The JFK Research Site

4/9/2008


"That which is most simple and obvious is the hardest to fathom".

--Edgar Allen Poe

Click here to View HTML version of PPT Presentation on the JFK Ambush

Click here to download the PPT presentation on the JFK Ambush (16.1 mb)

The Disease of Cowardice to Fight Evil Men: COGDIS

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because most people don't want to admit they don't have the courage to do anything about it. Most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all"

--Michael Rivero

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

--Plato Greek author & philosopher in Athens (427 B.C. - 347 B.C.)

"A true patriot is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins".

--Frederick Douglas on REAL patriotism

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."

--German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

--2 Timothy 1:7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs.

In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs. In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.

In popular usage, it can be associated with the tendency for people to resist information that they don't want to think about, because if they did it would create cognitive dissonance, and perhaps require them to act in ways that depart from their comfortable habits. They usually have at least partial awareness of the information, without having moved to full acceptance of it, and are thus in a state of denial about it.

VIDEO: Quick-Overview of the JFK Assassination, 1992 Fox-News Documentary hosted by James Earl Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7457650579849429062&q=jfk+conspiracy&total=1164&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Phillip Coppen's This is Not America is a good online book outlining the history of the JFK debacle to date:

www.philipcoppens.com/tina_a4.pdf

The Altered Zapruder Film: You Think About Shooters Instead of the Drivers

SUMMARY

The essential fact that had to be covered up by altering the Zapruder film is SECRET SERVICE PARTICIPATION IN JFK's MURDER because its not just a conspiracy--big deal--everyone objective knows its a conspiracy even if they are LHO-centric (LHO = Conspiracy)--its the direct connection to Mr. Cuo Bono himself, Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ). Using LHO with dozens of intelligence agency connections makes him not just the ideal patsy but the ideal DIVERSION from the drivers and motorcade route pre-planners who were the most guilty and leads right to the White House itself. Caesars (Presidents) are killed when their Praetorian Guards (Secret Service) are compromised, stripping away the final inner ring of security. LBJ was a scoundrel and should be convicted in absentia and removed from the rolls of U.S. Presidents as an act of integrity by the American people to the world and a statement to current traitors that their evil deeds will not be unpunished. The Secret Service and CIA should be similarly tried and punished by organizational disbandment for the same reasons.

The murderers don't want you to know that a LEAD CAR set the motorcade route that should have KEPT GOING STRAIGHT down Main street to reach the speech location which should have been at the Fair Grounds not the Trademart--and that JFK limo driver Greer (probably drunk and hung-over knowing the crimes he was about to commit) swerved wide when turning onto Elm street kill zone already marked with yellow curb markings and signalers, spotters and shooting teams...and when the crossfire failed, GREER STOPPED THE LIMOUSINE TO GIVE THE SHOOTERS A SURE KILL-SHOT. What Greer should have done if he were a real American patriot and a MAN, is refuse to turn down Elm street and continue down Main street and thwart the shooter teams in Dealey Plaza. Heck, skip the luncheon entirely, go straight to Love Field and get JFK-the-fuck-out-of-Dallas ASAP on Air Force 1.

http://ciajfk.com/demohrenschildt.html

Adamson wrote this in 1997--long before the 9/11 attacks:

"Wealthy individuals having prior knowledge of the plans to kill JFK could sell short on the New York Stock Exchange and buy their company back for half the price after the assassination," Adamson said. "On the day of the assassination, the stock market lost 11 billion in paper." Adamson's main theory focuses on a U.S. oil depletion allowance, which grants oilmen a 27.5 percent tax break when reinvesting in their other corporation. Adamson says that Texas oilmen plotted the assassination of JFK to gain more power, and that the Warren Commission found Oswald guilty without a fair trial. He places de Mohrenschildt with a group of friends -- one of whose grandfather's chartered the oil depletion allowance in the 1920s....

Jim Marrs discovers in Dallas Police Department Files, Photos of LHO's backyard with no one in the picture, photo with a DPD detective Brown in it and a photo with a cut-outs to Forge LHO Photos with Rifle/Revolver in His backyard...originally (2) forged photos were "found" at Ruth Paine's home by DPD officers but a THIRD photo with a DIFFERENT POSE was found by the late DPD detective Roscoe White's belongings that match a 1964 recreation the DPD did...White was in the USMC at the same time as LHO and knew eachother, too!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9146182934757916120

If Ruth and Michael Paine were rich as the latter was the off-spring of the rich Forbes family, why didn't they get LHO on his feet financially? Why keep him poor? To manipulate him into the TSBD job of course. Spy agencies work very convuluted means to manipulate people into doing things. Read in Ostrovsky's By Way of Deception how the Mossad uses psychologists to anticipate how targets will act or react and how they then reverse-engineer desired outcomes. LHO would probably not take a TSBD job offer from the right-wing fascists he was watching for perhaps the FBI, but he might accept a job offer if Ruth Paine suggests it as inspired by the next door neighbor who could then o so conveniently give him transportation to and from work.

President Kennedy with the two back-stabbers; under investigation, former Secretary of the Navy-turned Texas Governor, John Connolly who instigated the unwise Texas trip and arranged for the motorcade route into ambush kill zone didn't want to be in the same limousine but was ordered there, after the shots rang out, he cried "My God THEY are going to kill us all". Well no shit, Sherlock, if you were not a Navy man you'd know how unpredictable bullets are, and look at the eyes of deceit and hate of LBJ--if looks could kill...Connolly said later: "You know I was one of the ones who advised Kennedy to stay away from Texas," Connolly said. "Lyndon (Johnson) was being a real asshole about the whole thing and insisted." When asked, did he think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy?, he replied:

"Absolutely not," Connolly said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."

The Real Z-Film: Murderer H.L. Hunt Purchased a copy from Zapruder to Gloat over: Secret Service Agent Greer swerves far right on turn to Elm street ruining "Plan A" cross-fire, then sees "umbrella man" signal to STOP limousine for kill shots, "Plan B".

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0cBxPhLVOg

Photographic Expert Jack White: Currently Available Altered Zapruder Film is hoax of Century

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6264396057713515921

Since 1945, the "intelligentsia" running America have concluded that it in a nuclear age it would be suicidal to wait until the general public realized a threat overtly to take action. The experience of WWII, where the American public was content to watch for almost 3 years as the rest of the world went up in flames by fascism likely led to these same people reluctantly allowing the Japanese to strike at Pearl Harbor in order to get the American public to go to war. Even then, we nearly lost the war.

So with the creation of small elitist racketeers like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for covert action and the emasculation of overt military action by the anemic "Department of Defense" (DoD) bureaucracy with a separate Air Force and marine corps resulting in a permanent inter-service schism of firepower versus maneuver instead of joint warfighting teamwork that had won WWII under the WAR DEPARTMENT; the U.S. went to a permanent COVERT war footing to fight Communist expansion in the Cold War. The Air Force boasted with the nuclear bomb and its aircraft America need not ever lose 385,000 dead in a war with ground action (ironically half of these dead were airmen). The marines bragged they could somehow get there quickly at 20 mph in bloated, vulnerable surface ships to handle any small war. When Soviet Russia attained nuclear weapons capability, the super-powers became even; and America's Air Force and marines boasts were challenged and their failures led to the Korean War in 1950-53. Incompetent marines advised the CIA on the botched Bay of Pigs operation in 1961 that JFK added insult to injury by denying air cover to stop Communist Cuban planes from sinking the vulnerable Free Cuban surface ships. The Pentagon Papers reveal a marine war-monger Victor Krulak instigated the Vietnam war to try to justify his service's existence (USMC really has no justified mission) and we know later, he had a belated attack of conscience and tried to talk LBJ out of American direct involvement. He even IDed embittered, retired USAF General Lansdale at the scene of the JFK murder walking past the famous 3 "tramps".

Its our conclusion that the CIA did JFK in to protect their racket.

A reader notes:

"I have followed JFK assassination studies for many years but for some reason until today, I was never aware of these well-publicized warnings of high-level U.S. plots to overthrow Kennedy, led by the CIA, published widely in October 1963, one month before JFK's assassination:"

Pro-CIA defender Arthur Krock published an editorial column in the New York Times, October 3, 1963, "The Intra-Administration War in Vietnam," which responded to a dispatch from Saigon of the day before by a reporter with an "excellent reputation for reliability," Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard newspapers (Wash. Daily News).

According to Krock, Starnes reported that: "Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene [in Saigon], including one described as a “very high American official … who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy … are the following:

"The C.I.A.’s growth was “likened to a malignancy” which the “very high official was not sure even the White House could control … any longer.” “If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon.” The agency “represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.” "

(Krock replaced Starnes' reference to a popular novel on a U.S. military internal coup plot, "Seven Days in May," with the explanatory text in brackets [ ]. See Starnes' article quotes below.)

Starnes reported, dateline Saigon, Oct. 2, 1963:

"Other American agencies here [in Saigon] are incredibly bitter about the CIA.

"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically.

"("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.)"

...

"One very high American official here, a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it any longer."

www.jfklancer.com/Krock.html

Starnes' full dispatch makes for fascinating reading (see below). You think we have freedom of the press? Today, no one would be able to publish the name of the CIA Station Chief, as Starnes did in 1963, because it would be a federal crime under the (CIA) Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1980.

Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3

'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam

By Richard Starnes

SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power.

Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here.

In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.

This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement by President Kennedy.

It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy.

Others Critical, Too

Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA.

"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically.

("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.)

CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis.

An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.

Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't."

Few Know CIA Strength

Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known only to a few of their fellow spooks.

Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon. He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the CIA in the Philippines.

A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly trade and some make no secret of it.

"There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S. Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here," one official - presumably a non-spook - said.

"They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added.

Coupled with the ubiquitous secret police of Ngo Dinh Nhu, a surfeit of spooks has given Saigon an oppressive police state atmosphere.

The Nhu-Richardson relationship is a subject of lively speculation. The CIA continues to pay the special forces which conducted brutal raids on Buddhist temples last Aug. 21, altho in fairness it should be pointed out that the CIA is paying these goons for the war against communist guerillas, not Buddhist bonzes (priests).

Hand Over Millions

Nevertheless, on the first of every month, the CIA dutifully hands over a quarter million American dollars to pay these special forces.

Whatever else it buys, it doesn't buy any solid information on what the special forces are up to. The Aug. 21 raids caught top U.S. officials here and in Washington flat-footed.

Nhu ordered the special forces to crush the Buddhist priests, but the CIA wasn't let in on the secret. (Some CIA button men now say they warned their superiors what was coming up, but in any event the warning of harsh repression was never passed to top officials here or in Washington.)

Consequently, Washington reacted unsurely to the crisis. Top officials here and at home were outraged at the news the CIA was paying the temple raiders, but the CIA continued the payments.

It may not be a direct subsidy for a religious war against the country's Buddhist majority, but it comes close to that.

And for every State Department aide here who will tell you, "Dammit, the CIA is supposed to gather information, not make policy, but policy-making is what they're doing here," there are military officers who scream over the way the spooks dabble in military operations.

A Typical Example

For example, highly trained trail watchers are an important part of the effort to end Viet Cong infiltration from across the Laos and Cambodia borders. But if the trail watchers spot incoming Viet Congs, they report it to the CIA in Saigon, and in the fullness of time, the spooks may tell the military.

One very high American official here, a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it any longer.

Unquestionably Mr. McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor both got an earful from people who are beginning to fear the CIA is becoming a Third Force co-equal with President Diem's regime and the U.S. Government - and answerable to neither.

There is naturally the highest interest here as to whether Mr. McNamara will persuade Mr. Kennedy something ought to be done about it.

The problem is playing spy is fun and exciting which anyone who has seen a James Bond, 007 movie or read an Ian Fleming book can attest. Fleming's "007" was actually the code name secret society member John Dee used to identify himself to Queen Elizabeth hundreds of years before the modern era. Ironically, JFK was a big fan of Fleming's books. Ian Fleming wrote the old spy proverb in Goldfinger:

"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action."

JFK's murder (1), RFK's murder (2), MLK's murder (3).

Not convinced yet?

And if there is no "action" you can make your own war with False Flag operations and create your own dragons-to-slay like CIA operative Bin Laden; See the Adam Curtis BBC documentaries, "The Power of Nightmares" on the Leo Strauss Marxists-in-Democratic Corporation Consumerist Clothing.

www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A513997818A3C65E

Part 1: "Baby, Its Cold Outside"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177

Part 2: The Phantom Victory

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876

Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254

In a previous series, "The Trap" he showed how the neocons to contain communism set up sham democracies to actually keep dictatorships in power while keeping the populace docile with consumerism. Curtis explains how consumerism is manipulated by corporations in his epic series "The Century of the Self" in 2002 broadcast by the BBC as a four-part series. The series tracks how American elites have aggressively used the modern behavioral sciences to persuade, coerce and manipulate the American public into accepting the corporate-government world's version of events as their own.

Part 1: Racketering corporations see people as just emotional, irrational idiots not thinking citizens as per Freud, they go on a binge of consumption and great depression follows

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151

Part 2: FDR saves country but consumerism is re-engaged after WW2 to scare people into building MICC-TT, Freud's daughter stresses social conformity to suppress irrational desires, business provides social conformity products.

This video focuses on one of the most skillful and amoral expert of all the experts in mass manipulation, Edward Bernays. Bernays got his first taste of the power of propaganda during World War I. He advised U.S. presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Einsehower and served numerous corporations and business associations. One of his biggest fans was Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, a fact about which Bernays bragged proudly.

