The A & E Network has produced a new documentary on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. This program, like every other aired on the case, is an apologia for the Ramsey family and about as one-sided an “investigation” as other televised documentaries in the past, on the JFK assassination, 9/11 and other subjects.
I became interested in the tragic December 26, 1996 death of six year old JonBenet Ramsey during the initial saturation coverage in the press. The case had all the elements of a classic locked-room mystery, and what really attracted me was the great wealth of the Ramsey family, and the favorable treatment they benefited from.
To accept the conventional story, we are asked to believe that an intruder or intruders broke into the Ramsey’s large house, without leaving behind any evidence of their doing so, on Christmas night. Frightfully unprepared, they were forced to use a notepad in the home, and write their ransom note on the spot. This absurd missive, dubbed the “War and Peace of ransom notes” due to its unusual lengthiness, was recognized for the fraud it was instantly by local law enforcement. To cite just one ludicrous example, what group refers to itself as a “foreign faction?”
When the body of little JonBenet was found later that morning in the cellar of her home, by her father, the authorities were left with a huge conundrum. There is no history of “kidnappers” leaving a detailed ransom note in the same location as the body of the victim. That would seem to defeat the whole purpose behind any kidnapping.
Also, there were strong indications that six year old JonBenet had been sexually assaulted. Renowned forensic expert Cyril Wecht was just one of many who claimed there was evidence of past sexual abuse. One forensic scientist stated that JonBenet’s vaginal opening was “twice the normal size for six-year-olds.” This expert, Dr. Robert Kirschner, went on to dramatically declare, “If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, her father would have been arrested.”
During the three year period from 1993-1996, JonBenet Ramsey visited her pediatrician an astounding twenty seven times. Any parent will instantly realize just how abnormal that is. Combined with JonBenet’s beauty pageant career, and all those troubling images of her dressed provocatively, it becomes clear that something very strange was going on in the Ramsey household.
You will not find any instances in the annals of crime, where pedophilia overlaps with kidnapping. Kidnappers are not interested in sexually abusing their victims, and sexual predators are not interested in obtaining ransom money. So what do we make of a murdered little girl, with indications of chronic sexual abuse, being found dead in her own home, where a ridiculous, rambling ransom note for her safe return was also discovered? As then Police Chief Mark Beckner described it, “No note has ever been written at the scene, and then left at the scene with the dead victim at the scene, other than this case.”
Investigators were also confronted with the fact that JonBenet had a huge fracture in her skull, that was termed in the autopsy “a severe blow to head shortly before or around the time of her murder.” But JonBenet was found with a ligature wound tightly into her neck, making it difficult for anyone to determine if she was killed from a blow to the head or strangulation. Most critics have speculated that the head wound was accidental, and the strangulation (perhaps even along with indications of sexual trauma) was staged.
Considering that Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise was quoted as saying that the little six year old was hit “with enough force to bring down a 350 lb. Green Packers lineman,” it is difficult to imagine such a blow being accidental. But with no evidence of an intruder, and all common sense arguing against someone entering the home on Christmas night, we can only speculate about what happened on that Christmas night in Boulder, Colorado, twenty years ago.
The reason that JonBenet’s parents came under instant suspicion is due to their bizarre behavior, which the police on the scene found uncharacteristic of those in such a horrifying situation. Detective Linda Arndt described John Ramsey as being “calm and cordial,” not distraught. Patsy Ramsey was described as peaking through her fingers in a very odd manner, as she covered her face. Both Ramseys smiled far too often, and seemed way too calm, in their public interviews.
Not only did the pad the ransom note was written on come from the Ramsey home, police found evidence that a practice note had been written there. Incredibly, detectives heard John Ramsey talking to his pilot, shortly after finding his daughter’s body, requesting that he ready their plane to go to Atlanta. Patsy Ramsey was wearing the same clothing she’d worn the night before when police arrived that morning, suggesting that she hadn’t slept at all. Instead of holding their other child close, the Ramseys immediately sent Burke to a friend’s house. The Ramseys showed no sense of anticipation as the proscribed time for the ransom payoff came and went. The list goes on.
Unlike any poor or middle-class family, the Ramseys were allowed to ignore the requests of the police to interview them separately, and seemed essentially disinterested in the entire investigation. Despite the warnings in the preposterous ransom note, the Ramseys called a slew of friends right away, and asked them to come over to their house. Any average family whose dead child was found in their basement, especially when accompanied by such an obviously fake ransom note, would have found themselves jailed and indicted in short order.
It wasn’t until years later that it was revealed that the grand jury assembled to study the murder had, in fact, voted to indict John and Patsy Ramsey on a charge of felony child abuse and as accessories to her death, but District Attorney Alex Hunter, who was basically owned by the Ramseys’ powerful legal team, had simply refused to sign the indictments. As always, money and influence corrupted the interests of our mightily flawed justice system.
There were four known people in the Ramsey house on the night JonBenet died. One of them was found dead the next morning. With no evidence of an intruder, and all logic arguing against any such scenario, that leaves her parents, and her then nine year old brother Burke. In my view, and the view of most of those who have studied this case in any depth, one of them caused JonBenet’s death, and a very amateurish cover-up ensued.
Patsy Ramsey seems to have been an eccentric, volatile character. At first, I was inclined to lean towards Detective Steve Thomas’s theory that she caused JonBenet’s death, in anger over the six year-old’s chronic bed wetting issues. Several credible handwriting experts have concluded that the ransom note was written by Patsy. Studying the anecdotal evidence of her personality, it becomes an inescapable conclusion that she was the author of this “War and Peace” manifesto.
But ultimately I cannot believe that Patsy, who whatever her faults was by all accounts a loving and caring mother, killed her daughter. And I certainly don’t think that her husband would have covered up for her if she did (or conversely, that Patsy would have covered up for John, if he caused JonBenet’s death in some kind of ugly sex game gone wrong, as some have speculated). That leaves nine year old Burke, the only person in the world that could have motivated both John and Patsy to devise the clumsy staging, ransom note and lies that followed.
Alex Hunter would be succeeded in office by Mary Lacy, who was overtly biased in favor of the Ramseys, and issued a misleading exoneration of them via some unknown male DNA found on JonBenet’s underwear, which could in actuality have been an artifact from a factory worker or any number of others. Lacy oversaw the 2006 fiasco where creepy John Mark Karr falsely confessed to murdering JonBenet. She even sent a letter to John Ramsey in 2008, two years after Patsy’s death, in which she formally exonerated them, something she had no legal power to do.
James Kolar’s self-published 2012 book Foreign Faction provided a key look into the case, from one of the detectives who originally investigated it. Kolar clearly inferred that Burke was somehow responsible for his little sister’s death. He mentioned a report from a former Ramsey nanny about Burke smearing feces on the wall of a bathroom. Oddest of all was Kolar’s description of finding human excrement smeared on a box of candy in JonBenet’s bedroom. Kolar, by the way, along with Steve Thomas and other researchers critical of the official “intruder” theory, was not included in the monstrously biased A & E recent documentary.
We know that JonBenet had been previously injured at the hands of Burke, when he accidentally hit her in the head with a golf club. He certainly had every reason to be jealous of his little sister, whose busy pageant career and excessive attention from her mother left little time and opportunity for his own nurturing. Burke was rumored to be on the Autistic spectrum, and videos of his 1998 interview reveal him to be a very fidgety child, whose own response to JonBenet’s death can be seen as atypical.
I could relate on a personal level to this tragic case, as my own children were very close in age to Burke and JonBenet. One of the most puzzling clues about what really happened in that house was the fact that there is no Ramsey videotape of Christmas morning 1996 to be found. Any parent who was raising small children in the 1990s knows just how important a camcorder was on such occasions. Parents, especially those with the means of the Ramseys, would have been obsessive about chronicling such delightful moments with their children. John Ramsey claimed that their battery was dead. One would have to be awfully naive to swallow such an excuse. There are also very few photographs from that morning, which again is just incredibly odd.
There are so many unanswered questions in this case. What about Nancy Krebs, the thirty seven year old who came forward in early 2000, alleging that there was a huge pedophile ring in Boulder, Colorado, which may have included JonBenet Ramsey? While there are serious questions about her story, anyone who had read my book Hidden History knows just how common sex with children is among the rich and powerful. What about the strange 911 call, placed from the Ramsey home three days before her murder, during a Christmas party?
Burke Ramsey has broken his years of silence, and will talk with Dr. Phil later this month. I’m sure he will stick to the script, and that Dr. Phil will not grill him about any pertinent point. A CBS special will also be airing, which promises to be more objective than the pablum on A & E.
It’s been twenty years, and realistically neither John or Burke Ramsey is about to confess, or admit to anything incriminating in regards to JonBenet’s tragic death. The mainstream media, as always, has contributed to the lack of closure here. Outside of the tabloids, and a few courageous local reporters, they have accepted the Ramseys’ ridiculous contentions as easily as they parrot the mantra that Oswald killed JFK. Our professional “journalists” are so gutless they can’t even honestly investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of a little girl.
The timeless quote “History is written by the victors” is generally attributed to Winston Churchill. Churchill certainly was in a position to know; he also said, “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”
Much as the horrific mainstream media distorts and outright lies about everything of significance in our world, establishment historians and scholars perform a similar function for the corrupt elite, completely twisting the truth about every major historical event and the leading figures of every era.
I am presently writing Hidden History 2- The Prequel: Pre-1963 Conspiracies and Cover-Ups. Even I was astonished to learn the extent to which the court historians have provided, and continue to provide, shameless disinformation to the minority of Americans who even read history books. Because of this, the average American is historically illiterate.
Recently, I sat through a stunningly inaccurate lecture from author and court historian Fergus Bordewich, broadcast on C-SPAN. Bordewich was promoting his book on George Washington and the First Congress, a subject I’m naturally drawn to. The esteemed court historian told his captive audience that there is “nothing” from the Founders that supports the notion they meant the Second Amendment to protect the right of individual citizens to own firearms.
In Hidden History 2, I will provide a plethora of very clear quotes from virtually every Founding Father, touting the importance of citizens having the right to bear arms. Thomas Jefferson declared, “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” But what do I know- I’m no scholar and certainly no court historian. Bordewich, like other establishment historians, can feel free to misrepresent with impunity, because his audiences will typically consist of well-meaning history buffs, who totally trust the authors that write the most widely-publicized history books.
That is just one example of what can be seen on C-SPAN every weekend, and what is found in every establishment history book. Much as news anchors and talking heads have the power to manipulate public opinion with their biased agendas, court historians manipulate public opinion as well. As George Orwell so brilliantly put it, “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
The powers that control the dissemination of news do control the past because only establishment-approved historians and scholars write and talk about it. Renegade historians like Thomas DiLorenzo incur the collective wrath of the court historians if their books sell well, which they often don’t.
