Click on this text to watch JFK and the Dollar
very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and
historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings… Our way of life is
under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe… no war ever posed a greater
threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only
saythat the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent… For we are opposed
around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its
sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation
instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.It is a system which has conscripted vast
human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military,
diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published.
Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned,
no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”
— John F Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, from a speech delivered to the American Newspaper
Publishers Association on April 27, 1961 and known as the “Secret Society” speech.
JFK had many lethal enemies during his short presidency. The Mafia did not like the heat
that Attorney General Robert Kennedy (JFK’s brother) was applying. Fidel Castro resented being an assassination target
by the CIA. Right wing extremists despised JFK’s peaceful intentions, especially a cabal of New Orleans extremists
lead by David Ferrie and Guy Bannister. The Russians were our mortal enemy at the time and even the JFK assassination patsy,
Lee Harvey Oswald, was set up as a Russian sympathizer. Oswald indeed had visited Russia and even brought a Russian wife
home to the U.S. But toss all that out and focus on the CIA and Mossad.
Allen Dulles was the CIA Director when JFK took office and had been since 1953. Dulles’
pet project during JFK’s administration was the overthrow of Fidel Castro of Cuba. After failed attempts by the CIA
to assassinate Castro, it was determined that an invasion of Cuba was necessary. The invasion would be largely carried out
by Florida-based Cuban exiles that would land in a place known as Bahia de Cochinos (The Bay of Pigs) on the south-central
coast of Cuba. After landing, the invaders would rally the Cuban populace behind them and depose Castro. Dulles’ old
OSS (Office of Strategic Services) buddies and CIA agents, E. Howard Hunt (of Watergate “plumber” fame), and
David Atlee Phillips did most of the planning for the Cuban invasion to be known as Operation Zapata.
George H.W. Bush is not credited in history for
his role in the operation, but it was named for his offshore oil drilling enterprise, Zapata Oil, located 40 miles at sea
from Cuba. Two of the Higgins boats (landing craft) were named Houston and Barbara J (Bush’s wife Barbara had no middle
name, so where did the J come from?). We can assume G.W. was a player in Operation Zapata.
The CIA backed Cuban invasion on April 17, 1961 was a disaster.
The Cuban army overwhelmed the invaders, the population was absolutely loyal to Castro and did not rise up against him, and
JFK refused to provide the urgently requested air support to save the day. JFK finally fired Dulles for the Zapata debacle
and replaced him with John McCone on November 29, 1961.
Dulles was livid that JFK had refused to save the Zapata Operation with air support, so
you can imagine what his feelings about JFK were after suffering the indignity of being fired from an agency that he had
built up for eight years.
had many Jewish friends from his OSS days still in strategic government and popular positions such as: Kennedy’s foreign
policy advisor Henry Kissinger, Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, and influential writer/historian Arthur Schlesinger.
He also had many friends still in the CIA, including Jewish guy Cord Meyer stationed at the “Israeli Desk” and
Jewish guy Sidney Gottleib who headed the MK-ULTRA program. MK-ULTRA being the mind control (LSD experiments) and dirty
tricks department at the CIA.
Zionist Cord Meyer was recruited by Dulles personally for CIA duty in 1951. Meyer was a strong advocate of world government,
and had been elected the president of the United World Federalists (UWF) in 1947. The UWF slogan was, “World Peace
through World Government.” Jewish Zionist Sidney Gottleib was known as “The Black Sorcerer” inside the
agency and knew how to arrange things. And, speaking of world government enthusiasts, Allen Dulles’ brother, John
Foster Dulles, was an architect of the United Nations while working with Arthur Vandenberg to that end.
The Jews had it in for JFK
because he instituted measures that would cripple World Zionism and its global cycle of war, financial crises,
militarism, inflation, depressions, and usurious debt, all outlined in the Protocols.
First, JFK ordered the Vietnam War stopped
and the troops brought home (NSAM - 236). Vietnam was the latest Oil War. Who owns World Oil? The Rothschilds. They "own"
Yukos Oil in Russia and "own" the Rockefellers in America.
Second, JFK was going to wind down the
Arms Race and seek world peace. The trillions spent for "Defense" was never for the defense of America but for
an arsenal to enable World Zionism to impose its Capitalism on the rest of the world.
Third, JFK ordered the Treasury to print
US currency instead of the Rothschild Federal Reserve Notes supported by the Rothschild illegal income tax. The US bonds,
held by the Fed for our Fed currency, pay many billions in interest annually to World Zionism. With a "stroke of the
pen" ( Executive Order 11120) JFK would cost them trillions as well as their domination of global money and finances
through debt and speculation
Fourth, JFK intruded on the wage price spiral in the steel industry in favor of labor. The corporate
stock of US Steel plummeted, a bad omen for Capitalism
Fifth, JFK would not give nuclear weapons to Israel. Jews
invented these inhuman weapons in America and Israel could not have them for its global terrorism. This was unacceptable!
Ben Gurion resigned.
Kennedy letter to Prime Minister of
“Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
“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.
are aware, I am sure, of the exchanges which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits 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 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 to
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 peace as the question of Israel’s
effort in the nuclear field.
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 scientists 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 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.
“John F. Kennedy”
Sixth, JFK was going to dismantle the
Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA with Mossad are essential for World Zionism's global terrorism.
Seventh, JFK stood in the way of a Zionist
puppet in the White House, Lyndon Johnson, who gave up a most powerful position for an office described as "not worth
a bucket of pee pee" and as the "gofer" of a man he detested. This decision only made sense three years later.
"As Mr. Kennedy sat in the rocker
in my office, his head resting on its back he placed his left leg across his right knee. He rocked slightly as he talked.
In a slow pensive voice he said to me, 'You know if I am re-elected in sixty-four, I am going to spend more and more time
toward making government service an honorable career. I would like to tailor the executive and legislative branches of government
so that they can keep up with the tremendous strides and progress being made in other fields ... I am going to
advocate changing some of the outmoded rules and regulations in the Congress, such as the seniority rule. To do this I will
need as a running mate in sixty-four a man who believes as I do.' ... I was fascinated by this conversation and
wrote it down verbatim in my diary. Now I asked, ... 'Who is your choice as a running-mate?' He looked straight ahead,
and without hesitating he replied, 'At this time I am thinking about Governor Terry Sanford of North Carolina. But it will
not be Lyndon."
...Evelyn Lincoln, Personal Secretary to JFK
JFK, the White House surrendered America to World Zionism. Johnson cancelled all of JFK's anti-Zionist measures, the Arms
Race resumed, the Vietnam War was escalated, war debt and interest skyrocketed, nuclear weaponry was given to Israel.
Do not dismiss the fact that Dulles was the main
orchestrator of the Warren Commission. A primary orchestrator of the murder then investigated the murder.
And do not dismiss the fact
that a Jew and probable Mossad (SAYANIM) asset, Abraham Zapruder, just happened to be at the perfect place at the perfect
time to capture the gruesome film footage of the actual murder and recorded the gruesome murder without flinching. The question
must be asked: Was Abraham Zapruder (Jewish) a Mossad operative on assignment positioned at exactly the right place at the
right time to capture the gruesome murder as a graphic lesson for posterity? Zapruder either had incredible nerves of steel
to be able to capture the event without so much as flinching; or he knew exactly what was coming and performed his assignment
perfectly. The lesson for posterity being: DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE DESIGNS OF THE ROTHSCHILD BANKING SYSTEM, aka The Federal
Reserve Bank (Executive Order 111110).. not to mention, this is what you get when you do not cooperate with Israeli nuclear
on Israel’s shit list because of his refusal to assist the Israelis with their nuclear development at the Negev Nuclear
Research Center near Dimona, Israel. On July 25, 2004, the Jerusalem Post carried a story headlined,
Israel behind JFK Assassination."
Dr. Mordechai Vanunu being the Israeli nuclear physicist that had recently been released after being imprisoned
for 18 years for exposing Israel’s covert nuclear weapons project.
It was the exclamation point upon JFK's death sentence when he signed Executive Order 11110 that
stripped the Federal Reserve Bank of the power to loan money to the Federal Government at interest. The Order also restored
to the Treasury Department the power to create and issue money without going through the privately owned and Jewish controlled
Federal Reserve Bank. JFK wanted silver coins federally minted and silver certificates actually backed by real silver in
the Treasury’s vault. After JFK’s assassination, all the U.S. Treasury notes that were issued on his watch were
removed from circulation. And…JFK’s plan to extract all "advisors" from Vietnam by 1965 would have
spoiled the FED’s plan to cash in on yet another costly war.
It wasn’t difficult for Dulles, with the assistance of Jewish CIA agents, to
arrange a Mossad hit on Kennedy. Cord Meyer, at the CIA Israeli Desk, contacted Mossad master assassin: Yitzhak Shamir (destined
to become Israel’s 7th Prime Minister) to arrange the JFK shooters.
Hard to trace French Corsicans were used as assassins in case of capture.
It’s amusing that E. Howard Hunt and Woody Harrelson’s (Woody on the TV sitcom CHEERS) father, Charles
Harrelson, have been usually fingered as the JFK shooters and are supposedly two of the three clandestine railroad vagrants
that were arrested near Dealy Plaza shortly after the JFK assassination.
BTW: Cord Meyer was personally enthusiastic about killing Kennedy because his ex-wife, Mary Pinchot Meyer, supposedly
had an affair with the supposedly ever-womanizing JFK. She was murdered in the Georgetown section of Washington D.C. on
October 12th, 1964 by two gunshots; one to the back of the head and one to the heart at point blank range. She allegedly
had kept a diary of her thirty some encounters with JFK and was intending to make the affair public. CIA agent James Angleton
supposedly obtained the diary by searching Mary’s home. Angleton was Director of CIA Counterintelligence and was the
primary liaison for the Israeli Mossad and Shin Bet at the CIA’s "Israeli Desk."
Isser Harel was the head of the Mossad from 1947-1963 and head of Shin Bet from 1948-1952
The CIA, under cover as the Office of Naval Intelligence, groomed
Lee Harvey Oswald for his role as a patsy. Oswald thought he was an operative spying on Russia. Oswald had an extensive
CIA-201 file and was under constant surveillance; he was tailed and manipulated in Russia by CIA agents John McVickar and
Mossad agent Bernie Weissman was
the one who arranged for Mossad Sayanim asset, Jacob Leon Rubenstein (Jack Ruby), to assassinate Oswald. Weissman was seen
talking to Ruby at Ruby’s Carousel
Club in Dallas a week before the assassination.
Ruby was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for the murder of Oswald. He appealed his conviction and was
granted a new trial and venue in 1966 but died on January 3, 1967 of cancer before his retrial. Ironically, Rubenstein died
at Parkland Memorial Hospital, the same hospital where JFK and Oswald were pronounced dead.
When Ruby was being booked by an arresting officer after the Oswald murder, the officer asked
him why he had done it (as if the question needed asking). Ruby’s response was: "I just wanted to show the world
that Jews got guts."
An oddity related to Ruby is the death of journalist Dorothy Kilgallen, whose
syndicated column appeared in 150 papers nationwide. She was also a regular panelist on the very popular 1950s TV game show,
What’s My Line?
Kilgallen had conducted a courthouse interview with Ruby during his murder trial in Dallas and had taken notes.
She had also been critical of the blundering of the Warren Commission in her syndicated newspaper column. She was found
dead in her home from an apparent "overdose" of alcohol and barbiturates on November 8th, 1965. Her notes of the Ruby interview were never found. Ruby had stated in other interviews that he was just
a small player in an overthrow of the government and felt that he’d been betrayed by not being sprung from jail in
a timely fashion as had been promised.
Jewish Funeral Arranged
for Jack Ruby; Will Be Buried in Chicago
Arrangements were reportedly made for a funeral
and services in accordance with Jewish ritual for Jack Ruby, the slayer of Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated President
Kennedy. Mr. Ruby who died here today where he had been held since the killing of Oswald is reported to have requested a
burial in keeping with the Jewish religion and tradition. He will be buried in Chicago in the cemetery where his parents
are interred, it was reported here.
Mr. Ruby was associated with Shearith Israel
Congregation here, a Conservative synagogue led by Rabbi Norman Shapiro. He died this morning with his relatives at his
bedside. Since he was in a coma immediately before his death, his request for a Jewish funeral was apparently made previously.
Rabbi Shapiro said that in his last visits to Ruby nothing was mentioned about his wishes pertaining to
ritual burial. The rabbi told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that he had mainly exchanged pleasantries with Ruby who asked
about various members of the Jewish community. Rabbi Shapiro said some of the statements attributed to Ruby by his relatives,
attorney and hospital personnel had not been made to the rabbi. Hence, he could not add anything beyond his own personal
sense of sorrow and compassion at the death of a human being whose life became a tragic ordeal.
The American Zionist Council
became AIPAC (American-Israeli
Public Affairs Committee) the same year that Israel assassinated JFK... 1963.
Thorn in Side of [JEWISH] Crime Syndicate JFK Hit: Truth Seeker Dorothy Kilgallen Murdered
Dorothy Kilgallen PHOTO: New York Post/Everett Collection
of the principal early truth investigators of the JFK assassination was the most-famed reporter of that era, Dorothy
Kilgallen (1913-1965). Killgallen had both a big audience and was in the thick of investigative reporting on the Crime Syndicate
(with a big C) deep-state and Mafia. Note: TNN doesn’t use Crime Syndicate in the narrow sense
of the American Mafia. This type of journalism is largely unseen today. When one considers Kilgallen’s fate, we can
As early as July 15, 1959, Kilgallen became the first journalist to suggest that the CIA and the Mafia were working
together in order to assassinate Fidel Castro. This disclosure upset high-ranking government officials, and J.
Edgar Hoover began to keep a dossier on Kilgallen’s activities.
A week after Jacob Leon Rubenstein aka Jack Ruby eliminated Lee Harvey
Oswald, Killgallen’s strong (and now rare) intuition kicked in.
“The case is closed, is it? Well, I’d like to know how,
in a big, smart town like Dallas, a man like Jack Ruby — owner of a strip tease honky tonk — can stroll in and
out of police headquarters as if it was at a health club at a time when a small army of law enforcers is keeping a ‘tight
security guard’ on Oswald. Justice is a big rug. When you pull it out from under one man, a lot of others fall,
too,” she wrote.
Kilgallen had a good contact within the Dallas Police Department. He gave her a copy of the original police log
that chronicled the minute-by-minute activities of the department on the day of the assassination, as reflected in the radio
communications. This enabled her to report that the first reaction of Chief Jesse Curry to the shots in Dealey
Plaza was: “Get a man on top of the overpass and see what happened up there.” Kilgallen pointed out that
he lied when he told reporters the next day that he initially thought the shots were fired from the Texas Book Depository.
several articles about how important witnesses had been threatened by the Dallas Police or the FBI. On Sept. 25, 1964,
Kilgallen published an interview with Acquilla Clemons, one of the witnesses to the shooting of J. D. Tippet. In the interview, Clemons told Kilgallen that she saw two men running from the scene, neither of whom fitted Oswald’s
description. Clemons added: “I’m not supposed to be talking to anybody, might get killed on the way to work.”
Clemons’ testimony was never used by the Warren Commission.
Kilgallen also had a source within the Warren Commission. This person gave her a 102-page segment dealing with Jack Ruby before it was published. She published details of this leak, thereby ensuring that the information was in the public
realm should it get edited or redacted from final version of the report.
Ruby told Earl Warren that he would “come clean,” if he was moved from Dallas and allowed to testify in Washington. He
told Warren “my life is in danger here.” He added: “I want to tell the truth, and I can’t tell it
here.” Warren refused to have Ruby moved, and so he refused to tell what he knew about the assassination of John
In author Mark Shaw’s “The Reporter Who Knew Too Much: The Mysterious Death of ‘What’s My
Line’ TV and Media Icon Dorothy Kilgallen,’ he assembled a unique set of eyewitness accounts of Killgallen’s
activities from after the assassination to her sudden and suspicious death on Nov. 8, 1965. We will comb through this for
Keep in mind that Killgallen had to start from scratch and without the benefit of 50-plus more years of background
and databases of information that we have now. Had she lived, she would have continued to be a huge thorn in the side of
For example, as we recently reported, secret FBI files released after 54 years of suppression suggest that Ruby informant (Bob Vanderslice) stated that
on the morning of the assassination, Ruby had contacted him and asked if he would ‘like to watch the fireworks,’”
an FBI record dated April 6, 1977, states. He was with Jack Ruby. They stood at the corner of the Postal Annex Building,
facing the Texas School Book Depository Building, at the time of the shooting. Immediately after the shooting, Ruby left
and headed toward the area of the Dallas Morning News building. Rubenstein was a busy man throughout the
big event with numerous sightings, which we covered here.
see from new file releases: Newly Released JFK Files Indicate Evidence of Oswald’s Fingerprints on Rifle was ‘Lost’
Jack Ruby answers reporters’ questions after a
pre-trial hearing in February 1964.
The Wikipedia section on Jack Ruby states, “Other investigations and dissenting theories” are actually well done, pretty overwhelming and demonstrate
many characters who called the Oswald shooting an orchestrated hit.
For logical reasons, Kilgallen felt that Jacob Rubenstein (aka Jack
Ruby) held the key to the JFK hit. Accordingly, she covered the story and was on hand throughout Rubenstein’s trial.
After his opportunity to tell his account of the story to the Warren Committee came to an end, Kilgallen used her influence
to secure two separate interviews; one lasting eight minutes, the other lasting 10. Tonahill was one of Ruby’s defense
It’s not clear what Ruby told Kilgallen, as he was often cryptic,
but it seemed to point to hotbed New Orleans and mob boss Carlos Marcelo. After Rubenstein was convicted on March 14, 1964,
Kilgallen headed for New Orleans to pursue leads and told her hairdresser, confident and sidekick Marc Sinclaire to go back
to New York and not say a thing. Keep in mind that this was before DA Jim Garrison started establishing the New Orleans
connections between 1966 and ’67. Kilgallen, who was deceased at that time, would have never met Garrison.
WATCH: Sinclaire Details Dorothy’s New Orleans Trip Prior to Death
died weeks before a planned second trip to New Orleans for a meeting with a secret informant, telling a friend it was “cloak
“I’m going to break the real story and have the biggest scoop of the century,” she told her lawyer.
According to David
Welsh of Ramparts Magazine, Kilgallen “vowed she would ‘crack this case.'”
Another New York showbiz friend said Dorothy
told him in the last days of her life: “In five more days, I’m going to bust this case wide open.”
She compiled a
thick file of evidence, interviews and notes, always keeping it close or under lock and key. It was nowhere to be found
after her death. She also gave a copy of her drafts, including interview notes, to her friend Florence Smith. Smith
died two days after Kilgallen of a “cerebral hemorrhage.” Smith’s copy of Kilgallen’s draft was also
When the Warren Commission report came out, she had this to say: “[The Warren Commission Ruby testimony] is
a fascinating document — fascinating for what it leaves unsaid, as well as what it says. Ruby admits this was a conspiracy
involving powerful people.
Commenting on Ruby’s state of mind, she wrote. Note: Ruby died of fast growing cancer on January 3, 1967.
“He opened the floodgates
of his mind and unloosed a stream of consciousness that would have dazzled a James Joyce buff and enraptured a psychiatrist.
There was a great deal of fear inside Jack Ruby that Sunday in June [when he testified]. He feared for his own life,
he feared for the lives of his brothers and sisters.
“It seemed to
me after reading the testimony three times that the Chief Justice and the general counsel were acutely aware of the talk
both here and in Europe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy. They took pains to prove to themselves and
the world that no conspiracy existed.”
The Nov. 8, 1965, Hit on Dorothy Kilgallen
Ron Pataky and Dorothy Kilgallen
Ron Pataky was an entertainment writer for the Columbus Citizen-Journal.
He first met Dorothy in June 1964 during a press junket for journalists covering the film industry.
“[We were in] Salzburg [Austria] on the
set of ‘The Sound of Music.’ Twenty-two years younger, over the next 17 months, Ron and Dorothy rendezvoused
often. The theory is that Pataky kept tabs for the Big C Crime Syndicate on Kilgallen’s progress.”
WATCH: Sinclaire Details Info Slipping Out, Suspects Pataky
Was Ron Pataky working for the CIA and/or Mafia? He dropped out of Stanford in 1954 and then enrolled in a training
school for assassins in Panama or thereabouts. It looks like his worldview was nutwing evangelical Zionist. Such fanaticism would
make him useful to certain parties. Later in life, at age 56, he picked up a master’s degree from Jerry Falwell’s
Liberty University and then a PhD in Christian counseling from Trinity Theological Seminary.
Kilgallen told Sinclaire she had gotten “threats.”
Fearing for her life and her family, she bought a gun. It was Sinclaire who found Kilgallen’s body at 9 a.m. Sinclaire
says a police car was sitting in front of the house. Sinclaire says her dress, make up and hair piece made zero sense for
her bedtime attire. He felt she was posed by somebody who didn’t know her routine.
WATCH: Sinclaire Describes How James the Butler Came Upstairs, Marc Leaves, Police Car Out Front
Sinclaire Questions Death of Dorothy
was found dead, her body laying in a bed in a room she never slept in and in clothing she didn’t usually sleep in,
with her hairpiece and make up still on. A book was laid out on the bed. It was “The Honey Badger.” Yet,
according to more than one witness, Kilgallen had finished reading this book several weeks — perhaps months —
prior. Also, she needed glasses to read; Sinclaire said there were none present in the room. The room’s air conditioner
was running, yet it was cold outside.
She was found to have a combination of alcohol and three different barbiturates in her system,
but not at levels great enough to cause death. Dr. James Luke, assistant medical examiner, said that although Miss
Kilgallen had only “moderate amounts of each,” the effect of the combination had caused depression of the central
nervous system, “which in turn caused her heart to stop.”
The Brooklyn office did Kilgallen’s autopsy — not the
office in Manhattan, where she died — an unusual move that was never explained. The Brooklyn office was tightly controlled
by the mob, Dr. Steven Goldner, who worked in that office, told Shaw. In the next clip we can hear the canned, gas-lighting
narrative of the evil sycophant Pataky.
WATCH: Sinclaire Comments on Pataky Comments Regarding Dorothy
Sinclaire Comments on Pataky Comments Regarding Dorothy (Continued)
Click on this text to watch/hear some common sense from Jesse Ventura: JFK Assassination Was A Coup D'état...
FORD'S TIP OF THE HAND...
In November 1963, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Gerald Ford to the Warren Commission, a special task force set up to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Ford was assigned to prepare a biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin. The Commission's work continues to be debated in the public arena.
In the preface to his book, A Presidential
Legacy and The Warren Commission, Ford said the CIA destroyed or kept from investigators critical secrets connected to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
He said the commission's probe put "certain classified and potentially damaging operations in danger of being exposed".
The CIA's reaction, he added, "was to hide or destroy some information, which can easily be misinterpreted as collusion
in JFK's assassination".
According to a 1963 FBI memo released in 2008, Ford secretly provided the FBI with information about two of his fellow commission members, both
of whom were unsure with regards to the FBI's conclusions about the assassination. The FBI position was that President Kennedy
was shot by a single gunman firing from the Texas Book Depository. Another 1963 memo released in 1978 stated that Representative
Ford volunteered to advise the FBI regarding the content of the commission's deliberations if his involvement with the bureau
was kept confidential, a condition which the bureau approved. Ford was an outspoken proponent of the single-assassin theory.
According to the same reports, Ford had strong ties to the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover.
Henry Kissinger remained the Secretary of State "under" Ford,
after having "served" under Nixon, which is an excellent example of perceived power versus actual power.
Jewish Zionist Arlen Spector, an attorney from Philadelphia,
was recommended by Gerald Ford to be the
major player in the whitewashing of JFK’s murder.
As Junior Counsel
for the Warren Commission and a lead
investigator, the aggressive and ambitious Spector
was a perfect choice for gatekeeping duty.
eventually became a senator from
Pennsylvania, was a political chameleon that flip-flopped
to Republican then back to Democrat
whenever convenient and strongly advocated gay rights,
action, and supported illegal immigration amnesty.