In this clip, we see a pattern that Bernays used over and over again: turn a harmless entity into a fearsome enemy through lies and manufactured news items. Then use the "threat" to justify attack. The subject of this video is Bernays campaign against the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1953, but you'll have no trouble seeing that this very same method is being used today (Iraq).

www.guba.com/watch/2000915704

Part 3: Sick of conformity and manipulation by corporations, public wants their desires let loose during wild 60s, society's inhibitions are cause of misbehavior, self fulfillment becomes the goal, instead of society classes, corporations pander to the psychological categories of people

www.guba.com/watch/2000915747

Part 4: Give the People What They Want---Public deceived into thinking products will satisfy them, Corporations and Governments get Control; their elected officials are "products", too consumer-based politics pandering to the mob's primal desires, internally-driven bringing about greater and greater physical reality disconnect--possible ecological collapse as we over indulge and consume, destroying spaceship earth; irrational consumers no longer rational citizens abrogating their social fabric to corporations who have no loyalty to them to provide them jobs out-sources product construction to overseas slave labor to increase profits; disaster coming unless we BOYCOTT their products and make them produce ECOFRIENDLY PRODUCTS BUILT BY US and we demand what's BEST not racketeering thru government intervention thru elected officials we elect not bought by the corporations

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1122532358497501036

After this shamocracy failed in post-communist Russia, they installed a phony "democracy" in Iraq hoping that having an influx of outsider corporations coming in to govern would set up a consumerist society. The Iraqis are not satisfied with a Shia FACTIONOCRACY and certainly not with their nation being a vassal state to American corporations to exploit.

THE TRAP

Part 3: Kissinger backing of brutal dictators in order to contain communism, neocons think we should instead expand negative freedom at gunpoint to roll-back communism, armed struggle + bureaucratic shia islam = freedom? wtfo?, reagen neocons export sham democracy (like in Iraq today), a falsade placebo for the people

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAqE0J15lGE&NR=1

Part 4: Reagen admin lying about Sandanistas having chemo weapons from Sovs etc., liberal democracy hubris, Soviet collapse results in economic collapse

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzlR5DMLfF8

Part 5: Yeltsin restores order by force, corporations owned by racketeers have Yeltsin in hock, Putin takes charge, imprisons the robber barons, negative consumerism liberty failed in Russia, neocons back in power lying to America to get them to war

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghvI2R1tM8

Part 6: Bremer fires all capable people like Pol Pot did except without murdering them to get clean slate, country given over to foreign corporations to be governed, massive corruption, typical falsade democracy like during Reagen era, no social contract, rebellion began, we become the French and start torturing/coercion, pre-emptive war manifests as pre-emptive crime arrests, our so-called freedom aka consumersim is not going to hack it in the future

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZuFpWii2jg

All of this "fun & games" keeps THEY THE CORPORATIONS fed with war profits, too. Here's some more U.S. Government Factions False Flap Operations:

Gulf of Tonkin Non-Incident (4), Attack on USS Liberty (5), Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing (6), September 11, 2001 World Trade Center buildings and Pentagon controlled demolition attacks (7)....

OKC Bombing: Test-Run of Domestic False Flag "Terrarist" Operation

VIDEO:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEksyC1MsXg

Here's how the patsy "lone bombman" tactic works.

Classic bait & switch.

You have a target that requires an attack that by its very nature shows group conspiracy, say multiple shooters as in JFK or a controlled demolition to bring down a steel and concrete building. If these events were done on their own, the evidence would immediately lead back to them. To create a getaway, you need to DIVERT attention by offering a patsy/red herring diversionary explanation for the attack that will lead the public to the wrong conclusions and while this happens the real attackers get away. The LHO/Zapruder film EXTERNAL diversion patsy explanation was created to lead us away from the INTERNAL attack's instigators--the Secret Service and Mr. Cuo Bono, LBJ. Racketeers wanted Vietnam War profits so JFK had to go.

Regular citizens do not have access to high explosives so the fertilizer/fuel oil low explosives in a rent-a-truck EXTERNAL patsy was concocted to hide the INTERNAL attack. And they certainly do not have enough means to bring down two gigantic WTC towers, so the EXTERNAL attack by the crashing airliners filled with "raghead" terrorists-we-love-to-hate was needed as the patsy explanation on 9/11 to get racketeer war profits.

The basic ignorance situations of the 3 INTERNAL attacks on America in 1963, 1995 and 2001 are as follows:

1. JFK: public ignorance on what aimed rifle fire can and cannot do

2. OKC: public ignorance of what low explosives can and cannot do, they think all explosives are high explosives, notice in the video the "bombs that were more powerful" line is repeated again and again, that's lay-speak for HIGH EXPLOSIVES that are not huge barrels of fertilizer/oil but are very small and compact and easily hidden/placed inside structures aka why spies/saboteurs use them

The trial run for 9/11 did not go well; half the building still stood and the EXTERNAL diversionary explosion disrupted at least 3 of the internal bombs to not detonate. We might be able to assume that the bomb-in-a-rent-truck patsy option having failed once already in 1993 at the WTC towers was disqualified and a more riskier ragheads-with-knives-suicide-airliner-hijack diversionary patsy was selected for the next operation.

3. 9/11: public ignorance of what jet fuel or any fire can do to a steel and concrete building

The conspirators are playing on the technical details ignorance of the American populace in a perverse joke on them and smug ego exaltation of themselves. They know that general public ignorance of the details is a CHINK in their armor of understanding.

JFK on Secret Conspiracies and Using Manufactured Attacks to Steal Citizen’s Liberties, is it a Surprise the Elites wanted him Dead?

"The President and the Press" (April 27, 1961)

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=5151684

John F. Kennedy's Speech on Secret Societies

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight. You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune, under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and Managing Editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war. If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight. It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one-party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family. If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy. The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security-and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted. That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the Nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said-and your newspapers have constantly said-that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America-unions and businessmen and public officials at every level--will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to this same exacting test. And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion. This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it. It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

Moreover, much was lost by marginalizing the American people out of national affairs, the ability to mass overwhelming OVERT national will and power to solve problems too big for small elites to handle like the Korean War. President John F. Kennedy (JFK) wanted to restore the overt participation of every American back into world affairs after he bungled quasi-covert operations in Cuba (Bay of Pigs) and almost overtly led the world into a nuclear WWWIII with the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. JFK wanted the Vietnam war to be handled overtly by the South Vietnamese people themselves and less by American secret elites.

VIDEO: Detailed Investigation of the JFK Assassination by BBC Producer Nigel Turner

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6198197422242167290&pr=goog-sl

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 2

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8946630867028337371&pr=goog-sl

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 3

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2163051261748287922&pr=goog-sl

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 4

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3478197648489321290&pr=goog-sl

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 5

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8002804488390413801&pr=goog-sl

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 6

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58659498316845631&pr=goog-sl

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7, The Final Chapter, ep. 1 The Smoking Gun, seg. 1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTeQ9ckmD8

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7, The Final Chapter, ep. 1 The Smoking Gun, seg. 2

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7, The Final Chapter, ep. 1 The Smoking Gun, seg. 3

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmMXfBgjsh0

JFK's limousine windshield had a bullet in it, Secret Service covered it up. Autopsy photos forged to deceive public that bullet came from rear when actual doctors at Parkland Hospital saw JFK's rear of head was blown out from frangible bullet shot in from the front.

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7, The Final Chapter, ep. 1 The Smoking Gun, seg. 4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO5PAmCsw0I

Mysterious mortician John Liggett is paid to alter JFK's body, takes family and flees Dallas 'til LHO killed by Ruby, becomes rich man and gambler, David Ferrie visits him

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7, The Final Chapter, ep. 1 The Smoking Gun, seg. 5

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMJMqbWJLQI

Liggett's brother Malcolm seen with Ruby in club, warns ex-wife to stay away while in jail for robbing homes, allegedly escapes and is shot and killed but body in casket has moustache he was incapable of growing, later seen alive in Las Vegas

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 8, The Final Chapter, ep. 2 The Love Affair, seg. 1

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 8, The Final Chapter, ep. 2 The Love Affair, seg. 2

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRLDm7YT25w

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 8, The Final Chapter, ep. 2 The Love Affair, seg. 3

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBbe0jexWn4

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 8, The Final Chapter, ep. 2 The Love Affair, seg. 4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGNyprupDTU

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 8, The Final Chapter, ep. 2 The Love Affair, seg. 5

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZyJ1APE6Lc

EXCLUSIVE! THE BANNED EPISODE SHOWING LBJ WAS BEHIND JFK'S MURDER

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 9 The Final Chapter, ep. 3 The Guilty Men, seg. 1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaWUcyjAeIk

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 9 The Final Chapter, ep. 3 The Guilty Men, seg. 2

www.youtube.com/watch?v=05AsvqWfzts

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 9 The Final Chapter, ep. 3 The Guilty Men, seg. 3

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJPWhn6P5fE

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 9 The Final Chapter, ep. 3 The Guilty Men, seg. 4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut-4QXzNBno

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 9 The Final Chapter, ep. 3 The Guilty Men, seg. 5

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mzZGK9tNyM

BRING BACK THE GOOD 'OLE DAYS? "THE YEAR 1903": Bush Crime Family CIA guilt in killing Kennedy Crime Family Members

Prescott Bush Attempted to Overthrow U.S. Government in 1933!

VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAZFm-jbg80

BBC Radio 4: The Whitehouse Coup (1 of 3)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H6J6Wx0t8w

BBC Radio 4: The Whitehouse Coup (2 of 3)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQew4UiUmUY

BBC Radio 4: The Whitehouse Coup (3 of 3)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r4RLEIFQbA

WEB PAGE

www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

AUDIO REPORT

www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/rams/document_20070723.ram

The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell House & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression. Fortunately retired General Smedley Butler refused and turned in the traitors who should have been tried and executed.

Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat (so far) to American democracy.


CIA-man George Herbert Walker "Poppy" Bush in front of the TSBD on November 22, 1963 as the 3 "tramps" are marched by, he should be prosecuted regardless if he was once an U.S. President


Poppy Bush's daddy, convicted American traitor, Nazi war financer and Hitler backer, Prescott Bush with President Eisenhower


Nixon looks like Gary Coleman in this picture with fascist traitor and Nazi financer, Prescott Bush

The video above the still pics documents how the Bush crime family murdered two Kennedy men to illegally take power. Previously, the Bush crime family funded first Eisenhower and Nixon into the Presidency/VP slot, followed by LBJ and Nixon via the two Kennedy brothers being slain. Next, GHWB becoming VP to Reagen then POTUS himself. Then numbskull GWB who we thought might have been a moral Christian but has shown himself to be a full-blooded Satanist. Shame is deserved to all Americans for being so ignorant of these criminals and its high time we end their reign of "terrar".

President Kennedy came to power thanks to the money of his father, Joe Kennedy Senior who "earned" it during the days of alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. At the dawn of the 20th century, American traditional Judaeo-Christian values were in conflict with the industrial age mechanization of society. The problems came to a head in WWI, when mechanized war threatened civilization itself. The survivors of WWI in shock went on a hedonistic knee-jerk, creating the "Roaring Twenties" at the same time that societal puritans wanted to put the "genie back in the bottle". Consider the year 1903, before WWI, one hundred years ago... what a difference a century makes.. Here are the U. S. statistics for 1903....

HEALTH

The average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47.

Only 14% of the homes in the U.S. had a BATHTUB.

More than 95% of all BIRTHS in the U.S. took place at HOME.

90% of all U.S. physicians had NO COLLEGE education. Instead, they attended medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press and by the government as "substandard."

Most women only washed their HAIR once a month and used BORAX or EGG YOLKS for shampoo.

The five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:

1. Pneumonia &influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

Cancer was there but not identified.

Coca Cola contained cocaine.

Marijuana, heroin and morphine were all available over the counter at corner drugstores. According to one pharmacist, "Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health."

COMMUNICATIONS

Only 8% of the homes had a TELEPHONE.

A three-minute call from Denver to New York City cost $11.

TRANSPORTATION

There were only 8,000 CARS in the U.S. and only 144 miles of paved ROADS.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

CROWDING

Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more heavily populated than California. With a mere 1.4 million residents, California was only the 21st most populous state in the Union.

The American flag had 45 stars. Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii and Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.

The population of Las Vegas, Nevada was 30.

BUILDINGS

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower.

INFLATION

The average wage in the U.S. was $0.22/hour.

The average U.S. worker made between $200-$400/year.

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000/year, a dentist $2,500/year, a veterinarian between $1,500-$4,000/year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000/year.

Sugar cost $0.04/pound. Eggs were $0.14/dozen. Coffee cost $0.15/pound.

IMMIGRATION

Canada passed a law prohibiting POOR people from entering the country for any reason.

LEISURE TIME

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn't been invented.

There were no Mother's Day or Father's Day.

18% of households in the US had at least one full-time SERVANT or domestic.

EDUCATION

One in ten U.S. adults couldn't read or write.

Only 6% of all Americans had graduated from HIGH SCHOOL.

VIOLENCE

There were only about 230 reported MURDERS in the entire U.S.

Just think what it will be like in another 100 years.

It boggles the mind !

In fact, national columnist Fred Reed writes about that 100 year-later reality, in "Faking It: A Brief Textbook Of American Democracy" on Monday, January 19, 2004:

While the United States is freer and more democratic than many countries, it is not, I think, either as free or as democratic as we are expected to believe, and becomes rapidly less so. Indeed we seem to be specialists in maintaining the appearance without having the substance. Regarding the techniques of which, a few thoughts:

(1) Free speech does not exist in America. We all know what we can't say and about whom we can't say it.