What passes for historical scholarship nowadays is akin to fast food or empty carbohydrates. There are no dissenters among the court historians, much as there no dissenters within the inner sanctum of the oligarchy. Thus, Abraham Lincoln was the greatest statesman in American history, and to question that is to support slavery. Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman are other presidents whom the court historians universally praise.
During the lecture referred to above, court historian Fergus Bordewich threw in the obligatory accolades for Alexander Hamilton, the bankers’ best friend in the early days of the Republic, and the establishment’s favorite Founding Father. With a hit Broadway play converting him into a dynamic black man, Hamilton is that rare historical figure who isn’t considered a mere dead white male.
McHistory distills complex events and individuals into sophomoric sound bites, exaggerates and downplays significance, and attributes good and bad motives wherever it chooses. The one underlying theme of McHistory is to view the past through our modern politically correct prism. Thus, the rebellious spirit of the American Revolution is generally downplayed, because the last thing our corrupt government wants is to be overthrown. The Civil War is about slavery. Period. World War II was about the Holocaust. Period. “McCarthyism” was a senseless witch hunt. Our boys always behaved more honorably than the “bad guys” they have been ordered to fight for nearly our entire history.
Like our political discourse and present-day academia, McHistory focuses on emotional rhetoric, and unspoken inferences that the dead white men of our past were all hopeless racists and sexists. Not even court historian hero Alexander Hamilton had a kind word to say about transgender rights.
Some years ago, a slew of satirical headlines were published, which very cleverly portrayed how certain organs in the media would cover the end of the world. I remember the one for the Washington Post read: “End of the world- women and minorities to be hit hardest.” Just a few decades later, that kind of satire couldn’t be written, because our reality has gone far beyond satire.
As noted earlier, most Americans are historically illiterate. Mark Dice and others have proven conclusively just how little Americans know about even the most recent history, in filmed street encounters. The few people who are interested in exploring history in depth tend to be more apt to trust authority, and to believe that those who write the scholarly books they read are unbiased professionals with an unparalleled knowledge of the subject, and a strict regard for accuracy.
Thomas Jefferson wrote about the dishonest press of his time, and stated that those who never read the newspaper knew more than those who did so regularly. I think we can extrapolate this to state that those who read only establishment-sanctioned history books know less than those who don’t read any history books. The misinformed versus the uninformed; who is farther from the truth?
I will detail in Hidden History 2 how our government regularly injected prisoners and mental patients with deadly viruses over much of the twentieth century. They also sprayed entire American communities with gasses and diseases. But the court historians will emphasize the great importance of black soldiers in World War II, and how the Rosie the Riveters kept the home front operating until “Give ’em Hell” Harry dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in an altruistic effort to save lives.
McHistory likes to keep things simple. Thus, American students are taught that George Washington built the republic, Abraham Lincoln saved the union and freed the slaves, and Franklin Roosevelt helped create the lovable monstrosity we know as today’s federal government. If you need a bit more, Harriet Tubman ran the underground railroad. Woodrow Wilson dreamed of the League of Nations. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus. Anne Frank wrote a diary. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream. Isn’t that enough?
As for the subjects “conspiracy theorists” gravitate to, there is again no deviation from the public line. Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed JFK. It doesn’t matter why, and his assassination had no impact on the history that followed. James Earl Ray alone killed Martin Luther King, Jr. Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK. David Koresh and his Branch Davidians received their just reward for being weird child abusers and gun stockpilers. A crazed bunch of Arabs were solely responsible for 9/11. The Clinton Body Count is a myth, propagated by “conspiracy theorists.” You can find all the answers at Snopes.
I am very grateful that there is an audience out there for alternative history, and that there are brave publishers like Skyhorse willing to back the kind of books I write. The court historians fear independent bloggers, and books that question all those official narratives they are sworn to uphold. It was so much easier for them when there were only a handful of big publishers, and no internet to contradict them. They don’t have the facts on their side, so they invariably resort to the old kill the messenger strategy.
Our corrupt leaders “won” when at least 620,000 Americans died in the Civil War. They “won” again during the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and every occupation and bombing that is happening as I write this.
They “won” when enough people accepted that Oswald killed Kennedy. They “won” when Bill Clinton successfully demonized the Third Party movement and blamed these “wackos” for inspiring Timothy McVeigh at Oklahoma City. They “won” when Americans bought into their perpetual war on “terror” and gave up even more of their dwindling civil liberties.
They “won” by demonizing the most enlightened man of his time, and a true Liberal in the classical sense, Thomas Jefferson. They “won” by making the bankers’ toady Alexander Hamilton into a Broadway star. They “won” by declaring the most tyrannical leader our country ever had, Abraham Lincoln, into a veritable demigod and the face of our civilization.
History is written by the victors.
In 1964, fresh on the heels of the coup ‘d tat which removed President John F. Kennedy from office, the responsibility for tabulating our election results was turned over to an un-audited private company, like the Federal Reserve. Known by various names over the years, this private outfit is presently referred to as the National Election Pool.
A few decades ago, the late Collier brothers launched a remarkable investigation into voting fraud, resulting in the generally ignored book Votescam. Readers can find out a great deal more about their work in my book Hidden History. But voter fraud started long before the Colliers began looking into things in 1980s-era Florida.
70% or more of American ballots are counted by machine. The electronic voting results are difficult to monitor, and easy to manipulate. The League of Women Voters were actually recorded on videotape forging ballots, but then Dade County Attorney General Janet Reno retaliated not against the vote fraud, but against the whistle blower Collier Brothers. 60 Minutes actually taped a segment on this clear voting fraud, but in typical mainstream media fashion, never aired it.
Pecinct workers in Dade County, Florida (a popular hot spot for electoral fraud) walked out in protest during the 1974 elections, after discovering the machines were rigged. The Miami Herald, in true establishment “investigative” fashion, reported the walk out, but not the reason behind it. The rest of the establishment press ignored the precinct workers when they tried to contact them, as did the local attorney general and the FBI. This is another instance where someone definitely tried to “talk” about corruption.
Alex Jones likes to talk about what he experienced at the beginning of his broadcasting career, when he was covering the grass roots Pat Buchanan 1996 presidential campaign. Buchanan stunned the Republican Party establishment by winning the New Hampshire primary that year. Jones spoke of seeing results at his election precinct in Texas that indicated Buchanan was getting 70% or more of the vote, but when the “official” numbers came out, he barely registered, at less than 10% or so.
With the Republican elite stunned over Buchanan’s New Hampshire win, which normally results in that candidate being anointed as the “front runner” by the mainstream media, they did everything they could to stop him in the next primary, in Arizona. The “Buchanan Brigade” were irate over the irregularities and fraud they witnessed first hand in Arizona, and Buchanan unfortunately refused to speak up about it. Incredibly, the Arizona legislature approved a measure that forbid a recount in just this particular primary.
Sometimes paper ballots don’t even make a difference. In Dubuque, Iowa, Buchanan followers watched as their candidate handily won the county’s caucuses in 1996. But after the results were phoned into the Voter News Service (a previous incarnation of the National Election Pool), Buchanan had magically lost 13% of his vote, and wound up losing the caucuses.
The examples are numerous. In one Boston election, a judge simply declared nearly 1,000 ballots which had been declared “blank” due to multiple punches to be valid. These “votes” were almost all handed to the incumbent candidate. In a West Virginia case, an expert was able to demonstrate how to add 10,000 bogus “votes” with one ballot card. The judge refused to let the jury watch the demonstration and voting fraud charges were dropped.
All electronic voting machines in the competitive-unfriendly United States, as might be expected, come from only three big companies. The heads of two of these companies have been convicted of vote fraud. Much as it with the National Election Pool itself, no inspections have ever been permitted on these machines; there is no public oversight over any of our electoral system.
Ron Paul was far and away the most popular Republican presidential candidate in 2012, if you judged by the best empirical evidence- signs, bumper stickers, crowds, and unregulated internet polls. Party leaders wantonly violated their own rules, changed vote counts, and privately counted ballots that should have been publicly counted. Paul held a commanding lead in all polls leading up to the first contest, the Iowa caucus.
Iowa’s Republican Governor Terry Barnstad helpfully declared, just prior to the vote, that if Paul won, “people are going to be looking at who comes in second and who comes in third.” The final vote count for the Iowa caucus was staged at a secret location, and the results from eight precincts, each of them considered friendly to Paul, mysteriously went missing. There were “inaccuracies” discovered in 131 precincts. Despite leading comfortably in all pre-election polls, Paul somehow officially came in third place.
Ron Paul’s campaign was well organized in Nevada, but on caucus day, media access was denied to most precincts. Some of the press were thrown out of caucus sites. Even CNN aired a film clip of a Paul supporter being denied the opportunity to vote at a special caucus. CNN’s live coverage of this vote showed Paul winning almost 60%. The vote was inexplicably dragged out for days, and when the dust had settled, Mitt Romney had magically won.
In Colorado, foretelling the kind of dirty tricks Ted Cruz’s 2016 campaign specialized in, Romney supporters were caught handing out fake Ron Paul slates at the state convention. During a highly irregular event in St. Charles County, Missouri, the temporary chairman banned all recording devices and wound up calling a police SWAT team on Paul supporters, one of whom was arrested. This chairman, Eugene Dokes, would subsequently admit on talk radio that state officials had deliberately broke the rules to stop Ron Paul.
In Maine, the state GOP chairman simply awarded the election to Mitt Romney, with only 84% of the vote counted, and a lead of less than 200. He then cancelled the remaining caucuses due to an impending snowstorm that never occurred. Despite promises of these votes being counted later, they never were. In at least one instance, a Maine pastor witnessed the votes being read publicly for his precinct, with Paul winning, and yet the “official” results for his precinct had Paul in third place.
In Arizona, The Examiner reported “ballot stuffing, rule violations, and improper vote counting that occurred behind closed doors” at the convention. Supporters of Ron Paul also alleged that they were threatened physically by Romney supporters. In Michigan, countless Paul supporters were blocked from entering county conventions due to an antiquated party rule. In Wyoming, the Paul campaign claimed that members of the Republican Executive Committee, who were all Romney supporters. illegally cast votes for delegates.
In Georgia, GOP Chairwoman Sue Everhart publicly apologized for the “shoddy treatment of the Ron Paul people at that  convention.” However, video from the 2012 convention revealed party leaders breaking rules in the same manner, and forcing their slate of delegates in while preventing Paul’s supporters from electing their own. Party leaders went on to adjourn illegally and then ran out of the meeting.
Even Ron Paul’s one “official” victory, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, was simply overturned and awarded to Romney. In Louisiana, a Rules Committee chairman who was also a Paul supporter, had his fingers broken by off-duty police officers providing security the night before the convention. When the Paul supporters simply chose another one of their own as chairman, the same security forces roughed him up, breaking his hip in the process. In Oregon, Republican officials in one district were caught on tape trying to steal the ballot box, when they discovered Ron Paul was winning.
