The Kennedy Assassination and the Press
To discuss this article go to B’Man’s Revolt.
The best work on the JFK assassination is now being done not by professional writers or historians but by members of my generation who worked in other fields and, in retirement, finally have the time to look into this great disaster of our lifetime. Noel Twyman, the engineer and author of the 1997 Bloody Treason: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, has recently been joined by Phillip F. Nelson, the retired insurance executive who has given us another estimable study, LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination. Twyman’s book and the lessons that it draws are our primary concern in this essay; Nelson’s review of it on Amazon.com gives us a good authoritative summation:
Noel Twyman's magnificently researched and written book Bloody Treason convincingly established that the well-buried truths of the JFK assassination were replaced by elaborate lies: the fabricated evidence--such as missing frames in the Zapruder film and other films, photographs, and x-rays--done immediately after the assassination. A logical progression was presented, which led to the author's conclusion that Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover were deeply implicated in the massive effort to fabricate false evidence and destroy real evidence. The extensive original research, including interviews with a number of firsthand witnesses, establishes beyond a doubt that there was a conspiracy and that it was wide and deep, involving a number of agencies of the federal government (the interview with Gerry Hemming was arguably more than merely with a witness; he was possibly one of the participants, unwitting or not). Twyman's book is, in many ways, the biggest brick in the foundation of meticulously detailed research upon which my own book is based and, by proxy, incorporates.
Among the spate of Kennedy assassination books that have been published in the last year or so, Nelson’s was close to the bottom among those receiving publicity. Twyman’s 900-page effort some 16 years ago was ignored even more. I had never heard of it until I noticed that all of Nelson’s supporting references for the story about the U. S. Army cryptographic clerk in Europe, Eugene B. Dinkin, who deciphered communications of the planning of the JFK assassination and tried to alert the Justice Department and the news media about it, were to Twyman’s book.
For all its strengths, Twyman’s tome has one very great glaring weakness, and it starts with that “logical progression” that Nelson speaks of. It comes early at the 4%-completed mark of the Kindle edition (A major problem with Kindle is that it lacks page numbers for the purpose of reference. It does have specific place location, but they don’t correspond to the book’s printed page.).
“There are seven key capabilities that it seemed the conspirators would have considered indispensable, if it is assumed that they were rational, with sophistication,” he writes. Then he proceeds to list them with an accompanying explanation for each. Here’s the simple list without the elaboration:
1. Control of the FBI.
2. Control of Lyndon Johnson.
3. A means to divert attention away from the conspirators.
4. Control, or partial control, of the Dallas police force.
5. The need for an experienced professional assassin with a back-up.
6. Control of the Secret Service.
7. Control of the CIA and Military Intelligence.
To be fair, we must note that the very next sentence after he concludes his list is the following:
In addition, I surmised it would have been very desirable, probably absolutely necessary, for the conspirators to know that they would have support from the industrial-media establishment in 1963.
Probably? Desirable? How the total support of the news media could have missed Twyman’s “indispensable” list is beyond me. And, as we have seen, that support has extended—as it had to—well past 1963. Twyman, for all industriousness and perspicacity, shows in the end that he just doesn’t get it with the following passage near the conclusion of the book:
The news media and intelligencia were willing to go along with established authority, as was their accustomed role at that time. Denial of the full truth persists to this day: Many members of the government, the major news media, and prominent historians still are unwilling to admit that they were taken in by Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover. A vital lesson to be learned is that the structure of the United States government could not cope with an assassination that simultaneously involved:
(a) a corrupt, ruthless manipulative vice president who wanted desperately to become president;
(b) a corrupt, ruthless, all-powerful director of the FBI who had compromising files on many of the leaders of the nation;
[c] a power elite that was willing to look the other way;
(d) a hapless congress that rolled over to the control of Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover;
(e) a sycophantic news media willing to be manipulated by federal authorities.
(f) the unprecedented ascent of power by organized crime because of a corrupted director of the FBI, and
(g) the personal secrets of John and Robert Kennedy that an investigation would have exposed, thus compelling the Kennedy family to yield to the cover-up in their fear, shock, and grief.