(2) A democracy run by two barely distinguishable parties is not in fact a democracy.

A parliamentary democracy allows expression of a range of points of view: An ecological candidate may be elected, along with a communist, a racial-separatist, and a libertarian. These will make sure their ideas are at least heard. By contrast, the two-party system prevents expression of any ideas the two parties agree to suppress. How much open discussion do you hear during presidential elections of, for example, race, immigration, abortion, gun control, and the continuing abolition of Christianity? These are the issues most important to most people, yet are quashed.

The elections do however allow allow the public a sense of participation while having the political importance of the Superbowl.

(3) Large jurisdictions discourage autonomy. If, say, educational policy were set in small jurisdictions, such as towns or counties, you could buttonhole the mayor and have a reasonable prospect of influencing your children's schools. If policy is set at the level of the state, then to change it you have to quit your job, marshal a vast campaign costing a fortune, and organize committees in dozens of towns. It isn't practical. In America, local jurisdictions set taxes on real estate and determine parking policy. Everything of importance is decided remotely.

(4) Huge unresponsive bureaucracies somewhere else serve as political flywheels, insulating elected officials from the whims of the populace. Try calling the federal Department of Education from Wyoming. Its employees are anonymous, salaried, unaccountable, can't be fired, and don't care about you. Many more of them than you might believe are affirmative-action hires and probably can't spell Wyoming. You cannot influence them in the slightest. Yet they influence you.

(5) For our increasingly centralized and arbitrary government, the elimination of potentially competitive centers of power has been, and is, crucial. This is one reason for the aforementioned defanging of the churches: The faithful recognize a power above that of the state, which they might choose to obey instead of Washington. The Catholic Church in particular, with its inherent organization, was once powerful. It has been brought to heel.

Similarly the elimination of states' rights, now practically complete, put paid to another potential source of opposition. Industry, in the days of J. P. Morgan politically potent, has been tamed by regulation and federal contracts. The military in the United States has never been politically active. The government becomes the only game available.

And is determined to remain so. Any attempt to weaken the central power will arouse powerful hostility. For example, the persecution of those engaged in home-schooling has nothing to with concern for the young. The public schools have little interest in education and for the most part seem to have little idea of what it is. The hostility to home-schooling is simply the response of those with a monopoly of power to the specter of superior competition.

The elections do however allow the public a sense of democratic participation while having the political importance of the Superbowl. That is, elections serve chiefly to keep the people from noticing the absence of democracy. This is a remarkable concept, of great governmental utility.

(6) Paradoxically, increasing the power of groups who cannot threaten the government strengthens the government: They serve as counterbalances to those who might challenge the central authority. For example, the white and male-dominated culture of the United States, while not embodied in an identifiable organization, for some time remained strong. The encouragement of dissension by empowerment of blacks, feminists, and homosexuals, and the importing of inassimilable minorities, weakens what was once the cultural mainstream.

(7) The apparent government isn't the real government. The real power in America resides in what George Will once called the "permanent political class," of which the formal government is a subset. It consists of the professoriate, journalists, politicians, revolving appointees, high-level bureaucrats and so on who slosh in and out of formal power. Most are unelected, believe the same things, and share a lack of respect for views other than their own.

It is they, to continue the example of education, who write the textbooks your children use, determine how history will be rewritten, and set academic standards-all without the least regard for you. You can do nothing about it.

(8) The U.S. government consists of five branches which are, in rough order of importance, the Supreme Court, the media, the presidency, the bureaucracy, and Congress.

The function of the Supreme Court, which is both unanswerable and unaccountable, is to impose things that the congress fears to touch. That is, it establishes programs desired by the ruling political class which could not possibly be democratically enacted. While formally a judicial organ, the Court is in reality our Ministry of Culture and Morals. It determines policy regarding racial integration, abortion, pornography, immigration, the practice of religion, which groups receive special privilege, and what forms of speech shall be punished.

(9) The media have two governmental purposes. The first is to prevent discussion and, to the extent possible, knowledge of taboo subjects. The second is to inculcate by endless indirection the values and beliefs of the permanent political class. Thus for example racial atrocities committed by whites against blacks are widely reported, while those committed by blacks against whites are concealed. Most people know this at least dimly. Few know the degree of management of information.

(10) Control of television conveys control of the society. It is magic. This is such a truism that we do not always see how true it is. The box is ubiquitous and inescapable. It babbles at us in bars and restaurants, in living rooms and on long flights. It is the national babysitter. For hours a day most Americans watch it.

Perhaps the key to cultural control is that people can't not watch a screen. It is probably true that stupid people would not watch intelligent television, but it is certainly true that intelligent people will watch stupid television. Any television, it seems, is preferable to no television. As people read less, the lobotomy box acquires semi-exclusive rights to their minds.

Television doesn't tell people what to do. It shows them. People can resist admonition. But if they see something happening over and over, month after month, if they see the same values approvingly portrayed, they will adopt both behavior and values. It takes years, but it works. To be sure it works, we put our children in front of the screen from infancy.

(11) Finally, people do not want freedom. They want comfort, two hundred channels on the cable, sex, drugs, rock-and-roll, an easy job and an SUV. No country with really elaborate home-theater has ever risen in revolt. An awful lot of people secretly like being told what to do. We would probably be happier with a king.

Compare/Contrast: the systemic flaw and the internet hope

The essence of 1903 is we were doing everything we are doing today except at a slower pace. As the pace of life sped up, not only did the numbers increase, the morality of a slower pace where you think about what you do before you do it vanished. Just imagine if we could "tweak" 1903 with shampoo, bathtubs, no mind-altering drugs, better medicines, telecommunications and PLANNED how our cities would grow? If we had made trains and bicycles the inner city transportation standard with electric cars as the inter-city standard and high speed trains the state-to-state standard? Couldn't we have a "higher-speed" lifestyle without the murders and car accident violence?

Fred Reed's fatalistic cynicism overlooks the "tv screen" called the home omputer connected to the internet. The www internet has returned everyday people back to thinking more deeply about what they are doing, 1903-style because everyone now has a keyboard to easily express themselves and get information from other, real people not the establishment. We are no longer subject to just the lies foisted off to us through the secular school system and big brother news media. However, this growing realization that we need to reorganize America to a more logical and moral way of life is stifled by a troubling development that dates back to 1917 and the response to WWI.

The cause for the two-party political tyranny we are under now began in 1917 when we went to the direct election of Senators.

Before then, any of us could go to our state's capital and TALK NATIONAL ISSUES because the 2 senators sent to Washington DC reported back to THE STATE GOVERNMENT and could be recalled because the STATE LEGISLATURE SELECTED THEM. Thus, a full spectrum of issues could be heard at THE STATE CAPITAL and then if necessary "sent down range" via a state senator.

In contrast, today senators are "floated" out to Washington DC by the 51% majority vote mob decision of the two party special interests system with frankly ZERO accountability to voters at home. Who can afford to take time off work and fly to Wash DC to get an audience with his senators??

What I'm saying is that state governments were not supposed to be disconnected from nation governments talking about pig farms and other local issues. The founding fathers wanted a flow:

local government ----->state government ------->national government

What we have today:

local government----------------->does its own thing via its own taxation

(((((((((((DISCONNECT))))))))))))

state government------------------->does its own thing via its own taxation

(((((((((((DISCONNECT))))))))))))

national government------------------->does its own thing via its own taxation

Now, do you understand where we have went systemically astray? Dates back to 1917.

Fix this and you begin to fix America by putting power back into the people's hands.

www.voxfux.com/kennedy/farewell/farewell02.html

From Farewell America

INVASION

"It is a mistake to look too far ahead. Only one link in the chain of destiny can be handled at one time."

--WINSTON CHURCHILL

Chapter 2 Legacy

"The worst fault of a highly-intelligent sovereign is to impose tasks on his subjects which are beyond their forces, for his aims go far beyond what they are capable of doing and, when he is in charge of an undertaking, he thinks he can foresee its consequences. His administration is therefore fatal to the people. The Prophet himself has said, 'Pattern your step on that of the weakest among you. Too great an intellect is a burden for the people.'"

--IBN KHALDOUN

Americans are the sons of Calvin.

John Calvin preached that the pursuit of wealth and the preservation of property is a Christian duty. He taught that the temptations of the flesh demand a discipline as strict as that of the military profession. "He created an ideal type of man theretofore unknown to both religion and society, who was neither a humanist nor an ascetic, but a businessman living in the fear of God." (1)

Two centuries later, this new type of man came under the influence of John Wesley. (2) "We exhort all Christians to amass as much wealth as they can, and to preserve as much as they can; in other words, to enrich themselves." For President Madison, "The American political system was founded on the natural inequality of men." Correlatively, the moral philosophy of the United States is based on success.

At the end of the Eighteenth Century a Frenchman, the Chevalier de Beaujour, wrote on his return from North America, "The American loses no opportunity to acquire wealth. Gain is the subject of all his conversations, and the motive for all his actions. Thus, there is perhaps no civilized nation in the world where there is less generosity in the sentiments, less elevation of soul and of mind, less of those pleasant and glittering illusions that constitute the charm or the consolation of life. Here, everything is weighed, calculated and sacrificed to self-interest."

Another Frenchman, the Baron de Montlezun, added, "In this country, more than any other, esteem is based on wealth. Talent is trampled underfoot. How much is this man worth? they ask. Not much? He is despised. One hundred thousand crowns? The knees flex, the incense burns, and the once-bankrupt merchant is revered like a god."

The British went even farther than the French. "They are escaped convicts. His Majesty is fortunate to be rid of such rabble. Their true God is power." (3)

In an introduction to a series of articles by historian Andrew Sinclair, the Sunday Times wrote in 1967, "In the five centuries since Columbus discovered the New World, savagery has been part of American life. There has been the violence of conquest and resistance, the violence of racial difference, the violence of civil war, the violence of bandits and gangsters, the violence of lynch law, all set against the violence of the wilderness and the city."

The opinion of these Europeans is subject to question, but George Washington, speaking of the future of American civilization, commented that he would not be surprised by any disaster that might occur.

The disasters began as triumphs. The conquest of the West, the rise of the merchants, the industrial revolutions were America's great crusades, and from them were issued her Titans and her gods. Every civilization has its ideal man. an archetype that stands as a model for the average citizen. Athens chose the philosopher and the artist; for the Jews, it was the law-giving prophet; for Rome, the Soldier-administrator; for China, the learned Mandarin; for England, the empire builder; for Japan and German, and professional Soldier; for India, the ascetic. For the United States, it was the businessman!

While other nations might have chosen wisdom, beauty, saintliness, military glory, bravery or asceticism as their popular divinities, the United States chose the civilization of gain. The true gods and the only Titans of America were Jay Gould, Daniel Drew, Jay Cooke, Andrew Carnegie, Charles T. Yerkes, Solomon Guggenheim and Irenee Du Pont.

Some of these men, like J. Pierpont Morgan, became gay, high-living nabobs. But most, like Henry Ford, were frugal and dreary puritans. All of them, even the most devout, even the most devoted, even the most sincere, had one thing in common: where business was concerned, they were tough. The churches approved of this attitude. In his book Heroes of Progress, the Reverend McClinock wrote:

"May he long enjoy the fruits of his work and promote the reign of Christ on this earth, not only through the Christian use of the vast fortune with which God has favored him, but through the living example of his active and peaceful piety." He was referring to Daniel Drew, who cheated his associates, bribed municipal governments, and took advantage of the credulity of the people.

The first American giants -- Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, McKay, McCoy -- whether they were oilmen, shipowners, prospectors or livestock dealers, made or consolidated their fortunes by smuggling arms and supplies during the Civil War. Today's Titans are often college graduates. Some are affable and well-bred. They constitute an oligarchy of directorial bureaucrats who, while lacking the personal fortunes of the old Titans, have preserved their power and conserved their practices. For them, and it is true, profit is "the remuneration of a decision made in conditions of uncertainty." (4) But this equation has become the basis for a moral philosophy that takes neither the nation nor the individual into account.

"Men who spend every weekday making money, and every Sunday at the Temple, are not made to inspire the muse of Comedy," wrote Alexandre de Tocqueville, and he was correct. The standards of American society have been raised to untouchability. The dollar remains the criterion of worth and success. Money is the only real measure of human beings and things, and American society, while classless, is nothing more than a graph of economic levels. (5) "That which a people honors most becomes the object of its cult," wrote Plato. This is a democratic notion in so far as it offers everyone a chance, or at least appears to, but its rigidity leaves room for all kinds of excesses.

In other times and on other continents, these Titans would have been, if not scorned, at least gauged by their relative worth. But the Titans have become the pride of every American citizen. In no other society is the cult of the successful man so strong, and it is unwise to disregard it. "America has been built by individual effort and a recognition of individual responsibility . . . Government may guide and help its citizens, but it cannot supply talent to those who do not have it, or bestow ambition or creative ability on those who are not born with these qualities." (6)

This morality demands the tolerance or the complicity of those who hold political power: Congress and the President.

Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt were accidents along the way, deviates from the American mythology. An American who enters politics for unselfish reasons is regarded with suspicion. His attitude can only conceal a lust for power or a senseless and dangerous devotion to the "public welfare." Politics and the public welfare have little in common, and the activities of a politician are not considered normal or comprehensible unless they are pursued for selfish and material gain. President Jackson was condemned in 1831 by Vincenne's Gazette in these terms: "Ambition is his crime, and it will be his undoing."