This is just a small sampling of the overt corruption and fraud that Ron Paul’s truly popular 2012 campaign endured. I attended my local Republican convention, just to vote for my son’s friend (both of them were Paul volunteers), who was running for delegate, and witnessed first hand the hardball tactics of those wishing to crush the will of the people. In another Virginia convention, the party establishment locked the Paul delegation out of the building.
The 2016 presidential primary season has taken voter fraud to frightening new levels. The Republicans simply cancelled voting in the Wyoming Caucus and just awarded all the delegates to Ted Cruz. Republican officials freely admitted that the party decides the nominee, not the voters.
As for the Democrats, Bernie Sanders was absolutely raped by the rigged electoral system. At one point, Sanders had won eight consecutive primaries, and yet the unrelenting mantra from our unbiased “journalists” was that Hillary Clinton’s nomination was inevitable. In state after state, Sanders drew crowds as large as 30,000, while Clinton struggled to fill a small room.
Even the revelations from Wikileaks, which provided ample documentation that the Democratic party had conspired to stop Sanders and award the nomination to Clinton, resulted in a quick shift of focus, to just who had leaked the damaging information. Inferences were made that Russia had leaked the information, in order to help Donald Trump. When Julian Assange himself declared that this was a ridiculous charge, the focus remained on the identity of the whistle blower, as always, instead of the wrongdoing that was being exposed.
Although Bernie Sanders was cheated repeatedly during the 2016 primaries and caucuses, winning states and still receiving fewer delegates than Clinton, in California the fraud and corruption became nearly farcical. On the eve of this crucial primary, with the candidates locked in a close race despite all the cheating for Clinton, the mainstream media simply declared that Hillary Clinton had accumulated enough delegates to secure the nomination.
I could read all the frustrated posts from my friends on Facebook, whose votes weren’t counted in California, and in some case still haven’t been counted. Even the Washington Post admitted that the “lengthy vote count stokes theories that Sanders actually won” the nation’s largest electoral prize.
There were massive irregularities, to put it kindly, in almost all of the Democratic and Republican primaries and caucuses in 2016. Young supporters of Bernie Sanders were especially shocked by the undemocratic nature of the process. In numerous places, there weren’t enough ballots. In Illinois, poll workers were seen manipulating paper ballots. Voter integrity activist Lora Chamberlain remarked, “I was watching the hand count of the early voting machines … they had to erase 21 votes for Bernie Sanders and add 49 Hillary Clinton votes.”
In Arizona, frustrated voters waited up to five hours to cast their ballots. Justice Gazette reported that more than one million Arizona voters were disenfranchised. Arizona’s Secretary of State Michele Reagan ultimately admitted that voter suppression and fraud occurred. But no one seemed to care. New York saw a slew of complaints about “irregularities” resulting in a suppression of the vote. Weeks after the New York primary, more than two million absentee ballots had yet to be counted.
Despite all this massive fraud, Bernie Sanders, like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul before him, seemed far less concerned than his followers did. Donald Trump complained more about Sanders getting cheated than Sanders did. Especially with the mess in California, we should have seen intense media scrutiny on the dubious process, with real investigations into fraud being conducted. Instead, our lapdog press did what it does best; it dutifully reported what the authorities told them, and acted as if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination fair and square.
While Donald Trump has talked often about the “rigged system,” Bernie Sanders disappointed his enthusiastic supporters by immediately capitulating right after the travesty in California, and threw his support behind the candidate on whose behalf the rigged system had engineered his defeat. One passionate speech from Sanders, highlighting even half of what I’ve highlighted here, would be something even our docile press couldn’t ignore.
Instead, Sanders angered his supporters by urging them to vote for Hillary Clinton at the absurd Democratic convention, which featured the removal of first Sanders’ signs, then canned applause to drown out the boos, media refusal to pan towards protesters, and finally the actual replacement of Sanders’ delegates with those who’d been hired from a Craigs List ad, and instructed to cheer lustily.
Thanks to all the efforts of citizen activists, and independent voices on the internet, the American people have seen how the electoral sausage is made, and they know it isn’t pretty. Our celebrated leaders always remind us, “your vote counts.” No one has an excuse now not to understand just how false this slogan is. At this point, it’s fair to question whether anyone’s vote is being honestly counted, or if trudging to the polls is just an exercise in futility. Are the results all preordained, and the whole electoral charade just some kind of mindless theater?
I have lost friends, on Facebook, because of my support for Trump. The saddest of these losses was Victoria Collier, daughter of one of the co-authors of Votescam, and seemingly an activist for honest voting herself. She wasn’t even interested in the obvious voter fraud in California, and actually seemed to question the notion that there had been anything untoward about the voting there. She is voting for the Queen of Corruption, like so many other good people, and is motivated exclusively by an intense hatred of Trump. After telling me she wasn’t going to block me (because of my anti-Clinton comments), she just deleted me as her friend.
I don’t want to ever hear again that, “if you didn’t vote, you have no right to complain.” I will vote this year, but I have little confidence that it will be counted legitimately. The process has been exposed to all as a festering cesspool of corruption and chicanery. But if the past is any indication, the majority of the public will simply forget and move on.
As MTV used to say so enthusiastically, “Rock the Vote.”
In the midst of the circus sideshow that is the Democratic party’s convention, it seems appropriate to examine just what a “liberal” is today versus what it meant to be a liberal in saner times.
Let me make it clear that I am the farthest thing from conservative as can be imagined. I consider myself a liberal in the classic sense. I oppose excessive concentrated power anywhere, and wish all corruption to be exposed. I am for the general reform of our society, because I believe it has been hopelessly ruined by an elite oligarchy. I champion a true redistribution of wealth. The great wealth that America boasts makes our own poverty statistics all the more shameful.
Thomas Jefferson was, for a very long time, the poster boy for a classic liberal. Over the past few decades, as authoritarian political correctness has taken control of our society, Jefferson has been transformed into a monstrous “racist” whose words and image are now considered “offensive” to many.
Charles Dickens would be my prime example of a liberal. His reputation may not have suffered as Jefferson’s has, but few “liberals” today echo Dickens’ thoughts and actions. Classical liberals like Dickens were concerned with reforming the wrongs and corruption in the world, with eradicating such outrages as child labor and debtors’ prisons. Ironically, as I detail in my book Survival of the Richest, to be published in 2017, both child labor and debtors’ prisons are making quite the comeback, and few “liberals” of our time seem to care.
Today’s “liberals” are preoccupied with taking away the rights of others, not defending or expanding them. They are purely driven by emotion, and respond to any disagreement with name-calling and often violence. While they charge that “haters” are offending certain groups- and they are invariably groups that are popular voter demographics with the Democratic party- they ignore the hatred they themselves spew constantly, and deny other groups- for instance, evangelical Christians- the right to be just as offended as gays, transgenders, blacks, etc.
My support for Donald Trump has been met with the predictable name-calling and anger on social media. These “liberals” are far less tolerant and open-minded than any of the right-wingers I’ve ever encountered. They are also far more “hateful.” And yet their entire argument against Trump is based upon emotional sound bites; “racist,” “fascist,” “misogynist,” etc. None of them ever feel the need to provide any instances of actual “racism” or “fascism” on Trump’s part. Their argument is distilled down to the odious Bill Maher’s mantra against Trump, whom he dismisses with the predictably juvenile sobriquet, “whiny little bitch.”
“Liberals” are interested only in a few selected slices of American history. Their primary concern, 150 years after emancipation, is with the enslavement of African- Americans. They present the issue in typical dishonest fashion; first of all, acting as if slavery was a reality in America in the recent past, and secondly by portraying the enslavement of blacks in America as something unique and far more horrible than the enslavement of others, during the same time period, all over the world.
There were less than four million African slaves in America at its peak, and there were never more than 6% of southerners who owned slaves. If you include the northern slave owners, the percentage of Americans who ever owned slaves goes down to 1.4%. In startling contrast, there are some 30 million enslaved human beings in the world today. This includes about 10 million slaves in India. Have we heard any outcries from Hollywood or any other hotbed of modern “liberalism,” demanding a boycott or embargo of India? How do you still make redundant films about the subject, and complain about slavery a century and a half ago, yet not even mention modern-day slavery?
Traditional liberals like Charles Dickens wrote often about the disgrace of poverty, and demanded that something be done about it. If “liberals” today even mention the poor, it’s to cite the plight of poor minorities exclusively, or to lamely lobby for a slight increase in the embarrassingly low minimum wage. Their opposition to the death penalty- if they are even opposed to it- is often propelled only by the disproportionate numbers of black prisoners executed.
But today’s “liberal’s” favorite pastime is the monitoring of speech, and thought, and writing. How many careers have been ended because of a careless opinion or even just a single verboten word? These kinds of social justice warrior “liberals” pounce upon the unsuspecting thought criminals in such cases with the hunger of wild lions. Their cries of “fire him!” or “put him in jail!” would make true liberals like Jefferson or Dickens blanch in horror.
“Liberals” are generally associated in the public mind with pacifism, or at least with being in the forefront of anti-war movements. My research has revealed that the best known “liberals” in every generation wholeheartedly supported the particular war or wars of their time, and were in the forefront of smearing those who opposed them as “appeasers” or some other nasty label.
It’s Donald Trump, not any high-profile “liberal,” who is focusing attention on the sorry state of American infrastructure. “Liberal” comedians and talk-show hosts throw the truly offensive term “retard” around with impunity. In many ways, today’s “leftists” act like textbook bullies, which makes their own loudly proclaimed concern with bullying to be just a bit ironic. I have found from extensively researching the subject of bullying for a future book, that most “anti-bullying” advocates are firm supporters of bullies, and seek to minimize the experiences of their victims.
The whole facade of our “liberal” civilization is crumbling before our eyes. Heroic young citizen journalists from Infowars, We are Change and numerous other outlets are exposing our putrid leaders for what they are. They can’t hide behind the facade of a controlled trio of identical television networks, or a coterie of editorial boards run by their close cronies, any longer. CNN and other networks can order their camera people not to show all the Bernie Sanders’ supporters, and the party can confiscate their signs, and canned applause can be inserted to drown out the boos, but they can’t stop independent voices on the internet from exposing what they’re doing.
The term “limousine liberal” is one that can be applied to nearly all celebrated “liberals” today. These are the people who fly on their private jets to conferences where they lecture the common riff-raff about leaving too large a carbon footprint. They admonish the unwashed masses not to use too much water or energy, while soaking in their hot tubs and watering their expansive lawns regularly. It’s the same mindset that causes multi-millionaire celebrities to urge their financially struggling fans to cough up their money for Africa, AIDS, or some other popular “liberal” cause. The celebrities, on the other hand, donate nothing other than their performances and reap the benefits of positive publicity.