House Minority Leader from Michigan, Gerald Ford, was
a big help to Dulles and even sponsored
bullet” baloney that Arlen Spector and Norman Redlich
invented which was accepted
as plausible by his fellow
Ford was so helpful with the whitewashing of the investigation that he was eventually
maneuvered into the vice-presidency and ultimately the
presidency as a reward.
As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler
as a welcome solution to both of these “world problems” (Nancy’s phrase). No member of the so-called “Cliveden
Set” (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor’s palatial home) seemed much concerned
with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just “give
a rough time” to “the killers of Christ” before she’d be in favor of launching ”Armageddon
to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?”
Kennedy replied that he expected the “Jew media” in the United States to become a problem, that “Jewish
pundits in New York and Los Angeles” were already making noises contrived to “set a match to the fuse of the
During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged
in extensive discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst
of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President
Roosevelt was the victim of “Jewish influence” and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals
of Hitler’s regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was “Germany’s best
friend” in London.)
Columnists back in the states condemned Kennedy’s fraternizing. Kennedy later claimed that 75% of the attacks
made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from “a number of Jewish publishers and writers. … Some of them
in their zeal did not hesitate to resort to slander and falsehood to achieve their aims.” He told his eldest son, Joe
Jr., that he disliked having to put up with “Jewish columnists” who criticized him with no good reason.
Like his father,
Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student
in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler’s insight in realizing the German people’s “need of
a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the
cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology, and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The
dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their
credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous … the lawyers and prominent judges were
Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. … As far as the brutality is concerned,
it must have been necessary to use some ….”
Brutality was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly
after Kristallnacht in November of 1938, Joe Kennedy Sr. seemed more concerned about the political ramifications stemming
from high-profile, riotous anti-Semitism than he was about the actual violence done to the Jews. ”… Isn’t
there some way,” he asked, “to persuade [the Nazis] it is on a situation like this that the whole program of
saving western civilization might hinge? It is more and more difficult for those seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any
plan when the papers are filled with such horror.” Clearly, Kennedy’s chief concern about Kristallnacht was
that it might serve to harden anti-fascist sentiment at home in the United States.
Like his friend Charles Coughlin (an anti-Semitic
broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always remained convinced of what he believed to be the Jews’ corrupt,
malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. “The Democratic [party] policy of the United States
is a Jewish production,” Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939, adding confidently that Roosevelt would
“fall” in 1940.
But it wasn’t Roosevelt who fell. Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship just weeks after FDR’s overwhelming
triumph at the polls. He then retreated to his home in Florida: a disappointed man.
Joseph Kennedy and the Jews
... Kennedy always remained convinced of what he
believed to be the Jews' corrupt, malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. "The Democratic
[party] policy of the United States is a Jewish production," Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939
Young John Kennedy Diary Reveals
Fascination With Hitler, Compared to 'Legend'
A young John F. Kennedy filled dozens of pages
in what historians believe to be his only diary. In one of the most interesting entries, Kennedy compares Adolf Hitler
to a "legend." After the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945, JFK visited Hitler's bombed Bavarian Berghof residence
and Eagle's Nest mountain retreat ... A 28-year-old Kennedy wrote about his fascination with the dictator ... "He
had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about
him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him," he wrote. "He had
in him the stuff of which legends are made." Kennedy predicted in his diary that Hitler would "emerge from the
hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived."
John Kennedy Called Hitler 'Stuff of Legends,' Diary Reveals
A diary kept
by President John F Kennedy as a young man travelling in Europe, revealing his fascination with Adolf Hitler, is up for
auction. Kennedy, then 28, predicted "Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most
significant figures who ever lived". "He had in him the stuff of which legends are made," he continued.
Kennedy wrote the entry in the summer of 1945 after touring the German dictator's Bavarian mountain retreat. It is thought
by historians to be the only diary every kept by the 35th US president. The original copy will be auctioned for the first
time on 26 April in Boston by longtime owner Deirdre Henderson, who worked as a research assistant for Kennedy while he
was a US senator with White House ambitions.
Was Joseph Kennedy Really an Anti-Semite?
Was Joseph P. Kennedy, the
father of President John F. Kennedy, really an anti-Semite? David Nasaw, Kennedy's recent biographer ... admitted that
Kennedy believed in a Jewish conspiracy to push the United States into an unnecessary war with Germany. And as ambassador
to the United Kingdom from 1938 to 1940, he was in a position -- even if he wasn't a believer in "scientific"
anti-Semitism -- to do far more damage to European Jews than his stateside contemporaries. ... Kennedy blamed the Jews for
the German problem, and he is reported to have said that the lives of Jews in Central Europe were not really worth all
John F. Kennedy's travelogues
and letters chronicling his wanderings through Germany before WWII, when Adolf Hitler was in power, have been unearthed
and show him generally in favour of the national socialist movement.
(Daily Mail UK)
'Fascism?' wrote the youthful president-to-be in one. 'The right
thing for Germany.' In another; 'What are the evils of fascism compared to communism?' And on August 21, 1937 - two years
before the war - he wrote: 'The Germans really are too good - therefore people have ganged up on them to protect themselves.'
And in a line which
seems directly plugged into the racial superiority line plugged by the Third Reich he wrote after travelling through the
Rhineland: 'The Nordic races certainly seem to be superior to the Romans.' The future president's praise is now embarrassing
in hindsight - a few years later he fought in Worldr War Two against the National Socialists and his elder brother Lt. Joseph
Patrick 'Joe' Kennedy, Jr was killed.
Other musings concern how great the autobahns were - 'the best roads in the world' - and how,
having visited Hitler's Bavarian holiday home in Berchtesgaden and the tea house built on top of the mountain for him.
He declared; 'Who has visited these two places can easily imagine how Hitler will
emerge from the hatred currently surrounding him to emerge in a few years as one of the most important personalities that
Kennedy's admiration for National Socialist Germany is revealed in a book entitled 'John F. Kennedy - Among the
Germans. Travel diaries and letters 1937-1945.'
When World War II did arrive, the future president's father, Joe P Kennedy,
strongly opposed going into battle with Germany and made several missteps that severely damaged his political career.
He adopted a defeatist,
anti-war stance and tried to arrange a meeting with Adolf Hitler without the approval of the Department of State.
The reasons for
this are unclear - some speculate he was eager to do anything to avoid war because he feared that American capitalism - which
he profited from - would not survive the country’s entry into the conflict.
In his role as US ambassador to Britain he also
opposed providing the UK with military and economic aid.
He said in an interview 'Democracy is finished in England. It may be here [in
the World War II, JFK's older brother Joe volunteered for a secret mission testing an experimental drone plane packed with
explosives - a weapon the Allies hoped to use as a guided missile.
On the first test flight, the explosives detonated prematurely and
the plane exploded - his body was never found.
The youthful president carved his own place in history when he stood outside the West Berlin
town hall of Schoeneberg on June 26 1963 to declare US solidarity with the city and the continent with the immortal words;
'Ich bin ein Berliner.'
The fact that, strictly speaking, he was referring to himself as a doughnut - a Berliner - did not diminish the
wild enthusiasm for him. 'It is evident that the jews were scary for him,' said Spiegel magazine in Berlin.
In the diaries
of the three trips he made to prewar Germany he also recognised; 'Hitler seems to be as popular here as Mussolini in Germany,
although propaganda is probably his most powerful weapon.'
Observers say his writings ranged between aversion and attraction
The book also contains his impressions when walking through a shattered Berlin after the war: 'An overwhelming stench
of bodies - sweet and nauseating'. And of the recently deceased Fuehrer he said; 'His boundless ambition for his country
made him a threat to peace in the world, but he had something mysterious about him. He was the stuff of legends.'
The book editor's
believe that he was 'eerily fascinated' by fascism.
JFK Judaic Verboten Speech
"After visiting these two places (Berchtesgaden and the Eagle's lair on Obersalzberg),
you can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of
the most significant figures who ever lived. He had boundless ambitions for his country which rendered him a menace to the
peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live
and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made."
F. Kennedy 'Prelude To Leadership - The European Diary of John F. Kennedy - Summer, 1945. Regnery Publishing, Inc. Washingon,
DC. p 74
JFK diary calls Hitler 'stuff of legends'
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption
Kennedy (far right) toured Europe after his military service
A diary kept by President John F Kennedy as
a young man travelling in Europe, revealing his fascination with Adolf Hitler, is up for auction.
then 28, predicted "Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures
who ever lived".
"He had in him the stuff of which legends are made," he continued.
Kennedy wrote the entry in the summer of 1945 after touring the German dictator's Bavarian mountain retreat.
It is thought by historians to be the only diary ever kept by the 35th US president.
Image copyright RR Auction
The original copy will be auctioned for
the first time on 26 April in Boston by longtime owner Deirdre Henderson, who worked as a research assistant for Kennedy
while he was a US senator with White House ambitions.
He wrote that Hitler "had
boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him
in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him".
The 61-page diary was kept by Kennedy around four months after Hitler committed suicide.
At the time, the young American was touring Europe as a newspaper reporter after finishing his military service
aboard a ship in the Pacific Ocean.
Nearly two decades later Kennedy would address
crowds in West Berlin as US president.
He gave Ms Henderson the diary in order to
inform her of his views on foreign policy and national security, she said.
In a description of
the auction, she wrote: "When JFK said that Hitler 'had in him the stuff of which legends are made', he was speaking
to the mystery surrounding him, not the evil he demonstrated to the world."
in this diary, or in any of his writings, is there any indication of sympathy for Nazi crimes or cause," she continued.
The diary also contains JFK's thoughts about the British election and Winston Churchill, who Ms Henderson called
The winning bid is expected to be around $200,000 (£160,000).
Click on this text to read FINAL JUDGEMENT by Michael Collins Piper in PDF format...
Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy
by Michael Collins Piper
this is the best analysis in existence of one of the most pivotal crimes of the Twentieth Century. It is also a vital expose
of the hidden real power structure of America whose virulent poison has been steadily spreading corruption throughout our
increasingly distressed country.
documents how Israel's leaders, the Mossad, the Meyer Lansky-run organized crime syndicate, and a pro-Zionist faction of
the CIA colluded to assassinate President ,John F. Kennedy. The general pattern of the JFK covert operation, to include
the skillful use of "limited hang-outs," "patsies," and "false flags," has very likely been
repeated in various later forms such as in the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, the murder of Martin Luther King, the mysterious death of former CIA Director William Colby, the very suspicious Oklahoma City bombing, and the Mossad-linked "controlled demolition" of World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. More recently, we have seen how the "High Priests of War" have flexed raw Israeli-lobby power by pushing American interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq and by promoting saber-rattling
at Iran and Syria.
JFK planned a military strike to prevent an Israeli-Red Chinese scientific
partnership from building the first atomic bombs for China and Israel. He sought to thwart the CIA-Mossad-Meyer Lansky partnership
that controlled the heroin trade stemming from the Golden Triangle by pulling U.S. troops out of Vietnam. JFK even transferred
control of Cold War espionage operations from the CIA to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Through his support
of Algerian independence and an "even-handedness" policy towards other Arab nations, JFK infuriated the French
Secret Army Organization (OAS) and its Mossad supporters who had sent professional assassins against French President Charles
DeGaulle. JFK's brother Bobby, as Attorney General, moved aggressively against the lower levels of Meyer Lansky-dominated
organized crime in America. Lastly, the Kennedy family quietly talked about shutting down America's privately owned Federal
Reserve banking cartel that has provided vital fiat money financing for Zionist projects.
For most Americans, Final Judgment is a high
drama in another way. It is like Hamlet seeing the ghost. It addresses all the right "hard questions" about what
has been done to America that are rarely addressed in so-called "mainstream" conservative literature.
Click on this text to hear: JFK-The Speech That Killed Him ...
Click on this text to watch: Gaddafi was right about JFK and Dimona (the Israeli nuclear weapons project)...
Jackie Kennedy grabbing brain
matter that she later surrendered to a Secret Service agent.
odd what people in shock will do and the presence of brain matter on the hood of the limo is proof of a "front shot".
The Mossad Role in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy
by Michael Collins Piper
"A nation that is afraid to debate it's issues in
a public forum, is a nation that is afraid of it's people." - JFK
officer Herve Lemarr once wrote that:
"President Kennedy’s assassination was
the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and false mirrors, and when the curtain fell the
actors, and even the scenery, disappeared. But the magicians were not illusionists but professionals, artists in their way."
Since November 22, 1963 many have spent vast amounts of time researching the assassination, putting forth
a wide variety of theories.
Most of the research has been devoted to what one more perceptive critic described
as "a consuming preoccupation [with] the microanalytic searching for facts of how the assassination was accomplished,"
while at the same time, he points out "there has been almost no systematic thinking on why President Kennedy was killed."
So while people have focused on how many assassins were involved, and how many shots they fired at JFK and where the shots
came from and where the bullets hit, the real question of who was ultimately responsible for the assassination—not who
fired the bullets, but who sponsored the assassins who fired those bullets—has been ignored.
to find out who is responsible for JFK’s murder, we have to find out WHY he was murdered—what motivated those
who orchestrated his assassination.
Consider the wide-ranging array of suspects that have been put forth:
• Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone;
• Fidel Castro;
• Anti-Castro Cubans;
• The "Mafia";
• Rogue CIA operatives and anti-Castro Cubans in collaboration with elements of "the Mafia";
• J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI;
• Lyndon Baines Johnson;
• Former Nazi intelligence officers;
•†The Texas Oil Barons; and
• The Military-Industrial Complex.
Ten years ago,
in 1992, a new suspect was added to the list. Former Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) made the little-noticed but intriguing comment
in the March 1992 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that "it is interesting but not surprising to
note that in all the words written about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad,
has never been mentioned, despite the obvious fact Mossad complicity is as plausible as any of the other theories."
What Findley did not know was at that very time I was in the process of preparing a volume contending that the Mossad role
alongside the CIA in the JFK assassination, was, in fact, the big secret—the "missing link"—that explained
the entirety of the JFK conspiracy.
The Mossad role is what I have also called "the secret picture
on the other side of the jigsaw puzzle" of the JFK assassination conspiracy. My book summarizing this theory is entitled
What I find quite remarkable is that while many Israelis today believe that Israeli intelligence
played a part in the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, many of Israel’s friends in America have
reacted quite hysterically to my contention that the Mossad played a role in the assassination of America’s president.
In addition, although there are many who believe that the CIA had a hand in the JFK assassination, quite a few of those
same people are fearful of mentioning the likelihood of a Mossad role. Yet, as journalist Andrew Cockburn has pointed out:
"There has been since almost the earliest days of the Israeli state and the earliest days of the
CIA a secret bond, basically by which Israeli intelligence did jobs for the CIA and for the rest of American intelligence.
You can’t understand what’s been going on with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations
until you understand this secret arrangement."
Cockburn’s words are a rough
overview of the thesis that I have presented in Final Judgment.
Although Final Judgment has never been
in any major bookstore since it was first published nearly a decade ago, some 30,000 copies are in circulation—more
copies than more widely-publicized books on the topic. It is truly an "underground best-seller." It is now in its
760-page fifth edition, documented with 1,114 footnotes. And on November 9, Dar El Ilm Lilmalayin, the oldest and largest
privately-owned publishing house in the Middle East released the first-ever Arabic-language edition.
many respects, Final Judgment is more than a book about the JFK assassination. It also reveals the hidden global power politics
of the last half of the 20th century.
Final Judgment documents that in 1963 JFK was embroiled in a bitter
secret conflict with Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion over Israel’s drive to build the atomic bomb; that Ben-Gurion resigned
in disgust, saying that because of JFK’s policies, Israel’s "existence [was] in danger." Then upon JFK’s
assassination, U.S. policy toward Israel began an immediate 180-degree turnaround.
Israeli historian Avner
Cohen’s new book, Israel and the Bomb, confirms the conflict between JFK and Israel so powerfully that, Israel’s
Ha’aretz, declared Cohen’s revelations would "necessitate the rewriting of Israel’s entire history."
In any case, Cohen pointed out, "the transition from Kennedy to [Lyndon] Johnson . . . benefited the Israeli nuclear
Ethan Bronner, in the New York Times, called Israel’s drive to build a nuclear bomb
"a fiercely hidden subject."
This explains why JFK researchers never considered an Israeli connection
until Final Judgment supplied the missing pieces, assembling "the secret picture on the other side of the jigsaw puzzle."
While all of this presents a strong motive for Israel to strike against JFK, Final Judgment also documents what Israeli
journalist Barry Chamish says is "a pretty cogent case" for Mossad collaboration with the CIA in the assassination
The fact is that when New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison prosecuted trade executive
Clay Shaw with conspiracy in the assassination, Garrison had stumbled upon the Mossad link.
his acquittal) Shaw was revealed to have been a CIA asset, in 1963 Shaw served on the board of a Rome-based company, Permindex,
which was actually a front for a Mossad-sponsored arms procurement operation.
A primary shareholder in
Permindex, the Banque De Credit Internationale of Geneva, was not only the fiefdom of Tibor Rosenbaum, a high-level Mossad
official, but also the chief money laundry for Meyer Lansky, "chairman" of the crime syndicate and long-time Israeli
Chief executive of Permindex was Louis Bloomfield of Montreal, a top figure in the Israeli lobby
and an operative of the Bronfman family, intimate Lansky associates and leading patrons of Israel.
was clearly the Israeli link to the JFK assassination, so much so that Jim Garrison himself later circulated the manuscript
for a never-published novel in which he fingered the Mossad as prime mover behind the conspiracy although Garrison never otherwise
mentioned a Mossad connection publicly.
You may ask why Hollywood’s so-called "radical film-maker"
Oliver Stone, whose film JFK was a virtual tribute to Garrison never mentioned any of this.
I would contend
that Stone failed to mention these details in JFK because the film was financed by Arnon Milchan, an Israeli arms dealer linked
to smuggling of materiel to Israel’s nuclear program—the very point of contention between JFK and Israel.
Milchan’s role in the production of JFK is no secret, by the way. He is listed in the credits as "executive
producer," which, in Hollywood parlance, means that he was the "money man," so to speak, behind the film.
The Permindex link investigated by Mr. Garrison in New Orleans also explains the "French connection" to the assassination
featured in the widely-seen documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, but which failed to tell the entire story told in Final
Judgment. For example:
That the aforementioned Permindex operation (involving Clay Shaw and other CIA
assets often publicly connected to the JFK assassination) was also involved in assassination attempts against French President
Charles DeGaulle by the French "Secret Army Organization" (the OAS) which itself had close ties to the Mossad.
Like the OAS, the Israelis hated DeGaulle not only because he gave independence to Algeria, a major new Arab state, but
also because DeGaulle, who had assisted Israel’s nuclear development program, had withdrawn support, objecting (as did
JFK) to Israel’s drive for an atomic arsenal.
In the course of my writing of the book, a former
French intelligence officer—Pierre Neuville, the son of the former French consul general in Jerusalem—revealed
to me that he had learned that the Mossad contracted out one of JFK’s assassins—probably a Corsican hitman—through
a French intelligence official disloyal to DeGaulle and who hated JFK for supporting Algerian independence.
JFK was also planning a strike against Red China’s nuclear bomb program—a plan scuttled by Lyndon Johnson within
a month of JFK’s assassination.
During this same period, in fact, Israel and Red China were involved
in joint secret nuclear bomb research with a key player in the Permindex web, Shaul Eisenberg, serving as the Mossad’s
liaison with China.
Final Judgment was first to point out that James Angleton, the CIA liaison to the
Mossad, was a devoted partisan of Israel who not only orchestrated the scenario linking accused assassin Lee Oswald to the
Soviet KGB but who later circulated disinformation to confuse investigations into the assassination.
is a brief overview of some of the more salient points made in Final Judgment—points that have otherwise been largely
ignored in the massive amount of material that has been published on the topic of the assassination.
response to my thesis has been predictable. Israeli diplomat Uri Palti, based at the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles, has
described my thesis as "nonsense."
Pro-Zionist columnist George F. Will, in a column in Newsweek
on Sept. 1, 1997, has referred to the thesis as being "vicious intellectual licentiousness."
Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (the ADL) one of the foremost elements of the Israeli lobby, has repeatedly
attacked me in a most malicious fashion. Most notably, the ADL called me a "Holocaust denier"—although my
book mentions nothing about the Holocaust—this so as to distract attention from the very powerful thesis that my book
However, one article about the controversy surrounding my thesis and one educator who has
endorsed it, appearing in the Los Angeles Times on November 25, 1996 made the assertion that the thesis was "novel indeed"
and that it managed "to weave together some of the key threads in a tapestry that many say is unique."
However, as we all know too well, the reason why the theory presented in Final Judgment is "controversial" is
simply because it dares to say something less than flattering about a foreign nation—Israel.
truth is that the single tie that binds all of the most commonly-believed theories about the JFK assassination is the little-known
Israel, however, is the central player whose role has been consistently ignored.
The first big question is whether Israel’s Mossad would actually consider assassinating an American president perceived
hostile to Israel?
According to ex-Mossad man Victor Ostrovsky, the Israeli spy agency hatched a plan
to kill President George Bush in 1991.
There is also evidence that the Jewish underground in Palestine
in 1947 sent poisoned letters to President Harry Truman because he was dragging his feet as far as supporting the drive for
a Jewish state was concerned. This information comes from Truman’s daughter, Margaret Truman, writing in a biography
of her father.
The point is this: if Israel did indeed consider assassinating Bush in 1991 and Truman
in 1947, why should we not also consider the possibility that the Mossad was indeed involved in a plot against John F. Kennedy
And in this context it should now be noted that researchers in the JFK controversy have repeatedly
pointed out the false leads that continue to appear.
Most believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged
assassin, was indeed what he claimed to be—the patsy—and that false clues had been laid by the real conspirators
to make it appear as though Oswald was an agent of Fidel Castro or the Soviets or both.
A key chapter
in Final Judgment points out that Israel has what I call "a bad habit"—that is, the use of what are known
as "false flags" in pointing the finger of guilt elsewhere in the course of committing assassinations and acts of
That chapter is a virtual catalogue of this little-known phenomenon, which is perhaps best
exemplifed by Israel’s notorious Lavon Affair of the 1950s in which Israel staged bombings on American and British installations
in Egypt for the purpose of blaming them on Islamic fundamentalist groups and destabilizing the regime of President Nasser.
Although the American media today promotes the idea that somehow John F. Kennedy was a dedicated friend of Israel, nothing
could be further from the truth.
There was a long history of bitter enmity between John F. Kennedy and
his powerful father, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy and organized crime boss Meyer Lansky, stemming in part from the senior
Kennedy’s deals with the underworld. This, however, did not stop the Kennedy family from cutting deals with the crime
syndicate when it came to winning elections.
The Kennedy family’s own suspected anti-Semitism didn’t
do anything to improve JFK’s relations with Israel and its American lobby either. As a U.S. Senator, Kennedy’s
intervention in the issue of Algerian independence from France also drew sharp criticism from the Israeli lobby as well.
Yet, when John F. Kennedy sought the presidency, he was willing to cut deals with the Israeli lobby—for a price.
By the end of his presidency, however, Kennedy had reneged on his deals, not only with Israel’s Godfather, Meyer
Lansky, and his henchmen in organized crime, but also with the Israeli lobby.
What about the so-called
"Mafia" or organized crime connections to the assassination? In fact, those connections also point toward the Mossad.
If it had not been for international crime boss Meyer Lansky there might not be a state of Israel today. This is something
that Israel would rather be forgotten.
The evidence firmly indicates that Israel was established as a
state, in major part, through the political, financial and moral support of Meyer Lansky and his associates and henchmen in
Organized Crime. Lansky’s interests and Israel’s interests were almost incestuous.
already noted, Lansky’s chief European money laundering bank was an operation directed by one of Israel’s founding
fathers, Tibor Rosenbaum, a high-ranking, longtime Mossad officer.
Lansky’s intimate (and quite
secret) ties with American intelligence (including both the CIA and the FBI) made the Russian-born Jewish mobster the "untouchable"
leader of the global organized crime syndicate.
Meyer Lansky’s Louisiana front man, Carlos Marcello,
has become a favorite target for JFK assassination researchers who like to claim that "The Mafia--that is, Italian-American
crime figures--Killed JFK."