Harold Laski has written that "a strong President is a moral threat" to all those who have toiled to build an American society whose prosperity is based on initiative, energy and efficiency, but also on what Europeans call corruption, an additional arm made available to those whose sole motivation is profit. America, wrote George Washington, is a country where political offices bear no proportion to those who seek them.

America accepted Franklin D. Roosevelt only because she had no other alternative. She found herself again in Harry Truman, a solid citizen with no perverse ambitions who declared that "the combined thought and action of a people always lead in the right direction." (7) Eisenhower was the ideal President. A victorious commander, he dazzled the crowds. Inconsistent, he had no dangerous political philosophy. A petty bourgeois, he dared not oppose the Titans.

And suddenly Kennedy appeared, the first President born in this century, a millionaire, a liberal, and an intellectual. The Democratic candidate nevertheless made no attempt to conceal his aims.

"In the decade that lies ahead -- in the challenging revolutionary sixties -- the American Presidency will demand more than ringing manifestoes issued from the rear of the battle. It will demand that the President place himself in the very thick of the fight, that he care passionately about the fate of the people he leads, that he be willing to serve them at the risk of incurring their momentary displeasure."

"We stand today at the edge of a New Frontier -- the frontier of the 1960's -- a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils -a frontier of unfulfilled hopes and threats." (8)

"Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom promised our nation a new political and economic framework. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises -- it is a set of challenges. It sums up, not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their price, not their pocketbook -- it holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security . . ." (9)

"The Scriptures tell of a time when there were giants on the earth, and that is what our country needs today. This is not the time for futilities. This is not the time for petty complaints and half-measures. This is the time for men of action, not men of words -- this is the time for giant hearts, not faint hearts . . ." (10)

"We have no time for complacency, timidity, or doubt. This is a time for courage and action." (11)

"The old era has ended. The old ways will not do." (12)

It was all so beautiful, so unreal, that no one believed it. They even admired his inscrutability, his ingenuity in using a metaphor borrowed from American folklore, from the myth of the West, to mask a demagogy that was all the more inoffensive because it seemed credible. Others, more cunning, grew concerned when, in West Virginia, under the low roofs of a forgotten America, the Senator from Massachusetts spoke to the abandoned miners, to the unemployed, to the families vegetating in the hills. America began to ask herself if Kennedy was speaking seriously when he bent towards the little people and the forgotten.

Kennedy's socialism aimed at enriching the poor rather than impoverishing the rich, but it was dangerous nevertheless. For one hundred million Americans, the gravest danger, after bankruptcy, is that those just behind may catch up with them. The nouveaux rich are only rich so long as no one grows richer. The have-nots live in constant fear of the down-and-outs, and the hate and fear of the little Puerto Rican for New York are really no more than the hate and fear of half of New York for the little Puerto Rican.

Millions of Americans have risen from the proletariat to the middle class with insufficient intellectual means. They or their sons want to continue to climb the ladder of society. This new American bourgeoisie, which has risen by its own toil, works less today and lives better, and pays less taxes. It claims to be descended from the Pilgrim Fathers, but its origins go back to the washing machine. The Great Society is essentially sectarian and violent. Its mottoes are "each man for himself," "it's none of their business" and "woe to the vanquished."

Today's American is at the mercy of his anxieties. The United States has grown so wealthy that she has lost touch with the rest of the world. America is neither here nor there, be it a question of power or of weakness. She no longer knows what is happening on this earth. Her universe exists in the third person.

The difference continues to widen between the American radicalism of the Thirties and the radicalism of today, whose ethical basis is possession. True, this basis can be traced far back into the American past, and finds its theme song in the ballads of the Far West, where men killed for a horse or a bottle of beer. But Jeffersonian tradition placed, or restored, human values above real estate values.

Hemingway's Americans saw the Spanish Civil War as a struggle for the preservation of spiritual as opposed to material values: the power of the Church, the domination of the Army, and the wealth of the big landowners. They were in sympathy with the other Spain, although to all appearances it was Red. But today, when a majority of Americans are landowners, what other insurgents scattered throughout the earth still have the sympathy, or at least the comprehension, of a sufficient number of Americans, of the men who nevertheless trace their origins back to the revolutionaries of the Thirteen States of the Union? And let no man be mistaken about the struggle for civil rights. The Negroes too want to become landowners.

America is no longer a young nation. There is New York, of course, superlatively demanding, offering, in the absurd and the sordid, the crude atmosphere of youth and folly of a town in search of its identity. Its culture is centered on the Jew and the Negro. It is a young city, but it is not an American city. It rejects the provincialism, the racism, the folklore, the religion, and the superpatriotism of the ordinary small town, whose preoccupations are diametrically opposed to the policies of any progressive and imaginative government.

Imagination itself has become "un-American." It is accepted, but with fear and distrust, when it embellishes a concrete experience, the story of how a fortune was made or a victory won. But where it exists solely for itself, when it becomes a culture or a dialectic, it is no longer tolerated." Americans are insensitive to philosophical ideas. They need something tangible, something concrete, something that has been acted on the stage. Acted, that is, seen and felt. What is said is not important. We are not impressed by explanations, and verbal play leaves us indifferent. What we want is action." (13)

It was to men without imagination that Kennedy addressed these words:

"Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle . . ."

The message got through, but there was something suspicious about the style. Culture is a major threat to modern American society. A society fears its deserters more than its enemies, and in its mind intelligence is too often equated with leftism. Kennedy said, "Our nation cannot allow itself to be economically rich and intellectually poor." And Steinbeck added, "What a joy that literacy is no longer prima facie evidence of treason."

But a portion of American society instinctively understood that Kennedy was declaring war on its own. "High society," like the middle classes, felt only suspicion or dislike for his university professors. The American upper crust tries in so far as possible to preserve itself in a superb state of ignorance. For these people, brilliant men like Theodore C. Sorensen or Adlai E. Stevenson, the kind of men who are too poor to leave big tips and too proud to accept them, are intruders in a society that places no value on pure intellect, or accepts it only when it occurs in one of its sons.

These well-to-do, these profiteers, these weaklings, and these simple people had one thing in common: their fear of everything that Kennedy represented. His principal fault was that he was not like them. He did not share their desires and their complacency, their weaknesses and their intolerance. These citizens of the Twentieth Century had no conception of the responsibilities of a President whose role, in reality, is that of viceroy of the universe.

The United States has never faced the irreparable. She has never even experienced a catastrophe. She has known no Roman domination, no barbarian invasion, no feudal wars, no massive bloodbaths. In consequence, she finds it difficult to accept a dominant leader. On the contrary, she wants a President who is subject to the will of his constituents, and even of his adversaries.

The chances of becoming President of the United States are extremely slight, even for a man in the forefront of public life, and such opportunism is needed that the way is left open for a mediocre but crafty politician who knows how to please. With Eisenhower, the United States was content to spend eight years in an armchair. The intellectual emancipation and the agitation of the new generation succeeded at the beginning of the Sixties in defeating, by a narrow margin, the advocates of a placid administrator of a complacent nation devoted to the welfare of the majority -- in other words, corrupt. It was the strength of his electoral organization that carried Kennedy to victory, with the help, perhaps, of the seasonal favor of an actual minority that suddenly tired of mediocrity or, like a woman, was momentarily seduced.

But, once he was President, Kennedy set out immediately to give the nation a sense of responsibility and of pathos. This was all the more disturbing in that it was abstract, and therefore unfamiliar. How many of the 185 million Americans in 1960 sensed that this man would betray their heritage, the American way of life, the established order?

Often primitive, readily stubborn, and capable of sudden violence, the American character contains dangerous elements with which men like Jefferson, Lincoln, and Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt have had to contend. If, as Machiavelli wrote, men find it easier to forget the loss of their father than that of their patrimony, then "there is nothing more difficult, more dangerous, than to try to change the order of things."

NOTES

1. Herbert J. Muller.
2. Founder of the Methodists.
3. Oliver Sharpin, The American Rebels, 1804.
4. Professor B. S. Keirstead.
5. "An American citizen is now worth $200,000" (Dallas Morning News).
6. David Lawrence, U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1965.
7. Harry Truman, Mister President.
8. In Washington, January 14, 1960.
9. At Los Angeles, July 15, 1960.
10. At Anchorage, September 3, 1960.
11. At Detroit, September 5, 1960.
12. At Seattle, September 6, 1960.
13. Arthur Miller.

Therefore 4 decades later, its clear that the secret elites running America saw JFK as a naive, reckless and dangerous leader who would eliminate their power and they assassinated him. An honest student of the JFK assassination will see the fingerprints of U.S. secret elite methodology all over the ambush in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. The slides below point this out in painstaking detail and how its becoming increasingly clear that the Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), a sick, and dying selfish egomaniac connected to Bobby Baker as Barr McClellan has documented, was involved in JFK's murder by undermining Secret Service protection. What the hell was LBJ doing in the motorcade that day? To make himself appear innocent with an alibi when he was the man with the most to gain from JFK's death and the ambush took place in his own Texas backyard. We should strike LBJ's name from the rolls of American Presidents to clarify his memory and remind everyone that being a traitor will not go unpunished.


RETHINKING HISTORY: WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF JFK HAD LIVED?

JFK Alternative History (rent DVD from Blockbuster, NetFlix or buy from Amazon.com)

Google Search

IMDB

An excellent movie! Watch it! Then compare and contrast it to what actually took place. Then consider what we have to do to get off our butts and live up to our destiny...


While we understand the motives behind eliminating JFK from power, its unsatisfactory that he and a number of others were murdered to do it. Since 1963, many charismatic American leaders have been assassinated by the secret government; leading many to question if its even possible for a U.S. leader to actually LEAD instead of just being a figurehead.

America, a nation with over 270+ million Americans and over 3,000 miles of air/sea/water borders is simply too BIG to be defended by a small, secret elite no matter how skilled or altruistic. The 9/11 terrorist attacks prove this. Had just one aircrew member had a pistol, there would not have been 3,000 American dying in airliner kamikaze attacks which technothriller Tom Clancy warned against. The secret elites of the U.S. government knew that terrorists were planning to hijack airliners with combatives and small knives BEFORE the 9/11 attacks yet they refused to sound the alarm. And there was the 1996 Hollywood movie, "Executive Decision" where an 747 airliner packed with over 400 people was flying to Washington D.C. with a load of nerge agents and American fighters were sent to shoot it down. Sound vaguely familiar?

Why?

Because its not in the psychological make-up of a secret covert warrior to OVERTLY warn the "unwashed", "Soccer moms and dads"--the common folk of a threat and to empower them to act in their nation's defense. Former counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke's recent testimony before the 9/11 commission suggests if we had put an "America's Most Wanted" style message out to all of America's citizens we could have thwarted at least two of the suicide hijackers from diving airliners into the WTC and Pentagon. He is right it would have helped, but didn't mention that the secret elite DON'T WANT AVERAGE JOE INVOLVED IN NATIONAL DEFENSE; they want him to shut the %^& up and go to work and keep the consumerist economy cranked up and pay taxes so THEY can play James Bond and go after the current "Boogeyman" external threat. This is why we have still failed to declare WAR on sub-national terrorism; in fact since WWII when have we EVER declared WAR on anyone? The small elites do not want to share power with anyone; even if clearly the nation-state itself is at risk because they are not up to the job from a quantitative size perspective. This is why you see official after official on Bill O'Reilly's TV show on FOX-TV refusing to close America's borders with military National Guard troops, they want THEM to be given more power to recruit/train more expensive Border Patrol Federal agents at a rate of a few hundred a year, a band-aid that keeps them in power instead of decisive action to solve the problem immediately before a terrorist wipes out an American city with a chem/bio/nuclear device.

Jim Garrison, 1967: "Fascism Will Come To America"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVa1IvHdKc

*Earling Carothers "Jim" Garrison, District Attorney for New Orleans who put local businessman Clay Betrand on trial in connection with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, sums it all up perfectly in the October 1967 Playboy interview:

PLAYBOY: Many of the professional critics of the Warren Commission appear to be prompted by political motives: Those on the left are anxious to prove Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy within the establishment; and those on the right are eager to prove the assassination was an act of "the international Communist conspiracy." Where would you place yourself on the political spectrum--right, left or center?

JIM GARRISON: That's a question I've asked myself frequently, especially since this investigation started and I found myself in an incongruous and disillusioning battle with agencies of my own Government. I can't just sit down and add up my political beliefs like a mathematical sum, but I think, in balance, I'd turn up somewhere around the middle. Over the years, I guess I've developed a somewhat conservative attitude--in the traditional libertarian sense of conservatism, as opposed to the thumbscrew-and-rack conservatism of the paramilitary right--particularly in regard to the importance of the individual as opposed to the State and the individual's own responsibilities to humanity . . .

I was with the artillery supporting the division that took Dachau; I arrived there the day after it was taken, when bulldozers were making pyramids of human bodies outside the camp. What I saw there has haunted me ever since. Because the law is my profession, I've always wondered about the judges throughout Germany who sentenced men to jail for picking pockets at a time when their own government was jerking gold from the teeth of men murdered in gas chambers. I'm concerned about all of this because it isn't a German phenomenon; it's a human phenomenon. It can happen here, because there has been no change, there has been no progress and there has been no increase of understanding on the part of men for their fellow men.

What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly eroding into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the State. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military- industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and the Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution.