As I noted earlier, I am no defender of conservatives. What is there about the decaying state of America that any rational person would want to conserve? On the contrary, everywhere we turn, at all levels of government and business, we need massive changes and true reform. The only changes a modern “liberal” supports are ones that would only make a bad situation worse. They are not true reformers in any sense of the word.
In reality, today’s “liberals” are defenders of the rotten state. They are profiting in a corrupt mess that the vast majority of their fellow Americans are struggling in. They don’t want change, which is why they object so strongly to Trump, who is simply pointing out some of the countless elephants roaming freely about the room.
If my convictions seem contradictory, that’s because I don’t buy into the phony “left” and “right” paradigm. To me, it makes perfect sense to be against both the greed and selfishness of the modern right, and the authoritarian political correctness of the modern left.
Another forgotten true liberal, Lord Acton, pointed out succinctly that, “Power corrupts; absolutely power corrupts absolutely.” Lord Acton, like Jefferson and Dickens, would not understand the importance of transgender bathrooms or the notion that brown paper bags and band aids can be “racist.”
They would further be appalled at the idea of “hate speech” or “free speech zones.” They believed in liberty and justice for all, unlike the modern-day “liberals” who have all but destroyed our world.
John Armstrong’s massive Harvey and Lee is an impressive work, and every JFK assassination researcher owes Armstrong a debt of gratitude for his countless hours of research, which included extensive travelling in order to personally interview witnesses, many of them never interviewed before.
According to the late Jack White, John Armstrong sunk some $100,000 of his own money into the self-publication of his book. Despite the fact that Armstrong expended such time and resources on his investigation, he quickly became a divisive figure in the critical community, with many “respectable” researchers belittling and ridiculing his efforts.
I still don’t buy wholeheartedly into Armstrong’s “theory,” which is that two look-a-likes, one of them Russian-born “Harvey” and the other good old southern boy “Lee,” were part of an intricate intelligence operation, which began when they both were youngsters. But the evidence Armstrong assembled regarding the discrepancies in the physical appearance and personal demeanor of Lee Harvey Oswald, not to mention the differing recollections regarding his mother Marguerite, are impossible to ignore.
I took voluminous notes during the reading of Harvey and Lee, which I often do. What follows is some of the most important information I gleaned from this indispensable book.
Palmer McBride claimed to have worked with Lee Harvey Oswald at Pfisterer Dental Laboratory in New Orleans, from October 1957 to May 1958. Marine Corps records show that Oswald was in Japan during this time period. FBI agents arrived at Pfisterer Dental Laboratory on the morning of November 23, 1963, and confiscated all of Oswald’s employment records, and they were subsequently destroyed. Palmer McBride recalled that Oswald was obsessed with politics, didn’t drink, always talked about communism and said he wanted to kill Eisenhower. They were close friends, and went on dates together.
Armstrong spoke to many of Oswald’s fellow Marines, who remembered quite a different person, the “Lee” who was, according to Armstrong, involved in later setting up “Harvey” as the patsy for the Kennedy assassination. Zack Stout and others who served with Oswald at Atsugi, Japan, claimed they never saw him speak or study Russian. These Marines remembered “Lee” as a drinker, who never discussed politics and frequently engaged in fights.The Marines who served with “Harvey” recalled the constant political chatter from the tea-totaling Marxist who never fought.
Basically, there were two sets of witnesses who remembered Lee Harvey Oswald. The ones who served with “Harvey,” the historical Oswald we know and love, were the ones questioned by the authorities. The ones who served with “Lee” were mostly ignored, and John Armstrong has included their collective testimony in his Harvey and Lee. It is simply impossible to accept that one individual could have been both a heavy drinker and a tea- totaler, a willing scrapper and someone who never engaged in fisticuffs, an out-spoken Marxist and someone who never discussed politics.
The Warren Commission would conclude about the young Lee Harvey Oswald, “There were few children of his age in the neighborhood, and he appears to be by himself after school most of the time.” Classmates of Oswald’s at Ridglea West Elementary School remembered him very differently, however; as a robust, athletic “leader” who got into lots of fights and was “the tallest, the dominant member of our group in elementary school,” to quote Richard Garrett, who was in his fifth grade class.
The young Oswald showed no signs of violent or disturbing behavior, according to numerous friends, neighbors and teachers that Armstrong interviewed. On the other hand, Lee’s brother Robert Oswald, wrote in his book Lee, that Oswald lived in a fantasy world, being especially obsessed by the t.v. show I Led Three Lives. While Robert wrote, “When I left home to join the Marines, he was still watching the reruns” of his favorite show, John Armstrong checked and found that I Led Three Lives didn’t premiere until September, 1953- over a year after Robert left for the Marines on July 15, 1952. Robert would also falsely claim that Lee’s favorite show as an adult was The Fugitive. Again Robert had problems with the historical timeline; he also told interviewers that he hadn’t seen or spoken to Lee since Thanksgiving Day, 1962. The Fugitive didn’t begin airing on television until September 17, 1963.
Oswald’s original New York school records disappeared while in the custody of FBI agent John Malone. His original psychiatric records also disappeared while in FBI custody. New York PS #44 health records listed Oswald as being 5’4, while Dr. Milton Kurian described the boy he interviewed as very short, only about 4’6. Warren Commission records have Oswald attending both PS #44 in New York and Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans during the fall of 1953.
The 1953 Bronx Zoo photo of a skinny, smaller Oswald is markedly different than the taller, husky Oswald that appeared in a 6th grade photo in Fort Worth the year before. Armstrong showed the zoo photo to Oswald’s Ridglea classmates, and they basically said, “Who’s that?” Oswald’s half-brother John Pic immediately identified Lee in the Fort Worth picture, but told the Warren Commission, after looking at the Bronx Zoo photo, “Sir from that photo I could not recognize that is Lee Harvey Oswald.” Robert Oswald, on the other hand, supported the official narrative at every turn, and while he supposedly took the zoo photo in 1953, oddly wrote “1952” on the back of the picture.
John Armstrong contacted John Pic at his Florida home in 1995. When he asked about all the discrepancies in Lee’s appearance, which Pic himself had remarked upon to the Warren Commission, Pic replied, “I gave my testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964. I’ll stand by that testimony and have nothing further to say.”
Going even deeper down this rabbit hole, photos taken of Marguerite Oswald as late as 1957 show a tall, slender, good-looking woman. This attractive lady is the mother of Oswald that many of those Armstrong talked to remembered. As early as 1954, a photo of Oswald’s alleged mother revealed the overweight, short, elderly looking woman presented to the world after the assassination. This is the woman Palmer McBride identified from that 1954 photo, whom he met in 1957.
Marguerite and Lee lived with Myrtle and Julian Evans in New Orleans. They described young Lee as loud and demanding, with a “Foghorn” voice. On page 679 of the Warren Report, it is stated, “Lee is remembered by those who knew him in New Orleans as a quiet, solitary boy with few friends.” Beauregard teacher Myra DaRouse knew Oswald well as a student in her homeroom, and described him as very quiet and small. A year later, in 1955, Dolly Shoe owner Maury Goodman claimed that young employee Oswald spoke so softly that he had to put his ear close to him in order to hear what he was saying. The Evans’ knew the real Marguerite- the slender, good-looking one, for many years. Mrytle and Julian both described her as “beautiful.”
Oswald’s best friend in New Orleans was Edward Voebel. Voebel took the famous photo of Oswald with a missing tooth, sitting in the back of a classroom, later published by Life magazine. Voebel told the Warren Commission that the woman he’d seen represented as Oswald’s mother in the media was far different than he recalled. “I didn’t recognize her. She was a lot thinner….” In May, 1971, Voebel suddenly became ill and was taken to the New Orleans Ochsner Clinic, allegedly because of “insecticide poisons.” After phoning his family to tell them he felt much better and was ready to go home, Voebel suddenly died of a “blood clot.” Dr. Alvin Ochsner was affiliated with the CIA’s Information Council of the Americas. Voebel’s death certificate inexplicably states that he died at Foundation Hospital in Metairie, Louisiana. In 1978, Voebel’s father told the HSCA that he felt his son had died under mysterious circumstances.
Myrtle Evans told the Warren Commission, regarding her friend Marguerite Oswald: “she looked so old and haggard, and I said that couldn’t be Margie.” Myra DaRouse, who knew Oswald very well, claimed that this boy was not the Oswald she knew. Meanwhile, brother Robert had Lee attending Stripling Junior High School, something not in the official narrative. The principal of Stripling, Ricardo Galindo, told Armstrong that it was “common knowledge” that Oswald attended Stripling. There were no records found tying Oswald to Stripling. Former assistant principal of Stripling Frank Kudlaty volunteered to Armstrong that he’d given Oswald’s school records to the FBI, who came to the school and took them on the day after the assassination. Kudlaty also reported that when he looked at Oswald’s records, he found no copies or transcripts from previous schools, which he thought was very unusual.
Marguerite Oswald was given a book of documents and a typewritten chronology before she testified before the Warren Commission, which she frequently (and oddly) referred to. This background information on the history of Lee Harvey Oswald was provided by New York Times reporter Jack Longelt. Not only is it exceedingly strange for a mother to need notes to recite her own child’s history, but I could find absolutely no further information about the enigmatic reporter Jack Longelt.
Leander D’Avy, doorman of the Court of Two Sisters restaurant in New Orleans, claimed that in June 1962, a young man came in and asked if Clay Bertrand worked at the restaurant. Night manager Gene Davis heard this, told D’Avy he wanted to talk to the young man. D’Avy subsequently overheard Davis tell a waitress that this man had been behind the Iron Curtain. D’Avy claimed this young man had lived in an apartment over the restaurant at the time, and later again in November 1963. At both times, Oswald was officially living in Dallas. Davis, interestingly enough, was an active FBI informant. D’Avy would also claim to have seen this “Oswald” in the same bar with Clay Bertrand/Shaw.
Of all who knew him in Russia, only Marina would claim Lee spoke Russian. Oswald was close to the Ziger family in Russia, none of whom spoke English except for the father, Alejandro. In 1998, Armstrong traveled to Buenos Aires to interview his daughter Ana Evelina Ziger, who told him Oswald had no willingness to learn and speak Russian.
Augusta, Georgia Dixie Cab driver Lynn Davis Curry claimed that he picked up a passenger in November 1962, who introduced himself as Lee Oswald. He revealed that he’d been in the Marines, had married a Russian girl, supported Fidel Castro and was traveling to New Orleans. As he left the cab, Oswald insisted that he write his name down and said he would be hearing more about him in the future.