Marcello was only one cog in the Lansky Syndicate. Marcello also had
ties to Israel’s allies in the CIA.
Two other top Italian-AMerican crime figures—Johnny Rosselli
and Santo Trafficante, Jr. have often linked to the JFK assassination.
Although both Rosselli and Trafficante
were major players in the criminal underworld, both were, in fact—like Carlos Marcello—subordinates of Meyer Lansky.
Rosselli and Trafficante were Lansky’s point men in Lansky’s dealings with Israel’s allies in the CIA
in assassination plots against Fidel Castro.
In truth, the Jewish presence in organized crime in America
is a little-known phenomenon that the "Mafia"-obsessed media has kept under wraps.
Jack Ruby, the Jewish nightclub operator, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the president’s accused assassin?
Ruby’s connections to the criminal underworld are well-documented. However, what is ignored is Ruby’s integral
link to the Meyer Lansky Crime Syndicate—not "the Mafia"— and to Israel’s allies in the CIA.
In Final Judgment I have documented additional connections between Jack Ruby and the state of Israel and its arms-smuggling
and financial conduits in the United States.
FBI documents, long suppressed, reveal that Ruby himself
traveled to Israel in 1955 and that while in San Francisco that year, Ruby told a friend, "After I leave here I’m
going to Florida to buy a load of contraband to send to Israel."
In addition, note that Lawrence
Meyers, Ruby’s long-time friend with whom he met the night before the JFK assassination, was a salesman for Ero Manufacturing,
a firm linked to a corporation investigated for illegal arms shipments to Israel.
In addition, we also
now know that Jack Ruby was on the payroll of the Lansky Crime Syndicate-connected Bronfman family (now headed by Edgar Bronfman,
leader of the World Jewish Congress).
Considering the Bronfman family's intimate ties to the Mossad-sponsored
Permindex entity that played a central role in the JFK assassination conspiracy, the Ruby connection to the Bronfman family
does point toward yet another Israeli connection to the JFK conspiracy.
The genesis of Israeli involvement
in the JFK assassination was JFK’s growing conflict with Israel over Israel’s drive to build the nuclear bomb.
While the history books have told us of John F. Kennedy’s epic struggles with Fidel Castro and with the Soviets in
the Bay of Pigs debacle and the Cuban Missile Crisis only in recent years have we begun to learn of Kennedy’s secret
war with Israel.
By mid-1963 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion hated Kennedy with a passion. In
fact, he considered JFK a threat to the very survival of the Jewish State.
As far as writing specifically
about what I have called "JFK's secret war with Israel," I primarily relied on three sources:
The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy by Pulitizer Prize-winning veteran New York Times
journalist Seymour Hersh.
2) Dangerous Liasion: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship
by husband-and-wife team, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, both respected liberal journalists; and
Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel by Stephen Green, who has been associated with the very "mainstream"
Council on Foreign Relations and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Hersh and Green, by the
way, are Jewish. All three books were published by respected "mainstream" publishing houses.
honest JFK assassination researcher can claim to be fully versed in the dynamics of conspiracy until he or she has read these
volumes, all of which make it very clear that JFK and Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion were at serious loggerheads,
to the point that Ben-Gurion believed that JFK’s policy was a threat to Israel’s very survival--and said so.
Upon JFK’s assassination, American policy toward the Middle East did an amazing 180 degree turn-about--the most immediate
result of the American president’s murder.
This is a cold, hard, indisputable fact not subject to
debate. The evidence is all too clear.
In Final Judgment I pointed out, citing Hersh, that the Israeli
press and the world press "told the world that Ben-Gurion's sudden resignation was a result of his dissatisfaction with
domestic political scandals and turmoil that were rocking Israel."
However, Hersh went on to say,
quite significantly, that there was "no way for the Israeli public" to know that there was "yet another factor"
behind the resignation: specifically, in Hersh's words, Ben-Gurion's "increasingly bitter impasse with Kennedy over a
The final showdown with JFK over the nuclear bomb was clearly, the "primary
reason" behind Ben-Gurion's resignation.
The drive to build a nuclear bomb was not only a major aim
of Israel's defense policy (its very foundation) and also a particular special interest of Ben-Gurion.
fact is that Seymour Hersh's revelations about JFK and Ben-Gurion have been easily eclipsed by a more recent volume on the
same subject—this one written by an Israeli scholar, Avner Cohen.
When Cohen released his 1999 book
Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press), the book created quite a sensation in Israel to the point that
journalist Tom Segev writing in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, declared that "Cohen's book will necessitate the rewriting
of Israel's entire history."
In the opening pages of his book, Cohen writes at length about Ben-Gurion's
special interest in the construction of an Israeli nuclear bomb and the reasoning behind it.
written, in part:
Ben-Gurion was consumed by fears for Israel’s security . . .
In his correspondence with President John F. Kennedy in 1963, he wrote:
"Mr. President, my people
have the right to exist, both in Israel and wherever that may live, and this existence is in danger." . . .
Israeli military planners have always considered a scenario in which a united Arab military coalition launched a war against
Israel with the aim of liberating Palestine and destroying the Jewish state. This was referred to in the early 1950s as mikre
hkol, or the "everything scenario."
This kind of planning was unique to Israel, as few nations
have military contingency plans aimed at preventing apocalypse.
Ben-Gurion had no qualms about Israel’s
need for weapons of mass destruction . . . Ben Gurion saw Arab hostility toward Israel as deep and long-lasting . . . Ben-Gurion’s
pessimism . . . influenced Israel’s foreign and defense policy for years. Ben-Gurion’s world view and his decisive
governing style shaped his critical role in initiating Israel’s nuclear program.
On 27 June 1963,
eleven days after he announced his resignation, Ben-Gurion delivered a farewell address to the employees of the Armaments
Development Authority in which . . . he provided the justification for the nuclear project:
not know of any other nation whose neighbors declare that they wish to terminate it, and not only declare, but prepare for
it by all means available to them. We must have no illusions that what is declared every day in Cairo, Damascus, Iraq are
This is the thought that guides the Arab leaders . . . I am confident . . . that science is
able to provide us with the weapon that will secure the peace, and deter our enemies."
The "nuclear option" was not only at the very core of Ben-Gurion's personal worldview, but the very foundation
of Israel's national security policy.
The Israelis were essentially willing, if necessary, to "blow
up the world"—including themselves—if they had to do so in order to defeat their Arab foes.
This is what Seymour Hersh notes Israeli nuclear planners considered "the Samson Option"—that, as Samson
of the Bible, after being captured by the Philistines, brought down Dagon's Temple in Gaza and killed himself along with his
As Hersh put it, on page 137 in his book, "For Israel's nuclear advocates, the Samson Option
became another way of saying 'Never again," (in reference to preventing another Holocaust).
the evidence, taken together in the big picture, clearly demonstrates that it was indeed "The Sampton Option" that
was indeed the primary cause of Ben-Gurion's resignation.
The bottom line is that—in 1963—the
issue of JFK's conflict with Ben-Gurion was a secret to both the Israeli public and the American public and remained so for
more than 20 years at least and still remains so, despite the release of Hersh's book, followed by Final Judgment and then
the book by Avner Cohen.
Avner Cohen's very powerful book essentially confirmed everything that Hersh
had written but went even further.
Cohen describes how the conflict between JFK and Ben-Gurion was reaching
its pinnacle in 1963 and how, on June 16 of that year, JFK sent a letter to the Israeli leader that Cohen says on page 134
of his book was "the toughest and most explicit message" yet. Cohen adds:
The purpose of the
letter was to solidify the terms of the American visits [to Israel’s nuclear plant at Dimona] in a way that would accord
with these minimum conditions on which the intelligence community insisted.
To force Ben-Gurion to accept
the conditions, Kennedy exerted the most useful leverage available to an American president in dealing with Israel: a threat
that an unsatisfactory solution would jeopardize the U.S. government’s commitment to, and support of, Israel . . . The
showdown Ben-Gurion was trying to avoid now appeared imminent.
Ben-Gurion never read the letter. It was
cabled to [U.S. Ambassador to Israel Walworth Barbour] on Saturday, 15 June, with instructions to deliver it by hand to Ben-Gurion
the next day, but on that Sunday, Ben-Gurion announced his resignation.
Cohen says that Ben-Gurion never
provided an explanation for his decision, except in reference to "personal reasons." To his cabinet colleagues Ben-Gurion
said that he "must" resign and that "no state problem or event caused it."
on page 136 that Ben-Gurion had "concluded that he could not tell the truth about Dimona to American leaders, not even
And this is saying a lot, considering the effort by critics of Final Judgment to say
that Israel and the United States are such "close allies" that the Israelis would never ever think of doing something
nasty to an American president—even one who was adamantly determined to stop Israel from establishing a nuclear defense
system that the nation's leaders considered critical to the nation's survival.
I should add that French
President DeGaulle's reversal on the issue of what was clearly critical French support for Israel's nuclear ambitions is quite
significant indeed, particularly in light of what is documented in Final Judgment.
Without going into
all of the details here (which can easily be found in Final Judgment in very much detail), the fact is that Permindex, the
Mossad-sponsored money laundering and arms procurement operation that New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison unearthed
during his JFK assassination inquiry had also been connected to assassination attempts on Charles DeGaulle prior to the assassination
of President Kennedy.
It is no coincidence that Permindex should be connected to assassination conspiracies
aimed against two foreign leaders who happened to be united in their opposition to Israel's nuclear ambitions.
In addition, as Final Judgment also documents, based on a variety of "responsible" sources, the Israelis had
yet another reason to oppose DeGaulle:
The French president had granted independence to the French colony
of Arab Algeria, an action that inflamed not only Israel, but certain elements in DeGaulle's own military and intelligence
services and brought them into alliance with Israel against DeGaulle.
Those interested in the specifics
of this matter may refer to Final Judgment, but suffice it to say, there is much more to the French connection.
In any case, what happened between JFK and the new Israeli prime minister, Levi Eshkol, who succeeded Ben-Gurion upon the
latter's resignation is significant.
Immediately upon Eshkol's succession, JFK wrote a letter to the new
prime minister that was evidently even more fierce than JFK's previous communications with Ben-Gurion. Avner Cohen writes:
Not since Eisenhower’s message to Ben-Gurion in the midst of the Suez crisis in November 1956 had an American president
been so blunt with an Israeli prime minister.
Kennedy told Eshkol that the U.S. commitment and support
of Israel "could be seriously jeopardized" if Israel did not let the United States obtain "reliable information"
about its efforts in the nuclear field.
Kennedy presented detailed technical instructions on how his requirements
should be executed.
Kennedy’s demands were unprecedented. They amounted, in effect, to an ultimatum.
Cohen notes on page 159 that: "From [Eshkol’s] perspective, Kennedy’s demands seemed diplomatically inappropriate;
they were inconsistent with national sovereignty. There was no legal basis or political precedent for such demands,"
Cohen says "Kennedy’s letter precipitated a near-crisis situation in the prime minister’s office."
So Kennedy was as equally upsetting to the new prime minister as he had been to David Ben-Gurion!
pressure on Israel did not end with the resignation of Ben-Gurion. Instead, it clearly intensified.
then describes a "November secret meeting" held in Washington, D.C (November 13-14) between the Israelis and the
Americans and says that Israel "had a broader agenda . . . than the United States was willing to discuss."
Yet, Cohen notes the nuclear issue was so sensitive that during face-to-face secret meetings between United States and
Israeli officials when they were discussing other issues, the subject of Israel's nuclear bomb was not discussed.
The issue was that inflammatory. It was left for future discussion. But JFK was assassinated eight days later, and the
dynamics of the U.S.-Israeli relationship changed dramatically as a consequence.
The Israeli newspaper,
Ha'aretz, published a review of Cohen's book on February 5, 1999, calling it "a bombshell of a book." The Ha'aretz
review, by Reuven Pedatzur, is quite interesting. It reads in part:
The murder of American President John
F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the U.S. administration on the government of Israel
to discontinue the nuclear program.
Cohen demonstrates at length the pressures applied by Kennedy on Ben-Gurion.
He brings the fascinating exchange of letters between the two, in which Kennedy makes it quite clear to the Israeli prime
minister that he will under no circumstances agree to Israel becoming a nuclear state.
The book implied
that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option.
put it better myself. If this were a court case, I could rightly say, at this juncture, "The defense rests."
According to historian Stephen Green: "Perhaps the most significant development of 1963 for the Israeli nuclear weapons
program, however, occurred on November 22 on a plane flying from Dallas to Washington, D.C., Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn
in as the 36th President of the United States, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
"In the early years of the Johnson administration the Israeli nuclear weapons program was referred to in Washington as
‘the delicate topic.’ Lyndon Johnson’s White House saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona when
the reactor went critical in early 1964."
Thus it was that the critical point of dispute between
John F. Kennedy and the Mossad-dominated government of Israel was no longer an issue. The new American president—so
long a partisan of Israel—allowed the nuclear development to continue. This was just the beginning.
There is an aside to all of this that should be noted: Final Judgment documents a Peking connection to the JFK assassination
conspiracy, relating directly to Israel’s secret nuclear allliance with China.
Not only U.S. policy
toward Israel reversed upon JFK’s assassination. Although it’s virtually forgotten, John F. Kennedy was planning
a military assault on Red China’s nuclear weapons development facilities in the months prior to his assassination. However,
one month after JFK’s death, Lyndon Johnson canceled the project and allowed China to proceed with the assembly of its
The big secret is that at the time of JFK’s assassination, Israel’s Mossad
and Red China’s intelligence service were working behind the scenes on joint nuclear weapons development.
The evidence suggests that "the China card" played a critical (secret) factor in Israel’s participation
in the JFK assassination conspiracy. This is documented in detail in Final Judgment.
I would be remiss
in not addressing the question of CIA involvement alongside the Mossad in the JFK assassination.
John F. Kennedy was not only at war with Israel and the Meyer Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate, but he was also at war with
their close ally in the international intelligence underworld—the CIA.
Final Judgment shows that
Israel’s chief contact at the CIA, the Soviet-hating James Jesus Angleton, ultimately played a pivotal role in the JFK
assassination conspiracy cover-up.
In light of the Angleton connection, I should note how the worldwide
media has given great play to the release of a new book that purported to "prove" that it was the Soviet KGB that
concocted the story that the CIA was behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
The book purported to
be the inside history of the KGB’s secret intelligence operations in the U.S. and Europe The Sword and the Shield by
Professor Christopher Andrew of Cambridge—described as "one of the world’s leading authorities on intelligence
The book was said to be based on extensive notes and transcriptions (secretly compiled
over a 12 year period) of vast numbers of files from the KGB archives. The notes themselves were supposedly smuggled out of
KGB headquarters by former KGB archivist Vasili Mitrokhin who retired from the KGB in 1984 and who then defected to Britain
in 1992 after the CIA had rejected Mitrokhin.
One major problem with the Andrew book is that while it
is quite thoroughly footnoted, with hundreds of references to a wide-ranging amount of material, it is not always clear (actually,
more often than not) whether Andrew is purporting to cite the Mitrokhin archives as his source or whether the information
he is presenting is Andrew’s own interpretation, based on the material of others.
In that sense,
then, while the book is quite skilfully written in such a way that it appears to present the information presented as having
come from the KGB’s supposedly purloined file, that is not always necessarily the case.
Andrew’s book is presenting the Mitrokhin archives as some sort of effort to counter new official histories of the KGB
that are being released by the KGB’s post-Soviet era successor, the SVR.
For example, Andrew lashes
out at Lolly Zamoysky, the SVR’s literary editor of the new multi-volume official history, as having been "well
known" in the KGB "for his belief in a global Masonic-Zionist plot."
book is effectively an attempt to counter allegations of high-level Zionist intrigue that has been documented by the official
post-KGB Russian intelligence services.
In that regard, it is quite remarkable to note that in the entirety
of this extensively documented and indexed 700-page volume, there is only one indexed reference to Israel and not a single
indexed reference to the Mossad, this despite the widely-known fact that the Mossad played a central role alongside the CIA
in its operations in Western Europe throughout the period that Andrew has purported to describe.
in the same vein, there are only two indexed references to the CIA’s longtime counterintelligence chief, James Jesus
Angleton, even though Angleton, who is best remembered for his strident anti-Soviet stance, having spent decades looking for
a "KGB mole" in the upper echelons of the CIA and for KGB moles in allied Western intelligence agencies—was
also a devoted Israeli loyalist who jealously guarded his role as the CIA’s liaison to the Mossad.
Perhaps the most glaring evidence of outright fraud, per se, in the Andrew production is the flimsy and quite transparent
attempt to absolve the CIA of any involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and, at the same time, make it appear
as though so-called "theories" linking the CIA to the crime were exclusively disinformation put forth by the KGB.
In fact, when the news of Andrew’s book was first announced in the major media, most reports focused—sometimes
exclusively—on the purported revelation that it was actually the KGB that was behind the theory that the CIA was involved
in the president’s murder. Most people who read news accounts of the release of the book would probably have gleaned
little more than that.
Andrew’s book claimed that KGB data purloined by Mitrokhin revealed that
a letter—supposedly written prior to the assassination by JFK’s accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, and addressed
to a "Mr. Hunt" (presumably the CIA’s E. Howard Hunt)—was actually a KGB forgery. According to Andrew,
the letter was fabricated in the mid-1970s after Hunt’s name came to widespread public attention over his involvement
in the Watergate scandal and then sent out to independent researchers who were looking into the JFK assassination.
As part of this effort to vindicate the CIA, hinging on the story of the purported KGB forgery, Andrew spends a great deal
of energy spinning a literary web around the charge that pioneer JFK assassination investigator Mark Lane was either a witting
or unwitting tool of the KGB in his writing of Rush to Judgment, Lane’s ground-breaking critique of the Warren Commission
Report on the assassination of President Kennedy.
Andrew connects Lane to the theory that "the CIA
killed JFK" but fails to advise his readers that never once in Rush to Judgment did Lane ever allege that the CIA was
involved in the president’s assassination.
And Lane’s book never once, in any way, shape or
form, referred to the apparently forged "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter so widely heralded in the press coverage of Andrew’s
While Lane’s thesis about CIA involvement was outlined in his much later-written 1993 book,
Plausible Denial, based in part on the information that came out during Lane’s defense in 1985 of The Spotlight newspaper
against a libel suit filed by E. Howard Hunt, the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter played no part in the scenario outlined
in Plausible Denial either.
In addition, in Plausible Denial, Lane develops solid evidence demonstrating
that the CIA itself fabricated a scenario linking Oswald to a KGB officer in Mexico.
Since this CIA operation
actually took place more than a month before President Kennedy was killed, this evidence—standing alone—demonstrates
behind question that the CIA was involved not just in the post-assassination cover-up, but in the planning of the crime itself
and in the framing of the patsy. Needless to say, Andrew addresses none of this.
In fact, the "Dear
Mr. Hunt" letter was indeed most likely a forgery but the question remains as to "who" concocted the forgery,
Christopher Andrew’s claims notwithstanding.
Andrew, of course, contends that the KGB was responsible,
but in Final Judgment I very clearly suggest that the letter was a forgery and that the evidence actually points to high-ranking
CIA official James J. Angleton as having been the likely perpetrator.
All of this perhaps explains why
Andrew is so determined to suppress the facts by targeting Mark Lane who singularly did so much to bring out the truth about
the CIA’s complicity.
Andrew actually makes the flat-out allegation that Lane received funding from
the KGB at the time he was writing Rush to Judgment, thereby leaving readers to conclude that Lane’s own work was essentially
part of a KGB disinformation effort.
Yet, at the same time, buried in the massive footnote section of
the book, Andrew himself acknowledges that when Lane supposedly received a paltry $1500 from the KGB’s New York office
that "there is no evidence that Lane did realize the source of the funding" although, in the text of the book itself,
Andrew contends that the KGB "suspected that he might have guessed where it came from."
Lane never once received any substantial contribution of this size from anyone at any time in relation to his work on the
In addition, Andrew claims that while in Europe Lane made an attempt to visit Moscow
to discuss his JFK findings. Again, not true. During that trip Lane actually took an outspoken stand against Soviet censorship
and human rights violations during a visit to Bulgaria, where he had been invited to speak at an international conference
of attorneys. Lane so offended his hosts by his anti-Soviet remarks that they advised him that his best option was to get
out of the country immediately—hardly advice reserved for someone favored by the KGB.
What is most
telling about the obvious disinformation campaign against Lane by Andrew is the very fact that not a single one of Lane’s
books (on the JFK assassination or any other subject) was ever translated and published under Soviet sponsorship.
Yet Christopher Andrew has made patently false allegations about Lane’s supposed "KGB connection." The
allegations are a deliberate attempt to sully Lane’s reputation and an attempt to refute evidence of CIA complicity
in the assassination of President Kennedy.
As such, it is not unfair to note that Andrew’s own teaching
and lecturing has, in fact, been subsidized in part by the CIA, a fact that Andrew’s biography on his book’s dust
jacket fails to note, but which is mentioned in glowing terms in promotional materials that have been distributed by his publisher.
The motivations of Andrew (and his ties to the intelligence community) must certainly raise eyebrows considering just the
items that we’ve considered here.
The CIA, of course, had its own problems with JFK. Just six weeks
before John F. Kennedy was shot, a top administration official warned that a CIA-orchestrated coup in America was a fearful
possibility. The CIA—like its allies in Israel—had good reason (in its own perception) to want to see JFK removed
from the White House and replaced with Lyndon B. Johnson.
JFK's battle with the CIA over the Bay of Pigs
debacle was just the beginning. JFK was—by the last days of his presidency—not only fighting the CIA's efforts
to involve the United States ever more deeply in CIA but he was also moving toward dismantling the CIA entirely. The CIA's
very existence was in danger.
This, of course, has brought focus to the CIA as a likely suspect in the
JFK assassination and it was a course of investigation followed by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in the late
1960s, for which he received much abuse by the major media in America.
In fact, as I have pointed out
earlier, Garrison had unwittingly stumbled on the Mossad connection while investigating CIA figures Clay Shaw, David Ferrie,
Guy Banister and others whom Garrison had linked to the JFK assassination.
There are other often-mentioned
CIA connections to the assassination that also point toward the Mossad although Final Judgment has been the only volume to
explore those Mossad connections.
Note for example that a former mistress of Fidel Castro, CIA asset Marita
Lorenz, testified that longtime CIA operative Frank Sturgis, famous as an anti-Castro activist, told her after the assssination
that he had been involved in the JFK assassination.
Based on his own extensive study of the JFK assassination
Cuba's former chief of counterintelligence, General Fabian Escalante Escalante, told journalist Claudia Furiati that Cuban
intelligence had determined that, in fact, "Sturgis was in charge of communications—receiving and transmitting
information on the movement at Dealey Plaza and the motorcade to the shooters and others."
was involved in the actual mechanics of the assassination, the historical evidence suggests that Sturgis could have been functioning
as a knowing Mossad tool in the conspiracy.
The truth is that going back some fifteen years prior to the
JFK assassination, Sturgis had worked for the Mossad.
Sturgis was a "Hagannah mercenary during the
first (1948) Israeli-Arab war," and Sturgis also had a girlfriend in Europe in the 1950s who worked for Israeli intelligence
and with whom he worked. Sturgis himself said that he assisted his girlfriend as a courier in Europe in a number of her endeavors
on behalf of the Mossad.
It was also well known among anti-Castro Cuban exiles that Sturgis had also worked
for the Mossad and had done so for a long period of time.
In addition, during the heyday of the CIA's
anti-Castro operations in Miami in which Sturgis and E. Howard Hunt were key figures, some 12 to 16 Mossad agents worked out
of Miami under the command of Mossad Deputy Director Yehuda S. Sipper, their influence reaching throughout Latin America and
Citing a 1976 CIA memo, Professor John Newman who has investigated CIA knowledge of Lee
Harvey Oswald's activities, says that Sturgis founded the International Anti-Communist Brigade and that "the backers
of Sturgis’ group have never been fully established."
Information outlined by a number of sources
suggests that Sturgis’ group could have been an off-shoot of the Mossad's Miami-based operations, intertwined with Sturgis'
own CIA-sponsored intrigue in the same sphere of influence.