In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here the process is more subtle, but the end results are the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the State and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.

www.playboy.com

Operation Northwoods Document
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

USA "Patriot" Act- HR 3162 RDS
www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

Finally, there are indications that world weather patterns are changing adversely ("global warming") and/or some kind of cosmic disaster like an asteroid or meteor that could inflict major damage on the earth or we may simply RUN OUT OF OIL may be imminent and the secret elites are busy working on "Continuity of Government" (COG) plans to insure THEY survive the holocaust while many of us do not, so they will have less people to "govern". Refer to the Hollywood movie, "Deep Impact" but without a caring President who tries to save a cross-section of the common folk. The war on Islamo-Fascist terrorism may be just a convenient or tolerated distraction for COG plans to be executed without scrutiny. If we are indeed coming to the "end of the age of oil", then now is the time to switch to renewable energy sources.

The web page The Background is Oil states:

"Global oil is peaking; in five years we will no longer be able to produce enough oil to meet the needs of our oil civilization. The oil elite wants to grab the remaining supplies and dictate their use. Likewise, the people of this country, who will soon be faced by starvation and extreme impoverishment, can be held in check through the establishment of a police state.

All the while, people are being diverted from seeing that we have just enough energy resources left that we could build a true ectopian democracy where all of us could lead freer, healthier, more fulfilling lives. We need bottom up democracy. We need small-scale economies, and small-scale technologies powered by renewable energy. We need smaller communities, structured to be self-sufficient, all tied together by high speed monorails. We need gardens and parks in our cities instead of cars. We need social halls, not shopping malls. And we have enough energy remaining to do this, if we act now.

The oil elites, however, want to use our remaining energy resources to establish a security state where they can enjoy the remaining riches while the rest of us suffer, starve and slave for them."

If the world's remaining oil supplies and new pipelines have to be secured, there has to be a reason for U.S. military forces to be on the scene; if the threat is quickly eliminated there will be no justification. Adequate overt military action in the form of thousands of 82nd Airborne Paratroopers dropped in by aircraft and sealing off the Afghan-Pakistani border likely would have captured/killed terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden as such 3D MANEUVER had succeeded in bagging Manual Noriega in Panama in 1989. But this would not prolong the war on terrorism for maximum budgetary milking in the years to come and would involve overt empowerment of the "American-pie" Soldier, many who would die and be rightful heroes instead of the secret warriors. Also, too many American heroes dying and politicians might not get re-elected. So we went with the "lowest common denominator" that all the bureaucracies agreed on to fit their separate agendas and only placed a few groups of small elites on the ground in Afghanistan and the bad guys got away to strike America another day.

Regardless, the Bible warns us "in the last days perilous times will come". While men seek to hide deep in the rocks, God promises us he will return and sets things back in order. If he doesn't to save us the trouble of having to fight the evil of our day as our duty as human beings demands, well it was a nice ride while it lasted. There is evidence that there have been very advanced human civilizations in our past to include skills to fly in the air and even nuclear weapons. If these societies destroyed themselves leaving little trace of their human accomplishments due to their unredeemed human hearts, maybe its normal that our civilization is set to replay their folly? At least they had the humility to see the coming disaster and to build robust structures like pyramids so survivors could discover and be inspired by them to start civilization all over again. Legendary war theorist Sun Tzu warns us: "What matters in war is VICTORY, not prolonged operations, however brilliantly executed". The question is, who says we are at WAR?

Clearly, its time for America at the dawn of the 21st Century to really decide what it really believes in, what's coming around the corner and to rally together OVERTLY to meet these challenges head-on or become part of the dust of history when the small elites fail to live our lives and do our duty for us yet again.

War on Terror? Just an excuse to further American Interests?

In the following interview with the former U.S. FBI Chief in Brazil; the nation notorious for a safe haven for people in trouble with the law to run to because it has no extradition treaty with the U.S.---several revelations are made:

1. The Bush administration is populated by out-of-touch-with-reality Tofflerian Neocon egomaniacs who have spent America into a huge national debt using the global war on terror as their excuse to bride and pay off foreign governments and their agencies for "intelligence". The American Congress thinks the $BILLIONS of dollars they are giving is going to intelligence gathering to net terrorists when its actually used to expand the secret government's ability to influence governments to further general American interests.

2. The Bush administration has alienated much of the world with its unilateral and without WMD-justified war with Iraq

3. The American economic health depends on world faith in the dollar and American government so that foreigners invest in the U.S. to compensate for this huge debt

4. America now alienated around the world is not getting the investments it needs to pay for its debt and is in economic trouble; if America's economy goes sour the whole world's economy might suffer

5. America's porous borders is the real risk to her being WMD attacked; the political corruption that goes along with bribing foreigners has demoralized the real intelligence agents working to get terrorists before they can launch a WMD attack on America. A dirty nuke almost was set off in Washington D.C. in 2002.

6. Specific techniques like "cloning" of intel gear when its "given" from one country to another country's poor intel services. Some have postulated the USS Pueblo "capture" by the North Koreans was really a way to get them to use our decoding equipment which was "cloned" so it revealed their messages and alerted us to the enemy offensives in north Vietnam which saved many American lives.

7. How the FBI--allegedly an investigation service for just inside the U.S. has now expanded to all over the world!

8. That the secret elites running the U.S. government always need a "boogeyman" external threat so their unethical actions cannot be investigated and punished. For the JFK assassination it was always we have the "Soviet threat" at our throats and cannot even fathom our own agencies being involved with the JFK murder. Now the "Soviet threat" is gone and the "terror threat" is here. Its clear we need to learn how to handle external threats and at the same time fix internal corruption to get our own house in order or else the American nation-state will be ruined by 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) because of its own corruption.

Former FBI Chief in Brazil Discusses U.S. Operations, Criticizes Bush

[Report on "excerpts" from a "series of interviews" granted by Carlos Costa, former FBI chief in Brazil, begun on 16 December 2003 in the Brazilian cities of Sao Paulo, Salvador, and Brasilia by Bob Fernandes]

[Description of Source: Sao Paulo Carta Capital in Portuguese -- Business weekly]

FBIS Source-Date: 03/24/2004

[Fernandes] It is 0200 on 31 March 1968 at Almada, on the other side of the Tejo River and Lisbon. On the second story of his mansion, Antonio da Fonseca Costa, chief of dictator Antonio de Oliveira Salazar's dreaded State Defense International Police, PIDE [the secret police founded by Portuguese dictator Antonio Salazar in 1945], shakes his child: Carlos, wake up, wake up, fast!

The orphan of Spaniard Faustina Luengo Mendez, who died of leukemia at age 47 when her child was barely 7, Carlos Alberto Costa wakes up in haste, scared.

Carlos does not understand why his father is gathering a few family belongings and putting them in two suitcases along with one dozen bottles of over 100-year-old Portuguese port wine. With a military friend beside him, the PIDE chief and his son leave for Lisbon Airport, from where they later depart for Madrid aboard a military plane.

Thirty-six years later, on the Yatch Club Balcony, in front of the Baia de Todos os Santos during a cloudy summer day in Salvador, Carlos Costa remembers his last pre-dawn hours as a child in Portugal and of those who conducted the escape: I believe that it was the CIA that helped us to get to Madrid, and days later we went to the United States....

The PIDE chief had become a dissident. Antonio Costa, who received dictator Salazar for lunch and dinner at Almada, or at his country house in Palmela, in nearby Setubal, foresaw that times would change: It would be impossible to continue much longer with kidnappings and imprisonments each time a neighbor accused another of being a communist or a government opponent.

Four years later, in Cumberland, Rhode Island, in the United States, Antonio da Fonseca Costa died of cancer and exhaustion; 12-hour work shifts, during the night and pre-dawn hours at iron factories, always smoking. Antonio da Fonseca Costa died penniless. His son, Carlos, worked from when he was 18 until he was 20, to pay the $5,000 needed to finance his father's funeral and also to finance his studies.

Carlos ate only one thing for six months for breakfast, lunch, and dinner: Corn Flakes and milk.

Carlos Costa is today 49 years old. This was how old his father was when he abandoned the PIDE and Portugal. Carlos has just retired. From 1999 until the end of 2003, he was the powerful chief of the FBI branch in Brazil. Like his father, when he refused to obey any order, he has become a dissident, something which has now been revealed.

In 2001, at a dinner held at the Antiquarius Restaurant in Sao Paulo that was organized by him, an eyewitness reports that Costa introduced himself in the following manner:

I am the FBI chief here. I know what you have written about our secret services in Brazil, but you must be aware that we are officially established here and that we will not operate outside the law.

As we will see in the shocking interview that follows, Brazilian laws were unbelievably elastic and obliging regarding the state's actions, or lack of them, sometimes even bordering on being criminal.

When Carta Capital sought him out on 16 December 2003, Carlos granted the first of a series of interviews, which totaled eight hours in all based on the number of tapes available. These interviews were held in Sao Paulo, Salvador, and Brasilia.

It is surprising and rare for an U.S. secret service agent and, even more so, for an FBI chief with access to top classified documents, to open his mouth; furthermore, during excerpts of this long interview, Carlos Costa issued criticisms at both the domestic and international levels.

He, who headed the FBI for three years during the Fernando Henrique Cardoso Administration and for 10 months of the Lula [President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva] Administration, and who at the U.S. Embassy followed the actions of his colleagues from the DEA, the CIA, U.S. Customs, NAS [State Department Narcotics Affairs Section], and other "Services," as secret service agents self-style themselves, starts by saying outright:

[Costa] Your Federal Police [PF] have been working for us for years. (...) They were bought for some millions of dollars. (...) The United States has bought the PF...

[Fernandes] Carlos is a U.S. citizen born in Portugal, fluent in English and Spanish. He speaks Portuguese with the accent, phonetics, syntax, and logic of the people of Portugal.

This information must be taken into account when reading the answers to the questions that Carta Capital posed to him regarding the instructions imparted from Washington ordering the secret services to conduct the wiretapping of Alvorada Palace [Brazilian presidential residence] and Itamaraty [Brazilian Foreign Ministry].

For the first and only time in many hours and days of conversation, Carlos Costa, who is always in good humor and relaxed, is tense. He stops, thinks, and, visibly surprised, he replies with a question:

[Costa] Could you tell me how you know about this?

[Fernandes] The information is accurate. Alvorada Palace and Itamaraty were wiretapped on the basis of these instructions. The date, which is imprecise, could be confirmed by the interviewee. The effort is useless. Annoyed, Carlos Costa replies:

[Costa] How did you know or how do you know about this?

[Fernandes] From the orders and the wiretappings carried out at Alvorada Palace and Itamaraty...

At that precise moment, Carlos, with the precision of the Portuguese and the objectivity of the Americans, stands up from his chair and decides to end the conversation for the evening.

[Costa] (...) I neither confirm nor deny it... No comment (...) I do not discuss these issues... Period.

[Fernandes] One last effort: Were you the one who issued that order? When was it?

[Costa] As you will see throughout our conversation, I have refused to comply with orders of less importance than the one you mention. Good evening!

[Fernandes] He refused to comply with some orders. He did, however, clearly discuss without any hesitation some quite serious orders:

[Costa] There were some instructions from Washington for me to "monitor" sheikhs, ayatollahs, and Muslim community leaders in Brazil and to draft "lists." I refused. There are occasions when a person must refuse to comply with unconstitutional orders.

[Fernandes] Furthermore, he asserts that the attacks against the Israelis in Buenos Aires carried out in the first half of the 1990's were planned "in Brazilian territory."

Carlos Costa is a secret agent with a broad and eclectic background. He holds an MBA in Business Management, with a major in International Business Management, from Southeast University in Florida. In Washington, D.C., at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), he specialized in Latin American countries economic and social affairs. With a degree in political science and international relations from the University of Rhode Island, Carlos Costa joined the FBI in 1982, when he competed against 56,000 candidates for the job.

As an FBI special agent, he served at the desks in Boston, Pittsburgh, and Miami. At FBI Headquarters in Washington, he also served as chief of the Counter-Intelligence and International Industrial Espionage Section.

While tracking the actions of US secret services in Brazil during the last few years, Carta Capital stumbled upon the movements of the then FBI chief in magnificent palaces and salons.

As can be observed in the picture on the following page, Carlos Costa was in the president's office -- at least when Federal Supreme Court Chief Marco Aurelio de Mello was acting as president of the Republic.

While in the Federal District [Brasilia], Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, Santa Catarina, Sao Paulo, Amazonas, Parana...and abroad, the FBI chief could be seen in the company of governors, cabinet members, government secretaries, military police commanders, and public security secretaries. He trained hundreds of men and sent dozens of them to FBI Headquarters in the United States. He took Anthony Garotinho [former Rio de Janeiro governor and cheif of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, PMDB, branch in Rio de Janeiro] to the inauguration of Bush, Jr. Garotinho was the only Brazilian politician who attended the inauguration.

The former FBI chief paid bills in the same manner in which, according to what he reveals in the following startling pages, the U.S. Customs, the DEA, the NAS, the CIA, other "services," and the FBI itself pay the bills of the Brazilian Police.

Direct, as any American would be, Carlos Costa narrates: The Brazilian Intelligence Agency (ABIN) is a "beggar" and not only with the United States.

And the Brazilian Government? It watched, watches, as if everything was completely normal. It is necessary to cut expenses, make contingency plans. Is there anything wrong, therefore, if the United States, in exchange for total access and control, "donates" some millions of dollars to the Brazilian Police and institutions each year?

And then these people still want to be taken seriously, wonders the former FBI chief.