Armstrong demonstrates, better than I’ve seen anywhere else, just how absurd Marina Oswald’s wildly conflicting, ever-changing testimony was. Her comments regarding the backyard photos, and her allegations about Oswald shooting Walker, were especially ridiculous. The HSCA was so perturbed by Marina’s constant changes in testimony that they created a 29 page memo titled “Marina Oswald Porter’s Statements of a Contradictory Nature.” To cite just one example, while Marina claimed to have found and destroyed an additional backyard photo of Oswald, this one with the rifle raised over his head triumphantly, she told the HSCA that she didn’t remember such a photo.She would later tell researcher William Law that Oswald was holding “something else” when she took the backyard photos.
Armstrong does a nice job documenting all of the problems with Ruth Paine as well. Ruth discovered many items incriminating Oswald, after the Dallas Police had thoroughly searched her home. One of them was a long note in Russian, purported to be detailed instructions from Lee to Marina on what to do after his shooting attempt at General Walker. Marina initially said she knew nothing about it, but changed her story the very next day. Armstrong also raises a very logical question: why didn’t alleged Kennedy fan Ruth Paine make plans to see him when he visited Forth Worth and Dallas?
Then there was Ruth Paine’s curious greeting to Dallas officers who came to search her home after the assassination, that “we’ve been expecting you.” Detective Gus Rose certainly found Ruth’s “expectations” strange, and after witnessing Michael Paine arrive at the Paines after the police had, heard him say “something to the effect, ‘Ruth it’s me. Just as soon as I heard where it happened I knew you’d be needing some help.’” Rose pointed out, “At this time there still hadn’t been mention of Oswald on the television but, uh, I didn’t know how to take that.”
I’ve read so many books on the JFK assassination that I stopped counting them long ago. I thought I knew almost everything about this case, but I discovered a lot of new information in Harvey and Lee. According to the flight plan filed by David Ferrie, for instance, an individual named “Hidell” was one of the passengers who flew with him from New Orleans to Garland, Texas on April 6, 1963.
Armstrong details the case of Roy Frankhauser, who was an undercover agent scheduled to testify before the Warren Commission, until his appearance was quashed by the Executive Department on grounds of “national security.” Frankhauser had identified both Ruth and Michael Paine as fellow undercover agents and charged that Ruth Paine had been assigned the role of Oswald’s “baby sitter.”
Laura Kittrell, of the Texas Employment Commission, on her own noticed differences between the Lee Harvey Oswald she’d interviewed earlier and the alleged Teamster who showed up at her office on about October 17, 1963, at a time when Oswald was working at the TSBD. Kittrell very astutely concluded that this was “A fellow who was pretending to be the man whose wife has just had a baby, and who has been coached upon how to answer certain questions….” Kittrell noted numerous differences in behavior and bearing between the two men. She was so moved by her encounters that she wrote a 90 page manuscript about them. Kittrell tried repeatedly to contact the authorities about her meetings with two different Oswalds, but there was no interest on their part. She sent two letters to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy about the subject as well.
One anecdote I’d forgotten was the fact Oswald checked out the book The Shark and the Sardines by Juan Jose Arevalo, from the Dallas Public Library on November 6, 1963, and it was listed as overdue at the time of the assassination. Some anonymous soul returned this book to the library in 1964. Another was the fact Louisiana State Police Lt. Francis Fruge asked the HSCA in 1978 if they’d obtained the diagrams of the Dealey Plaza sewer system in Sergio Aracha’s apartment. Fruge stated that he thought it was Will Fritz who first told him about these diagrams. The HSCA never attempted to locate them.
James Alfred Markham, Helen Markham’s 20 year old son, had several curiously under reported encounters with a fake Oswald. A few weeks before the assassination, he met someone named “Ozzie” while getting a ride with a friend. He saw “Ozzie” again a couple of days later while fishing, and chatted with him. A few days after that, while visiting his brother’s apartment, Markham encountered “Ozzie” again, who was sitting in a car with three other males. The next day, Markham saw “Ozzie” yet again, at the Texas Theater no less. This time, “Ozzie” left some truly incendiary remarks on the record, as he asked Markham if he would like to help him “stun the nation,” and discussed killing President Kennedy during his upcoming trip to Dallas. Markham laughed it off as a joke, but would later recognize the man accused of being JFK’s assassin as “Ozzie.” On each occasion Markham encountered “Ozzie,” Oswald was documented as working at the TSBD.
On November 21, 1963, Helen McIntosh, friend of an SMU professor who lived in the apartment next to Jack Ruby, claimed that a man she later identified as Oswald knocked at their door and asked for Jack Ruby. At around 2:15 a.m. on November 22, 1963, B & B Restaurant head waitress Mary Lawrence reported that a man she identified as Oswald entered the restaurant and told her and the night cashier that he was waiting for Jack Ruby, whom Lawrence had known for nearly a decade. A short while later, Ruby entered the place and the two men talked for over half an hour. Lee Harvey Oswald, of course, was reportedly in bed with his wife at the Paines’ home at the time. On December 3, 1963, Mary Lawrence received one of those all too frequent threatening phone calls, and an unidentified man warned her, “If you don’t want to die, you better get out of town.” Lawrence bravely stuck by her story when she talked to the Dallas Police, and insisted she was certain it was Oswald and Ruby she’d seen together.
On November 27, 1963, supposed non-driver Lee Harvey Oswald’s driver’s license appeared at the Texas Department of Public Safety in Austin, Texas. Aletha Frair claimed that she and numerous other employees had seen the license, which became the buzz around the workplace. She was certain that it was in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. Fellow employee Lee Bozarth declared that she knew the license was there, as well as a file on Oswald, and that it was given to a federal agency in early December, 1963. In 1978, HSCA investigator Gary Sanders contacted the TDPS about Oswald’s license, and after a brief, curt conversation with a Mrs. Seay, concluded, “It is very obvious to me that if there are any records at the DPS pertaining to Lee Harvey Oswald they are not going to release them.”
In another incident I’d never heard of, Ruby’s stripper “Jada,” aka Jeanette Conforto, struck pedestrian Charles Burnes with her Cadillac at approximately noon on November 22, 1963. Jada seemed to be in an inordinate rush, and oddly cursed hysterically at Burnes afterwards. When she was questioned shortly thereafter, Jada tellingly stated that the Carousel Club would not be open that evening, and that she was in a hurry to get to New Orleans.
Mechanic T.E. White saw a man he later identified as Oswald in a red Ford Falcon, first speeding and then seemingly hiding out in a restaurant parking lot, during the time Oswald was being arrested at the Texas Theater. White wrote the license tag down, and it was traced to Carl Mather, who happened to be Officer J.D. Tippit’s best friend. Mather worked for Collins Radio, and one of his jobs was servicing the communications equipment aboard Air Force Two, LBJ’s plane. Another employee of Collins Radio, Kenneth Porter, quit his job and left his wife after the assassination, later marrying Marina Oswald. Before Mather agreed to be interviewed by the HSCA in 1978, he demanded a grant of immunity. His testimony is still classified.
The FBI alone had amassed a file relating to Oswald which contained over one hundred reports, during the time period of 1960 leading up to the assassination. Why did FBI special agent Milton Kaack review Oswald’s birth records in New Orleans, on October 24, 1963? Hoover himself sent reports on Oswald to the CIA just two weeks before the assassination, informing them that they “may be of interest to you.”
Richard Case Nagell walked into an El Paso, Texas bank on September 20, 1963, fired two shots into the ceiling, then went outside and waited in his car to be arrested. Nagell would claim to be a double agent who was trying to stop the assassination of JFK. He mentioned Oswald by name, and claimed to have sent a registered letter to J. Edgar Hoover warning him of the plot. The AARB sent a registered letter to Nagell on October 31, 1995, anxious to talk to him. He died of a heart attack the following day. Most tellingly, when Nagell was arrested by El Paso police, again two months before the assassination, he was carrying a DOD ID card on him, with Oswald’s name and photograph on it.
What about the little noted 30 minute telephone call Oswald made at 8 p.m. on November 23? This was prior to his aborted attempted to contact the Raleigh, North Carolina number, to someone named John Hurt. During this 30 minute call to an unknown person, DPD officer J.L. Popplewell stood nearby, and two unidentified men were eavesdropping on the call in the next room, according to the DPD telephone operators. There are no telephone logs that recorded the number Oswald called. Who listened in to this call, which is highly significant in a historical sense? Why doesn’t anyone know who Oswald spoke to?
Echoing the claims of so many other witnesses, Dallas Police Lt. Donald Archer told the HSCA that he noticed numerous discrepancies when he was asked by Captain Nichols to sign his Warren Commission deposition. He made corrections and it was returned to the Commission. When it was subsequently returned to him, Archer noted even more errors. He again corrected the “mistakes” and it was returned to the Commission. The third time, again there were discrepancies, but Archer was ordered to sign the deposition. When he started making the corrections again, in pen, he was instructed by a Warren Commission staffer to make them in pencil.
Marina Oswald received $132,350 within a few months of signing a contract with Onajet Productions, also known as Tex-Italia Films and Cinema International Productions (which rented a small office with Samuel Goldwyn Studios, but never produced a single film), for worldwide movie and television rights to her story. This was shortly before Marina first testified before the Warren Commission. Commission staff member Fredda Scobey was concerned about Marina’s inconsistent testimony, writing to Senator Richard Russell that, “Marina directly lied on at least two occasions” and suggested she be cross-examined. Chief Justice Earl Warren refused to consider the matter, telling Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin not to pursue it. Despite this, Rankin wrote in a lengthy memo that “Marina’s testimony is so full of confusion and contradiction that without the catalytic element of cross-examination it reads like a nightmare.” Marina would insist on being granted immunity before agreeing to testify to the HSCA.
There is much more I could write, but I hope this gives readers a sense of the important information John Armstrong unearthed in his lengthy, detailed work. I know the book is expensive, and not in many libraries, but it is well worth every researcher’s time to read it, study it, and appreciate Harvey and Lee.
Both of my parents were born into poor families. My mother’s father was a security guard, and in those pre-1938 days worked 365 days a year, 12 hours per day. His employers thoughtfully let him go home for lunch with his family on Christmas Day. Without any sick leave or health insurance, he was forced to work right up until two weeks before he died of cancer. His situation was typical for the day and age. It’s no wonder he spent every rare free moment drinking heavily.
An empathy for the poor was drilled into me as a youngster. My mother would recount stories of how she and her siblings would wander over into the nicer sections of Washington, D.C., where they would forage for change that had been dropped on the lawns and in the streets. My father vividly described how he and his eight siblings slept in a single bed, in the rotating apartments they resided in. He talked about feeling the ice on the walls in the winter, and how he’d often return home from school to find a note on the door, directing him to their new dwelling.
I just finished reading Jack London’s marvelously powerful 1903 book The People of the Abyss. Much as John Howard Griffin would do, six decades later when he wrote Black Like Me, London blended into the East End of London, probably one of the western world’s most impoverished areas and scene of the Jack the Ripper murders twenty years previously, as one of the inhabitants. His first-hand experiences are must reading for any true student of history.