In fact, a unit of Sturgis’ Brigade
was CIA contract agent Gerry Patrick Hemming’s so-called "Interpen" that operated outside New Orleans and
Sturgis was connected with those Interpen operations.
Those activities around New Orleans are known to
have involved two of the key players surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the JFK assassination: CIA contract agents Guy
Banister and David Ferrie.
In fact, there is an Israeli connection to Interpen. According to Hemming himself,
Interpen’s "most important contact in the United States" was New York financier, Theodore Racoosin, whom Hemming
described as "one of the key founders of the state of Israel."
After having read Final Judgment,
Hemming frankly told the author that although he personally has seen no evidence that convinces him the Mossad participated
directly in the JFK assassination, he did say that "I have known since the late 1960s that the Mossad was aware of the
JFK murder even before it happened, and they later did a full investigation on the matter and have since retained all such
files." [Emphasis added.]
In any case, we not only find CIA asset Clay Shaw of New Orleans tied to
the Mossad through his association with the Permindex operation (as were Banister and Ferrie), but we also find two other
CIA-connected players in the anti-Castro operations out of New Orleans (Sturgis and Hemming) were in the Mossad's sphere of
influence. And Lee Harvey Oswald is tied to all of the key players involved.
In any event, there is no
question that, based on the facts about Sturgis that we now do know that at least one person who has reportedly confessed
to actual involvement in the JFK assassination—Frank Sturgis—did have multiple longtime links to the Mossad for
many years prior to (and after) the time of the JFK assassination.
The influence of Israel and its lobby
over the American media would have made it difficult for anyone who even suspected that Israel had a hand in the JFK assassination
to get the word out. The media promoted the conclusions of the Warren Commission and savaged its critics. And when the media
did place the blame it was on Fidel Castro and then, later, on "the Mafia."
In addition, the
CIA played a major part in shaping media coverage of the JFK assassination—not to mention other major events of recent
Through a project initiated on April 1, 1967, the [Central Intelligence] Agency directed its
"propaganda assets" in the field to take actions to discredit critics of the Warren Commission Report on the Kennedy
assassination through books reviews and feature articles, not only attacking their conclusions but suggesting that they were
What about the Warren Commission that investigated—most would say "covered
up" the truth about the assassination?
Please note of the 22 Warren Commission staff attorneys, fully
nine of them were Jewish. Another was married to a Jewish woman. Additionally, several others had known, intimate connections
to the Israeli lobby in America.
One of the commission’s most active members—Rep. Gerald R.
Ford (R-Mich.)—was the protege of Max Fisher, a millionaire businessman with close ties to both the Mossad and the Lansky
Crime Syndicate. Another, John McCloy, was connected to the Bronfman family, sponsors of the aforementioned Permindex entity,
and to the international Jewish Warburg banking empire.
Of course, The Washington Post, The New York Times,
and a host of other "responsible" newspapers have NOT reviewed Final Judgment, although I have sent them copies.
Yet, in this regard I cannot help but note that when on November 22, 1964 The Washington Post drafted someone to write
what turned out to be a favorable review of The Warren Commission Report, accompanied by negative reviews of several books
critical of the report, the Post chose Eugene Rostow, then dean of the Yale Law School. Here's what the prestigious Dean Rostow
wrote of the Warren Report: Bear with me. This is "too much": Rostow wrote:
The Report is a
masterly and convincing state paper. It has the high polish of legal writing at its best, carefully composed, terse, restrained
and meticulous. [It has] a detached and judicious tone . . .
But here's the catch . . .
What neither The Washington Post nor Rostow revealed was that it was Rostow himself who was the first person to suggest
to President Johnson that such a commission as the Warren Commission be established!
And by the way, just
for the record, if the Mossad did have a hand in the JFK assassination, you can be certain Rostow would have never written
about it. Here's why:
Rostow has been a board member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,
which has been described as being "run by individuals closely identified with Israeli interests and may be regarded as
a virtual lobbying organization for the state of Israel."
Of course, the murder in 1968 of Sen. Robert
F. Kennedy, younger brother of the slain president, was vital to the continuing cover-up of the truth about the JFK assassination.
If RFK had made it to the White House he would finally have had the power to bring his brother’s killers to justice.
The slaying of Robert F. Kennedy links not only Israel and its allies in the CIA but also SAVAK, the secret police of the
Shah of Iran. SAVAK was a joint creation of the CIA and the Mossad, along with British intelligence, and cooperated closely
with those agencies on many fronts—including the RFK assassination. This is explored in the pages of Final Judgment.
The connection between the Kennedy assassination and the Watergate affair that toppled Richard Nixon has been the basis
for an incredible amount of misinformation and disinformation since the fall of President Nixon in 1974.
There is indeed a Watergate Connection to the JFK assassination but it’s one that even the most intrepid JFK assassination
researchers have somehow seemed to miss.
The true Dallas-Watergate Connection is the long-hidden role
of Israel’s CIA man, James Jesus Angleton—the prime CIA mover not only behind the JFK assassination but also the
forced resignation of Richard M. Nixon. This is also explored in Final Judgment.
I was frankly astounded
myself at the amount of material that emerged which did support my thesis. At the same time, though, there is absolutely no
"evidence" of any kind to REFUTE my thesis. Only opinion, as in, "Oh, Israel would never do anything like that!"
Although I did keep thinking until almost the very end of the writing process that I would perhaps find some fact that
would contradict my thesis, I never found any such information.
Instead, in the ten years that have passed
since I was working on the first draft of the book, I have found a wealth of new information that solidifies and expands upon
what had already been published.
The very strength of my book, according to many readers who are familiar
with other data on the JFK assassination, is that it shows how all of the more familiar theories about the assassination are
connected—and that connection is indeed the Israeli connection.
To this day, eight years after the
release of the book:
• No one has been able to rebut the thesis, misquoted any of my sources or quoted
any of my sources out of context.
• No one has been able to demonstrate where any of the key points
in my thesis are refuted by other information.
• No one has has cited any specific errors (relevant
to the thesis) that would contradict my thesis.
In the book I have pointed out the minor errors that have
appeared in previous editions and challenged my readers: "Show Me Where I’m Wrong." But none have done so.
Considering the energetic and very public efforts of theJewish ADL to defame this book, one would think that the ADL would
assemble a crack team of researchers to tear the book apart. And bear in mind that if the book were that insignificant, the
ADL would not pay Final Judgment the attention that they do.
But the ADL refuses to debate me. People
should ask "why?"
A reader of Final Judgment met famed CBS
Newsman Mr. Cronkite at Martha's Vineyard. He apprised Cronkite of the theory put forth in Final Judgment, and Cronkite listened
Looking out to sea, Cronkite remarked quite succinctly: "I can’t think of any group—with
the exception of Israeli intelligence—that would have been able to keep the JFK assassination conspiracy under wraps
for so long."
This is our final judgment: Israel’s Mossad was a primary (and critical) behind
the scenes player in the conspiracy that ended the life of John F. Kennedy. Through its own vast resources and through its
international contacts in the intelligence community and in organized crime, Israel had the means, it had the opportunity,
and it had the motive to play a major frontline role in the crime of the century—and it did.
evidence demonstrates that there is a very strong foundation for my thesis.
It is a scenario that does
make sense, much to the dismay of my critics.
I believe this scenario comes closer than anything yet written
in summarizing the entirety of the JFK assassination conspiracy.
Final Judgment takes a new look at a
very big jigsaw puzzle that displays a remarkably complex and somewhat murky picture.
On the immensely
confusing picture on the front of the puzzle are all of the various groups and individuals implicated in the JFK assassination
However, when you turn the puzzle over, you find one complete picture—and that’s
a big and very clear picture of the Israeli flag.
All the other flags on the front of the puzzle are,
in intelligence jargon, "false flags," and Final Judgment proves just that.
Final Judgment encapsulates
a thesis that they can't discredit. The genie is out of the bottle and neither Final Judgment nor its thesis are about to
The above is the prepared text of a presentation by Michael Collins Piper discussing his 760-page
book, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, which charges that Israel’s intelligence
agency, the Mossad, collaborated alongside the CIA in the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Michael Collins
Piper may be reached c/o AMERICAN FREE PRESS, 1433 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20003
John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr. radioed the tower at an airport near Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts announcing
that he was preparing to land. Seconds after, his plane exploded in mid-air, and this was witnessed by several people
including a local newspaper reporter and an attorney. Luggage was recovered miles from the crash site, an event that can
only be caused by a mid-air explosion.
hours after the plane went down, William “Bill” Clinton sent out the equivalent of the Sixth Fleet to find the
wreckage, hide it and the bodies from the snoopy media, and though JFK Jr. was never in the Navy, and though the families
did not consent,…he ordered the cremation the corpses, and threw the ashes into the sea in a quickly planned Navy
funeral. No photographs were permitted of the recovered bodies. Kennedy’s emergency locator was removed, the cockpit
recorder was disabled, and the flight log was taken (All of which is documented in the official investigation report).
Behind the scenes, a cover story was
concocted. The weather, which was perfect, somehow became stormy. JFK Jr. now had a gimpy leg, and Kennedy was “emotional”.
Reports by the FAA and FBI, both concluding foul play was involved, were buried, and all inquires led to dead-ends. In truth,
all reports confirm that JFK Jr. was a “highly skilled and careful pilot”.
The Kennedy family was furious, New York was heartbroken….all
evidence had been destroyed or burned by executive command. “She (Hillary Clinton) killed him, I know she did”,
said a Kennedy staffer who asked to remain anonymous.
The Clinton’s bought their home in New York, formed the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary won her Senate seat that John
Kennedy was going to run for.
Israel Built a Nuclear Program
Right Under the Americans’ Noses
Concerned that Israel might be trying to attain
nuclear capability, the U.S., in the mid-1960s,
insisted on regular visits to Dimona. The visiting experts came away reassured of
Israel’s intentions, but not everyone in the U.S. government
In a recent
op-ed piece in this newspaper (HAARETZ), we revealed that Henry Kissinger, then a professor of government at Harvard University,
at the conclusion of a private visit in Israel in January 1965, shared with U.S. diplomats in Tel Aviv his conviction “that
Israel is already embarked on a nuclear weapons construction program.”
While the record of the discussion does not tell us what impact that observation had on Kissinger’s audience, much less how he had reached that conclusion,
as contemporary historians, we know that the statement was in sharp contrast with the U.S. government’s uncertain
state of knowledge of the Israeli nuclear program. While suspicions abounded, during this period the U.S. government never had definitive evidence, let alone conclusive
proof, that Israel was seeking a nuclear military capability.
Other declassified U.S. documents from the period reveal that senior U.S. officials were puzzled about the state
and future direction of the Israeli nuclear complex at Dimona. Suspicions notwithstanding, the most recent prior U.S. inspection
at Dimona, on January 30, 1965 – only two days prior to Kissinger’s briefing at the embassy – reported
that it found no “weapons-related activities” at the site, and also suggested that the Dimona complex was in
a state of institutional slowdown and budget cuts, with morale among staff low.
To assess what the state of U.S. knowledge about Dimona was at the time, one must revisit the
barely known U.S. visits to Dimona during the early- to mid-1960s. That requires drawing on a range of formerly classified
documents, some of them made available only recently. Thus, it becomes possible to identify, in retrospect, the sources of
the American errors in their assessment of the Dimona project. And err the Americans did.
When John F. Kennedy
became president, in 1961, he made it a priority to have U.S. scientists visit the Dimona complex regularly to check suspicions
that the Israelis aimed to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. As we detailed in Haaretz last year, such visits began in May 1961, but tensions over them began to grow in the spring and summer of 1963, when Kennedy engaged,
first, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, and then his successor, Levi Eshkol, in a battle of letters intended to force them
to accept visits of U.S. scientists to Dimona on a twice-yearly basis. By late summer 1963, Eshkol, who had become premier
on June 26, agreed that U.S. scientists would have “periodic visits” to the Dimona plant.
U.S. President John F. Kennedy
meeting with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion
at the Waldorf Hotel in New York City, May 30, 1961.Credit:
When the U.S. team visited Dimona in January
1964, construction of most of the complex was either complete or near completion. Indeed, the reactor had reached criticality,
with its nuclear fuel sustaining controlled chain reactions. That made the visit important for constituting a baseline for
future evaluations. The one-day visit lasted about 11 hours. Subsequently, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission reported to
the U.S. Intelligence Board that the “team believes that all significant facilities at this site were inspected.”
The team’s overall assessment was consistent with the way their Israeli hosts characterized the site. Like
its predecessors in 1961 and 1962, the 1964 team believed that the Dimona complex was designed to be an advanced national
research and training center, civilian in nature, whose purpose – at least then – was to acquire expertise in
all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. The rationale: Israel was preparing itself for the age of civilian-use nuclear power.
team’s readiness to accept the Israeli story was already manifest in the first American visit to Dimona in May 1961.
It was then that Israel provided both the rationale and the narrative for Dimona as a peaceful project. Manes Pratt, the
center’s founder and director, presented it as an “interim stage” on Israel’s path toward nuclear
power. The presentation of Dimona’s master plan as intended for peaceful use only was consistent with Ben-Gurion’s
pledges, including one he personally conveyed to Kennedy two weeks later, during their meeting in New York. Ever since,
the U.S. teams had continued to view Dimona as essentially a civilian-scientific enterprise, believing that, as the first
team reported, following the 1961 tour, “nothing had been concealed from them.”
In 1964, then, the team’s bottom line was, just as it had been in 1961, that the site
lacked the necessary facilities – for plutonium recovery and reprocessing – required for a weapons program. As
the team put it, “Israel, without outside assistance, would not be able to produce its first nuclear device until
two or three years after a decision to do so, that is, the time required to construct plutonium separation facilities and
fabricate a device.”
While the 1964 team determined
that Dimona’s mission was currently a peaceful one, it left with the impression “that the Dimona site and the
equipment located there represented an ambitious project for a country with Israel’s capabilities.” The reference
to “ambitious” reflected the Israelis’ open desire to gain self-sufficiency in virtually all aspects of
the nuclear fuel cycle.
Nine months later, in late September 1964, the U.S. chargé d’affaires in Tel Aviv
was instructed to meet Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, for the purpose of setting a date for the next U.S. visit to Dimona, which
the State Department hoped would occur sometime in October. Perhaps trying to avoid an inspection altogether, Eshkol did
not respond to the American requests and then bypassed the embassy altogether by dispatching a personal message to President
Johnson – via a U.S. go-between, presidential adviser Myer (Mike) Feldman – requesting to postpone the next
Dimona visit until after Israel’s upcoming planned election, in November 1965. Eshkol cited concerns that a leak of
the visit would undermine his political standing. Somewhat jokingly, Eshkol told Feldman (or wrote to Johnson via Feldman) that “there is no possibility that the Dimona reactor could
be converted to military purposes in so short a period of time.”
A partial view of the Dimona
nuclear power plant in Israel's Negev desert, September 2002. Credit: AFP/ Thomas
request stirred suspicions in Washington. On October 23, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy directed the State Department,
the CIA and the AEC to explore both the political and technical implications of the request. In a joint memorandum, those
agencies did not accept Eshkol’s reasoning. Indeed, State Department officials saw it as a “pretext.”
A key question was whether the Israelis could use the two-year time
lag – from January 1964 to January 1966 – to build the “missing link” that would be needed for production
of weapons, i.e., a chemical separation plant for producing plutonium at the Dimona site. (Also called a reprocessing plant,
such a facility is intended to take irradiated, or spent, uranium rods from a reactor and extract plutonium from them via
a series of highly toxic chemical operations.) The technical analysts believed so, noting that the Israelis already had
enough uranium on hand that if, during those two years, they operated the reactor at a “power level designed to maximize
plutonium production, it could produce 6 to 12 KGs of plutonium.” That would have been enough to produce material
for up to “two test devices.”
U.S. technical assessment was the explicit – but erroneous – assumption that Israel lacked a chemical separation
plant on-site. Creation of such a facility, so the assumption went, would require a new top-level political decision. Once
such a decision had been taken, roughly another two years would be needed to build the plant. Thus, hypothetically, if Israel
had started with such steps soon after the previous inspection, in January 1964, a plant could have been operational by
about January 1966. The only way to determine whether the Israelis had taken any steps toward reprocessing plutonium would
be through onsite inspection.
In 1961, President Kennedy
learned directly from Ben-Gurion that Israel had plans to build “a pilot reprocessing plant” in three or four
years to produce plutonium as a reactor fuel, but the Israeli leader had stressed that the Dimona complex was solely peaceful.
At the time of the January 1964 visit, however, the Israelis told the U.S. team that they had delayed indefinitely the plans
to construct the pilot plant, although they showed them the space at Dimona where it would have been built.
Given the concern that the Israelis could build a reprocessing plant
in the absence of a U.S. inspection, the AEC-CIA-State memo led Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Averell Harriman
to conclude that an inspection should not be postponed. In a memo to Bundy, Harriman dismissed the credibility of Eshkol’s
political argument, noting that Ben-Gurion had accepted a U.S. visit in 1961 and that deputy defense minister Shimon Peres
was on board with Eshkol’s 1963 decision to allow visits. It is “our inability to fathom the argument for delay”
that “heightens our security fears,” wrote Harriman. In contrast to Eshkol, who denied that Israel could “convert
Dimona to military purposes in such a short time,” U.S. experts worried about exactly such a possibility. They considered
a two-year period without inspections as “highly dangerous.”
Rather than reject Eshkol’s proposal outright, however, Harriman supported Ambassador Barbour’s
proposed three-point compromise: 1) to have a U.S. visit in the next month or two, 2) “a waiver on the Israeli commitment
[that the U.S. had assumed] of subsequent six-monthly visits until after the 1965 elections,” and 3) “an offer
not to communicate the results of the visit to Nasser until after the November 1965 elections.”
On November 25, 1964, a presidential “oral message” based on Barbour’s
compromise proposal was transmitted to the Tel Aviv Embassy. While politely acknowledging Eshkol’s domestic problem,
LBJ reiterated the importance of “semi-annual visits,” alleging (incorrectly) that they had been agreed to by
Eshkol. He suggested having the upcoming visit very soon – “in late November or early December” –
but agreed to waive the date of the visit to follow that until after the November 1965 Israeli election. On or around December
6, Eshkol informed Barbour that he had set the weekend of January 30, 1965, for the date of the next visit. By way of explanation,
Eshkol invoked his domestic political difficulties – his growing rift with Ben-Gurion – as a reason for the delay,
adding, as if to reassure Washington that “We cannot build a nuclear weapon in two months.”
Israel's nuclear research center
at Soreq, May 2010.Credit: AP
The State Department instructed Barbour to press for
a well-defined protocol for the January visit. Besides a minimum of two days onsite, the U.S. team should have “full
access” to the reactor and other facilities as well as their operating records. In addition, the team had to be able
to “make independent measurements as may be necessary to verify production of reactor since previous visit.”
Finally, the team should be able to “verify location and use [of] any plutonium or other fissionable material produced
in reactor.” Such ground rules would have put the U.S. team in a far better position to learn what exactly was going
on at Dimona.
But when Barbour presented the terms to
Eshkol, the latter rejected them outright, arguing that they would put the visit on a new basis, making it look like an
“inspection” and raise issues “of prejudice to Israeli sovereignty.” Refusing to agree to a full
two days onsite, the Ambassador reported that Eshkol emphasized that the “visit must be fundamentally on same basis
as previous ones, that is, team must be invited guests of Israel and not ‘inspectors.’” While this tied
the hands of the U.S. inspectors, Washington did not push back.
The U.S. 1965 inspecting team comprised
three senior government nuclear experts from the AEC and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency: Ulysses M. Staebler, Floyd
L. Culler and Charles McClelland. They received a briefing at the State Department on January 15, where they were told that
their mission had both intelligence and diplomatic ramifications. With the apprehension about a prospective Arab-Israeli
arms race, evidence that Dimona was for peaceful purposes could be used to reassure Egyptian president Nasser. The inspection
could also put in perspective the varied reports about suspicious developments concerning the Israeli nuclear program, including
that the complex had been “secretly expanded” since the 1964 inspection, Israel’s purchase of uranium
oxide (yellowcake) from Argentina, and the departure of French technicians from the site, all of which U.S. intelligence
took as facts.
The visit to Dimona took place on Saturday,
January 30, 1965, a little more than a year after the preceding one. The scientific host of the team was the nuclear physicist
Igal Talmi, who escorted the team during its entire three-day stay in Israel. According to the U.S. documents, the team
also visited the Weizmann Institute, the small reactor at Soreq and the Negev Institute for Arid Zone Research. During the
10 hours that the team spent at the Dimona complex, they were joined by the director, Manes Pratt, as well. The visit was
conducted under significant restrictions, even more severe than those of a year earlier. Not only was the time at Dimona
cut to just one day, but unlike in the previous year, the inspectors could not continue the visit into Saturday evening.
The Israelis cut short the visit in the late afternoon, preventing the inspectors from seeing the inside of all the buildings
Within five days, on February 5, 1965, the
State Department sent National Security Adviser Bundy a preliminary draft of the team’s report, along with the Department’s
take on the findings. According to the report, the team agreed by consensus that, despite the restrictions, “the visit
provided a satisfactory basis for determining the state of activity at the Dimona Site.”
The fundamental findings were twofold and unanimous. First, the Dimona Nuclear Center was in
a state of slowdown and uncertainty, if not in a real institutional crisis, as the Israeli government had recently suspended
its earlier nuclear energy masterplan, pending certain decisions.
Henry Kissinger, who became
President Richard Nixon's national security adviser in 1969.Credit: afp
The context of the
institutional slowdown, as explained to the American team, seemed to make sense. During Eshkol’s state visit in June
1964, President Johnson had invoked the idea that Israel join a “Water for Peace” project, a new joint venture
through which the U.S. would provide Israel with a new type of low-enriched uranium reactor that could produce electrical
power to be used for desalinization. It appeared that this could get Israel both a nuclear power reactor and a desalinization
plant at half price. Putting that new plan into effect would require the suspension of the original Israeli nuclear power
masterplan, which was based on natural uranium fueled reactors. Recall, Dimona was presented to the American teams as an
interim step toward that nuclear vision. Thus, when in early 1965, the “Water for Peace” project was being studied,
Israel had ostensibly slowed down or in some cases even suspended some of the anticipated research activity at Dimona.
The U.S. team was told (and shown) that several key components (“institutes”)
of the Dimona complex were either still under construction, or had been, or would soon be, placed in a standby mode. The
report cited Dimona director Pratt telling the team that “there is no approval of a research and development program
or of a budget for the fiscal year starting in April 1965.” In effect, the very original rationale for the creation
of Dimona as presented to the U.S. may have become obsolete due to the new interest in the “Water for Peace”
desalination project. If Israel took that new path, Dimona would have to reinvent its raison d’être.
While the slowdown was real enough, its purpose was meant to enhance
the basic Israeli cover narrative, namely, that Dimona was a civilian research center intended to support a broader and
new nuclear power program. At the end, the “Water for Peace” project did not go anywhere, to a large degree
because Israel could not reconcile Dimona with a large nuclear energy project and because Israel’s commitment to Dimona
as a security project was much stronger than its interest in nuclear energy.
The second element of the U.S. team’s conclusions from the visit was that “nothing [at the
Dimona site] suggests an early development of weapons program.” Like all its predecessors, the 1965 team determined
that the Dimona complex lacked key technical components that would be required for a weapons program, most notably a reprocessing
plant. Hence, the team’s judgment was that there was “no near-term possibility of a weapons development program
at the Dimona Site.” Among the technical findings was that Israel did not have the facilities to process more than
three tons annually of uranium and had “no capability …. to produce and recover [plutonium].”
Despite this, the AEC team urged continued vigilance. Notwithstanding
the slowdown, the team remained impressed by the site’s potential, believing that it had “excellent development
and production capability and potential that warrants continued surveillance at intervals not to exceed one year.”
The draft summary (the full report remains to be declassified) did
not even hint at the possibility that the Israelis may have been concealing anything during the visit. Notably, the available
documents show that this possibility – deception and concealment – had been raised in the interagency technical
meeting in Washington that preceded that visit. Nonetheless, in retrospect, it appears that that is exactly what was going
on during this inspection and the others. According to American journalist Seymour Hersh, in his 1991 book “The Samson
Option,” prior to the Dimona visits, Israel implemented a large-scale deception operation that amounted to concealing
the reprocessing plant under construction and continual misrepresentation of the reactor’s purposes.