When he criticizes, Carlos Costa criticizes the Bush administration. With the authority bestowed upon he who read and handled an average of over 300 Top Secret [preceding two words in English] documents, reports, and papers per week, drafted both in Brazil and abroad -- and even by the CIA -- the person who was one of the few 45 FBI chiefs outside U.S. borders asserts:

[Costa] I have never read any secret document that indicated the existence of weapons of mass destruction [WMD] in Iraq. What I have read asserted the contrary. I discussed this with FBI and CIA colleagues from other parts of the world and we agreed that Bush and Blair were trying to find a justification for war.

[Fernandes] He still talks about times gone by. How during the Reagan years, the United States supplied anthrax to Saddam Husayn. He tells how during the Malvinas [Falklands] war, the United States supplied satellite reports on Argentine troops to the British while at the same time it informed the Argentines about the location of the British ships that would be destroyed.

Incidentally, with the exact logic of his mother tongue, combined with a touch of British humor, he broaches the recent spy incident involving Kofi Annan at the United Nations and also some spy operations against Tony Blair's administration.

Irritated, the former FBI chief explains in detail the thwarting of a terrorist operation which two years ago was aimed at detonating an atomic bomb in Washington.

[Costa] (...) They were planning to detonate a dirty bomb (...) It was not given any publicity because if it had been publicized in its full dimension, it would have caused panic among the U.S. population...

[Fernandes] Carlos Costa is aware of the risks he takes when he talks. While drafting chapters of a book on the FBI and on his life as a secret agent, he takes precautions against a "sudden flu." It is deadly.

Somewhere, some people have some recordings, which, according to him, contain much, much more than what was said or not said on this occasion, and which would have a tremendous international impact. Based on what is revealed in the following pages, one can imagine what could lie ahead.

On the eve of 31 March, marking the 40th anniversary of the military government and the installation of a dictatorship that in 21 years shaped a country that is still trying to pick up the broken pieces and mend itself, a situation which this interview illustrates from several viewpoints, Carlos Alberto Costa is preparing for his own 31 March.

Like his father, on 31 March 36 years ago, he now leaves the secret agent community. The highly trained spy who handled millions of dollars at the FBI desk, and a skillful negotiator, he leaves the sidelines, while the lecturer and consultant on international relations, trade, and intelligence and security enters the scene.

Married to a Brazilian and father of a Brazilian son, the man who headed the FBI in Brazil for four years opens his soul to be able to change his life after 22 years of being a secret agent. This will be the case if the "Animal," whom he knows quite well -- and the Services -- allow him to do so. It will be a long, arduous, and highly dangerous battle. There is something, however, that Carlos Costa has never done again and swears that he will never do again in his life. He will never eat Corn Flakes again.

[Fernandes] Were you the head of the FBI in Brazil? For how long?

[Costa] I headed the FBI in Brazil for four years, until late last year.

[Fernandes] What are the relations between the U.S. secret services and the police departments in Brazil like?

[Costa] Are you referring to your police or the police that we bought?

[Fernandes] Bought?

[Costa] Yes, bought. Our agencies donated millions of dollars per year to the Federal Police [PF], over a number of years, for crucial operations. Last year the DEA donated around $5 million, the NAS (narcotics division at the State Department), which also deals with narcotics, donated around $3 million, besides all the others. The United States bought the PF. There is an old saying, and it is true: Those who pay give the orders, even if they are indirect orders. The truth is: Your PF is ours, it works for us. The police force does not seem to be important to your government. I do not know whether that is an legacy handed down by the dictatorship, when the police were unpopular, but it is incomprehensible. The police, as an entity, should be politically independent; they should be free from internal and external influence, and they are, in practice, in the hands of foreigners.

[Fernandes] Does that refer to all the US agencies that operate here?

[Costa] The CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] is a different story. The CIA plays the legal role of an intelligence service that operates abroad.

[Fernandes] Yes, but it also "donates" and operates under a greater or lesser degree of independence, if Brazil allows it to.

[Costa] Well, I agree, it operates with a greater or lesser degree of independence, but from the U.S. standpoint, the CIA is correct and legal; it is an intelligence service abroad.

[Fernandes] How much does the CIA "donate"?

[Costa] I do not know. Other secret services are more open, but the CIA is closed. The CIA budget is a part of the defense budget. Obviously, however, like any other secret service, it uses funds to buy, blackmail, and pay bribes.

[Fernandes] Do you move around in Brazil with ease?

[Costa] Here? Absolutely. The FBI, the DEA, the CIA, and other services are present in Brazil. We are identified as diplomats, attaches, assistants. I was the legal attache, for example.

[Fernandes] In clear terms, however, you are secret agents, or spies.

[Costa] If you want to use such terms, that is it. The point is that there is no reason to have FBI, DEA, NAS, and U.S. Customs agents here. I am astonished at how countries with intelligence systems such as China and Russia authorize the FBI to operate in their territories under diplomatic cover. There is an FBI office in Hong Kong and another in Beijing. What need is there for police agents, the FBI, whose jurisdiction is limited to the United States? It is breaking the law, according to the US laws themselves.

[Fernandes] Does Chavez authorize the FBI in Venezuela?

[Costa] Chavez inherited an office, but the agents there do nothing; they are monitored and cannot budge.

[Fernandes] Before we deal with specifics, what do the secret service jobs at the embassy entail on a routine basis?

[Costa] I will tell you: One of the most important roles we have at the embassy is to manipulate the Brazilian press.

[Fernandes] What? Explain that.

[Costa] Manipulate, guide, or control what interests us in the Brazilian press.

[Fernandes] Really? Manipulate?

[Costa] We call it "influence."

[Fernandes] Please explain this "influence" and state some examples.

[Costa] No names. It starts, let's say, with establishing good relations. We identify pro-U.S. journalists -- obviously in organizations that sway public opinion -- and invite them to visit the United States, with all expenses paid. I was not responsible for that area, but that is the way it begins. To influence is to change thoughts that conflict with our interests. The first step at any meeting at the embassy is an analysis of what the media is saying about us; Carta Capital, for example, was never appreciated at the embassy, to say the least.

[Fernandes] To say the most, I imagine.

[Costa] As you may imagine.

[Fernandes] What arguments are used to "influence"?

[Costa] A great deal of creativity. To "influence" the press, the media, is a very natural thing.

[Fernandes] Clearly speaking, does to "influence" include buying, if necessary?

[Costa] And turning public opinion in our favor.

[Fernandes] Yes, but...

[Costa] Whatever is necessary. If buying is necessary, then buying it is. There are several ways. But never mind that. Let us get back to the CIA's role.

[Fernandes] We will get back to the media later on. The CIA's actions depend on whether or not Brazil limits the agency's actions, or allows itself to be "bought."

[Costa] The term to "influence" is preferable. It also depends on how much and whom the CIA, the DEA, and the others are going to exert "influence" on in Brazil.

[Fernandes] It is better to use the term "influence," as it is used in relation to the press.

[Costa] What are the FBI, the DEA, the NAS, the U.S. Customs, the RSO, who are the embassy's internal security agents, and a series of other services doing here? How come Brazilians, your government, do not question that? How come the press does not investigate it; does not mention it? All of them have agents who come and go constantly and operate freely throughout the country; it is incredible.

[Fernandes] Does your president's secret service operate in Brazil also?

[Costa] Yes, and without the embassy's authorization, independently; they do not even advise us about their operations. One of their jobs is to investigate the manufacture of counterfeit dollars, of which Brazil is probably the foremost producer and exporter, in the tri-border region. The other secret services, however...

[Fernandes] Do they all operate like police free from any form of control in Brazil?

[Costa] Yes. If Brazil allows them to do so, very well then.

[Fernandes] When we first met three years ago, I asked you how the CIA, the DEA, etc. operated via the PF. At the time, you diplomatically skirted the question.

[Costa] I could not speak then and I could not talk as much and as profoundly about our presence here. When I arrived in 1999, I was surprised at the precision of the information you had on us, on the services. That is why I wanted to meet you and arranged that dinner in Sao Paulo.

[Fernandes] Were you thinking of trying to "influence" us?

[Costa] Well... (laughter), let us say that I was trying to draw your profile to see if that was a possibility. It was not, but I recall that I thought that probably many of the sources we used played the game on both sides. Was I right?

[Fernandes] Let us get back to the police in Brazil.

[Costa] Look, it would be a very natural thing for ABIN [Brazilian Intelligence Agency] to send their agents to work in the United States; that is the job of the president's intelligence service. It is up to each host country to allow and control, or not, that sort of presence. ABIN, however, is an intelligence service without a mission. It does not operate abroad as a service linked to the presidency of the republic should. It used to investigate the MST [Landless Peoples Movement] and other more or less famous Brazilian citizens, and still does. That constitutes a violation of civil rights in any democratic country. The ABIN should investigate foreigners who operate here, such as agents from other countries, if the agency is going to conduct investigations within Brazil.

[Fernandes] What if the PF were to operate within the United States?

[Costa] That never happened unmonitored. I authorized many support operations, and I lent the PF a great deal of support to conduct investigations in the United States, but no Brazilian police officer ever entered the United States without my authorization on an official mission, of course, and without the FBI monitoring his every step. Why? Because that is what the protocol calls for.

[Fernandes] A very sensitive issue. I was informed that you -- and when I say you, I am referring to the secret services quartered at the US Embassy -- received orders, instructions, to wiretap Brazil's presidency of the republic and Itamaraty.

[Costa] Well... that question surprises me!

[Fernandes] It does? Who carried out the mission?

[Costa] I reiterate that I am surprised by your question. What do you know? What did you hear about that?

[Fernandes] About the order to wiretap the Alvorada and Itamaraty palaces...

[Costa] I will not touch that subject. Period!

[Fernandes] So you neither confirm nor deny it?

[Costa] I neither confirm nor deny it. Period!

[Fernandes] Did you carry out that order?

[Costa] As you will see in our conversation from here on in, I refused to carry out orders that were far less serious than that one.

[Fernandes] Does the Brazilian state control foreign agents?

[Costa] It does not control them. Because whoever pays issues the orders. The United States pays, so they give the orders in crucial sectors. Your governments do not want a politically independent, autonomous, well-paid and well-trained police force, because they fear that it may turn against them. It is obvious that any federal police in any country must seek to become apolitical. In a scenario such as yours, there is a level of corruption that requires our full attention. Even so, I feel a great deal of respect for the PF institution; it has good captains and agents; the problem lies in its lack of independence. And I want to express a reservation.

[Fernandes] Go ahead and make your reservation.

[Costa] I was head of the FBI in Brazil for four years. The first three were spent in Fernando Henrique's administration, and only 10 months in the incumbent administration. I am surprised by the incumbent administration, which has taken clear pro-Brazil and pro-independence positions in relation to US positions, on the international scenario. As far as I know, however, the government has no notion of how much we have infiltrated the PF for years; of how much it depends on us. Because the PF does not have autonomy or funds, in practical terms.

[Fernandes] If operations like those, which are common business in Brazil, were carried out in the United States, what would happen to the US police officers involved in them?

[Costa] It would never happen. If it did, they would all go to prison, from top to bottom.

[Fernandes] Jail for the justice secretary?

[Costa] For everyone, even for the FBI director. Why? Because it is a violation of sovereignty. Now, I also want to remind you that we permanently rendered support and assistance to Brazil in the investigation of, for example, the Banestado case. Regarding the investigation of Judge Lalau, we tracked down his accounts and passed the information to Brazil. One of the things I am proud of is having achieved the Mutual Legal Cooperation Treaty, which allows the PF and the judicial bodies of our two countries to communicate directly. If I am in the United States and I need a file from Brazil for an investigation, I can directly ask the PF or the judicial branch for it. Therefore there is no reason for the United States to maintain police officers or agents here, which represents an aggression against Brazilian sovereignty.

[Fernandes] What are you here for then?

[Costa] Can I be frank? To seek information and to exert "influence" on our hosts.

[Fernandes] Influence, in quotes. You can do anything when you want to?

[Costa] You contact any citizen, buy any citizen, and pass information with impunity...

[Fernandes] Can you buy any citizen just like that?

[Costa] Do you remember the case of an American fugitive named Shalom Weiss, who had sought refuge in the Hasidic community in Sao Paulo? He received the worst sentence in American justice. He was sentenced to 845 years in prison for defrauding the Heritage Insurance Company. We paid $95,000, in a check, to a Brazilian informant.

[Fernandes] How did that operation work?

[Costa] I, from the FBI, set up a team of Brazilian PF officers from Brasilia, all of them in my trust. They worked for the FBI for three or four months. All was paid for by the FBI. During the Cardoso administration I did not trust certain officers from Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Therefore I requested that this team be transferred to Sao Paulo to work on the case. Everything was paid for.

[Fernandes] Everything what?

[Costa] Transportation, housing, cars, daily allowances, everything. The Brazilian PF officers under our command did an excellent job. They even tapped the telephone of the fugitive's Brazilian girlfriend. A female PF agent even followed his girlfriend on board a plane to Vienna, Austria, where she met with Weiss. FBI and Austrian police agents arrested him there. That man was very intelligent, to the point that during his trial he managed to defraud an additional $15 million with just his laptop computer. We traced everything.

[Fernandes] Why fingerprint and photograph Brazilian citizens who visit the United States?

[Costa] Currently, the United States is increasingly becoming more isolated from the international community. Since last October the world is investing less in the United States than it used to. It is with foreign investments that the United States, the greatest debtor in the world, pays its debt. If U.S. policy continues this way, the credibility in the dollar will disappear. The U.S. foreign debt is not worrisome to the rest of the world because it is secured in the investors' faith and total credibility in the U.S. Government; that is, in its good reputation and in its economic and political stability. Such faith means confidence in a belief that is not based on evidence or facts. Nowadays, there is increasingly less faith and trust in my country's administration.