As horrific as their poverty was, the East Enders had it better than the Irish had in the nineteenth century. French sociologist, Gustave de Beaumont described his 1835 visit to Ireland in 1835 this way: “I have seen the Indian in his forests, and the Negro in his chains, and thought, as I contemplated their pitiable condition, that I saw the very extreme of human wretchedness; but I did not then know the condition of unfortunate Ireland…In all countries, more or less, paupers may be discovered; but an entire nation of paupers is what was never seen until it was shown in Ireland.”
Poverty was common in the Middle Ages. In Great Britain, the Church taught an obligation to help the poor, and they ran the only hospitals. During the Tudor age, unemployment was rampant, and disabled beggars, along with those pretending to be disabled, filled the streets. In 1530, the elderly and disabled were granted licenses to beg. Those who were not truly disabled were tied to a cart and whipped severely. Such “vagabonds” could be enslaved for a period of two years. Runaways were branded and became slaves for life.
England passed another odious law in 1697, requiring “paupers” to wear a blue or red “P” on their clothing. Most estimates claim that by the eighteenth century, half of England was living barely at the sustenance level. A century later, much dreaded workhouses were developed, where the unfortunate poor labored long hours in order to be modestly fed and housed. As London described it in his book, while the vaunted British Empire never saw the sun set upon it, an alarming number of her citizens were struggling in absolute squalor.
As a Baby Boomer, born in 1956, I took for granted the standard of living I enjoyed, in my lower middle-class family. Our neighborhood was quiet and safe, and my mother was always there to meet me when I arrived home from school. My father never made much money, but there was a sense of security there, and an idea that my future prospects were in my own hands. There were plentiful jobs during the 1970s and 1980s, and opportunities for promotion. Not to mention yearly raises at almost any position, and peak level benefits across the board.
Flash forward to 2016. The true unemployment rate is unknown, because the government releases phony numbers that count only those who are currently collecting unemployment benefits. But it certainly is the highest it’s been in my lifetime, and the kinds of jobs that are available tend to pay minimum wage or barely above that, with zero chances of advancement and no yearly raises. And benefits that were once enjoyed by nearly all full-time workers are becoming a thing of the past, what is increasingly referred to everywhere as “the new normal.”
The Right has unleashed their Ayn Rand-driven hostility towards the poor onto much of our society at large. The poor really, really aren’t “cool.” Much as the mentally retarded and other disabled persons used to be locked away, to be seen only by their caregivers, the poor are seen as an embarrassing nuisance that won’t go away. If some “conspiracy theorists” are right, there has already begun a class cleansing in some big cities, with the poor being scooped up and transferred to those diabolical FEMA camps.
One of the most hard-edged admonitions from the Bible, the “he who doesn’t work shall not eat” one, is becoming quite popular with the “conservatives” who still manage to unashamedly dress up and appear at church each Sunday. These folks would also like to eliminate the minimum wage, which is already a pittance no one can live on. And they’ve converted the wealthy into “job creators” in the public mind. They blanch like vampires in the sunlight at any references to my favorite Biblical verse, where Jesus talked about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
My next book, due to be published in Spring 2017, Survival of the Richest, will focus on all these issues. The distribution of wealth in America goes far beyond the obscene salaries and benefit packages of CEOs. I examine the validity of our present marketplace, and how it seems to bestow economic rewards upon people often in inverse relation to their actual contributions to society.
While an increasing number of Americans seem to literally hate their own poor, most of these same people are sympathetic to the poor in other countries. They rarely protest against any foreign aid, for example. And they seem to be enthralled with permitting more and more immigrants, legal and illegal, into our country to compete with the huge numbers of unemployed and underemployed American citizens for dwindling jobs and limited resources.
Lyndon Johnson declared “war” on poverty in the 1960s, following his “accidental” ascension to the presidency. Much as the “war” on drugs begun by Ronald Reagan has proven to be a miserable failure, the “war” on poverty was lost a long time ago. The reason is simple; to truly eliminate poverty, you must have plentiful jobs, that each pay enough for a person to live decently. All wages must keep up with the ever increasing costs of living. And you just can’t do that when the richest people in your society are accruing millions as readily as the common riff-raff collect pocket change.
No one’s job, no one’s life, is worth hundreds, or thousands of times more than any other person’s. What message are we sending to the populace when executives who lay off thousands of meagerly paid workers are given huge bonuses as a reward for doing so? How is the marketplace fair, when a manual laborer can be fired for one simple mistake, with no “severance” package at all, while utter failures as CEOs such as Carly Fiorina can be given $40 million or more in “golden umbrellas” just to get them to leave the company?
The great socialist Eugene Debs, upon being convicted under the Sedition Act for his opposition to World War I, put things succinctly with, “I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.” It is hard to improve upon this wonderful description of how our marketplace works.
Free enterprise, if it ever existed, is long gone, replaced by a globalist form of crony capitalism. Horatio Alger stories, if they ever existed, exist no more. My research has shown conclusively that the overwhelming majority of our wealthiest citizens came from at least upper middle-class backgrounds. The path to upward mobility is simply not there for all but a chosen few. The meritocracy that Thomas Jefferson dreamed about is just an unfulfilled dream from the eighteenth century.
The times are right for another Huey Long, to make the sinful disparity of wealth into a national campaign. Huey would be mortified at how America has fallen back to pre- Great Depression levels of inequality. The “new normal” preaches “sacrifice” from the bottom 80% of the population, the ones forever outside the corridors of power. Meanwhile, the top 20%, and especially the elite One Percent, are devising new methods daily to abscond what’s left of the wealth from the emaciated masses.
The statistics vary according to the source, but however you slice it, the mass of people in America have virtually no wealth. Over 60% have no savings at all. One in five homes have no people working in them. Yet all our leaders can do is to add more incredibly impoverished immigrants into the mix, who serve to further lower wages at the bottom of the employment ladder, and eliminate benefits. The Visa workers serve the same purpose at a slightly higher level; working for less and being happy with what, for them, is an increased standard of living.
For the rest of us, the aging Baby Boomers, their children and grandchildren, we must confront a selfishness, a greed that is difficult to comprehend. All people my age can do is hope they don’t steal our pensions, if we’re lucky enough to have them. For our children and grandchildren, the American Dream is dead. As George Carlin said, “They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.” Our leaders are preaching austerity measures, and lowered expectations, which of course lead to a lowered standard of living. For us. For them, everything is cool.
Few people, even the most “liberal” among us, actually believe in human equality. After all, they live in guarded estates, safe from the impoverished hordes who considerately never wander into their neighborhoods. They preach gun control and have armed bodyguards. They talk about “education” and send their own children to expensive, lily white private schools. Their clubs and organizations display a startling lack of “diversity.” They simply don’t like the poor, but don’t want to publicly admit it.
Are we headed back to the days of Jack London’s abyss? It took me quite a while to realize just how uncharacteristic my childhood era of the 1960s-1970s was. The post- war boom, with unions at their peak of power, and the distribution of wealth as egalitarian as it has ever been, was a lovely aberration. We’re back to the “good old days” now, where a man was a man, and women were glad of it. If you don’t work, you don’t eat, and all that. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. The advice is endless, from those who are comfortable, and don’t ever have to avail themselves of it.
In a 1934 “Share Our Wealth” radio address, Huey Long described a situation that mirrors our own: “God told you what the trouble was. The philosophers told you what the trouble was; and when you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America that have got more control over things than all the 120 million people together, you know what the trouble is.”
Indeed, we know “what the trouble is.” But those who have hoarded all the wealth simply will not “sacrifice” any of their ill gotten gains. The overriding political issue is the fact the majority of people do not have the money to meet the increasing costs of living. The answer is, as Huey Long knew, to share the wealth.
I’ve written before about what it means to be a “liberal” in today’s world. Suffice to say, today’s mainstream “liberal” isn’t concerned with protecting or extending rights. They are instead, utterly devoted to taking rights away from those they disagree with. And they are the first to resort to name-calling, attempted intimidation and even violence.
Hillary Clinton is the penultimate establishment candidate. She exemplifies decades of wrong choices, which have resulted in America teetering on the brink of total collapse. Her concept of representative government was best reflected in her comment, “We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices … Government has to make those choices for people.” She is a would-be Queen of the nanny state; but America’s nanny state provides few if any valuable services to those they control.
The myriad of improprieties exposed regarding the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi and Hillary’s emails are merely the latest in a continuous stream of scandals connected to both Bill and Hillary Clinton. They are the poster children for political corruption, and in many ways resemble an organized crime outfit more than elected representatives of the people.
It is a testament to the nature of the controlled mass media in America, and the resulting ignorance of the public at large, that most people still associate IRS targeting of one’s political enemies with Richard Nixon. Few recall that virtually every major conservative group in America was audited during the administration of Bill Clinton. Also targeted were alleged rape victim Juanita Broderick and sexual harassment victim Paula Jones, as well as fired White House Travel Office Director Billy Dale.
Kathleen Willey, yet another alleged victim of Bill Clinton’s habitual sexual harassment, claims to have been subjected to an ugly retaliation campaign led by Hillary herself. Willey’s husband Ed was part of the Clinton Body Count, as his gunshot body was found later on the same afternoon that Kathleen visited President Clinton and was groped against her will in the Oval Office. It is shocking and unconscionable that Hillary is portrayed as some kind of feminist icon, when she is in reality perhaps the most high profile enabler of a male abuser of women in political history.
The Clintons were so grounded in corruption during Bill’s tenure as Arkansas governor that it was only natural to bring that mafia-style of doing business to Washington, D.C. They auctioned off and sold taxpayer-financed goods and services. While Richard Nixon continues to be lambasted for his short and impotent “enemies list” (which is child’s play compared to Barack Obama’s “kill list”), the Clintons availed themselves of the FBI files of their own enemies, in a scandal known as Filegate.
There was Travelgate, where senior employees were fired, primarily so that the Clintons could appoint their own cronies, which included Bill’s young cousin. And the confusing but certainly troubling Whitewater scandal. Hillary Clinton appointed a seemingly unqualified bar bouncer, Craig Livingstone, to the White House Counsel’s office, where he seemed to fill the same kind of “strong arm” function. Cattlegate involved an astonishingly modest financial investment of $1000 from Hillary turned into over $99,000 in profit. This remarkable profit was connected to an “insider” source with Tyson Foods, run by the seedy Don Tyson, just one of the Clintons’ sordid comrades.
And of course, there was the highly suspicious death of White House counsel Vince Foster, which I covered in depth in “Hidden History.” This related to yet another scandal directly tied to Hillary, when federal investigators discovered that Hillary’s billing records from her (and Vince Foster’s) days at the Rose Law firm were conveniently missing. They would just as mysteriously (and almost certainly in redacted form) turn up abruptly at the White House two years later. Remember Chinagate? You know, the one where high-tech secrets were sold to China by Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign?