In any event, the apparently encouraging findings of the inspection helped
the State Department decide that the U.S. could accede to Eshkol’s request to postpone “the next agreed six-monthly
inspection until after the parliamentary election in November this year.” While this phrasing was inaccurate, as Israel
had never formally agreed to biannual U.S. inspections, it clearly reflected a certain sense of relief about Dimona. Nevertheless,
the next paragraph indicates that a sense of uncertainty about Israeli intention lingered. It stated that “we [Department
of State] remain concerned that Israel may have succeeded in concealing a decision to develop nuclear weapons.”
While the AEC inspectors
appeared reasonably confident in their findings, they took it for granted that continued inspections were necessary. President
Johnson, like President Kennedy before him, insisted on the AEC inspections as an essential tool for verifying Israeli leaders’
pledges that the Dimona complex was meant for peaceful purposes only.
Shaping the drive for inspections were lingering doubts about Israel’s ultimate intentions. As noted earlier,
key officials pointed to warning signs, such as the yellowcake purchases, that the Israelis were up to something. Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and South Asian Affairs Rodger Davies, and science attaché physicist Dr.
Robert Webber at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, among others, suspected that Dimona was intended for military security, not
scientific research, and that Israel may have secretly decided to develop a weapons capability. They had abundant circumstantial
evidence to support those suspicions, but none of them seemed to have a clue about the missing link to weapons, the hidden
chemical separation plant, although Webber raised the possibility that the Israelis had undertaken some such activity, somewhere.
And he insisted that the AEC inspectors were greatly mistaken to discount Dimona’s potential as a military project.
Whether either Webber or Davies was aware of Kissinger’s embassy briefing remains unknown, but knowledge of it would
have doubtless increased their doubts.
Averell Harriman in conversation
with David Ben-Gurion in Tel Aviv.Credit: Hans Pinn/GPO
Suspicions about how Israel
would use the yellowcake persisted, not least because during the inspection Israeli officials treated questions about “procurement
of uranium from abroad ‘outside the scope of the visit.’” Another source of concern was the discovery by
U.S. intelligence that Israel had secretly contracted with a French aviation company, Marcel Dassault, for development and
production of a two-stage, nuclear-capable, short-range ballistic missile.
The uncertain knowledge of the mid-1960s sharply contrasts with the more certain situation of the 1970s,
by which time U.S. intelligence had concluded that Israel had nuclear weapons. That suggested that the AEC assessments of
Dimona in the 1960s were incorrect, indeed altogether misleading. That became manifestly true in 1986 when the real secrets
became publicly known through the revelations of whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, which were confirmed by French sources
and published in the London’s Sunday Times.
key revelation in 1986 came from Francis Perrin, the French high commissioner for atomic energy from 1951 to 1970,
who acknowledged to the Sunday Times that the Dimona nuclear complex had been conceived from the start as a complete and
dedicated nuclear weapons infrastructure. It included a plutonium-producing reactor and a large underground chemical reprocessing
plant for extracting weapons-grade plutonium from the reactor’s irradiated rods.
According to French journalist Pierre Pean, in his book “Les Deux Bombes” (Paris,
1982), the construction of the chemical reprocessing plant was completed, with some delays, as the final stage of the
Dimona complex, around 1965. According to Pean, Israel started plutonium production in late 1965 or 1966. The reprocessing
plant was the crown jewel of the entire Dimona project. We also know, from a document published last year by the authors
of this article as part of an academic paper, that Prime Minister Eshkol shared with his senior cabinet colleagues in September
1963 how fearful he was that the reprocessing plant, then under construction, might be discovered by visiting American scientists.
That did not happen. None of the nine AEC teams that visited the Dimona site between 1961 and 1969 was ever aware of the
super-secret six-story underground facility.
From today’s perspective, more than half a century later, the question of why the United
States failed to discover the secret plant right under its nose remains intriguing. We suggest that the prime reasons for
that American failure were varied. First and foremost, U.S. intelligence failed to discover what exactly France –
both its government and its industry – had agreed to supply to Israel. To be fair, it is not that the U.S. did not
try, but the French would share only partial and misleading information with the Americans. French authorities supplied
the Dimona package that they had made available to Israel, supported by ample technical assistance. Few in the French government,
and no Americans, knew that the government-to-government deal, as published by Pean, tacitly allowed a reprocessing plant,
supplied directly by the French firm Saint-Gobain, which specialized in chemical and nuclear-related products. While the
CIA was familiar with Saint-Gobain’s work for the French nuclear program, whether it learned of its secret assistance
to Israel prior to 1986 remains unknown.
In the absence
of accurate and complete intelligence on the French role, the United States had to rely on the information that it could
collect in Israel, whether openly or covertly. Here lies the second source of the U.S. failure: the political inability
or unwillingness to ensure that the inspections were comprehensive enough to detect suspicious activities.
The policy and intelligence failures were intertwined. Washington
viewed physical access to Dimona as essential both for verifying Israeli pledges about the plant’s civilian mission
and for ensuring others that Israel did not change its declared course and go nuclear. In retrospect, however, this approach
was too trusting, perhaps even naive. Unless the inspection visits were grounded in a firm protocol, Washington could not
deter or prevent a determined state like Israel from going nuclear.
Israeli Prime Minister Levi
Eshkol, left, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson
and their wives at a reception in Washington, June 1964.Credit:
A related problem was that U.S. inspectors accepted too uncritically the Israeli claim that Dimona was a step in
a plan to introduce nuclear power to Israel. After all, did an “interim stage” civilian nuclear project like
Dimona really make sense, technologically and/or financially, for a small and resource-limited country like Israel? Was
it sensible for a country that had recently inaugurated its first nuclear reactor (in Soreq) to initiate a larger nuclear
project, described as an interim step, when it had not yet approved a comprehensive plan for nuclear power? The AEC scientists
should have given that story a far more skeptical analysis.
on the declassified material available to date, one can summarize the American conventional wisdom in the mid-1960s as follows:
If Israel decided to change course and to embark on nuclear-weapons production, it would need to build a chemical plant
for the extraction of plutonium, and that would require a political decision. The U.S. was reasonably confident that it
could detect such a decision, even if it was made in secrecy. This overconfident and somewhat naive working assumption was
fundamental to U.S. thinking at the time.
the American intelligence analysis of the period were not only basic facts about the French role, but also a lack of understanding
– and appreciation – of how far the Israelis would go in concealing their progress. It is worth recalling that
Hersh, in “The Samson Option,” cited anonymous Israeli sources who told him that the visitors to the Dimona
reactor were shown a fake control room that reflected misleadingly the reactor’s operations at the time. Even if the
inspectors were not as trusting as they appeared to be, the available evidence does not suggest that they had any understanding
that Israel was willing to undertake a sophisticated large-scale effort to conceal what it was doing.
The U.S. might have had a fighting chance to see through the concealment activities and ascertain Israel’s
true intentions if it had been willing to wage a forceful political battle for a thorough inspection. A more accurate state
of knowledge on the U.S. side might have been possible if the Israelis had been forced to accept the ground rules that President
Kennedy had envisioned in his spring-summer 1963 series of letters to Ben-Gurion and Eshkol, and which were subsequently
reiterated and expanded by the State Department in late 1964. The measures they called for included two days of full access
to the Dimona facility, the opportunity to gather samples, and the ability to verify the use and location of any plutonium
produced by the reactor. Such an extensive survey would have been similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
reactor inspection system that, beginning in the 1970s, became part of the Agency’s standard inspection protocol for
enforcing the NPT and could have helped identify any suspect activities.
The Israelis rejected outright the possibility of thorough and rigid inspections. As noted earlier, Eshkol
objected to the proposed ground rules as an intrusion on Israeli sovereignty. Indeed, Israel refused to consent to any fixed
protocol – insisting that the arrangement was about “scientific visits” by friends, not “inspections”
– and thus was willing to rely only on non-written past practice. Taking no for an answer, and effectively allowing
its hands to be tied behind its back, the Johnson administration was unwilling to use its political leverage, which could
have been considerable, and refrained from a battle royal with Eshkol and the Government of Israel. Whether President Johnson
ever considered such a decision remains unknown. As important as nonproliferation was to Johnson and his advisers, in practice
they often found it necessary, as they did in this instance, to balance it against other, no-less-important political, diplomatic,
and security considerations.
Upon reflection, the U.S. failure to discover Dimona’s underlying secrets – that it was,
as the authors of this artice have argued in the past, a military project and that there was a secret plutonium plant –
was practically unavoidable. U.S. intelligence had not detected the scope of the French-Israeli deal. Policymakers avoided
going to the mat for the sake of a comprehensive inspection. Moreover, Washington failed to understand Israel’s national
security culture. That is, the U.S. government did not comprehend that Israel was so committed to the nuclear project that
it was willing to wage a complex operation to see it through.
What Henry Kissinger told U.S. diplomats in 1965 – that Israel had a “nuclear weapons production program”
– amounted to a prediction. In 1967, during the Six-Day War, with the U.S. still in the dark, Israel secretly assembled
two nuclear explosive devices, just in case, an event reported five decades later by The New York Times.
It was in the following years
that Washington began concluding that Israel had the bomb. President Nixon’s meeting with Prime Minister Golda Meir
in September 1969 made the United States complicit in Israel’s policy of nuclear opacity. Thus, when Henry Kissinger
became Nixon’s national security adviser, in January 1969, he was already aware of Israel’s alleged weapons
program, which has remained as much an official secret in Washington as in Tel Aviv, although it remains the “worst
Avner Cohen is
professor of nonproliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS) and the author
of “Israel and the Bomb.” William Burr, a Senior Analyst at the National Security Archive, George Washington
University, directs its Nuclear Documentation Project.
Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly with another
Viscountess Nancy Witcher
Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism.
“I’m glad you are smart enough not to take my [views] personally,” she wrote. Astor pointed out that she
had a number of Roman Catholic friends – G.K. Chesterton among them – with whom she shared, if nothing else,
a profound hatred for the Jewish race.
Joe Kennedy, in turn,
had always detested Jews generally, although he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated
the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the occasional Catholic.
As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution
to both of these “world problems” (Nancy’s phrase). No member of the so-called “Cliveden Set”
(the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor’s palatial home) seemed much concerned with the
dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just “give a rough
time” to “the killers of Christ” before she’d be in favor of launching ”Armageddon to
save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?”
Kennedy replied that he expected the “Jew media” in the United States to become a problem, that “Jewish
pundits in New York and Los Angeles” were already making noises contrived to “set a match to the fuse of the
During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive
discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these
conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt
was the victim of “Jewish influence” and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler’s
regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was “Germany’s best friend” in
Columnists back in the states condemned Kennedy’s
fraternizing. Kennedy later claimed that 75% of the attacks made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from “a
number of Jewish publishers and writers. … Some of them in their zeal did not hesitate to resort to slander and falsehood
to achieve their aims.” He told his eldest son, Joe Jr., that he disliked having to put up with “Jewish columnists”
who criticized him with no good reason.
Like his father,
Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student
in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler’s insight in realizing the German people’s “need of
a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the
cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology, and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The
dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their
credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous … the lawyers and prominent judges were
Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. … As far as the brutality is concerned,
it must have been necessary to use some ….”
was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly after Kristallnacht in November of 1938, Joe Kennedy
Sr. seemed more concerned about the political ramifications stemming from high-profile, riotous anti-Semitism than he was
about the actual violence done to the Jews. ”… Isn’t there some way,” he asked, “to
persuade [the Nazis] it is on a situation like this that the whole program of saving western civilization might hinge? It
is more and more difficult for those seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any plan when the papers are filled with such
horror.” Clearly, Kennedy’s chief concern about Kristallnacht was that it might serve to harden anti-fascist
sentiment at home in the United States.
Like his friend Charles
Coughlin (an anti-Semitic broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always remained convinced of what he believed
to be the Jews’ corrupt, malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. “The Democratic
[party] policy of the United States is a Jewish production,” Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939,
adding confidently that Roosevelt would “fall” in 1940.
But it wasn’t Roosevelt who fell. Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship just weeks after FDR’s overwhelming
triumph at the polls. He then retreated to his home in Florida: a bitter, resentful man nurturing religious and racial bigotries
that put him out-of-step with his country.
John F Kennedy Knew The Truth And Warned US All
ACTUAL QUOTE “Hitler will emerge from
the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived… he had a mystery about him
in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which
legends are made” - John F. Kennedy,President of the United States of America
They say "the
winner's write history," and it is absolutely true; the most egregious example in modern times has to be the
mainstream (mis)understanding of Adolf Hitler and pre-WWII Germany.
Adolf Hitler was actually a vegetarian, animal-lover,
an author, an artist, a political activist, economic reformer and nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. He enacted the
world's first anti-animal cruelty, anti-pollution and anti-smoking laws. Unlike the demonic portrait that history
has painted of him, Hitler was beloved by his people and he wanted nothing but peace.
After WWI in 1919 the Internationalist
League of Nations Treaty of Versailles enforced draconian reparation taxes on Germany so ridiculous that US President Woodrow
Wilson said, "If I was a German I should think I would never sign it." British Prime Minister
David Lloyd George said, "We have written a document that guarantees war in 20 years … When you place
conditions on a people [Germany] that it cannot possibly keep, you force it to either breech the agreement or to war."
The next year, in 1920 Jewish international bankers (many of them the same involved in creating
the League of Nations and the Federal Reserve) began giving big interest-bearing loans to Germany.
By 1923 Germany was already going bankrupt to the Jewish financiers and couldn't continue paying the
270 billion Reichmark war reparations. Unable to even buy back their own coal from the "allies," factories
began closing and thousands of Germans became unemployed. In 1924 as revenge for Germany stopping payment to the Jewish
international banksters, they devalued the Papiermark so sharply that within months millions of German families couldn't
afford food or rent. It took a wheelbarrow full of Paper marks to buy a loaf of bread; thousands of Germans died of
Assassin's Lawyer Says Sirhan Sirhan Was Brainwashed
for Sirhan Sirhan, the confessed assassin of Robert F. Kennedy, plans to present new evidence at a parole board hearing suggesting that he
did not act alone, was potentially brain washed and cannot remember anything about the 43-year-old shooting.
"There is no question he was hypno-programmed," lawyer
William F. Pepper told ABCNews.com. "He was set up. He was used. He was manipulated."
Sirhan will appear before a California parole board on Wednesday for the 14th time since his
May 1969 sentencing. It is the first time he will be represented by Pepper.
Taking a page from the conspiracies that have dogged the assassination of Kennedy's brother President John F. Kennedy, Pepper plans to introduce new evidence that suggests there was a second
gunman who fatally shot RFK in the kitchen of a Los Angeles hotel, following his victory in the 1968 California presidential
Pepper said he believes Sirhan was "hypno-programmed,"
essentially brainwashed to kill Kennedy and his memories were then erased.
The lawyer's tale has all the makings of a great conspiracy theory, if not a science fiction thriller akin to the
witnesses say Sirhan was always in front of Bobby, never behind him," said Pepper, "but the autopsy says Bobby
was shot at close range from behind the right ear."
Pepper says he believes he knows who ordered Sirhan to shoot Kennedy, but won't yet say who it is. He said in addition to
the parole hearing, he is preparing an appeal.
said Sirhan is "remorseful" for his role in the 1968 assassination of Kennedy, but the gunman "does not remember
anything about the shooting."
The image of
Sirhan sitting in a California prison cell in 2011 regretting a crime he does not remember does not jibe with a defiant
Sirhan sitting a California courtroom in 1969.
his trial, Sirhan confessed to the crime and declared he had committed it "with 20 years of malice aforethought."
Second Gunman Conspiracy
of the Kennedy family declined to discuss the claims by Sirhan's lawyer.
The second gunman theory is not new, said Cyril Wecht, a renowned forensic pathologist and one of two independent
physicians who examined Kennedy's body. Wecht was also one of nine forensic pathologists on a panel who reexamined the JFK
assassination, but the only one who dissented from the single bullet theory.
Wecht said the coroner in the RFK case gave "unchallenged, unequivocal" testimony to the grand jury that
Kennedy had been shot from behind at close range. Witnesses all put Sirhan in front of Kennedy.
Wecht said it was scientifically plausible to hypnotize someone and induce them to murder,
but said he did not know if there was enough evidence to suggest that in Sirhan's case.
Parole hearings are typically not the platform to introduce new evidence, or retry a case.
Boards typically want to hear convicts express remorse for their crimes, not deny remembering them.
But Pepper says "There is an exception when the factual narrative is wrong. Counsel has
the right to correct those facts. I don't know why prior counsel never did that. I am going to clarify the record."
A spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation said she cannot comment on the specifics of Sirhan's case, but parole board hearings generally "are
not to decide guilt or innocence."
board accepts as fact the guilty verdict," said Terry Thornton. "The purpose is to determine if or when an inmate
can return to society."
won a 1999 civil case against the city of Memphis, in which he argued Memphis police were involved in the assassination of
Martin Luther King Jr., for which James Earl Ray, the only suspect was convicted in 1969.
Pepper said Sirhan had been examined by Daniel Brown, a psychologist on the faculty of Harvard
Medical School, who found he was "easily hypnotized" and was not faking his inability to remember the crime.
Brown was travelling and could not be reached by ABCNews.com for
"[Sirhan] has whole blocks in his mind
that are missing," Pepper said. "He doesn't remember anything,
Kennedy's Bodyguard Remembers
Sirhan might not remember what took place in the kitchen of L.A.'s Ambassador Hotel on June
14, 1968, but history has not forgotten.
then a U.S. senator from New York, was making his way through the hotel's kitchen soon after winning the Democratic primary.
Sirhan entered the kitchen, fired on Kennedy and was soon subdued as bodyguards smashed his hand against a steam table.
Sirhan continued to fire, emptying all the bullets in his pistol from his immobilized hand as bullets ricocheted around
Rosey Grier, a former NFL player who
had joined Kennedy's security team, entered the kitchen just after the shots were fired and helped subdue Sirhan.
Grier told ABC News.com that he didn't know for sure if Sirhan
acted alone. But, he said: "All I know is that he was the man who had the gun. I took the gun out of his hand. He was
that man. Evidence wise, I believe police did their job in finding out where the bullet came from."
Grier said Sirhan had "a right to do what he has to get justice," but would not
comment on whether he believed Sirhan had been hypnotized, or was worthy of parole.
JFK Jr. Told The World Who Murdered His Father – But Nobody Was Paying
by Jane Grey
I suppose most people think that from the day
he saluted his father’s casket at just three years old, till the evening his plane went down, he just went about his
business, playing the game of life-like everyone else.
After all, he did live, for the
most part, a relatively ordinary life, in spite of being the Prince of America’s Camelot.
So, what do you suppose was going on in the mind
of the sexiest man alive? He could have written his own political ticket, yet he went into publishing. Many expected him
to land in politics and most likely were a bit perplexed when he decided to publish a magazine instead.
Some thought he was afraid to go into politics
because of the “Kennedy Curse.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. What he did proved to be more dangerous than any
political arena, and he knew that from the start. But…John-John had a mission…and that mission was to expose
the villain who orchestrated that “dastardly act” upon his father.
Unbeknownst to the public, John-John
was digging deep for proof. And, how else could he expose the truth when all the media outlets were controlled by the very
cabal he planned to expose? Enter…”George.”
When he presented his magazine, “George,” to the
world, he was, for all practical purposes, signing his own death warrant.
“George” was a veiled threat…in
a symbolic sort of way. Do you see? How many men named “George” comes to mind at just the thought of President
John F. Kennedy’s so called assassination? The cabal wanted his father dead, that is a fact, but the namesake of John
F. Kennedy, Jr.’s magazine…their minion, arranged it. And…once he had the proof, the truth would come
out in his very own magazine. Do you see?
“As President, John F. Kennedy understood the predatory nature
of private central banking. He understood why Andrew fought so hard to end the Second Bank of the United States. So Kennedy
wrote and signed Executive Order 11110 which ordered the US Treasury to issue a new public currency, the United States Note.
Kennedy was working with President Soekarno of Indonesia who was at that time the signatory for the Global Collateral
Accounts which were intended to be used for humanitarian purposes but which were subverted at the time of the Bretton-Woods
agreement at the end of WWII.
The intention of Kennedy and Soekarno was to end the reign of the
globalist privately owned central banking system – which is the main reason that Kennedy was killed, and for his part
Soekarno remained under house arrest for the rest of his life.” From: All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars
There was a rumor that John-John had obtained the proof he needed and an expose’ was
in the works, until his untimely, and mostly “suspicious,” death. Of course, the media campaigned that he was
an irresponsible thrill seeker; but then they would, wouldn’t they? Although many people knew JFK, Jr. was murdered;
and they were right about who was responsible…they were just wrong about the reason.
John Jr. was warned
by family members about the risks involved in his pursuit. But, he was determined to get justice for his father and bring
truth to light, exposing the darkness that shrouds our planet. So ask yourself…what would you do, if you were a mere
babe when your father, who just happened to be the most important man in the country, was murdered in such a gruesome manner,
and you never had the opportunity to know him…would you just let it go?
Although he was from one of the main Illuminati family bloodlines, JFK was in fact trying to undo some of the mess – and to bring an end to the Reserve Banking System. For
his efforts he was assassinated on November 22, 1963.
The Bush Connections
and historians have come to the conclusion that it was the elite power structure running the US Government that were responsible for the assassination of JFK, and that there was more than one reason for them doing so.
There are photographs
claiming to show that George Bush was at Dealey Plaza on the day of the killing, and while they might be inconclusive there
are multiple other sources that George Bush was one of those responsible for the assassination of JFK and that he was indeed
there that day. The Dark Legacy takes an in-depth look into the evidence supporting this.
Related: The History And Mission Of The Nazi-Illuminati Bush (Scher(f)f) Crime Family
It Never Ends – MORE Startling Evidence of Bush in Dallas –
by John Hankey – TheDarkLegacy.com
don’t think we are much encouraged to see History as science. Quite the opposite, actually. And of course, that’s
all politics. The winners write history, and the truth be damned. Even science can have trouble trying to act like science
when political issues are involved, as we see with evolution, tobacco-and-cancer, and global warming.
But I think History does have a lot in common
with physical science. For example, I can remember when “Continental Drift”, the idea that Africa and America
were once stuck together, was very much considered “just a theory”; ridiculed by some, and regarded with amusement
by many, and promulgated as likely by a tiny minority.
“Fifty men have run America, and that’s a high figure.”
– Joseph Kennedy, Father of JFK,
in the July 26th, 1936 issue of The New York Times
But as time goes by, the evidence accumulates; and the meaning of
old evidence begins to settle in; and ideas that were once considered outrageous gradually get worn in and start to be regarded
as obvious common sense. Part of this process is the continual accumulation of new evidence.
New pieces are added to the puzzle and the picture
becomes more clear. And sometimes the hidden meaning of old evidence, that has been lying around for years, suddenly jumps
of the fossils and minerals that can be found on the east coast of Africa, and on the west coast of Brazil, may have been
lying around for years, before someone decided to look and see if they matched, and found that they did; and proved conclusively
that west Africa and Brazil were once attached.
With regard to George HW Bush and the murder of John Kennedy, Joseph
McBride found this memo in 1988.
FBI director J. Edgar Hoover
wrote this memo 5 days after the assassination, naming George Bush as a CIA officer.
The last, and most crucial paragraph, is very
hard to read. The following is a transcription:
“The substance of the forgoing information was orally furnished
to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency
on November 23, 1963, by Mr. V.T. Forsyth of this Bureau.”
When it was first released in 1978, George Bush was an obscure bureaucrat,
a virtual unknown. So when the best researchers on the planet saw this memo in 1978, they didn’t pay much attention
to it. When Bush became vice president two years later, no one was able to connect his now well-known name to this obscure
when Joseph McBride was messing around in 1988, Bush was running for president; and when McBride saw the memo, he jumped
up and shouted:
“Hey, this memo is about Bush! It says he was in the CIA, way back in 1963!”