These elements combined to make the assassination feasible. Fortunately, most do not exist today. Over the years, corrections have been made in the government and the news media. Congress is a more vigilant watchdog; the news media is [sic] far more diversified and critical of power, thus making it more difficult to contain a major scandal. (emphasis added)
What planet has the man been living on? Was he so deeply absorbed in research—or engineering projects—that he missed what was going on around him? He wrote those words when we were about half way through Bill Clinton’s eight-year term, after all, and we had already experienced the Waco holocaust, the first World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, TWA 800, and the mysterious deaths of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster, Admiral Jeremy Boorda, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and former CIA Director William Colby. Could he really have failed to notice that the national news media were and continue to be in full cover-up mode about all of them?
Twyman’s “logical progression,” that is to say, his deductive approach, though, is quite good and such conclusions should have been arrived at and touted long before he did it. Once one accepts that there was a conspiracy, it follows beyond any doubt that Lyndon Johnson had to be a party to it. The danger to the conspirators that he might actually have moved to bring the killers to justice would have been entirely too great. They could have all been staring the death penalty in the face. And killing off a previously uninformed LBJ, too, if he didn’t go along with the cover-up would have been too much to swallow even for that part of the public that accepts that the Mafia-connected Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald for sentimental reasons. Surely, the Oval Office and those other important nodes of power had to be covered, ex ante. The risks were too great to proceed upon the hope that they could be covered, ex post.
The power of the approach of imagining oneself in the conspirators’ shoes is perhaps shown even better in the case of 9/11. The 9/11 conspiracy depended completely upon the total ineptitude of America’s air defense command. It’s sort of like drawing up a pass play in football that will only work if all the defensive backs fall down. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would draw up a plan that, on its face, hadn’t the slightest chance to succeed. The fix had to be in.
Twyman makes us well aware that the fix was in with the JFK murder, as well, but, as we have noted, the fix had to stay in well past the administration and even the life of LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, and assorted other people in powerful positions in the country. More than that, the conspirators had to have a high level of confidence in advance that the fix would stay in, right up to the present day. Just one news organ with any kind of a mass audience digging away and pounding away as the assorted independent researchers have done could well have brought the conspiracy clattering down, leading to a vitally necessary cleansing of our national Augean stable. It has not happened, and, for their own safety, the conspirators had to be completely confident that it would not happen.
At one point, about midway through the book, Twyman greatly undermines his argument for the one-time, passive role of the press in the Kennedy murder and cover-up. Here he describes the reaction to Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, JFK:
The news media went into what seemed a strange frenzy of attacks on Stone. The attacks started six months BEFORE the film was released. They painted him as a conspiracy nut, a distorter of historical truth, and perhaps un-American or even mentally disturbed. The result was more confusion and bewilderment, with few knowing what to believe.
A Personal Testimonial
Twyman and I seem to have reacted to that media frenzy against Stone and his movie very differently. To him it seems to have been a puzzlement; to me it was an epiphany. My main concern at that time was just making a living and supporting my family, but I had read a number of books on the Kennedy assassination. The movie JFK to me was just a pretty good dramatization and summing up of the “literature” on the subject, as they say in academia. Nothing in it shocked me at all. What shocked me, and really brought me to my senses, was that media frenzy against it.
“There’s the problem,” I then saw clearly, and that realization has colored my view of virtually everything that I have seen and written about ever since. The person who uses the nom de plume of “Mark Hunter” has listed 53 of the articles on my web site under the category of “Corrupt Journalism.” Actually, there are a lot more than that because one revelation or another about the downright rottenness of our Fourth Estate is in virtually every one of my articles. I just hate being lied to and being taken for a fool, and I can’t help letting it show.
Watching JFK and observing the media’s hysteria over it was the genesis of my political writing, and it first came out in the form of verse, almost as therapy. The very first manifestation of my growing sense of outrage was my 76-line, 19-verse poem about the Kennedy assassination entitled “Assassins.” Right in the heart of it we have these lines:
So you plot your transparent plots,
That would make of us all disbelievers.
Then liberty's would-be stewards
Become the biggest deceivers.
I felt like a citizen of the Soviet Union writing for the drawer because I didn’t feel that there was anywhere I could go with the poem except to my closest friends. My follow-up poem for the drawer, as I recall, was entitled simply “The News,” which begins,
The keepers of the knowledge gate
Demark the bounds of the debate
And manufacture an illusion
That we’ve reached our own conclusion.
More even than in my prose writing, the sorry state of journalism was in my crosshairs, where it has remained ever since. Perhaps the best short summation I have made is in “Chilling Awakening.”