Before Bill Clinton left office, like other presidents before and after him, he used his power to pardon generously. One of those he pardoned was tax evader and racketeer Marc Rich, whose wife was a key contributor to Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign. Hillary’s two brothers reportedly received substantial sums from some of those pardoned by Clinton. “Hillary Clinton got many expensive and personal gifts during her eight years as first lady and never disclosed them.”stated former Clinton adviser Dick Morris. These included gaudy handbags and clothing.
Few remember that the Clintons left the White House with the same lack of class they displayed throughout their eight years in power. They tried to abscond with some $190,000 of gifts and furniture from the presidential mansion. The General Accounting Office also detailed the extensive “damage, theft, vandalism and pranks” that occurred during the transition period from Clinton to George W. Bush.
An unearthed audio tape recording of Hillary Clinton laughing and making light of getting her client exonerated on a 1975 charge of raping a twelve year old girl, drew predictably little attention or concern from the mainstream media and women’s groups. During her defense arguments, Hillary accused the little girl of being “emotionally unstable” and coming from a dysfunctional family, which caused her to exaggerate and romanticize things. This was a year after young Hillary was fired from her job as a staff attorney for the Judiciary Committee investigating Watergate.
“She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, who was her supervisor on the Judiciary Committee, declared. “She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” Hillary so incensed Zeifman that she became one of only three employees whom he refused to give a letter of recommendation to, during his seventeen year career.
Even more dramatically under-reported than most Clinton scandals is the one involving Hillary and mogul Peter Franklin Paul, business partner of Marvel Comics creator Stan Lee. Paul filed a fraud complaint with the Federal Election Commission, alleging that her Senate campaign hid-multiple times-his contributions, including a multi-million Hollywood gala that helped get her elected to office. Paul even called it “Hillary’s Chappaquiddick,” but the persistently Clinton-friendly mainstream media refused to bite. Paul, a typical Clinton kind of “friend,” served years in prison for a variety of financial improprieties. Paul’s lawsuit and appeal regarding “Hillary’s Chappaquiddick,” on the other hand, were both dismissed.
Hillary Clinton is not only hopelessly corrupt, she appears to be an arrogant and nasty individual. It’s as difficult to find a positive personal anecdote about her as it is to find one about Madonna. More than one former White House staffer exposed her plutocratic decree that none of the peasants look upon her royal countenance. She actually ordered that staffers turn their backs when she walked down the hallways. Secret Service agents testified to her violent temper and regular fights with her husband.
So what is the attraction here? Exactly what would cause a citizen (or an illegal immigrant- as California has incomprehensibly decided to let them vote, too) vote for Hillary Clinton? Was Donald Trump right when he said she’d only get ten percent of the vote if she weren’t a woman? Does she have any marketable attribute other than her gender?
Hillary, like Bill Clinton, has supported every single one of America’s foreign escapades, from the Gulf War on. She is as firmly committed to war as any politician has ever been. She’s kind of the Democratic Party’s version of John McCainiac, who never saw a war he didn’t love. She obviously loves the disastrous trade deals that have crippled America’s industrial base, considering that NAFTA was implemented during her husband’s administration. She will just as eagerly embrace the deadly TPP deal as Obama has.
In continuing her lifetime of corruption, Hillary didn’t even win her party’s nomination fairly. The massive voting fraud in Democratic caucuses and primaries was perhaps even more glaring than what transpired in many Republican caucuses and primaries. California was especially embarrassing, but Bernie Sanders showed his true colors by barely protesting and announcing, only forty eight hours after the primary debacle, that he was going to work with Hillary to defeat Trump.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t share a single quality in common with classic liberals. She supports the death penalty, for instance. She supported the “reform” of Welfare, passed during her husband’s administration, which caused more poor people to get less aid, for a shorter period of time, than they were getting before. While Bernie Sanders admirably wanted to ban private prisons, Hillary accepted over $133,000 from private prison lobbyists. Embarrassed by this disclosure, Hillary later claimed she wanted to ban private prisons, too. With her track record, can she be trusted about anything?
Hillary is being endorsed by virtually every major figure of the establishment, including many big name Republicans. She is a neocon extraordinaire, and will undoubtedly continue the same horrific policies of her predecessors; more immigration, more visa workers, more global meddling, more war, more infringements on civil liberties. Add to this toxic mixture an accelerated social justice warrior-style of authoritarian political correctness, sure to result in more lost jobs, lost reputations, and potential prison sentences for those who insist on their constitutional rights.
There are only two possible reasons why any rational human being would vote for this dangerous elitist as president. One is because of an intense, media-fueled hatred for Donald Trump. “Never Trump” and all that. The other is because she’s a woman. Period. We must have a female president because we’ve never had one. And since this is the only woman running, we have to elect her. Or else it’s sexist. Get used to hearing that word. If Hillary is elected, she’ll do for relations between the sexes what Obama did for race relations.
Donald Trump is a supremely flawed candidate, and supremely flawed individual. He’s egotistical to the point of caricature. He often formulates his sentences like he’s in grade school. He loves to call people names. But when he talks about the issues, he often says things that are profoundly radical, and far outside the typical, polite parameters of American political discourse.
This election will be a real litmus test, much as the recent Brexit vote to leave the EU was in Britain. The Brits really showed some surprising gumption. Are Americans capable of that? They have the epitome of an establishment candidate in Hillary Clinton, versus a wild card, loose cannon Billionaire who is being attacked relentlessly by every pillar of that establishment. I think we are faced with two doorways; one is wide open and we can see burning cauldrons of fire and brimstone behind it. The other is closed, and we can only hear varying sounds, which we can’t positively identify.
There really is only one choice. As Trump himself said in one of his finer moments; “This is a rigged system, and you can’t fix it by trusting those who rigged it.”
II’ve signed a contract with Skyhorse Publishing for my next work. It has the tentative title Survival of the Richest, and will focus on the corruption of the marketplace and disparity of wealth, in America and around the world. The scheduled publication date is Spring 2017.
The book details the familiar story of a society that has become increasingly divided between a very few “haves” and an overwhelming majority of “have nots.” Especially in the last thirty years, there has been a massive transfer of wealth, from the former middle and working classes, into the hands of a plutocratic elite.
One chapter in the book will explore the career, and suspicious untimely death, of Louisiana’s Huey Long, who served as both Governor and United States Senator. Long is my political hero, and is still unfairly maligned, by both “left” and “right” in this country.
A few chapters, which I think are important, will not be included in the published edition. Just as I did with Hidden History, I will share them on this blog with interested readers. The chapter on familial relations among celebrities is a real eye- opener. Even I was stunned by how many rich and famous people come from at least stable, upper middle-class backgrounds.
Another deleted chapter will revolve around wealthy religious leaders, “advice” gurus, and the like. It isn’t just the Christian televangelists who are making obscene profits from people’s faith. I was shocked, for example, by how much the average Rabbi is paid.
The thrust of the book is that, for once in his life, Barack Obama made an astute observation with his, “You didn’t build that” line. That was, in fact, my original title for the book. I hope to demonstrate conclusively that few if any of our wealthiest citizens “built” their success without family connections or just plain good fortune.
This book will probably not please right-wing fans of Hidden History. But it isn’t written in a conventional, socialist-like vein. I believe strongly in free enterprise, and would like a government that was decentralized and stayed out of our personal affairs. But we haven’t had true free enterprise, true competition in an unfettered marketplace, for a long time, if we ever had it. We instead have crony capitalism, fed by the same globalist forces that seek to crush the little guy at every opportunity.
I like to think of Survival of the Richest as a populist manifesto. The unfair distribution of wealth has always been my bread-and-butter issue. I believe it is the single most important issue in American politics today. Most people are simply not being paid enough to meet the ever increasing costs of living.
The paperback edition of Hidden History will be released on July 12. It features a new Foreword from Roger Stone. So if you don’t have a copy of the hardback, you’ll have a chance to get the paperback with the new Foreword and some nice blurbs from some names you’ll recognize.
Look for further updates here on the new book.
When Hidden History was published in November 2014, I naturally assumed that the JFK research community would be drawn to it. After all, I’d spent over a decade on the most high-profile internet forums, posting regularly and even as a moderator on London’s Spartacus Education Forum.
However, despite the unexpected success of my book, this natural demographic base has all but ignored it. There have been some notable exceptions, of course. Douglas Caddy was very supportive from the beginning. So was John Barbour. Vince Palamara wrote a nice review, as did Jim DiEugenio. Roger Stone loved the book, and will be writing the Introduction to the paperback version, due for publication this July. But the vast majority of those I’d come to know and interact with, in a cyber sense, over the years, have avoided any mention of Hidden History like the plague.
John F. Kennedy, Jr.’s death is mentioned sporadically on these forums. Whenever it is, I usually try to post something about my investigation into the case, which I humbly suggest produced some groundbreaking information, and was recounted in Hidden History. But even there, posters seem to pretend my work on the subject doesn’t exist, and will instead refer again to internet articles from 1999.
I’ve tried to wrap my mind around all this. Are some posters simply jealous? Certainly, I alienated a number of those I denigrated for being “neo-cons,” or mere pseudo proponents of conspiracy. I also incurred the wrath of many of the most immature “researchers,” who insisted on name-calling, foul language and threats as part of their “debating” tactics.
On Facebook, I have nearly 1,500 friends. The majority of these are people interested in either the JFK assassination, 9/11, or a variety of conspiratorial subjects. Yet when I post about my book, invariably few of them even “like” it, yet alone comment. When I shared former Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s glowing comments about one of my interviews, the response was negligible from the “conspiracy” crowd, most of whom I know deeply admire her.
On another occasion, I shared actress Susan Olsen’s (who played Cindy on The Brady Bunch) promo link to the interview I was going to do on her LA Talk Radio show. The only “like” and only comment came from Olsen herself. Early on, when I posted the news that Hidden History had reached #1 in two different Amazon categories, or when I notified my Facebook friends that it had sold out, resulting in an additional printing, it garnered a bit more attention, but never much from the JFK research crowd. As time went on, and more copies of the book were sold, it actually seemed as if it was getting less attention from “researchers.”
I understand that many, if not most, JFK assassination researchers treat the case as if it occurred in a bubble. I’ve tried to point out numerous times that these events are inevitably intertwined. The corruption didn’t start on November 22, 1963, and didn’t stop with the publication of the Warren Report. On the contrary, it’s an ongoing process, a way of doing business. That should be obvious to astute observers by now, but to many well-respected researchers, such talk is beyond the pale.
I won’t mention any names. But it’s beyond perplexing to recall all the JFK forum regulars who told me how much they were breathlessly awaiting my book, only to encounter absolute silence from them after its publication and surprising success. Older books like JFK and the Unspeakable continue to be promoted on Facebook and the forums, but my book is evidently anathema to these same posters. David Talbot’s Devils’s Chessboard hardly needs the promotion of these researchers on Facebook, but they promote it there relentlessly. Talbot is just one of many high profile figures that were interested in, and received a review copy of Hidden History, yet never even responded to my follow up regarding their impressions of the book.