And for the longest
time, the focus was on this simple isolated fact: that Hoover said Bush was in the CIA in ’63.
Bush said the memo
must be referring to another “George Bush,” because he wasn’t in the CIA at that time. But over the years,
people were able to assemble the facts from Bush’s personal life, showing his deep involvement with the CIA at that
time, and with the CIA’s anti-Castro Cubans (in the memo, Hoover calls them “misguided anti-Castro Cubans”).
time, it has become undeniable; that Hoover was referring, in his memo, to none other than George Herbert Walker Bush. And
for a while, that was it. End of story.
But the title of this Hoover memo is, “Assassination of President John
Fitzgerald Kennedy”. Isn’t that important?
Well, you’d think so. But for the longest time, no one made much out
it. Besides, Hoover scarcely mentions the assassination in the memo, instead focusing on these “misguided anti-Castro
Cubans.” The body of the memo does not appear, at first, to be in any way related to the title of the memo “the
assassination of President John F Kennedy”.
From Rolling Stone Magazine: The Last Confession of E. Howard Hunt
then Mark Lane, in his book Rush to Judgment, did the fabulous work of demonstrating, and in fact persuading a jury, that
E. Howard Hunt, a major lieutenant in the CIA’s “misguided anti-Castro Cuban” program, was in Dallas and
involved in the assassination.
With this background, with this framework to guide the researcher, it was then possible to assemble the considerable
evidence linking Bush to Hunt.
People might have taken some notice before that Bush made the unusual request, as Nixon’s
ambassador to the UN, to be given an office in the White House. They may have noticed that Hunt, although he
was not being paid by anyone in the White House, or answering to anyone that we know of in the White House, also had a White
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we
are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to
Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe… no
war ever posed a greater threat to our security.
If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,”
then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent… For we
are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding
its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead
of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast
human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes
are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised.
No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed,
no secret is revealed.”
– John F Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, from a speech delivered to the American Newspaper Publishers
Association on April 27, 1961 and known as the “Secret Society” speech (click here for full transcript and audio).
But with the Hoover memo in hand, establishing Bush as a supervisor of the CIA’s “misguided anti-Castro
Cuban” operation, it is possible to connect Bush to Hunt at the Bay of Pigs. With this memo in hand, it is possible
to connect Bush and Hunt as two CIA operatives with offices inside the White House.
With this memo in hand, it is possible to answer
who it was that Hunt answered to inside the White House; and how he got the office in the first place. And with all that,
it is possible to connect Bush to Hunt, and therefore to Dallas, to Hunt in Dallas, and to the “misguided anti-Castro
Cuban” assassins of John Kennedy.
J. Edgar Hoover
Which is what Hoover
did for us when he wrote the title of the memo. Little by little, the pieces start to fall into place. And pieces that in
isolation meant nothing, become key parts of a whole picture.
But even so, this is not a rock-solid connection: Hunt was directly
involved in the murder of JFK. And Bush supervised Hunt.
But Bush probably supervised a lot of CIA people, not all of whom were directly
involved in the assassination. A high-ranking officer may be connected to all of the acts of all of his troops, by reason
of his being their commander. But it’s not a direct connection. It doesn’t establish that the officer knew about,
or approved of, or was involved in, all the actions of those troops.
Enter FBI memo # 2:
It will come up again in a minute,
so please read the first line carefully. Bush identifies himself to the FBI as an independent oil man from Houston.
This memo establishes
that sort of direct connection between Bush and Hunt, in Dallas, on the day of the assassination.
This memo records Bush’s phone call to
the FBI, precisely an hour and fifteen minutes after the assassination. When I first encountered this memo, and when I first
put it into my movie, JFK II, I simply called it “weird”.
I saw it only in isolation, a weird, isolated connection between Bush
and the assassination. It took me years to see it in context. That is, to see that this phone call demonstrates,
clearly, that George Bush, was on duty that day.
He was staying at the Dallas Sheraton because his duty assignment
was in Dallas. His phone call to the FBI cannot have been random. This James Parrott worked for Bush as a sign-painter;
he was not an assassin; this phone call is not what it purports to be; Bush was fulfilling some obscure under-cover function
in making this call.
So the phone call has to be seen as part of his CIA assignment; which was clearly connected to the assassination.
This memo then establishes that Bush was in the Dallas area, and on duty; and that his duty assignment was connected to
the assassination. And if his men were in Dallas shooting the President, as they were, he was certainly on duty supervising
Society [Society of Jesus aka the Jesuits] employs a variety of ruthless tactics to accomplish its long-term goal (of a New
World Order which pays homage to their Black Pope). One is carrying out political assassinations of world leaders who refuse
to comply with its demands.
These assassinations in the U.S. have included presidents (Abraham Lincoln, JFK), cabinet members, congressmen,
senators, diplomats, journalists, scientists and religious and business leaders. ”
“Assassinations are carried out by the
aforementioned intelligence agencies and their Mafia partners in the drug and gambling trades, often with collateral assistance
from the Knights of Malta, the Freemasons, the Knights of Columbus, and Propaganda Due (P2). Such was the case in the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy and some former Popes.”
From: The History And Mission Of The Nazi-Illuminati Bush (Scher(f)f) Crime Family
he were not supposed to be supervising them, his bosses would have assigned him to be at his home office in Houston, Texas;
or on his oil rigs in the Caribbean.
But, even in context, this memo and the phone call it describes is still weird, no? I mean,
how could Bush have been so stupid as to make this insanely incriminating phone call? Without this FBI memo, recording this
phone call, we don’t know, or even have a good clue as to where Bush was, or what he was doing the day of the assassination.
has, until recently, simply said that he did not remember what he was doing the day of the assassination. But with this memo,
Bush tells us where he was and what he was doing – he hands us his head on a silver platter.
What could possibly have motivated him to make
such a stupid error as making this phone call to the FBI? It’s a valid question. It’s not an essential question.
We can still value this memo, and extract a great deal of important content from it without answering the question of why,
but the question remains.
And we can make a stab at answering
it. Russ Baker in his fine book, Family of Secrets suggests that Bush was attempting to establish an alibi. Now, by making
this phone call, he, in fact, establishes that he was in the Dallas area, and that he was on duty, related to the assassination.
So if he’s
trying to establish an alibi to cover-up where he actually was and what he was actually doing, what he is trying to cover
up must be some pretty bad stuff, some pretty incriminating stuff, if it’s worse than what he gives us with this alibi.
And what could
be worse than what he gives us? Well, obviously, he must have actually been in Dallas. In fact, I think, this situation
suggests he must have actually been in Dealey Plaza. I mean seriously. Think about it. He’s so panicked about the truth
coming out, that he puts his head in a noose and hands it to us.
It makes me think he must have been in Dealey Plaza, he must have
been in the company of the shooters, and he must have felt that there would be evidence to prove that.
We’re just speculating at the moment. We’ll
get to the evidence right now, but I’m trying to set the scene. If a guilty party is in a panic, trying to cover evidence
connecting them to a crime, they may invent an explanation, or an alibi, that seems like a good idea at the time; but that
in fact constitutes a very damaging admission. Anyway, stew on that while you consider this photo:
You see this tall thin man in
a suit, with a receding hair line. Many people claim this is Bush, standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository.
And it might be. It might be a lot of people. And perhaps, when he called the FBI and incriminated himself, Bush was concerned
that he might show up in a better picture than this, where he was positively recognizable, looking towards the camera.
Personally, I don’t
think this photo looks much like Bush; and in fact, I didn’t think he’d be stupid enough to just be hanging around
the murder scene. I thought he was sufficiently high ranking that he’d leave such on-scene stuff to his underlings.
least in my mind, if you’re an officer like Bush, you’re the coach. You plan, you train and prepare your people,
and then you stand back and watch it happen. Or so I thought. Fletcher Prouty was certain that he saw pictures of Ed Lansdale,
a military operative of the highest rank, signaling to the “tramps” arrested behind the grassy knoll to “be
cool,” that everything was alright.
Hunt was a high-ranking CIA officer, chief of the CIA’s Mexico station; and his son says
he is one of the “tramps” who show up in several photos of men who were arrested behind the grassy knoll. So,
some of the highest ranking members of the killers’ operation were apparently there, on the front line, to make sure
that when things went wrong, as they inevitably do, these high-ranking officers could be there to fix whatever the problem
given that high- and low- ranking CIA officers were present, this photo of this thin man in a suit might, indeed, be Bush.
And now, look at this picture of the Dal-Tex building. The Dal-Tex building is across the street from the Book Depository,
and many leading researchers into the assassination, including Jim Garrison, say there was certainly a team of shooters
in this building:
And as you can see, some imaginative
individual has added some colour to indicate three men in this window. Very creative, very imaginative; and at least plausible.
Still, it takes way too much imagination and effort, to see Bush’s face. But now observe this link.
Actually, You don’t have to stop and read it, because I’ll quote the relevant part. It’s a statement
from Roger Craig, winner of the deputy of the year award for Dallas in 1960, and one of the most honest men working that
day in Dallas. He’s an amazing and heroic fellow, worthy of all the time you could take looking into his background
and character. And here, in the following passage, he is describing a conversation he had with Jim Garrison, and he says,
also asked me about the arrests made in Dealey Plaza that day. I told him I knew of twelve arrests, one in particular made
by R. E. Vaughn of the Dallas Police Department. The man Vaughn arrested was coming from the Dal-Tex Building across from
the Texas School Book Depository.
The only thing which Vaughn knew about him was that he was an independent oil operator from Houston, Texas.
The prisoner was taken from Vaughn by Dallas Police detectives and that was the last that he saw or heard of the suspect.”
Holy Moe Lee! Please
notice that, in speaking to Jim Garrison, Craig says “in particular”. Apparently he and Vaughn thought this was
the most significant arrest made that day; pretty amazing given that E.Howard Hunt was arrested in the rail yard behind
the grassy knoll. And the only thing Craig knew about this “particular” arrestee was that he had exactly the
same singular CIA-cover, “an independent oil operator from Houston, Texas”, that George
Bush had used that same day in his contact with the FBI.
Now. There are a very limited number of possible explanations for who this “independent
oil operator” was. Let’s look at them.
It is conceivable that the CIA had two men in Dallas area that day, supervising the
shooters, who both had the designated cover of being an “independent oil operator from Houston.” Bush
was one, as the evidence above clearly shows; and perhaps there was another who was with the shooters in the Dal-Tex building,
supervising them directly.
But unless the CIA overlords were trying to set Bush up, they would not have told anyone else to use Bush’s
CIA cover to identify themselves to the police. If another man was involved in the crime, and was arrested for it, and he
told the cops he was an “independent oil operator from Houston,” this would tend to throw suspicion in Bush’s
“The Khazarian Mafia’s intense hatred of anyone who professed faith in any God but their god
Baal has motivated them to murder kings and royalty, and make sure they can never rule. They have done the same with American
presidents – running sophisticated covert operations to disempower them.
If that doesn’t work the KM assassinates
them, like they did to McKinley, Lincoln and JFK. The KM wants to eliminate any strong rulers or elected officials who dare
to resist their Babylonian money-magick power or their covert power gained from their deployment of their human compromise
From: The Hidden History Of The Incredibly Evil Khazarian Mafia [Illuminati Cabal Zionists…]
association with the CIA’s Cubans was already widely known. Fletcher Prouty knew and wrote of it. Fabian Escalante,
the head of Cuban counter intelligence, knew and has written about it. James Files, who claims very credibly, to have been
a driver for the Mafia shooters in Dallas, has spoken on-camera about it.
And FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, knew about it and wrote about it
in his memo. So Bush was already a suspect in Hoover’s eyes. The CIA planners, then, would not have told anyone else,
“in case you get arrested, tell the cops you’re an independent oil man from Houston”. Right? They would
not have done this, since it would tend to incriminate Bush, who was already in a highly visible, highly suspicious position.
possibility is that this “independent oil operator from Houston” was just some innocent oil operator, who somehow
managed to attract suspicion, and was arrested. Do you think it’s possible that another oil man from Houston just
happened to be in that corner of Dealey Plaza?
Dealey Plaza today
I hope you think
it’s possible. Because, as unlikely as it seems, if you think it was possible, then certainly Bush would have been
reasonable in thinking that, as he was being arrested, there were other independent oil operators in the crowd who witnessed
You see, Bush spoke to a group of oil men in Dallas the night before the assassination. If it were possible that
some of them were in Dealey Plaza, he would need to be terrified of the possibility that some of them might actually have
seen the arrest, and would have been able to identify him as the object of that arrest.
No wonder, then, that Bush freaked out, and made
this stupid incriminating phone call to the FBI. Even if it showed that he was not in Houston, or in the Caribbean, but
in Dallas, at least it suggested that he was not in police custody for the murder of the President, in Dealey Plaza.
But now stop and
think a minute: Why was he arrested? What was he doing that drew this cop’s attention at all? What could he possibly
have been doing to make this cop think that he needed to arrest Bush?
Perhaps walking out of a building without attracting attention is
harder than it sounds; and it reasonable to suppose that the crowd outside the Dal-Tex building had heard the shots, had
heard that the President had been wounded, and they were carefully scrutinizing anyone who came out of the building.
But this story
shows clearly that Bush was not the sort of cold-blooded killer who could take part in the murder of a man, and then act
and look like nothing was going on as he tried to leave the scene of the crime. And it turns out that as an old man, Bush
continues to suffer from this character trait, of being unable to hide feelings that need to be kept secret.
As you can see
below, at Gerry Ford’s funeral, Bush suddenly breaks into a wide grin while speaking of the Kennedy assassination.
This is not a Mona Lisa smile. This is face-wrenching spasm of glee.
In a minute we’ll take up the question of why Bush would grin
at his recollection of watching John Kennedy’s brains splatter; the point for us now is that he apparently had a similarly
inappropriate, show-stopping expression on his face as he attempted to exit the Dal-Tex building; he had the look of a murderer
in his eye, so clearly that it could not be missed; as this funereal-grin could not be missed.
And the guilt plastered all over Bush’s
face drew people’s attention. And this cop, Vaughn, arrested him.
Now remember, Roger Craig tells this story in the context of his discussions
with New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison about the suspects who were arrested that day and who then evaporated
without leaving a mug shot, interview, fingerprint, or name. Garrison spoke not only to Roger Craig, but he no-doubt
spoke to Vaughn, who made the arrest. And Garrison adds the following:
“At least one man arrested immediately after the shooting
had come running out of the Dal-Tex Building and offered no explanation for his presence there. Local authorities hardly
could avoid arresting him because of the clamor of the onlookers.
He was taken to the Sheriff’s office, where he was held for
questioning. However, the Sheriff’s office made no record of the questions asked this suspect, if any were asked;
nor did it have a record of his name. Later two uniformed police officers escorted him out of the building to the jeers
of the waiting crowd.
They put him in a police car, and he was driven away. Apparently this was his farewell to Dallas, for he simply
– On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 238
This vision of the panicked Bush being arrested, no-doubt terrified as he was
taken to the police station, and possibly even booked (though the record of any such booking has been destroyed) provides
a context that explains a number of Bush’s otherwise-mysterious actions. Certainly Bush was freaked out and panic-stricken!
An angry crowd clamored for his arrest, and jeered his release.
Being a newbie in these dark affairs, Bush didn’t have confidence
in the ability of the old devils at CIA to make water run uphill, to make time run backwards, to silence the witnesses,
to destroy the records, and make it all go away. And so he panicked; he acted on his own, stupidly; he called the FBI, thinking
that he was “cleverly” providing evidence that it wasn’t him who was arrested in front of the Dal-Tex
building that day.
In his panic-stricken state, this seemed like a good idea. He was unable to see that he was actually creating
a permanent and absolutely positive record of his involvement.
We can now also explain the grin. He grins ridiculously at Gerry
Ford’s funeral, at the mention of John Kennedy’s murder, not because he is such a ghoul that he thinks splattering
the contents of Kenney’s head all over Jackie Kennedy was funny; but because mentioning the assassination causes him
to recall the comedy of errors that produced his own ridiculous panic, arrest, more panic, and so on.
Garrison wrote his paragraph about Bush’s
arrest in 1988. Deputy Craig’s article was written in 1971 and posted in 1992. But the significance of these paragraphs
was discovered last week. There hardly was an internet in 1992 when Craig’s article was posted. And for 19 years,
no one noticed that this phrase, “independent oil man from Houston”, is a very unique description
one noticed until last month, when one of the moderators of JFKMurderSolved showed it to me. And I wrote about it to some friends, and one of them suggested I read what Jim Garrison had to
the pieces continue to fall into place. Little by little, the picture is filled in, the questions get answered. And the conclusions
become more incontrovertible. This is just the sort thing that happened with the theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory;
and the theory of continental drift [all three of which are actually bunkum].
And someday they may start to teach history,
as a science, based on evidence, in the universities. Really! It could happen!
At which point, Bush’s involvement in JFK’s
murder will be taught, like evolution, as the only plausible explanation of the available reliable evidence.
Final note: Until recently, Bush
had nothing more to say about his whereabouts the day of the assassination than that he doesn’t remember where he
was. That in itself is extraordinarily incriminating.
Everyone who was alive at the time remembers where they were on 9-11,
and on the day Kennedy was murdered. But, saying that he doesn’t remember, however improbable, is at least consistent
with Bush’s autobiography, which mentions nothing.
Lately, however, perhaps at least partly in response to my work, Bush
and Co. have concocted a story that he was speaking in Tyler, Texas to the Rotary Club. The vice-president of the Rotary
Club, Aubrey Irby, says that Bush was speaking when the bellhop came over and told him, that Kennedy was dead [Kitty Kelley,
The Family: the Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, p.213; cited by Russ Baker in Family of Secrets, p.54].
Mr. Irby passed the information
on to Mr. Wendell Cherry, who passed it on to Bush; who stopped his speech. Irby says that Bush explained that he thought
a political speech, under the circumstances, was inappropriate; and then he sat down. As a would-be alibi proving Bush’s
innocence, there are at least three huge problems with this story.
The first is that it is inconceivable that Bush would not have remembered
such an event; or that he would have left it out of his autobiography, since it shows what a fine and respectful fellow he
is. If he didn’t remember it sooner, or include it in his autobiography, it’s clearly because it never happened.
The second huge problem with
this story is that it couldn’t possibly have happened; that is, it is made impossible by Bush’s original alibi,
his phone call to the FBI, as you’ll see:
The witness who tells this story, Aubrey Irby, says that Bush excused
himself and sat down. It doesn’t say that he rushed out of the room in a frantic search for a phone.
The problem is
that Walter Cronkite’s announcement to the world that Kennedy was dead came at 1:38 PM.
Certainly, no one was listening to Walter Cronkite
in the same room in which Bush was speaking. Therefore we can be sure that this bellhop, who told Irby that Kennedy was
dead, was in another room. The bellhop had to make the decision that he had heard enough of the news to leave off listening
to the news.
This is no small point. Texas governor Connally was severely wounded. Lyndon Johnson was reportedly wounded. There
was much other news to be confirmed. At some point, then, the bellhop decided to stop listening and go make an announcement.
There’s no reason to think Irby would be the first person he would tell.
But at some point he went to the room where Bush
was speaking and informed Mr. Irby that the president was dead. This walk to find Irby took time, of course. Mr. Irby had
to receive the information, and then he had to decide to inform Mr. Wendell Cherry, the president of the Kiwanis.
Mr. Cherry had
to decide that he should interrupt Bush’s speech; Mr. Cherry had to then walk over to Bush and tell him the news.
Bush had to decide
what to say; and he had to say it. And, according to the only witness, Mr. Irby, Bush “then sat down”. Somehow,
when he was finished sitting, without attracting Mr. Irby’s attention, Bush had to seek and find a phone. This would
have been a hotel phone, so he would likely have had to go through the hotel switchboard to get an outside line.
suppose the switchboard was busy after the announcement of the President’s death? It’s a good guess.
In Washington D.C. so many people rushed to make a phone call that the phone system went down. In any case, once he got
through to the hotel operator and got an outside line, Bush then had to call information and get the number of the FBI.
After getting through
to information, and getting the number, he then had to call the FBI; and penetrate their switchboard, which was, no doubt,
very busy; and he had to locate an agent, on what must have been the busiest day in the history of the Dallas bureau.
How many minutes
do you suppose that would take? Twenty seems a fair guess, though it seems implausible that a civilian could even get through,
given all the official police business going on at the time.
We know that the Dallas FBI was all over the murder scene, confiscating
camera film and intimidating witnesses; so it’s hard to imagine how Bush, an hour after the shooting, was able to reach
an agent at all. Given the “sitting” that Mr. Irby observed Bush doing, for all this to have transpired in 45
minutes would be tidy work.
But Bush had to do all of this, as the FBI memo states, by 1:45, seven minutes after the news of Kennedy’s
death first went out; which is blatantly impossible.
The third problem is this question of why Bush would feel that it
was necessary to concoct such a story at all? Why does he have to tell us this lie? Why does he have to get others, like
Irby, to lie for him? The irony is that the harder he tries to make himself appear innocent, by lying, the more evidence
he gives us of his guilt.
There are some people who manage
to point to this and say “ahah! That’s why Bush was in Dallas! Not to kill the President, but to speak to the
other oilmen!” But as the Hoover memo shows, being an oilman was just a cover for Bush’s real occupation as a
CIA supervisor of trained killers. He needed an excuse for being in Dallas. This speaking engagement provided him
From the Director of Dark Legacy: John Hankey
George Bush killed Kennedy. Or was it the Mafia? Maybe Castro did
it. Who cares? It was 40 years ago. What difference does it make?
The day he died we lost an invaluable treasure. This video documents
that we lost a man of peace, who tried to cool off the cold war, and to get the American people to see their Russian enemies,
not as despicable inhuman monsters, but as people like us.
On November 22, 1963, you lost the man who saved your life on October
17, 1962. At the height of the missile crisis, Kennedy’s generals and advisors were urging him to launch a first strike
attack against Cuba.
They assured Kennedy that the
Russian missiles in Cuba were not nuclear and were not ready; but that he and they should quietly slip away to the safety
of bomb shelters anyway, just to be safe; and then launch an attack, leaving the rest of us out to die. Kennedy thought
about it. And then he told them that nobody was going anywhere.
If anyone died, they would be the first to go, sitting as they were
in the Whitehouse, the prime target of those Russian missiles. Together they then figured out a safer plan. Robert McNamara,
Secretary of Defense at the time, recently learned from the Russians that the missiles were armed, were ready, were nuclear,
and that their commanders were authorized to use them in case of an attack.
If you live in the northern hemisphere, the lives of your parents,
and your future, were certainly saved by John Kennedy on that day. It matters that his killers be exposed.
In his farewell
address, President Eisenhower had warned Kennedy, and the rest of us, of the threat posed to democracy by what Eisenhower
called “the military industrial complex.”
And while Kennedy famously went after the CIA, and refused to commit troops
to Vietnam, I always wondered why he didn’t more openly attack this military industrial complex. And then I stumbled
upon a speech he gave at the United Nations.
As you will see in the video, he called upon the Russians, and United Nations, to help him
to take on this military industrial complex, in order to “abolish all armies and all weapons.” But he was swept
in the years since, millions have died in needless wars, trillions of dollars have been wasted on “defense”,
and millions more people have lived and died needlessly in poverty. It matters that we lost him.
In 2007, Bruce Willis told Vanity
still haven’t caught the guy that killed Kennedy. I’ll get killed for saying this, but I’m pretty sure
those guys are still in power, in some form. The entire government of the United States was co-opted.”
Now Willis probably
would not mind my suggesting that he’s no genius. At best, his observation is common sense. 80% of the American people
agree with him. Indeed, this video, proving that Kennedy was brought down by the most powerful men in the world and their
hired thugs, is not based on secret documents.
It is all information that has merely been suppressed. Oswald allegedly shot
Kennedy from behind. But the day he died, the NY Times carried the story, told by the doctors in Dallas, that Kennedy had
an entrance wound in his throat, another in his right temple, and a large gaping exit wound in the back of his head.
After talking to
the emergency room doctors, Kennedy’s press secretary described, to the assembled press, a shot to the right temple
from the right front that went “right through the head.”