[Fernandes] Why?

[Costa] With the excuse of seeking weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration trampled on the United Nations, demoralized it -- at least then -- and acted unilaterally.

[Fernandes] Did you have access to classified documents on Iraq? Were there secret reports confirming the existence of arsenals of weapons of mass destruction?

[Costa] Until I left the FBI in October, I was one of 45 FBI chiefs in the world working outside US borders. In my position I had access to top-level, Secret, Top Secret [preceding three words in English] documents, to each and every secret document that was made, including by the CIA. I here state that I have never read a secret document indicating the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. On the contrary, what I read during my four years in Brazil, and even in Washington, were reports stating the opposite. Many times I discussed this with FBI and CIA colleagues from different parts of the world and we agreed that the Bush and Blair administrations were only looking for a justification to invade Iraq. They fabricated information for the press, saying the contrary of what we all asserted, and that demoralized our intelligence community. Of course there are also people at the top of the intelligence services who are always more interested in their careers than in facts, and these people rearrange the facts the way the Bush administration wants.

[Fernandes] Can you give a personal example?

[Costa]I have often had great disputes over my intelligence reports because Washington wanted me to adapt facts to its paranoid needs... The problem is that Mr. Bush has not the least understanding of the world, and not even of his own country. Such arrogance will isolate the United States...

[Fernandes] From the rest of the world...

[Costa] The world is about to see that its faith and credibility in the US Government is simply a belief in a hesitating, arrogant, and paranoid administration. Do not forget that in other times it was us, the United States, all of us from these services, that at some moment or circumstance armed Noriega in Panama, supported the Contras in Nicaragua, were present in Chile during the Allende administration, and in the whole of Latin and Central America as well as in Asia...

[Fernandes] Always as a government policy...

[Costa] As a government policy; just as it was us and all our services who trained and gave support to Bin Ladin. Well, that is something we already know, you can say. OK, but who is speaking here now is someone with the authority of having worked for 22 years in the FBI and having commanded an international industrial spy and counter-intelligence section in Washington.

[Fernandes] You trained and armed Bin Ladin when he...

[Costa] While he combated the Soviets in Afghanistan. We supported Saddam Husayn so that he could restrain the ayatollahs in Iran, we gave him chemical weapons...

[Fernandes] When and how did you give him chemical weapons?

[Costa] For example, we supplied him with the anthrax, as well as other chemical weapons that we recently announced -- deceitfully -- we would go to look for now.

[Fernandes] Did you directly provide him with the means to produce anthrax?

[Costa] We gave him the technique and assistance.

[Fernandes] Who did that? At what time?

[Costa] Donald Rumsfeld, current U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he was a special emissary of President Ronald Reagan; at the beginning of the eighties, during the Iran-Iraq War, in which more than 1 million people died on both sides. We did not maintain diplomatic relations with Iraq, as it was considered a country that supported international terrorism and was on the State Department's list of excluded countries. Nevertheless, the United States removed Iraq from that list in 1982, and on 20 December 1983 the same Rumsfeld of today met with Saddam Husayn in Baghdad. He befriended Saddam and gave him all the U.S. political and military support...

[Fernandes] What do you mean by "all" support?

[Costa] As I said, we gave him the technology for some of the weapons we were looking for during the war, but not only that. The White House and the State Department ordered the Export-Import Bank to finance the war for Iraq. This was well before the United States reestablished diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1984. Officially, our position was neutrality.

[Fernandes] Regarding neutrality, what was the real position of the United States, of its secret service, during the Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982?

[Costa] We gave the English total intelligence support, especially through satellites. We took photographs, we learned the positions of the Argentine military, and we passed the information to the English. Simultaneously, we played with the Argentines. There was a doubt: If the English afterward decided to return the islands, which allegedly have oil beneath, to Argentina, we would want the Argentines to facilitate our access to them. We sold weapons to the Argentines, and even more: the British ships -- two destroyers, if I am not mistaken -- were sunk based on our satellite information, which provided the position of the British ships. The British were surprised. How is it that the Argentines found us? They found them because we supplied their position. Margaret Thatcher was in Washington at the time pressuring President Reagan. It was only then that we stopped passing information to the Argentines. We began to confuse them.

[Fernandes] It is known that things were that way in the real world, especially regarding great world powers, but this story...

[Costa] That is U.S. foreign policy. Those are the reasons why we currently do not enjoy peace. It is a country that has always been isolated by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans but now this has reached a peak situation. No one doubts that Saddam Husayn is a criminal, but our administration's hypocrisy is matchless. When Saddam used our chemical weapons and our money to commit those atrocities against the Kurds in the north and the minorities in the south, we ignored it and looked away. We even gave him support. Now we use that as an argument to justify war. But you cannot fool everyone all the time...

[Fernandes] What does that mean nowadays?

[Costa] The credibility and faith in the United States are no longer the same as -- for example -- in the European Union. The euro is stronger than the dollar, the Europeans are trying to invest in their own house. The dollar value is based on the faith and credibility of the US Government. What is the current scenario in the United States?

[Fernandes] Tell us.

[Costa] Clinton had achieved a $127.3 billion surplus. In three years Bush cut taxes, increased expenses, especially defense expenses, he cut social programs, and so far he has produced a $541 billion deficit. This deficit creates risks for the world. There is great truth in the adage that says: "When the United States sneezes, the rest of the world catches the flu." The dollar devaluation will at some point bring as a consequence a hike in interest rates.

[Fernandes] What will Bush's economic legacy be?

[Costa] To balance its external accounts, the United States needs a volume of foreign capital investment equivalent to its deficit, something like $1 billion per day of foreign capital investments. The United States can no longer live on its own production. At the same time, the international community is beginning to understand that it can do without the United States; but the United States cannot do without the rest of the world. In predatory fashion, the United States takes from as much as it can from the world economy. In order to maintain its hegemony and standard of living, the United States will very soon need to fight diplomatically and militarily. We are 4.5 percent of the world population and we consume 45-50 percent of the world's raw materials. We are the biggest consumers of oil, and we emit 19.7 tons of carbon dioxide per person per year, which is pollution. Brazil emits 1.8 tons of carbon dioxide per person. Do not be deceived regarding the United States; what matters are its interests.

[Fernandes] Are you secret agents fully aware of that?

[Costa] Obviously. But no country is going to fight for the interests of others. U.S. Government leaders do what is in their interests, and we came here to look after our interests. Period. The rest is rhetoric.

[Fernandes] Could not be clearer.

[Costa] Can I tell you something about Judge Sebastiao da Silva?

[Fernandes] The judge who handed down the decision to fingerprint Americans who enter Brazil?

[Costa] Yes. I think that judge showed that he has balls, as we say in American slang. This is upholding the dignity of the Brazilian people. If they are mistreating Brazilians in the United States, then the same treatment should be given to Americans here. I consider him a good Brazilian. There is no reason to impose fingerprinting on Brazilian citizens. I have never heard of a terrorist attack committed by a Brazilian, except in the kidnapping of Ambassador Charles Elbrick, but even that was in another context, in 1969. So why fingerprint Brazilians who are not only US allies, but are also perhaps even an excessively peaceful people? It is common in the embassy to hear stories of Brazilians who are mistreated and humiliated when they enter the United States. And that has increased a lot since 11 September.

[Fernandes] Are there many complaints of abuses against Brazilians in the United States?

[Costa] Constantly. But if our own ambassador wants to be treated as if she were superior to everyone...

[Fernandes] Donna Hrinak?

[Costa] Precisely. Once she tried to cut in line entering your country, but she was put in her place. They told her, "No, you have to wait like everyone else." The PF acted correctly. Look at the case of former Foreign Minister Celso Lafer... He was humiliated, forced to take off his shoes when he landed in the United States.

[Fernandes] The fact is that Brazil seems to be a place that anyone can enter at anytime. [casa-da-mae-joana].

[Costa] I now know what that expression means, and that is exactly what it is. But there is controversy in relation to our secret services, to the FBI, and even in the US Congress. Some of the more perceptive congressmen questioned the operational international presence of the FBI, a federal police force, abroad. FBI agents in the United States request operations from there; operations as if Brazil were an extension of US territory. I received instructions such as this: "Find so-and-so, conduct the appropriate investigation, and arrest him..."

[Fernandes] You received secret documents saying "Find and arrest such-and-such citizen" as if you were in Chicago or Miami?

[Costa] Right. They would say, "That fugitive is in Brazil." I would respond, "We do not have authority to do this, we have to work in conjunction with the PF."

[Fernandes] What was Washington's counter-argument?

[Costa] Many would respond, outraged, "Damn it, that's Brazil! Just do it!" [Preceding three words in English]

[Fernandes] I can imagine how you operate, for example, in Paraguay.

[Costa] Paraguay is a puppet of the United States. No one disagrees with that. Many highest members of the government have direct contact with agents, it is a direct connection with the embassy.

[Fernandes] Even the president of the Republic?

[Costa] (Laughter. Just laughter.)

[Fernandes] And the U.S. Congress...

[Costa] The U.S. Congress, which finances the offices of the FBI and other agencies abroad, many times questions things, but they are swayed by good marketing communications, especially from the FBI. The ego of the FBI is fueled by power and money. It is common to hear agents and the command saying, "We are the best and the most powerful, we have influence in Congress to obtain our budget and we have power. We have a unit headquartered in Washington just to deal with and influence Congress regarding the budget [verbas] and other matters." The FBI fights tenaciously to maintain and expand its power before other agencies. Actually the FBI became a bloated bureaucracy that does no justice to its legacy or to taxpayers.

[Fernandes] The Brazilian Congress should be more concerned with what the FBI and other agencies are doing here than the U.S. Congress...

[Costa] The FBI is not even among the worst. The DEA, for example, "contributed" millions of dollars to a private account of PF commissioners... If they want to make a donation, they should make it openly. Now, putting it in a private account? That indicates that something is not right.

[Fernandes] That they are trying to "influence"...

[Costa] It is indicative that you buy the police and, when you ask for something, they have to give it to you. Look at the number one concern, for example, of the representative of the State Department's Narcotics Affairs Section, the NAS. Their main number one concern is that the PF accept the money that they quote-unquote donate. Generally it is an amount that varies each year from $1 million to $3 million.

[Fernandes] Every year the concern of the NAS is for Brazil to accept the money that they want to "donate"? Why?

[Costa] Because, if the PF refuses that money, does not accept it, that NAS representative will not be evaluated well, it will affect his career. He will not have demonstrated his ability to "influence."

[Fernandes] Then whoever does not manage to wield "influence" in Brazil -- be it vis-a-vis the media, the police, the government, the Congress -- is a failure?

[Costa] A poorly financed institution, such as the PF, which does not have enough money to pay its telephone bill, is not going to accept a donation? That is absolutely ridiculous. Brazil lacks investment in training and payment. As the old American saying goes, there is no free lunch. In the FBI, as in any U.S. institution, we are not allowed to accept 1 cent from anyone. The difference with me is that I, as FBI chief, did not give money to Brazil, I did not buy Brazil. I gave technical assistance, training, I trained your police...

[Fernandes] But training is indeed "influencing," you are infiltrating...

[Costa] Ah, yes, but that is natural. We train Brazilian colleagues in investigation techniques, at your request. We are developing cooperation in that sense, we are not buying anyone.

[Fernandes] Let's return to the media. So, journalists are also sent to the United States?

[Costa] Those are other programs that do not have anything to do with the FBI...

[Fernandes] Do they have to do with the CIA?

[Costa] They have to do, for example, with the State Department, which sends not only journalists but other professionals so that they can meet their peers. It is an exchange... But let's return to Brazil's police (laughter). We should not have -- as we had and still have -- direct contact with civil and military police. We should only move with the monitoring of the PF. Everyone moves here as they wish. We speak directly with the police, we have direct relations with, for example, municipal governments and civil and military police; the way I did and the way someone else still does.

[Fernandes] Directly with governors, secretaries of state, police chiefs, Military Police commanders, Soldiers...

[Costa] With all of them. If I do it and no one complains, I will continue doing it because it is useful for me. I had more success in relations with state police than, for example, with the PF, which at times is very isolated from the reality on the street, the events.

[Fernandes] Under you, did the FBI work in partnership with any other institution in the United States?

[Costa] Yes. The CIA is our cousin in the area of counter-intelligence, we often work in conjunction. Much more with the CIA than with the DEA or another organization. The FBI consists of a criminal section and another counter-intelligence section.

[Fernandes] In counter-intelligence, did you and the CIA meet?

[Costa] Obviously, we are colleagues, cousins.

[Fernandes] Did you work together on the matter of the Triborder?

[Costa] We did. The CIA's job is to seek information outside of its country. Whether the other country permits it is another question. It is wrong for the FBI to operate abroad. The FBI's job is to investigate criminal cases inside the United States, not outside. If it is outside, that is indicative that...

[Fernandes] It is doing what it should not, just as, by the way, the very name of the FBI indicates: Federal Bureau of Investigations. Okay. Federal, but over there!

[Costa] It is a federal agency that should not have investigating power here. It is a waste of U.S. taxpayer's money, and it is a falsification of activity. We want to be all things and we end up being neither good criminal investigation agents nor good counter-intelligence agents -- which should be a different agency, as in other countries such as France, England, Spain...

[Fernandes] Are there strategic reasons for the FBI to act outside of the United States?

[Costa] Neither the FBI nor the DEA, neither U.S. Customs nor the NAS, no federal police institution should be in Brazil, outside the United States. The very "embassy security" -- the RSO [Regional Security Office], which also is a police force in itself -- has influence to obtain information from the PF regarding facts about Brazilian citizens.