Few things are more unsettling
(From experience I know)
Than to feel a building shaken
By quaking ground below.
But I have felt one discomfiture
Of almost comparable size,
Discovering that our “free” press
Purveys official lies.
What should be the bedrock of our confidence in the political state of affairs was just so much quicksand, I had discovered. Virtually nothing I was told about anything of importance by the media could be trusted.
Then things took a turn for the worse. On July 20, 1993, Vince Foster’s body was found in the obscure Civil War relic known as Fort Marcy Park on the George Washington Parkway not far from CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. I had graduated from Davidson College in North Carolina two years before Foster and had played against him in intramural basketball, so my interest in his death was greater than most people’s. But an even bigger reason why I was intrigued was the similarity I noticed in the press’s treatment of his death and the Kennedy assassination. They showed even less curiosity than the average person did, and they were even ahead of the Clinton administration itself in selling the idea that Foster had shot himself because he was so depressed.
I wrote the first of my 49 articles on the Foster case, part 1 of “America’s Dreyfus Affair: The Case of the Death of Vincent Foster,” before I was online, putting it on a disk and sending it to the late J. Orlin Grabbe, who posted it on his web site. Virtually all of them could just as well have been listed under the category of “Corrupt Journalism. Following the Foster case was a tremendous education to me, as it was to Miguel Rodriguez, the one honest man on the staff of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Here he vents his frustration by phone to Reed Irvine, the late head of Accuracy in Media:
I have talked to a number of people that – you know, from Time Magazine, Newsweek, Nightline, The New York Times, Boston Globe, the Atlanta whatever, um, you know there have been well over a hundred, and this – this matter is so sealed tight um, and, the reporters are all genuinely interested but the ah, the ah, um, – reporters are genuinely interested but the ah – when they start to get excited and they've got a story and they're ready to go, the editors – and they – I've gotten calls back, I've gotten calls back from all kinds of magazines worldwide, what the hell's wrong, why can't, you know, you were telling me that you, you didn't think this would go anywhere and sure enough I wrote the stories.
They went to all the trouble of writing, and then it got killed. Again, I, I, you know, I spent almost eleven hours with, with Labaton, or six hours with Labaton, and ah, you know, I know the guy knows, um, that there's a lot more, um, ah – I know, I know The New York Times has it – knows, and just won't ah, ah, I know that they won't do anything about it and I do know that, that many people have called me back. Reporters that I've spent a lot of time with called me back and said the editors won't allow it to go to press. The accepted media here has always had, ah, a certain take on all of this. And there's been story lines from the get-go. (Listen to the tape here.)
In contrast to the myth of our great free press, so “sealed tight” were things—and are things—that Foster’s killers had to be just as confident as Kennedy’s killers were, in advance, that the press would not just passively go along with the murder, but would do whatever they deemed necessary to sell the official lies about the murder to the public. Having voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 with the same motivation that almost all of us have when we cast our presidential ballots, because I disliked his opponent more, I penned a short poem about that time that captured a new realization that my experience had forced upon me:
Thirty years and counting
Since Kennedy was killed
And our vacuum of leadership
Still has not been filled.
Why should those shoes present
Such difficulty in filling?
The candidates are weeded out
By those who did the killing.
The Propaganda Assault Continues
As we approach the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s assassination, the press, of course, continues to do its best to persuade the public to continue to take the Warren Commission medicine, no matter how hard it might be to swallow, what with all the information that is now out there. Now, though, they seem to be using a more indirect or oblique approach. I have yet to see even one article among The Washington Post’s opinions and editorial (op-ed) pages. The subject has been consigned completely to the lighter weight Style section, where the main official-myth sales technique seems to be to snidely cast aspersions upon Oliver Stone’s JFK. Here Ann Hornaday raises the propaganda technique almost to an art form in its own right:
“JFK” was a big hit when it came out, winning two Oscars and earning eight total nominations. But it was immediately mired in controversy, not just for questioning the findings of the Warren Commission (many Americans had always harbored doubts about its conclusions), but because of the liberties Stone took in characterizing businessman Clay Shaw and Lyndon B. Johnson. In time, “JFK” became a metonym for the kind of promiscuous artistic license and historical revisionism that filmmakers have come to pride themselves in avoiding. “This isn’t ‘JFK’ ” is an oft-repeated defensive catchphrase for a cadre of filmmakers who, especially in recent years, have brought new rigor, immersive realism and sometimes original reporting to fact-based films that bristle with authority and authenticity, from Paul Greengrass’s “United 93” and “Captain Phillips” to Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker” and “Zero Dark Thirty.”