All of the witnesses near the right front, the grassy knoll, described
hearing shots from that direction, and dozens of witnesses raced up the knoll in pursuit of the shooters. These witnesses
talked to the press. But all of this information has been suppressed for the last 50 years. By whom? Who could?
You will also see
in this video the overwhelming best evidence, from the best witnesses, proving beyond a reasonable dispute, that Kennedy’s
body was stolen from Air Force One, and the wound to his right temple was mutilated, before the autopsy.
Jackie Kennedy kept watch over an empty casket
on the flight from Dallas to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Then the body was quietly taken to Bethesda for the autopsy, arriving
20 minutes before Jackie and the empty casket. Who had the power to arrange this?
Who HAS the power today to suppress
all this evidence?, and to continue to bombard us with ridiculous lies about a lone gunman? It’s a short list, isn’t
it? It doesn’t include the mafia, or the Russians, or Castro. It does include the Bush family – or rather their
masters in Big Oil; the banking elite; the backbone of the military industrial complex. These men, and their successors,
carried out the attacks of 9-11. It matters.
And from 10 “Conspiracy Theories” That Came True:
8: Operation Northwoods
In the covert war against the communist regime in Cuba under the CIA’s Operation Mongoose,
the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism in side the United States.
The plan included
shooting down hijacked American airplanes, the sinking of U.S. ships, and the shooting of Americans on the streets of Washington,
D.C. The outrageous plan even included a staged NASA disaster that would claim the life of astronaut John Glenn.
Reeling under the embarrassing
failure of the CIA’s botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, president Kennedy rejected the plan in March of 1962. A
few months later, Kennedy denied the plan’s author, General Lyman Lemnitzer, a second term as the nation’s highest
ranking military officer.
In November of 1963, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas.
About the Film: Dark Legacy
exclusively on government documents, statements from the best witnesses available, and the words from the mouths of the killers
themselves, Dark Legacy produces a thoroughly substantiated criminal indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush, establishing
beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt as a CIA supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. If we could present
this evidence to a jury in Texas, he would pay with his life.
Part one presents the overwhelming mountain of evidence that President Kennedy was hit by bullets from the front
and rear. Every witness in the Dallas emergency room attests, on camera, to the fact that a bullet from the right front
blew a fist-sized hole in the back of the President’s head. The New York Times carried these statements on the day
of the murder; and has covered them up ever since.
presents the on-camera testimony of the witnesses who actually handled the President’s body, the FBI report, and the
photographic evidence all proving unequivocally that the President’s body was stolen from the Secret Service and the
wounds altered, before the body was delivered to Bethesda Naval hospital for the autopsy. Jackie Kennedy accompanied an
empty casket on the plane flight home. Who had the power to do all this without attracting public attention? It’s a
Part three presents the Nazi-connections of the
Bush family, which prompted the FBI to seize their assets during WW II, as Nazi assets. It presents the suppressed fact
that Watergate burglar and CIA operative E. Howard Hunt was found by a jury to have been in Dallas and involved in the conspiracy
to kill Kennedy.
Hunt was a supervisor of the misguided CIA-led anti-Castro Cubans who broke into the Watergate. He is not only connected
to Bush through Watergate; and through Bush’s father, Prescott; but five days after the assassination, the head of
the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, wrote a memo, titled “Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy” in which
he named “George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency” as the supervisor of what Hoover himself called the
“misguided anti-Castro Cuban” killers of the President. Bush has said he doesn’t remember the events of
that day, but FBI documents place him in Dallas.
It is difficult to assess the stature and significance of someone who has been
dead as long as John Kennedy. His killers have also been his detractors, actively desecrating his memory, as they did his
body. The movie begins with a short presentation of some of his most powerful and important speeches; including a stunning
speech to the UN in which Kennedy calls for the complete abolition of the military industrial complex. These same men the
military industrial complex, ripped him from us, and the darkest features of our history since that time are all directly
the result of his murder.
What will happen when the American people, and those of other Western nations, emerge from their cocoon of denial
and face the reality that their rulers are among the worst criminals in human history?
Will the people follow their leaders’ example
and lapse into lawless, psychopathic behavior? Will Western leaders “flee forward” by launching wars designed
to conceal the bloody tracks linking them to past misdeeds? Or will the pathocracy be overthrown and replaced by something
On such questions hinges the future of humanity. Given the high stakes, you would have to be crazy not to help spread
the truth, change the system, and save the planet.
DOJ Files Prove President Kennedy & Robert Kennedy fighting Zionists When Murdered
DOJ Files Prove President Kennedy & Robert Kennedy fighting Zionists When Murdered
– by Nicky Nelson
Shocking DOJ case files released under a Freedom of Information Act through the Israeli Archives prove that President
Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, were fighting the Zionists When President Kennedy was Murdered.
historical documents were released on June 10, 2008 under a Freedom of Information Act. I have in bold critical information
during President Kennedy’s fight to the death to get the Jewish Lobby registered as foreign agents, which would have
prevented Israel’s stranglehold on America. Click on the date to see the original documents.
Update: The Clickable
files have moved here: Israeli Lobby Archives
mind the date President Kennedy was murdered (November 22, 1963) while reading these documents regarding the Kennedys’
efforts to get the nefarious Jewish Lobby in America (AZC – American Zionist
Counsil aka AIPAC – The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee), registered as Foreign Agents as is required
– The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. Fd ARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons
acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of
their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities.
Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements
and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents. The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterespionage
Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Instead of the Kennedy brothers
accomplishing this critical goal, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) applied for a federal tax exemption
in 1967 and the “Federal” Reserve’s criminal collection agency, the IRS aka the US Treasury Department
grants it—backdated to 1953!!! Click here: 11/27/1967
Congressman Donald Rumsfeld sent a letter to Robert F. Kennedy on behalf of the Zionists and status of AZC FARA registration on 07/15/1963. It appears Rumsfeld has been working on behalf of Israel and the Zionists his entire career and we know what a big help
he was to Israel during 9/11 when 3,000 of our countrymen were burned alive in broad daylight.
These documents may be more relevant today than they were at the time of their creation. We must continue the fight
to make these nefarious organizations register as foreign agents as is required by law in order to break the stranglehold
Israel has on America and the world through U.S. Military force.
(10/17/1963 – J. Walter Yeagley notes of DOJ AZC meeting attended by Nicholas Katzenbach. “Judge Rifkind then
made a plea for no registration, stating it was the opinion of most of the persons affiliated with the Council that such
registration would be so publicized by the American Council on Judaism that it would eventually destroy the Zionist movement…he
did not believe his clients would file any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was an agent of a
foreign principal. I told him that any such information or material that is supplied on that basis would be made part
of the Department’s public files available for inspection by the public…”)
About one month after this last correspondence ^ Kennedy was murdered, November 22, 1963. Zionism
and the Jewish Lobby lived on… President Kennedy was now dead.
See Christopher Bollyn’s
“LBJ & the Zionist Cover-up of the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy” http://www.bollyn.com/lbj-the-zionist-cover-up-of-the-conspiracy-to-kill-kennedy-2/#sthash.oAEfaxVR.dpuf
The article continues below…
DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent
“Attached hereto is the entire file relating
to the American Zionist Council and our efforts to obtain its registration under the terms of the Foreign Agents
In the early 1960’s Israel funneled
$5 million (more than $35 million in today’s dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying operations. The funds
were channeled via the quasi governmental Jewish Agency‘s New York office into an Israel lobby umbrella
group, the American Zionist Council. Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigations and hearings documented
funding flows, propaganda, and public relations efforts and put them into the record. But the true fate of the American Zionist Council was never known, except that its major functions
were visibly shut down and shifted over to a former AZC unit known as the “Kenen Committee,”
called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC) in the late 1960’s.
The following chronology provides links to images of original Department of Justice case files released
on June 10, 2008 under a Freedom of Information Act filing.
John F. Kennedy President, Robert F. Kennedy
* AZC (American
* AIPAC (The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee)
| 08/27/1962 ||
AZC internal memo – Lenore
Karp to Rabbi Jerome Unger about AZC Department of Public Information literature distribution.
| Undated || |
1962-1963 AZC Public Relations Plan
| 10/31/1962 || |
Assistant Attorney General
and Director of the Internal Security Division J. Walter Yeagley notifies Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy “…we are soliciting next week the registration of the
American Zionist Council under the Foreign Agents Registration Act...You may be aware that the American Zionist Council
is composed of representatives of the various Zionist organizations in the United States including the Zionist Organization
| 11/06/1962 || |
Nathan B. Lenvin, head of the
FARA section, memo to central files, about a meeting with Jewish
Agency representative Maurice M. Boukstein who asks about FARA applicability to AZC.
“…in his view it was doubtful that any great protest would be made since in the discussions he has had with
various officials connected both with the Zionist Council and the Jewish Agency he had made it clear in his view an agency
relationship would result which may require registration.'”
| 11/14/1962 ||
Edwin Guthman letter to Attorney
General Robert F. Kennedy and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach about future AZC FARA registration
order. “I doubt very much there will be any fuss. I don’t think the American Zionist Council is in
any position to do so…the Council has compromised its position.” OK’d by Robert F. Kennedy.
| 11/21/1962 ||
DOJ orders AZC
to register under FARA “…receipt of such funds from the American Section of the Jewish Agency for Israel
constitutes the Council an agent of a foreign principal…the Council’s registration is requested.”
| 12/06/1962 || |
AZC President Rabbi Irving Miller
response to DOJ “The request for registration contained in your letter raises many questions of fact and of
relationships which first must be resolved by us before compliance can be made. Therefore, it is requested that you
be good enough to grant us a delay of 120 days…”
| 01/02/1963 |
Isaiah L. Kenen incorporates the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, DC
| 01/24/1963 || |
file memo about 01/23/1963 DOJ meeting with AZC head legal counsel Simon H. Rifkind “…he
had advised his client to discontinue completely the agency relationship and cut off the receipt of any additional funds…Mr.
Lenvin pointed out specifically that the termination of the ‘activities’ on the part of AZC did not absolve it
of its obligation to register…”
| 01/25/1963 ||
Article in the National
Jewish Post, filed in FARA Section – “AZC Gives Up $ to Avoid Foreign Agent Registration”
| 02/01/1963 || |
DOJ Executive Assistant
Thomas Hall memo to Nathan Lenvin updating meeting notes “Mr. Hall emphasized that a contrary conclusion would not
of course be reached during the course of this meeting and suggested that the subject submit a detailed argument as to why
it was of the opinion it should not be required to register….”
| 02/08/1963 || |
DOJ AZC January 23,
1963 meeting notes by Nathan Lenvin filed “discontinuance of receipt of such funds thus terminating the agency relationship
did not absolve the Council of its obligation to register.”
| 02/19/1963 || |
American Council for
Judaism (AJC) newsletter. “The American Zionist Council (coordinating political action arm of all U.S. Zionist
organizations) was asked last month by the Justice Department to register as a ‘foreign agent’ of the State
| 03/07/1963 ||
New York Times reporter
Tony Lewis calls FARA section to verify AZC foreign agent order state AJC press release.
| 3/23/1963 || |
AZC Counsel “Memorandum
of Law in support of our position that the American Zionist Council is not required to register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act of 1938.”
| 04/01/1963 ||
Nathan Lenvin file
memo of DOJ AZC meeting on April 1, 1963- AZC Memorandum of Law rejected. “…if necessary I would
be willing to recommend, if the representatives of the Council insisted upon these points, that the matter be litigated.”
| 04/05/1963 ||
Thomas Hall memo with
J. Walter Yeagley notes “Okay, but let’s get it concluded. Have we sent them J.A. reg[istration] statement?”
| 05/02/1963 ||
Lenvin file memo of DOJ AZC meeting on May 2, 1963 “Finally, Judge Rifkind raised the point…that the vast
number of Jews who adhered to the principles of Zionism could not understand how ‘our administration’ could
do such harm to the Zionist movement and impair the effectiveness of the Council by insistence on registration. He
appealed to the discretionary power of the Department…Mr. Katzenbach then noted that if the Council made a full disclosure
of the receipt and expenditure of the funds it had received from the Jewish Agency so that such information would then be
available for public inspection the purposes and objectives of the Registration Act might well be accomplished and very
likely there would be nothing further for the Government to do…”
First Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings on Israeli Foreign Agents (Senate Records)
| 06/28/1963 ||
Journal article “Federal lawyers near decision on whether to require the American Zionist Council to register as an
agent of the Israeli government. High Justice Department officials weigh the risk of offending Jewish opinion in the
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Fulbright also eyes the council’s activities.”
| 06/28/1963-07/26/1963 ||
and letters urging FARA decision based on legal merits rather than political considerations.
| 07/02/1963 || |
Bowman FARA section file memo on a June 28, 1963 DOJ AZC meeting, “Mr. Adrian W. DeWind and a Mr. Kahn (ph) of the
law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison …for the purpose of submitting for the Department’s examination
a stack of publications and several books prepared by the American Zionist Council….Prior to Mr. DeWind’s
departure he said he was disturbed by what he described as the speed with which the American Council on Judaism learned
that the Department had solicited the registration of the American Zionist Council. He wondered whether there was
a leak in the Department.”
| 07/15/1963 ||
Donald Rumsfeld letter to Robert F. Kennedy about status of AZC FARA registration.
| 07/19/1963 || |
Thomas K. Hall Memo
to Deputy AG Katzenbach and J. Walter Yeagley on Wall Street Journal Article. Yeagley notes “I called Judge Rifkind
Thursday July 18. He said he thought the material had been submitted and was ’embarrassed.’ Fri[day]
someone else from the firm called asking for still another 2 or 3 weeks as their controller or someone is in Europe.”
| 07/19/1963 ||
Yeagley responds to Rumsfeld “ultimate determination will be based on the law as applied to the facts…not on
any consideration of its effect on the public opinion of the Jewish community…”
| 07/26/1963 ||
American Council for
Judaism Letter to RFK about AZC FARA registration “I am enclosing latest issue of our newsletter, Brief, featuring
our comments on the Department of Justice investigation of the American Zionist Council…”
| 07/26/1963 || |
Theresa Green FARA memo
about AZC phone call request for two week filing deadline extension.
| 7/30/1963 || |
Routing memo from Deputy AG
Nicholas Katzenbach to J. Walter Yeagley “I guess this is the correct response. Rifkind should be needled, but
much depends on Fulbright, too.”
|8/1/1963 || |
Second Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings on Israeli Foreign Agents (Senate Records)
FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover offers J. Walter Yeagley FBI assistance to investigate the AZC “In
view of recent public hearings…it is requested that you advise whether any investigation is desired….”
| 8/14/1963 || |
J. Walter Yeagley response
to 7/30/1963 Katzenbach routing memo (copy from above) “Mr. Hall – is it time to write Rifkind—or send
memo to A.G. or send in FBI?”
| 08/15/1963 || |
K. Hall internal FARA memo about AZC legal counsel “stalling hoping that time will resolve the difficulties
faced by the AZC…We should go on record with the AG (copy to deputy) outlining the posture of this matter and
indicate the need for more drastic action…“
| 8/16/1963 || |
Irene Bowman, FARA section
analysis on alleged AZC FARA violations derived from Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings. “…the Department should insist on the immediate registration of the American Zionist Council
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and if such registration is not forthcoming, appropriate action should be taken
to enforce such a request.”
| 08/17/1963 || |
AZC Executive Director
Rabbi Jerome Unger letter and filing to FARA Section “Enclosed wherewith are the two reports of Income and Expenditures
of the American Zionist Council…”
| 08/20/1963 ||
query asking if Irene Bowman would accept as FARA registration, Bowman: “Absolutely not!”
| 08/22/1963 || |
J. Walter Yeagley memo to
Nicholas Katzenbach: “There is also attached a proposed letter from me to Judge Rifkind requesting a registration
to be filed within ten days.”
| 08/23/1963 || |
J. Walter Yeagley
to FBI Director “..registration was originally solicited by letter dated November 21, 1962…Pending a determination
as to whether further letter should be written insisting on registration no investigation will be required. You will
be kept advised of developments in this matter.”
| 10/11/1963 ||
DOJ Demand for AZC
Registration “the Department expects a response from you within 72 hours with regard to this matter.”
| 10/17/1963 || |
J. Walter Yeagley
notes of DOJ AZC meeting attended by Nicholas Katzenbach. “Judge Rifkind then made a plea for no registration,
stating it was the opinion of most of the persons affiliated with the Council that such registration would be so
publicized by the American Council on Judaism that it would eventually destroy the Zionist movement…he did not believe
his clients would file any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was an agent of a foreign principal.
I told him that any such information or material that is supplied on that basis would be made part of the Department’s
public files available for inspection by the public…”
President Kennedy was
murdered one month after this last entry on November 22, 1963, during he and his brother’s struggle to get the Jewish
Lobby to register as foreign agents as is required by law.
It’s hard to imagine that the President of the United States and the Attorney
General were unable to accomplish this critical goal given their authority and positions of power.
addition, President Kennedy had recently signed Executive Order 11110 to stop the Jewish Banker’s “Federal”
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 superseded by any subsequent Executive
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 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…(Excerpts from John P. Curran’s JFK vs The Federal Reserve)
“Final Judgment” by Michael Collins Piper is a MUST READ
recommended by Jim Condit Jr. You can read this fascinating well-documented book for free by clicking on the photo
below, or you can purchase your own copy.
PDF provided by American Free Press
Another book recommended by Jim Condit Jr. is
“There’s a Fish in the Courtroom” by . Copies of this controversial book run between $107 -$632 on Amazon. Click the photo for more information:
Kennedy was also going to put an end to the traitorous CIA and
stated he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” (3)
(In late April 1961, over fourteen hundred members of the Cuban Expeditionary Forces landed at the Bay of Pigs,
in Cuba. Their mission was to overthrow the communist regime of Cuban President Fidel Castro. The mission was a striking
failure. Almost immediately it became known that the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) trained the “freedom
fighters:” Cubans trained to overthrow the Castro regime. American President John F. Kennedy had approved the mission.
President Kennedy soon after the failure spoke at a meeting of the American Association of Newspaper Editors and assumed
all blame for the failed invasion. His staff then began leaking information to reporters, blaming the failure on anyone
except the administration. (1)President Kennedy was quoted as saying, “How could I have been so stupid?” to trust the groups who were
advising him, such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). (2) Even more damning to the CIA was a reputed quote by President Kennedy that he wanted to “splinter the
CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.”
(3) ) Source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfk_cia.htm
Kennedy also forbid Israel from having nuclear weapons
“Kennedy had tirelessly pressured Ben-Gurion to allow the visit since taking office, insisting that meeting the request
– made initially by the Eisenhower administration after the discovery of Dimona – was a condition for normalizing
U.S.-Israeli relations. In a sense, Kennedy turned the question into a de facto ultimatum to Israel. For weeks Ben-Gurion
dragged his feet, possibly even manufacturing or at least magnifying a domestic political dispute (what was known in Israel
as the Lavon Affair) into a government resignation, primarily as a ploy to stall or delay that Dimona visit.”
Source: National Security Archive – The George Washington University
Eugene Debs Rostow, the grandson of Jewish immigrants, was born in New York on
25th August, 1913. His parents were active socialists and their three sons, Eugene,
Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Rostow, were named after Ralph Waldo Emerson,
Walt Whitman and Eugene V. Debs.
After graduating from Yale University in 1933 Rostow studied economics at King's College,
Cambridge. On his return to the United States he became editor of the Yale Law Journal before
working as a lawyer in New York.
During the Second World War Rostow worked for the Lend Lease administration.
After the war he helped develop the Marshall Plan. Later he became dean of the
Yale Law School (1955-66).
According to Donald Gibson, the author of
The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up, Rostow played an important role in the creation
Warren Commission. He argues that "this Commission would have been more
named the Rostow Copmmission or the McCloy-Dulles Commission."
In 1966 President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Rostow as his under-secretary of state.
Like his brother, Walt Rostow, who served as national security adviser, Rostow was a
strong supporter of Johnson's
policy in Vietnam. He lost office
under President Richard Nixon and returned to Yale Law School.
views moved sharply to the right during this period and he attacked attempts
President Nixon to negotiate with the Soviet Union. He returned to public office when
President Ronald Reagan made him head of the Arms Control Agency (1991-93).
Books by Rostow include Planning for Freedom (1955),Law, Power and the Pursuit of Peace(1969),
Middle East: Critical Choices for the USA (1977),
Toward Managed Peace: The National Security Interests of the United States (1903).
Eugene Debs Rostow
died of heart failure on 25th November, 2002.
Lyndon B. Johnson President, Robert F. Kennedy Attorney General
| 12/11/1963 || |
AZC Counsel to DOJ
“…our client is not prepared to register as an agent of a foreign government. It has, however, no reluctance
to make this information available voluntarily…”
| 01/02/1964 || |
Deputy AG Katzenbach asks
DOJ FARA section to prepare a “reply for his signature in a friendly rather than a hostile tone…to the effect
that the material he submitted is not satisfactory…”
| 01/10/1964 ||
Deputy AG Katzenbach letter
to AZC counsel “The material you submitted is much less useful than what I had expected you were going to submit and
of course there is no disclosure unless the data is available for public inspection.”
| 01/16/1964 ||
AZC counsel Rifkind
to Katzenbach “I shall try to accommodate my trip to Washington to some occasion when I am there on other business..”
| 02/03/1964 || |
Nathan Lenvin meetings
with AZC counsel Rifkind “Judge Rifkind opened the meeting by showing me a pamphlet distributed by the American Council
for Judaism which contained charges that Zionists were acting as propaganda agents for the State of Israel…he was
concerned that any disclosure which were being made should not be such as to substantiate these charges made by the American
Council [for Judaism]… Mr. Rothenberg made one caviat, that they would have to be sure anything they submitted would
not ultimately prejudice the organization in the eyes of the public.”
| 02/10/1964 || |
Ed Guthman Letter to
J. Walter Yeagley “I don’t see how we can accept a caveat that an organization won’t submit information
that might prejudice it publicly.”
| 02/10/1964 ||
J. Walter Yeagley letter
to AZC counsel Rothenberg “the Department is not concerned with the Council’s expenditures in connection with
exempt activities such as Hebrew education and culture but requests that the Council submit a statement detailing its other
expenditures and particularly those under the category of the Department of Information and Public Relations…”
| 02/12/1964 || |
AZC counsel Rothenberg
acknowledgement “I acknowledge receipt of your letter…”
| 03/16/1964 ||
AZC counsel Rothenberg
letter to Lenvin – “You are familiar, I know, with the agreement reached between Judge Rifkind and Mr. Katzenbach,
in the presence of Mr. Yeagley, with regard to additional information to be furnished your Section. Such agreement
was reached, as I understand it, in the realization by Mr. Katzenbach that with the present size of the staff of the Council
it would be indeed burdensome to furnish your department with itemization of expenses of the past two years. A sample
itemization was therefore forwarded to you for a period of approximately three months.”
| 03/16/1964 ||
James Weldon FARA letter
to Rothenberg “it is requested you advise of your progress in this matter”.
| 04/28/1964 ||
AZC counsel Rothenberg
letter to Weldon “Reference is made to my letter of March 16 addressed to Mr. Nathan B. Lenvin.”
| 04/30/1964 || |
Assistant AG Yeagley note to Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach “This is the most blatant stall we have
encountered. Do you mind suggesting what we do next because all of us here would call their records before a grand
| 05/4/1964 ||
Assistant AG Yeagley note to Katzenbach forwarding 3/16/1964 Rothenberg inquiry “Here is tickler from
Rothenberg about his March 16 letter on the American Zionist Council. Do you want me to do something on this?”