It remains an inexplicable phenomenon that a book lauded by the likes of Cynthia McKinney, Roger Stone, Cindy Sheehan, John Barbour, Jerome Corsi, Rob Dew of Infowars and many others, has been virtually shunned by the hordes on the internet who are supposedly obsessed with the subject matter Hidden History largely addresses. I’m left to wonder just who is buying and reading it.
Because of the near lack of support I’ve received from what should logically have been my default base, the sales and interviews that exceeded my wildest expectations seem all the more astonishing. If the public support of Cynthia McKinney didn’t impress them, then I suppose nothing will.
Reading some recent threads at one of these forums reminded me again of just how naive some of these posters are. There are JFK assassination researchers who actually support Hillary Clinton and believe she will just continue the “good” things President Bill Clinton did. Perhaps, then, much of their reluctance to mention my book is based upon their misguided allegiance to the phony “left” and “right” paradigm. If you can’t see how corrupt politicians like the Clintons are, then you probably aren’t going to like my book.
If this sounds like sour grapes, perhaps it is. But it’s a bizarre kind of sour grapes, since my book has done much better than I thought possible. The non-support of JFK assassination researchers hasn’t hindered sales, but it does bother me. The silence is worse than criticism. I’d actually prefer that some of them would post about it, and demonstrate its flaws. But they don’t do that. Instead, they avoid any mention of Hidden History. Whenever I’ve referenced it at a pertinent spot in a particular discussion thread, the thread pretty much stops.
I’ve commented before on how dysfunctional the critical community is. It always has been, to some extent; but the fracturing, the petty disputes, the professional envy, is more pronounced now than ever. Many who have never written a single book cling to their own particular theories, and label anyone who dissents as a “disinfo agent” or a “troll.” “Respectable” researchers adamantly maintain there were no shots from the front, or that Oswald was not being impersonated, or that there were no suspicious deaths, or that Steven Witt was the Umbrella Man.
I once tried to get researchers to rally around a very simple conclusion, a media talking point, that would express our collective thoughts on this issue. Here is the thread I started about this on the Education Forum: Can We Agree On A Consensus Statement Regarding Conspiracy? You can read for yourself just how successful I was.
To put it mildly, my experiences over the years with the often bombastic, difficult personalities who gravitate to JFK assassination research, have created a powerful rift between us. I still post there sometimes, when the spirit moves me, but we are separated, and maybe ultimately headed for divorce. They ridicule the likes of Alex Jones and Coast to Coast AM, two of the most conspiracy-friendly press venues that exist. They have a very restricted view of what is and isn’t “respectable.” As I’ve told them many times, the establishment press isn’t going to listen to them, or like them, no matter how “neo-con” and reasonable they try to appear.
I’ve been researching the JFK assassination since 1975 or so. The subject continues to fascinate me, and I will always be drawn to it. But the vast majority of those who call themselves “researchers,” and post regularly on internet forums, hold no such fascination for me. On the contrary, I’m done trying to analyze them or debate them.
I’ve been thinking about writing this blog entry for quite some time. It isn’t easy to express my thoughts on this, without sounding whiny and over-sensitive. But it had to be said, and hopefully readers will understand where I’m coming from.
Donald Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” has rekindled memories, in aging Baby Boomers, of a “Leave it to Beaver” land that was idyllic and awesome. While clearly reality has been air-brushed by those who sell it to the public for a very long time, those of us who were alive fifty years ago understand just how far America has fallen.
The word “conservative” implies a desire to protect, to conserve, the present trappings of a civilization. I am sometimes cynical enough to agree with Ambrose Bierce’s adage that a conservative “is enamored with existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wants to replace them with others” While one can make a convincing argument that there was something worthwhile preserving in our society fifty or sixty years ago, it is impossible to find much worth “conserving” now.
Our economy is so unbalanced, with a wealth disparity that may well result in most of the country being penniless paupers soon, that no rational person can want to “conserve” it. Trade deals like NAFTA and the soon-to-be implemented TPP have decimated American industry and destroyed the blue-collar working class. Nothing worth “conserving” there. Our curiously open-door immigration policy, which has led to a flooding of the labor market with hungry workers willing to work for low wages, is driven exclusively by greed and is hardly worth “conserving.”
Our culture literally resembles what Mike Judge spoofed in his film Idiocracy. When Snoop Dog, Honey Boo Boo, the Kardashians and Kanye West are your cultural icons, you have a culture that is not worth “conserving.” Can we really envision audiences watching the fart-fueled “comedies” of an Adam Sandler or a Will Ferrell, or the politically correct violence-porn of a Quentin Tarantino, one hundred years from now? Will anyone still be reading the trashy “literature” that presently litters the New York Times best-seller lists? Most of the greatest writers in history could not be published in today’s world. There are no Shakespeares, Dickens, Mozarts or Nikola Teslas around to “conserve.”
Outside of Ron Paul and a few others, what politicians of the past few decades are worth “conserving?” The only thing worth conserving about our political system is the system itself, as designed by the Founding Fathers. But those who have corrupted it, and continue to run it into the ground, are certainly not worth “conserving.”
Conservatives love to thrust out their chests and proclaim, “This is the best country in the world- why don’t you move if you don’t like it?” It is impossible to quantify which country is “better” in a geological sense, but conservatives imply that the American people are the best, their collective beliefs are the best, their flag is the best.
So what does the record suggest about the collective beliefs of the American people? First and foremost, it indicates that they are startlingly naive, almost like stunted adolescents clinging to tooth fairy-level fantasies. They continue to elect and re- elect the most unattractive political candidates imaginable. They are fooled by the same empty rhetoric about “the children” or “keeping America strong.” They fall for the same insincere compliments about “the American people” being stronger, greater, more patient and more willing to sacrifice than any other people anywhere.
The American people also have very short collective memories. As I demonstrated in Hidden History, there are countless examples of official chicanery and corruption, that the American people have completely forgotten, if they ever paid attention to the scant initial press coverage of them. Like bewildered, battered spouses, they have a powerful case of Stockholm Syndrome, and pathetically suspect that their abuser has abused them for the last time, and is finally ready to reform.
Our infrastructure is crumbling to pieces, giving much of America a real Third-World look and feel. What is worth “conserving” about that? Meanwhile, our resources are primarily directed into the Military-Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned us about nearly sixty years ago. Black holes, black budgets, black operations and top-secret clearances predominate in the national security state. And yet Americans seem desperate to “conserve” all this. Why do we want to “conserve” the foreign bombings and occupations abroad, and a domestic clandestine apparatus that has resulted in the past in citizens being dosed with LSD and their cities bombarded with germs and viruses?
I understand wanting to conserve the Constitution. Certainly we should all understand the importance of maintaining the Bill of Rights. But what is worth “conserving” about more recent unconstitutional monstrosities like the Homeland Security Department and the Patriot Act, which nearly all conservatives support? How do such things tie in with the traditional “Americanism,” the baseball and apple pie variety?
Do conservatives want to “conserve” the odious concepts of “hate crime” and “hate speech?” “Free speech zones?” They clearly want to “conserve” sinful bonuses for corporate executives, and no annual pay raises for their employees. They approve of the same corporations who are outsourcing and moving offshore bestowing hundreds of thousands of dollars in “part time” income on already incredibly wealthy executives who sit on each other’s Boards of Directors, and “earn” this incredible gratuity by attending a handful of yearly meetings.
“Conservatives” became transformed during the Reagan years. Formerly known for their vociferous anti-communism, and fierce defense of at least a facsimile of liberty, they gradually morphed into Ayn Rand disciples, whose entire philosophy boils down to a devout worship of wealth and the infallible marketplace.
Thus, modern conservatives quite naturally want to “conserve” the rigged marketplace, the Ebeneezer Scrooge-way of doing business, that has served so many of them so well. They are terrified of all this changing. These self-proclaimed”wealth creators” cherish impossibly accelerated executive pay and bonuses, combined with massive layoffs and elimination of benefits. And most of them celebrate this new conservatism by going to church regularly. They honestly believe they deserve this.
This is why both Trump and Sanders are so dangerous to the establishment. The disastrous trade deals have led directly to the de-industrialization of America. The non-stop influx of illegal immigrants and foreign Visa workers have led to drastically reduced wages and benefits, and a real unemployment rate of at least 25%. The dramatic consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands has led to a lowered standard of living for the majority of Americans. It’s very simple; if you let one man have thousands of times more money than another, he will still not be able to purchase thousands of times more goods and services. It’s impossible to maintain a viable economy with this kind of income disparity. But conservatives want to “conserve” all this.
“Law and order” conservatives are apparently satisfied with our out-of-control police forces, and the fact the “bad eggs” are never punished by their superiors. They want to “conserve” a legal system where only the rich and celebrated receive any semblance of justice, while the common riff-raff are lucky to get five minutes with their public defender, who won’t even attempt to defend them. They want to “conserve” traffic light cameras, installed specifically to pad the budgets of law enforcement, and further the 1984-Orwellian ambiance across the land.
There are some things still worth conserving. The environment, for example. What’s left of our civil liberties. What’s left of our theaters and museums. But on almost every front, we need massive reform, massive changes of the rational kind. This primary season has exposed the rotten process for what it is, with its undisguised voting fraud, theft of delegates and undermining of the will of the public. Judging by the conservatives who support the likes of Ted Cruz, this anti-democratic system is something else they want to “conserve.”
Conservatives love to brag about our bloated medical system, which has become so expensive it is evolving into yet another privilege only the rich enjoy. Do we want to “conserve” life expectancy rates that are lower than twenty four other nations, including Slovenia? An infant mortality rate that ranks 167th in the world? Other than leading the world in obesity, diabetes, and prescribed pharmaceuticals, exactly what is so great about our medical system? Do we want to “conserve” its astronomical costs?
By advocating for a continuation of the status quo, conservatives are putting their imprimatur on an authoritarian political correctness that threatens to jail citizens for using “offensive” words, a society that punishes whistle blowers and ignores true wrongdoing, and a narcissistic business world that treats most of its workers like pawns on a chessboard, while hoarding all the wealth with the entitled mindsets of medieval monarchs.
Obviously, I find little to like about either the conventional “left” or “right.” But there is something truly ridiculous about a group that advocates “conserving” any aspect of our dying and decaying society. Not to mention, of course, that such “conservatism” confers an endorsement upon the incompetent thugs who are in charge.
Donald Trump is only scratching the surface with his criticism of our policies and those who have implemented them. We are dealing with absolute tyranny and an entrenched aristocracy that is as incompetent as it is corrupt. There is little anywhere about present-day America that is worth “conserving.”