In sum, blatant propaganda films, which are now the order of the day, demonstrating how things have become steadily worse (Noel Twyman notwithstanding) are to be taken as the gold standard of factuality, while any movie that might challenge the official line can only do so through the promiscuous use of artistic license. Hornaday also gives a knowing nod of approval to a filmmaker who mouths complete nonsense:
In some ways, the new temperance reflects an encouraging maturity. Over lunch this fall, director Peter Landesman — whose movie “Parkland” could be described as the anti-“JFK” — evinced his distaste for assassination buffdom and the “immediate gratification of the intellectual chess game of conspiracy, as opposed to something more powerful and emotional.
“I worked as a journalist for a long time, and I’ve come to realize that acts of violence and war and acts of history are usually unmotivated, arbitrary events and overlooked [stuff] and inertia and bureaucratic intransigence,” Landesman continued. “Not people in dark rooms smoking cigars. And no one keeps secrets.”
For his part, The Post’s media critic, Hank Steuver, employs #10 in the Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression, assuring us that the crime of a president’s murder is just too complicated ever to be solved and pleads with us, in so many words, to just get on with our lives:
Before I review a few of the more notable offerings in this heap, it seems like the real review should be a review of us, as modern Americans. What’s wrong with this picture? (Why is the vertical hold still so tetchy?) Why do we subject ourselves to the ritual wallow in Kennedy grief? Why are we still pursuing mysteries that cannot possibly be solved? When we tune into it, what are we tuning out?
As Nov. 22 approaches once more, this multimedia onslaught is a lesson in how not to move on.
As a simple rejoinder, lets return to “Assassins” and its opening four lines:
Cut an unhealing cut,
One that still hurts us dearly,
As we ooze out the stuff of life
Like a tree that’s been pruned too severely.
More reasons why we must not, and really cannot just move on are in my poem “Ave JFK,” which begins,
Look not to a constellation
For a portent for the nation,
As still we live beneath a pall
With the meanest rent of all.
Who’s Mister Big?
Once we have recognized the completely integral relationship of our nation’s press with the JFK assassination and its ongoing cover-up, we are in a position toward making some real progress towards solving the crime, using Twyman’s “logical progression” technique. (If there might still be a glimmer of doubt in your mind as to that integral relationship, consider the national press’s treatment of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, as revealed by his need to rebut them and by my article on their tampering with his trial of assassination suspect Clay Shaw.)
Had we still been living in the Red Decade of the 1930s we could perhaps entertain the notion that the Communists of the Soviet Union or Cuba were behind it, but the Communist influence on America’s press had withered to practically nothing by the 1960s, so we can safely rule them out. And though the fingerprints of organized crime are all over the assassination through such figures as Ruby, Carlos Marcello, Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, Santo Trafficante, and Eugene Hale Brading, it is a real stretch to suggest that it is they who have our press “sealed tight.”
So who does control our press? The establishment Left has a ready answer for that question that has sucked in a lot of people. They call it simply the “corporate media,” as if that explained everything. It’s a very interesting fact that the two biggest sellers of this line are Noam Chomsky (with Edward Herman), with his influential book, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media and the lesser known but possibly even more influential Ben Bagdikian with The Media Monopoly, something of a bible for a generation or two of journalism students of a leftist persuasion. The big corporations, they say, control our media through their control of advertising. Those corporations, though, would have no particular interest as a group in covering up a presidential assassination (or 9/11), so we can all rest easy with this assurance that they didn’t.
Both Chomsky and Bagdikian, as it turns out, are also more direct players in the cover-up of the JFK conspiracy. I detail Chomsky’s JFK cover-up role in “Chomsky, the Fraud” and “Chomsky, the Fraud, Part 2” and, to a lesser extent, in “Chomsky, the Fraud, on 9/11.” Compared to Bagdikian, though, Chomsky was a relative latecomer to the JFK cover-up. Bagdikian was in on the ground floor, so to speak. Check out Michael Rivero’s short photo essay, “The Death of John Kennedy: The Media helped sell the lie of the lone assassin.” In the essay we see that the Saturday Evening Post in its December 14, 1963, special issue on the Kennedy assassination shows a photograph that it calls “The Assassins View.” The rifle’s scope has Kennedy in its crosshairs, and John Connally would have been directly in the line of fire in front of him, where he would be struck by the same bullet that hit Kennedy. But, as Rivero explains, that photograph had to have been taken from the DalTex building, probably from around the second floor, and the writer of the article and his editors had to have known it as they wrote it. What Rivero doesn’t note is who the writer of that article was. Now blow up the “Assassins View” photo to read the name directly under the photo. It’s none other than the young Ben Haig Bagdikian. So much for the fake media critics of the Left.
