination.
#38. To: Destro (#36)
#39. To: BTP Holdings, wbales, aristeides, christine, tom007 (#34)
Mike Piper, in his blockbuster bestseller, Final Judgement, says that the real assassins were members of the Corsican mafia who were recruited by Mossad
#40. To: Destro (#37)
Mossad was not part of the JFK hit.
#41. To: aristeides (#38)
Angleton's big coup through Mossad was getting the text of Khrushchev's speech. That was in 1956.
#42. To: Destro (#41)
.
.
.