Lyndon B. Johnson
President, Nicholas Katzenbach acting Attorney General
| 10/07/1964 || |
Acting AG Katzenbach letter
to AZC counsel Rothenberg “While we have endeavored to make our requests as reasonable as possible, we cannot accept
your suggestion since the information offered is not in compliance with the Act or what we thought our understanding was
with Judge Rifkind.”
| 10/20/1964 ||
Irene Bowman FARA section
review of AZC filing for 1962 and 1962 – “sample itemization deemed deficient.”
| 10/30/1964 || |
Nathan Lenvin notes
October 22, 1964 DOJ-AZC meeting – “Mr. Katzenbach had to excuse himself shortly after the meeting commenced
because of urgent business elsewhere, but before he left he made clear to Mr. Rothenberg that, in response to the latter’s
assertion that to submit all of the financial information we had previously requested for a two- to two-and-a-half year
period would be a great burden on the subject, we would accept a statement as to a typical three month expenditure projected
for the entire period concerned.” Assistant AG Yeagley notes “They are to include the names for confid[ential] info of the Dept.—not
for public file.”
| 11/04/1964 || |
AZC counsel Rothenberg
letter “Pursuant to understanding reached at our meeting…I write to give you an outline of the information to
| 11/09/1964 || |
Nathan Lenvin FARA section
cover memo to Bowman “looks okay to me, please prepare a reply”
| 11/18/1964 || |
J. Walter Yeagley
letter to AZC counsel Rothenberg “Your proposed outline of the information to be contained in the report appears to
be in accordance with our understanding.”
| 11/23/1964 || |
AZC counsel Rothenberg
letter to Nathan Lenvin, FARA section – “In accordance with our understanding I have asked the American Zionist
Council to proceed with the preparation of the report.”
| 01/19/1965 ||
Irene Bowman FARA section
memo to Nathan Lenvin – “To date to my knowledge no such report has been submitted.”
Johnson President, Nicholas Katzenbach Attorney General
| 02/25/1965 ||
Nathan Lenvin FARA
memo to files – “The delay, according to Mr. Rothenberg, was caused by the inability of the subject to collect
all of the information we wanted in the detail it was indicated…”
| 03/02/1965 || |
A. Steinberg, Executive Director AZC cover letter and filing to FARA section “There
is also enclosed herewith, in duplicate, a listing of persons who have received funds as shown in the record of disbursements.
Mr. Rothenberg has requested of you that this listing be kept separate and apart from the record of disbursements in any
public files in your Section.”
| 03/02/1965 || |
AZC FARA section filing
for April 1, 1962 to June 30, 1962 (public)
| 03/02/1965 || |
AZC FARA section filing
for April 1, 1962 to June 30, 1962 (non-public)
| 03/23/1965 ||
Irene Bowman, FARA
memo that AZC filing is in “substantial compliance” Irene Bowman handwritten note “I agree with the
conclusion that the material be accepted and put into form for public examination.”
| 03/24/1965 ||
Irene Bowman, FARA
retraction and list of AZC filing inadequacies “While it appears possible to make up a registration statement from
documents furnished by a prospective registrant, these documents should furnish all of the information required by the Act
to be stated in a registration statement. The above material, none of which is executed under oath, fails to provide
the following information which is material for the purpose of the Act…:”
| 03/31/1965 ||
Nathan Lenvin file
transfer to J. Walter Yeagley – “Attached hereto is the entire file relating to the American Zionist Council
and our efforts to obtain its registration under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act…In her memorandum
to Files, Mrs. Bowman points out certain lacunae, which fail to establish all of this material as meeting all of the requirements
for registration…we were well aware that no full and complete registration statement in the ordinary sense would
ever be received…only alternative to a refusal to accept what has been submitted as compliance with the Act would
be to institute prosecutive proceedings, which would be impractical…no useful purpose would be served by including
these names in the material which would be made available for public inspection.”
| 4/08/1965 || |
Nathan Lenvin instruction
memo to Ulda Eldred, FARA section “The material filed by the American Zionist Council (AZC) was filed in accordance
with an understanding between the Department and the AZC…If you should receive inquiries as to whether the AZC is
registered under the Act, you should respond in the negative. You should advise, however, that the AZC has filed information
with this Section which is available for public examination.
| 05/17/1965 ||
Nathan Lenvin / J.
Walter Yeagley notice to files – “…material of the AZC was placed in an expandable portfolio to distinguish
it in appearance from the registration statements which are filed in manila folders. In the event Mrs. Eldred receives
inquiries as to whether the AZC is registered under the Act, she has been instructed to respond in the negative.”
| 05/14/1965 || |
J. Walter Yeagley
Yeagley requests closure of AZC case at the FBI “the material does not comprise
a registration statement but does supply basic information regarding the activities of the AZC financed in part by the Jewish
| 05/20/1965 ||
Nathan Lenvin to J. Walter
Yeagley on special handling/case closure –
Yeagley handwritten note “OK.
This seems to be what attorney Gen[eral] Kennedy and the then Dep[uty] AG Katzenbach had in mind.”
| 06/22/1965 ||
05/17/1965 New York
Times article: AZC convenes a major meeting at Jewish Agency New York headquarters “revising its program
to strengthen every phase of Jewish religious and cultural life in this country….there should be no appeasement at
the expense of Israel.” FARA section file copy, reviewed by DOJ officials.
| 11/27/1967 |
The American Israel
Public Affairs Committee AIPAC applies for a federal tax exemption. The US Treasury Department grants it—backdated
Documentation Source: The Israel Lobby Archive – http://www.irmep.org/ila/azcdoj/
For constantly updated content, http://IsraelLobby.org
Congress is powerfully controlled by the organized Jewish Lobby through such organizations
as The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-defamation League (ADL), who happens to be funding
the training of our out-of-control Law Enforcement Officials in Israel. Click on photo to read more.
According to former Congressman
Jim Traficant, who ended up doing nearly 8-years in prison for going up against
the Jewish Lobby, both the Congress and the Senate; both houses are powerfully controlled
by AIPAC, in fact he said they were “owned” by them.
The Hon. Jim Traficant passed away after a freak accident on his
family farm in 2014 during the launch of Project Freedom USA which meant to do away with the “Federal” Reserve
and their criminal collection agency, the IRS. Jim Condit Jr. was running against Speaker of the House, John Boehner, at
the time and had been working and traveling with Traficant the last 6-months of his life helping him with this project.
We carry on with Target Freedom USA in his memory.
He was one of the last honest and freedom loving Americans to serve in Congress.
Jim was one of the few to speak out about Israel’s stranglehold on American politics. The world has lost a great and
courageous man. (2014) RIP – Jim Condit Jr.
stated by the late, former Congressman Jim Traficant, former Presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, former Senator Friz
Hollins, and former Congressman Paul Findley, Congress is powerfully controlled by the organized Jewish Lobby through such
organizations as AIPAC (The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee). Congressmen and women must be nominated and elected
who will throw off this foreign control of our nation.
Republican Paul Findley Dares to Speak
Out Again – AIPAC exposed!
Former Congressman paul Findley was a Congressman from Illinois who talks for 1 hours about
how AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) controls the US Congress, State Legislators, and City Councilman,
— in conjunction with their fellow operatives for the organized Jewish Lobby in the Big Media.” – Jim Condit
Plea to the Media and Chilling Warning to Americans from President John F. Kennedy before he died.
think the Zionists could take over the U.S. and keep it out of the Zionist controlled media? Listen to this alarming
John F. Kennedy Speech
The President and
the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1961, Waldorf-Astoria
Hotel, New York City
“…The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people
inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago
that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to
justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.
Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there
is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning
to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my
control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my
words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the
press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the
nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based
largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,”
the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national
Today no war has been declared–and however
fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those
who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has
been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline
of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a
finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its
presence has never been more imminent.
requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every
businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy
that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on
subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient
machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes
are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed,
no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish
Nevertheless, every democracy
recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to
be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted
of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage;
that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available
to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces
and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree
sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret
mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic,
responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items.
But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security.
And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan
should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the
responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this
problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are
times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh
his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in
the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting
any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have
posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry
in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and
to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest
is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in
America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors,
and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery,
I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma
faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action
that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in
– II –
It is the unprecedented nature of this
challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to
inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand
them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face…”
For the entire transcript from the Presidential Library:
what are the possible repercussions of the Kennedy’s not being able to get the Zionists and Jews to register as foreign
agents? How powerful have the Zionists become? What do the Zionist/Jews/Dual-US-Israeli Citizens own and control?
Nearly all major
media (96%) and global means of communicating. Banking and finance are controlled at every corner and the Rothschild Zionist’s Crowning Jewel? The Not-So-Federal “Federal”
Reserve that has been destroying America and the world around us since 1913 along with their Criminal Collection Agency
the IRS that same year, and the creation of the Anti-defamation League in 1913 to protect the Jewish bankers that had taken
IMPORTANT MEDIA CONTROL VIDEO:
Brother Nathanael presents his 4 Point
Plan to deal with AIPAC’s stranglehold.
– The Anti-Defamation League
The Rothschilds (German Jews) had more money than governments and didn’t
want it confiscated, they needed a safe haven to protect their wealth. The Rockefellers and Rothschild Zionists set up their
“Federal” Reserve in 1913 along with their criminal collection agency the IRS. The Balfour Declaration of 1917
showing the intent to make a “Jewish” state in Palestine, against the Torah.
Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader
of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. His Majesty’s
government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…”)
Then the Rothschild
and Rockefeller families create the UN and about 1948 take over Palestine using their alliance with the British and the
UN; Party A (Britain) gives Party B’s property (Palestine) to Party C (Rothschild’s Zionist Israel). Israel is
the head of the snake and the “Federal” Reserve. – Nicky Nelson
Front Page of Pacific Stars and Stripes, October 4, 1963
The Stars and Stripes
newspaper reported six weeks before his assassination, as
he planned ahead for the 1964 election, that
JFK had sent Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Maxwell Taylor
to Vietnam on
an “inspection” mission to provide a basis to accomplish his own pre-established objective:
To bring 1,000 of the military advisors home by that Christmas, and to bring
all the remaining men back
after his reelection, by the end of 1965.
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty,
who served under the Joint Chiefs of Staff as “Chief of Special
during the Kennedy Administration, wrote a lengthy memorandum to researcher
in May, 1991 (the full document appears on page 2 of this essay) with the
of the above article attached to it. He expressed “surprise” that this very important
information, embodied in National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263 was ignored
by practically all historians. In summary of this document, he explained that JFK had begun
planning in May or June of 1963 to absolutely withdraw 1,000 men by the end of the year
and all the rest by the end of 1965, regardless of the state of the war. He explained how
the trip by Secretary McNamara and General Maxwell was merely “just for headlines”
when they returned with a “report” that had been written by Bobby Kennedy and
Marine General Victor Krulak.
New York Times on October 3rd downplayed the same story (among other newspapers,
and people, like Noam Chomsky, still repeat) , under the headline “Vietnam Victory by the
End of ’65 Envisaged by U.S. —
Officials Say War May Be Won if Political Crisis Does
Not Hamstring Effort.”
That single headline, like the story itself, twice stated that only
by South Vietnam would result in bringing troops home. Professor Chomsky —
self-identified as the “smartest man alive” and brilliant beyond description — has still not
read and comprehended this essential point, since he has repeatedly stated that he never
studied the JFK assassination because “it made no difference in the direction of U.S.
foreign policy.” According to the document that he has ignored for decades, the difference
was that, instead of bringing 15,000 men home in 1965, in the decade that began that
year, 10,000,000 men were sent into that absurdly meaningless morass. No difference?
As this document attests, it was never JFK’s intention to condition
withdrawal on “winning”
the war: he intended to pull all of the advisors out regardless
of how the Vietnam Civil War
(as it was then) played out; that point has been well established
many years ago by a
number of researchers. That not-so-subtle
difference in how these two versions of the
same story was rendered was not nearly
the last time this deceit was asserted. But the
Times version — a
false meme at the time — morphed into the accurate version when
was assassinated and Lyndon B. Johnson took the reins of power,
after which the question
of pulling troops out would always be connected to “winning” it.
Within days of becoming president Lyndon Johnson started down the road of Americanizing
the Vietnam War by reversing Kennedy’s plans to withdraw from it by 1965. Instead, Johnson
began the escalation during that same period and continued, all during his reign in the
White House, to steadily increase US military presence and commitments,
as he publicly lamented how he had “inherited” the mess.
LBJ Choreographs the Americanization of the Vietnam Civil War
Shortly after he became President, Lyndon Johnson
tasked his National Security Advisor
McGeorge Bundy with drawing up a joint operation with
South Vietnam to “bully” North
Vietnam into attacking U.S. Navy warships as the
means to provoke a clash
that would ensure his long-desired plan to Americanize the
That plan was set to begin, not coincidentally,
exactly three months before the 1964
presidential election, as a way to guarantee a
patriotic “rush” and thus ensure his victory.
Yet the North Vietnamese
leadership sensed a set-up and balked; there was no attack
on either the USS Maddox
or USS C. Turner Joy — both Navy destroyers sent at Johnson’s
into the Gulf of Tonkin for the very purpose of provoking a confrontation.
The original incident on August 2, 1964, if it occurred at all, was little more than “a shot
across the bow” set off by a local commander, not by anyone of rank in North Vietnam.
Two days later, the reality was that the only military action involved imaginary boats
engaging in a phantom three-hour “battle” that had more in common with modern-day
video games than reality. The only shots taken—hundreds of high-explosive
fired by American guns—were wasted as they fell into the sea.
Commander James Stockdale, after spending the night flying over the Maddox and
Joy, reported on his return: “No boats, no boat wakes, no ricochets off
but black sea and American firepower.” He also stated that he and
were shocked when they realized the next day that the tenor of the messages
from Washington did not appear to acknowledge that there had been no
all of the confusion (it isn’t clear whether it was the cause or the effect),
the communications network virtually collapsed due to the number of FLASH messages
being transmitted; this caused the overloaded system to slow to a crawl. Among the
which should have stopped the panic, sent by the senior officer aboard
in the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House stated:
REVIEW OF ACTION MAKES MANY RECORDED CONTACTS
TORPEDOES FIRED APPEAR DOUBTFUL. FREAK
WEATHER EFFECTS AND OVEREAGER SONARMEN MAY
HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR MANY REPORTS.
The only thing that attacked the Maddox
or Turner Joy was bad weather conditions;
the confusion was caused by a frantic crew
primed to expect an imminent attack; they
did not realize that their commander in chief
had a hair-trigger finger and was anxious
to portray himself as a great, wise and
patient leader who wanted the public to think
that he was fighting mightily to avoid
the very war that he was simultaneously, and
secretly, trying desperately to provoke.
Oklahoma Congressman and House Majority Leader Carl Albert had overheard a telephone
conversation (evidently, not coincidentally), as Johnson was trying to enlist supporters for
the cause; Johnson had held Albert over after a breakfast presentation with other House
leaders. The telephone call, between LBJ and DEFSEC McNamara, was about a report
regarding the two destroyers supposedly under attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats.
Albert heard Johnson say, “’I’ll tell you what I want. I not only want those patrol boats
attacked the Maddox destroyed, I want everything at that harbor destroyed;
I want the whole works destroyed. I want to give them a real dose.”
Like many cowards, Johnson loved to “talk tough.” He often used the phrase
the jugular” to describe how vicious he could be when he thought his
honor, or political
position, was under attack. “‘They thought they could frighten
the President of the United
States,’ he said after Vietcong terrorist attacks had brought
air strikes to the North, adding: ‘They just didn’t know
August 1964, Johnson’s skills with meticulously-timed choreography was on full display
as he went to Congress armed with the draft resolution that he had McGeorge Bundy prepare
in advance of these “attacks,” which authorized him to “take all necessary measures
repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further
aggression.” It was intended to give him a “blank check” to conduct
the war in complete
autonomy, using the armed forces however he wished in Vietnam,
free of congressional supervision.
in his cunningly designed false flag operation resulted in the nearly-unanimous
of a joint resolution by Congress. The only votes against it came from Senators
Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK). Gruening stated that his opposition
was based upon “sending our American boys into combat in a war in which we have no
business, which is not our war, into which we have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily
being escalated”. In retrospect, those simple and straightforward words were the most
profoundly rare and brilliant ones spoken by anyone that day on Capitol Hill.
Johnson cunningly used the Vietnam
issue as part of his presidential campaign, positioning
as doing everything he could to contain America’s Communist enemies while
steadfastly avoiding war, in contrast to the saber-rattling Senator Goldwater. While he
wanted to portray himself as prudent and cautious compared to Goldwater, he also did
not want to appear to be a “pushover” for some “tin-horn
dictator of a fourth rate” country.
Simultaneously with the escalation, through the next three years
– with the help of the
“Deep State” establishment and their mainstream media
(MSM) reporters – he would
falsely complain about how his hands were tied, that the “quagmire”
had been started
by his predecessors. Adding more contradictory lies to the mix during the
frame, Johnson repeatedly assured the American people that things were going
even while acknowledging that they would have to carry “perhaps
a long time the burden of a confusing and costly war in Vietnam.”
But in private, to the few with whom he chose to confide the truth –
as he did to his CIA
briefer Colonel John Downie, in his last session with Johnson
in 1966, after Downie had
repeatedly “urged him to get out of Vietnam –
a frustrated LBJ pounded the table and
exclaimed, ‘I cannot get out of Vietnam,
John, my friends are making too much money.’”
The Long-Delayed Truth of LBJ’s False Flag Op Finally
immediately after the passage of the resolution, the iconoclastic independent
I. F. Stone, writing in “I.F. Stone’s Weekly” – using evidence drawn from a close
reading and analysis of published accounts – became the first American journalist to
challenge President Lyndon B. Johnson’s account of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Unfortunately, Stone’s newsletter had a very limited circulation, so not very
knew about it since the major newspapers and broadcast networks carefully
avoided such critiques.
Shortly after that, essays questioning
the rationality of the military build-up began, notably
in such “underground”
publications as Ramparts. In 1965, William F. Pepper wrote
of Vietnam,” for example, showing the tragic effects of the earliest American
involvement in crossing the line – from JFK’s military “advisors” to LBJ’s combat
In numerous other contemporaneous magazines – both
underground and avant-garde,
but rarely “MSM”types – the premises
and rationale of the war, the absence of any discernible
national interest in the expenditures
of blood and treasury were closely examined and found wanting.
As early as the last half of the 1960s decade, authors such as Joseph Goulden
is the First Casualty: The Gulf of Tonkin Affair and Reality) established that the
Gulf incident was a pretext developed in the White House to force Congress to
a resolution for Johnson to use to escalate the war without the need to get further
support after he won reelection. The young Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter
Peter Arnett adroitly described the situation: “The South Vietnamese Army is sick. Like
the society which created it, it is riddled with factionism, nepotism, corruption, inefficiency,
incompetence, and cowardice. . . It often lacks the will for combat
is increasingly prone to let Americans do the fighting.”
In 1968, author and former Lieutenant Colonel William R. Corson added specific context
to these points when he wrote that the 25th Division of the Vietnamese army (Army of
the Republic of Vietnam — ARVN) participated in approximately 100,000 operations
during 1966, yet engaged in enemy contact less than 100 times. Of all the conventiona
l military terms such as combat patrol, raid, search-and-destroy and reconnaissance
patrol, the one which best described their “combat” operations was “search and avoid.”
Yet, despite the emergence of the truth during the decades of the 70s, 80s
it took another 40 years for the government to finally acknowledge that the
Tonkin incident, on August 4, 1964, was a lie about an attack that never happened.
In the meantime, many “historians in name only (HINOs),” — too many
to list, but two
of whom typify that group, Robert Dallek and David Halberstam — who
were too incurious
to seek out the true facts of actual historic events, continued repeating
Despite the many challenges to the official government pronouncements, continuing
automatically treat them as “fact” even when much of it was dubious
at best and absurd
at worst, did nothing to promote government credibility. The opposite
inevitable as the MSM continued to raise no questions about the failing
To summarize, it can be said that:
- JFK’s intent was to pull 1,000 military advisors out of Vietnam
- Christmas, 1963 and all remaining military personnel by the end of 1965;
- Furthermore, there was no contingency related
to the status (i.e. whether
- they were “winning” or “losing”
it) of what was then a “North vs. South” civil war;
- LBJ’s intent from “Day 1” of his presidency (before JFK was buried) was to reverse
- JFK’s plans and to begin a steady escalation of the war shortly after his election,
- eleven months into the future;
- Within the
first weeks of his presidency, he instructed his staff and the
- Pentagon to begin
making plans to begin escalating the war in 1965;
of the first action items to be completed was the false flag operation that became
as the “Gulf of Tonkin” attack, which produced a nearly-unanimous congressional
- resolution that gave him “absolute power” to conduct that war as he desired;
- The result was quickly an “Americanized” war that became micromanaged
- “Commander in Chief” who knew no more about war games than
he knew about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
question of whether a pull-out could made of military troops became inseparable
the larger question of “winning” it. Or “losing” it, as it inevitably, and eventually,
 Galbraith, James K. “Exit Strategy: In
1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam,”
The Boston Review September
1, 2003 (Galbraith references Robert McNamara’s assertion,
in his 1995 book In
Retrospect, that President Kennedy decided on October 2, 1963 to
withdrawal of U.S. forces; he then traced eighteen months of detailed steps
had taken to lead up to a planned withdrawal. Galbraith also cited John Newman’s
1992 book JFK and Vietnam, which put Kennedy’s long-term strategy in historic
context, and explained why the key parts of it were not contained in the Pentagon Papers released in
A summary of this material is contained
in my blog titled “The Keepers of State Secrets:
Noam Chomsky and Bill Moyers
on a Mission to Hide the Worst Treasons of the 1960s?” which
can be viewed HERE.
 Dunn, Si. Dark Signals:
A Navy Radio Operator in the Tonkin Gulf and South China
Sea, 1965-1965, p. 71
 Dallek, Robert, Flawed Giant, p. 150
 Geyelin, Philip, Lyndon B. Johnson and the World, p. 113
 Pepper, William F. The Plot to Kill King, p. xxxiv
 Wikipedia, I. F. Stone page
 Nelson, Phillip F., LBJ: From Mastermind to The Colossus , p. 364
 Op. Cit. (Pepper, Appendix B pp. 347-373)
 Corson, William R. The Betrayal, p. 98
 Patterson, Pat (Lt.Cmdr. U.S. Navy) “The Truth about Tonkin”
Naval History Magazine, Feb. 2008 (See here)
President and the Press"
- Before the American
Newspaper Publishers Association,
New York City. April 27, 1961
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and
an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear
upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 t. he New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship
and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished,
constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5
per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and
fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that
would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent,
history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they
receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper
have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that
this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that
our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that
this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not
responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual
assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints
about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend
the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans
regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous
qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to
examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity,
that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers
may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But
neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern
to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of
a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions
of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing
this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our
survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press
and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled
and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information;
and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
The very word "secrecy" is
repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies,
to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment
of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value
in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little
value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger
that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the
very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in
my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should
interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or
to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher,
every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our
country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely
on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger,"
the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may
never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy
are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no
borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting
a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war
ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger,"
then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by
every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic
and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration
instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas
by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into
the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic,
scientific and political operations.
its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are
buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed,
no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever
hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national
security-and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose
this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's
foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire
through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's
covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the
location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed
in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least one
case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration
at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal,
patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have
published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the
tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should
impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of
the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not
commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions,
I have said-and your newspapers have constantly said-that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense
of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations
to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves
exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern
the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have
no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking
the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities,
to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that
danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is
it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?"
And I hope that every group in America-unions and businessmen and public officials at every level--will ask the
same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to this same exacting test.
the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can
assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be
no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret
war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without
precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
It is the unprecedented
nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that
is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that
they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices
that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes
understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking
your newspapers to support the Administration, but I .am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and
alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever
they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it.
This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: "An error doesn't
become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors;
and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration
and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a
crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the
only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to
emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform,
to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead,
mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international
news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved
understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels,
must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of
national security--and we intend to do it.
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that
Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the
printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the
world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live
together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience,
the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what
he was born to be: free and independent.
Note: The President spoke at the annual dinner of the
Association's Bureau of Advertising held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. His opening words "Mr.
Chairman" referred to Palmer Hoyt, Editor and Publisher of the Denver Post, who acted as chairman of the dinner.
Citation: John F. Kennedy: "Address "The President and the Press" Before
the American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City.," April 27, 1961. Online
by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8093