A much better candidate for U.S. media controller when he comes to major matters of state like the Kennedy assassination (or 9/11, for that matter) also happens to be one of the prime suspects in the assassination, the CIA. Check out the Wikipedia page for “Operation Mockingbird,” which begins this way:
Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, it was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.
It certainly sounds like we’re getting warm, doesn’t it? Wikipedia uses the past tense, but who can doubt that it’s still going on? I can add reinforcement from my own researches and experience. Following the Foster case, my path crossed that of Joseph Goulden, who at the time was the second in command at Accuracy in Media. He hardly bothers to conceal his CIA affiliation, as you can read in Spook Journalist Goulden. In my work for the government of Puerto Rico I got to know the main U.S. flack for the Popular Democratic Party, OSS alumnus Scott Runkle. With his public relations firm, Washington International Communications, he was amazingly successful in planting editorials in newspapers around the country that endorsed the position of his client. After his death his death, I received very reliable confirmation of my suspicion that his spook affiliation had continued with the successor to the OSS, the CIA. You can read about that in CIA Plots Statehood for Puerto Rico. A short excerpt from that piece is germane to this article:
When Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, came out, Runkle was among those who, with offhand remarks, showed me that he had the conventional take on Stone's opus, that it was just some more wild conspiracy theorizing. I let it pass at the time. Later, I caught him off-guard with this: "Scott," said I, "You're an intelligent guy, and very well read, too. How could you possibly swallow that ridiculous stuff we have been fed by the Warren Commission?"
"Well you can't read everything," he said. "As far as the Kennedy assassination is concerned, I just go with what the 'good press' tells me," which I took as a very curious admission, indeed, from one actively engaged in manipulating that "good press."
At that point, in an apparent attempt to change the subject while not appearing to do so he said, "I knew John Kennedy quite well when he was a Senator. You know, he was a big critic of French colonial policy, particularly with respect to Algeria, and he used to pick my brains on the subject."
Not letting him off the hook, I responded, "What you are telling me reinforces the theory that Kennedy was killed for policy reasons. No one as interested in French colonial affairs as you are telling me Kennedy was could have possibly repeated their errors in Vietnam the way Lyndon Johnson did. He was planning to get out of Vietnam, and that's one of the main reasons he was killed."
At that, Runkle folded his tent and simply broke off the conversation, but he left me well impressed with his prominence as an expert on France and with Kennedy's foreign-policy acumen in seeking him out.
When it comes to control of the nation’s press, though, there is another important group besides the CIA that comes to mind. Twyman provides us with an important lead in that direction, but then fails to follow it up. The CIA’s counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton, he tells us, “orchestrated the CIA’s cover-up of the assassination.” And what more do we know about Angleton? The following is from a speech by Michael Collins Piper, author of Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy.
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.
Where, you ask, does the CIA fit alongside the Mossad in the JFK assassination?
By 1963 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.
Reading the entire Piper speech, * we see that an even more likely group than the CIA to be in principal control of the U.S. news media, pro-Israel organized Jewry, is also a leading suspect in the JFK assassination. Their main motivation, according to Piper, was Kennedy’s adamant opposition to Israel’s nuclear aspirations. The primary evidence is not through Jack Ruby’s (ne Rubenstein) connection to the conspiracy but through Garrison’s prosecutorial target Clay Shaw, who was on the governing board of the Mossad front organization Permindex and had ties to the leading Zionist Bronfman family of Montreal, Canada, through the former OSS operative Louis Bloomfield.
Another researcher, Salvador Astucia (a pseudonym), independently deduced Israel’s involvement in the JFK assassination by doing additional research on Bloomfield after reading about his connection to Shaw in Jim Garrison’s book, On the Trail of the Assassins. I know that he reached the conclusion independently because it was I who informed him of the existence of the Piper book after he laid out his thesis to me. In his Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination, Astucia goes beyond Piper in finding motives for Israel to want the extremely pro-Israel Lyndon Johnson to be president instead of John Kennedy. Their plans for expansion through what became the Six Day War in 1967, according to Astucia, already had to have been in the works in 1963, and Kennedy was as likely to have been as big an obstacle to their aspirations as President Dwight Eisenhower had been during the Suez Crisis. Astucia reminds us that from his Senate leadership position, Johnson had done his best to undermine Eisenhower’s efforts during the Suez imbroglio, demonstrating in spades his pro-Israel bona fides. He might have added that something like what became the attack on the USS Liberty could have also been in the works as a false flag provocation to bring the U.S. into the war on the side of Israel. That suggestion is made at nona-people.blogspot.com. If that was the case, it would have absolutely necessitated that LBJ—who called back the Navy rescue planes for the Liberty—rather than JFK be the president.
Further making his case, Astucia posits that Arthur Goldberg’s unprecedented decision to step down from the Supreme Court to accept the much less prestigious and less powerful position of United Nations ambassador was all part of getting the ducks in a row for the Six Day War. During World War II, Astucia reveals, the pro-Israel Goldberg had served in the OSS and in that capacity had worked with the Zionist military organization Haganah in Palestine. His path and that of Louis Bloomfield are very likely to have crossed.
In contrast to Johnson, Kennedy’s attitude toward Israel and his concept of the proper function of an American president is well captured by this little vignette from page 143 of Richard Reeves’ book, President Kennedy, Profile of Power:
Jewish Democrats, particularly in New York, did not yet fully trust the son of a man who had been accused of being both anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi. Nor did John Kennedy, comfortably surrounded by Jewish staff members, trust all Jews, particularly New Yorkers. "I had the damnedest meeting in New York last night," he had said to his friend Charlie Bartlett one day in the early fall of 1960. "I went to this party. It was given by a group of people who were big money contributors and also Zionists and they said to me, 'We know that your campaign is in terrible financial shape!'...The deal they offered me was that they would finance the rest of this campaign if I would agree to let them run the Middle Eastern policy of the United States for the next four years.”
That might well have been part of the sort of plata o plomo (silver or lead) offer made famous by the Medellin drug cartel. Kennedy rejected the offer and the lead arrived in Dealey Plaza. It would not have been the first time. Bernard Baruch warned Secretary of Defense James Forrestal that he had been too closely identified with opposition to the creation of the state of Israel for his own good. In the “Who Killed James Forrestal?” series we demonstrate that almost beyond question Forrestal was assassinated and that by far the most likely culprits were the Zionists. According to evidence presented by Christopher Bollyn in Solving 9/11: The Deception that Changed the World, it would also not be the last time that the Zionists were behind a bloody and audacious act in the United States in furtherance of their Middle Eastern ambitions.
Reflecting upon Noel Twyman’s list of prerequisites that the JFK assassination plotters would have to have been assured were in place, control of the news media should be at the very top, even above control of the new president. We have seen how the news media can destroy presidents like Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter and presidential candidates like Gary Hart, Edmund Muskie, and Howard Dean and build up and paper over the glaring flaws of presidents like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Who can doubt that they could have easily taken down Lyndon Johnson before the end of the JFK term of office that he was completing had he not been compliant to their wishes?
Thinking about what those wishes might have been, we are forced to suggest that “organized Jewry” or the Zionists need to be at the very top of Tyman’s list. The fate of former CNN news anchor Rick Sanchez demonstrates all too well the power of organized Jewry over the media in the country, and what can happen to a person who even has the temerity to point it out. From all indications, it is even greater than the power of the CIA.
*Piper has a small error when he says the Jewish underground sent poisoned letters to President Truman in 1947 in an assassination attempt. The Jewish Stern Gang sent letter bombs to Truman. See “’Jews’Tried to Kill Truman in 1947.”
November 15, 2013
If any doubt remains in your mind that the central problem in the United States is the complete corruption of the news media, please read, in its entirety if your stomach is strong enough, The Washington Post’s lead article by Joel Achenbach on the front page of its fiftieth anniversary issue. In its malevolent mendacity, it is quite similar to their 1999 article written upon the death of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal.
A couple of other good sources have been called to my attention regarding Israel’s likely complicity in 9/11. They are the book Stranger than Fiction by Albert D. Pastore, Ph.D. (a pseudonym) and the web site rediscover911.com.
November 22, 2013