[Fernandes] Really? Them, too?

[Costa] Many times I needed fast information on someone, and in order not to expose the FBI, I asked those guards, "Go to the PF and get a file on so-and-so." In minutes I had the response. A Brazilian police officer does not have the same ease. In other situations, I sat in front of a police station and read information on Brazilians. I always parked my car in the garage at the PF headquarters. Do you know when that would happen with a Brazilian police officer in the United States, Europe, Asia? Never. A police officer or a representative of a police force from another country, entering with ease and obtaining information on a citizen in its territory without having a reason. Wake up, Brazil! This is someone who likes and respects your country speaking to you!

[Fernandes] Then, those police officers, they and the U.S. police forces, they are here to do what?

[Costa] Everything and anything in our interests. Period. But that is what we call actions of intelligence and counter-intelligence.

[Fernandes] Which I could call espionage?

[Costa] Well, counter-intelligence is one thing and espionage is another.

[Fernandes] Okay. The network you put together in Brazil, according to my information, is immense. And that was just you and yours. What about the other agencies?

[Costa] Well... Let's go on to another matter. Look: Some of my colleagues from other countries have limited functions. They come here just to facilitate some contacts, for example, in the area of drugs, but they are not out to buy anyone. Spain has its own contacts and is not trying to buy anyone.

[Fernandes] How was the game between you, the Russians, and the ABIN [Brazilian Intelligence Agency]?

[Costa] ABIN is an agency that cannot be defined...

[Fernandes] It cannot be defined?

[Costa] It cannot be defined. The ABIN was created with the good intentions of an intelligence service, but it does not have sufficient funds to develop itself. When an intelligence service becomes a beggar in front of foreigners, it exposes itself, it is no longer secret. It runs immense risks. The ABIN, just like the PF, asks for equipment, resources, training, from several countries, not just from the United States. It asks Israel, Russia, Japan, France, among others. The ABIN prostitutes itself. When you receive equipment from secret services, you must know that cloning is a customary practice.

[Fernandes] What is cloning?

[Costa] It is a double insert in their equipment, which transmits to the "donor" the information available in that equipment.

[Fernandes] Here is more information that I had no way to publish before: Was the ABIN bugged [grampeada] through equipment that you supplied?

[Costa] I do not know... I cannot say... make any guess on that but...

[Fernandes] But did you supply equipment?

[Costa] ...I do not know, but I calculate, through my contacts, that the ABIN also had other countries supply equipment. Let me tell you one other thing: It is irrelevant for us whether they have bugged or are bugging anyone, if they do it with some equipment of ours or anything. It is not our problem to what use others put our equipment.

[Fernandes] Did you U.S. secret services supply the ABIN with bugging equipment?

[Costa] Yes. We supply that assistance to our partners. But that does not indicate that we will know what they are going to do.

[Fernandes] Okay. Now, just a hypothesis, and not directly about bugging. If there was a need to monitor, for example, what is happening in Alvorada Palace some Sunday afternoon. Is that possible?

[Costa] It is. That is a technology, a satellite, that everyone knows exists.

[Fernandes] The matter of monitoring via satellite brings to mind Sivam [Amazon Region Surveillance System], the Amazon...

[Costa] That story about the Americans wanting the Amazon is paranoia made up by the military to obtain funds. I have always had access to secret documents and I have never read anything like that, there has never been interest in that, nor is there now. Perhaps because invading the Amazon would be an impossible mission. If we have problems in Iraq, which only has sand, and we were defeated in Vietnam, imagine the Amazon, an unknown territory with millions of trees... We would be eaten alive. If not by the locals [caboclos] then by personnel trained in the jungle or by Indians; we would be devoured by mosquitos and snakes. Forget about that paranoia. Most Americans think that Buenos Aires is the capital of Brazil... They have no idea what the Amazon is. Furthermore, I have the impression that my illustrious President does not have the vaguest notion of what the Amazon is. Much less where it is located.

[Fernandes] And Brazil, do they know where it is?

[Costa] Former U.S. Ambassador in Brazil Neil Harrington said that when they offered him the job, he had to look on the map to find out where Brazil was. During a cocktail party, after a couple of shots of caipirinha [a Brazilian drink made with rum], the ambassador revealed to me that he knew "absolutely nothing" about Brazil, its history and culture, and thought that the language spoken here was Spanish.

[Fernandes] Terrorists in Brazil, what is fact, what is fiction? What are you investigating, how far have you gotten?

[Costa] We did a joint investigation into the attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires which on 17 March 1992 killed 29 people and wounded hundreds, and into the attacks against the AMIA (Argentine Jewish Mutual Association) headquarters which killed 85 people and wounded more than 300 in 1994. The FBI and the CIA provided assistance to the Argentine authorities who were investigating. Before assuming my duties in Brazil, I had access to information and meetings on these matters with the Argentines themselves, in Buenos Aires. What I can say is that the attacks in Argentina were organized in Brazil, in Brazilian territory.

[Fernandes] Is that absolutely certain? They were organized in Brazil?

[Costa] They were organized in Brazil, in the region of Foz do Iguazu.

[Fernandes] How? Were there meetings, encounters?

[Costa] It was from there that they planned the attacks. Now, the people that organized them and carried them out were not individuals who necessarily lived in Brazil, much less were they Brazilian.

[Fernandes] But they used Brazilian territory?

[Costa] They used Brazilian territory, but it is a Triborder region...

[Fernandes] There we enter into another question: Are there terrorist cells on the border? You investigated. Are there or aren't there?

[Costa] There are not. They planned their attacks there, that is true, but we have investigated exhaustively, we, the CIA, the secret services of the countries, and we have not managed to prove the existence of terrorist cells there. However...

[Fernandes] However what?

[Costa] The Bush administration had -- has -- a paranoia about finding terrorists. There are none there, at least we have not proven that there are any, despite ample investigations. There are sympathizers, but that is another question. There has always been an obsession with the Triborder area, and I have always considered that a very ridiculous thing. Our information and intelligence services were, are, focused on the wrong place. There are more or less 40,000 Arabs or their descendants in the Triborder area, whereas Sao Paulo has more Lebanese and their descendants, for example, than Lebanon itself.

[Fernandes] So what is happening in the Triborder Area?

[Costa] A number of things. The first thing is that that is a place which itself is outside the law. It is a place for smuggling, and many of those Arab groups are good smugglers -- good traders, let us say. It is a place that makes things easy for trading in second-class goods, equipment piracy, money laundering...

[Fernandes] But you have never detected terrorist groups?

[Costa] Terrorists have never been detected. And we investigated a lot, especially since Brazil has always asked us: "Do you know where the terrorist groups are?" What there is is a lot of rhetoric...

[Fernandes] You have been monitoring that border for many years, right?

[Costa] I, or at least the FBI, have never been able to confirm a single instance of terrorist cells there. I always reported that, and my colleagues in the CIA reported the same thing. What does exist is criminal activity of another kind. But whether money is collected for organizations having terrorist branches -- that is a different question.

[Fernandes] Have you identified that?

[Costa] Are there those who send money to Hizballah? It is true that there are, but Hizballah is a legal political party with its terrorist armed wing. Well, in Detroit and New York we have American cities that send money to Hizballah for orphanages and hospitals, but the final destination of that money is as uncertain as that of part of the money which, in Brazil and the rest of the world, Jews send to Israel. When the Israelis carry out their operations, someone has provided the financing and has certainly done so through a legal branch. Just as in Boston and New York, IRA sympathizers send and always have sent money to Ireland...

[Fernandes] And the IRA is also a political party with a legal life, as is true of the Basques, who also have a political party with a legal life...

[Costa] The Kennedy family itself, which is Irish Catholic, has always sympathized with the Catholics in Ireland, and those involvements are sometimes risky. You send a contribution to a school, but you are not certain whether that money, or all of it, will be used precisely for the school. But if you ask me whether it is possible that money from the Triborder area reaches Hizballah's armed branches, then I answer yes, it is possible, but that does not mean it has been confirmed.

[Fernandes] Well, you have an extreme Right operating within U.S. territory itself with attacks...

[Costa] Those right-wing militias that cause and have caused attacks such as that in Oklahoma exist, that is true. It is also a fact that what we have in the U.S. Government today is political factions that are also on the extreme right, and they are increasingly alienating the country from the world.

[Fernandes] Within that post-11 September framework, was there an order or extra insistence that you find terrorists inside Brazil?

[Costa] Yes. All over the world and also in Brazil. But that is another very touchy issue.

[Fernandes] Why very touchy? Besides that one, did you receive any other order, instruction, or specific guidance concerning Brazil?

[Costa] Well, after 11 September, the FBI wanted to prove that it was doing something against terrorism. And a lot of people in the FBI have no notion of how to combat terrorism -- they have not the slightest idea...

[Fernandes] True, true, but what touchy issue was that that you were referring to?

[Costa] There was an order, an instruction from Washington, and there was a refusal on my part. One of my refusals during those nearly four years in Brazil...

[Fernandes] Refusal to follow which order?

[Costa] To monitor the mosques that existed...

[Fernandes] In Brazil?

[Costa] In Brazil.

[Fernandes] "Monitoring," as everyone with a minimum acquaintance with espionage and counterintelligence knows, means wiretapping, surveillance, and searches. Who were the targets, the sheikhs?

[Costa] Sheikhs, ayatollahs, leaders of the Muslim community, and all the members and in every possible way. Obviously, I refused to do so.

[Fernandes] That in one of the largest Arab communities in the world...

[Costa] I refused to do something like that because...

[Fernandes] What was your argument for refusing, seeing that you are part of counterintelligence -- that you are a spy?

[Costa] My argument was simple: It is a crime. It is a crime in the United States because it violates the Constitution and civil rights, it is a crime in Europe, and it is a crime according to Brazil's Constitution. A democracy cannot allow it, especially on a scale like the one they were proposing for Brazil, where freedom of religion and worship is guaranteed.

[Fernandes] According to the law there and here, you could not "monitor" sheikhs and mosques without legal authorization?

[Costa] Correct. And they also wanted me to make lists...

[Fernandes] Lists of who the people were, what they were doing...

[Costa] Who the people were and what their activities were. I would not be surprised if it were happening in Brazil today and if it someday comes to light. Unfortunately, we are living in an era of neo-McCarthyism, and I sometimes refused to be a part of that. There are times when a person must refuse to follow unconstitutional orders.

[Fernandes] Important intelligence sectors in Brazil are afraid that a terrorist act is being planned that would justify a policy of that kind. That is one report.

[Costa] It is probable. All societies are afraid that an act of terrorism is going to take place in one of them. And whether it will be set up...

[Fernandes] ...planned...

[Costa] ...planned in another country. At least the United States would not do so -- better yet, write this in quotes: "I would not authorize it" -- and I do not believe that the United States would do something like that with Brazil.

[Fernandes] Still on the subject of the Triborder area, the Arab communities, and orders and instructions, the fact that you have not engaged in such acts does not mean that such acts were not carried out without your knowledge or by some other intelligence service, does it?

[Costa] If they did, I would not be able to tell you. I can only assure you that they did not do so with my authorization. But I cannot talk about what is happening today or about the orders given to those who replaced me...

[Fernandes] You do not know whether the order was obeyed or not. Does that apply to everything? To everything from "monitoring" to...

[Costa] It applies to everything.

[Fernandes] According to protocol, you should have been the target of monitoring by the Brazilian PF...

[Costa] And I should have been in contact only with a PF official. The DEA and NAS, although they "donate" -- let us call it that -- millions of dollars to the bank account of a single individual in the PF, could not have contact with other institutions, especially state institutions.

[Fernandes] In all, including all the services, there are at least about a hundred of you officials inside Brazil. Is that true?

[Costa] I do not know. I do not know how many are here. And you must understand that there are things I cannot and must not say even after retiring.

[Fernandes] Did you and the CIA report to the embassy about everything that was happening? How does that work?

[Costa] All agencies of the Federal Government are answerable to the ambassador.... But there are ambassadors, or lady ambassadors, who want to know everything, and there are others who do not: "You do your job out there, and don't tell me anything unless it is something that could have serious repercussions and I need to know about it ahead of time."

[Fernandes] As it happens, did you report everything?

[Costa] I and other services would report only what was in our interest to report.

[Fernandes] The fact is that the services say what they want to say and that is the end of the matter, period.

[Costa] Yes, what is in our interest to report. That business of saying that we are responsible to her -- in this case, the lady ambassador -- is true from the legal standpoint, but in fact, each one does what he must do and, obviously, tells the ambassador...

[Fernandes] ...half the story.

[Costa] Right. Sometimes not even half the story. There are certain things that it is worthwhile to report, there are other things that are not even worth reporting, and there are others that should not be reported. For instance, if there is a problem or something that could cause a problem, we will report it. For example, when I am going to pay an individual...

[Fernandes] You alert the lady ambassador, the ambassador.

[Costa] Sometimes I can report: "Look, an individual named so-and-so is going to be paid." On other occasions nothing is reported. Concerning Ambassador Hrinak, she did especially good work, although most of the time her work consisted of pouring...

[Fernandes] Perfume?

[Costa] Perfume on the shit [preceding word in English]...

[Fernandes] ...produced by the US Government.

[Costa] That the Bush administration is producing (laughter). That is the reality.

[Fernandes] Did she do a good job of perfuming the substance that the Bush administration produces in large quantities?

[Costa] It produces a lot of it. And I feel that as a diplomat, she is really a person who is very good at that, but as someone realistic about the things of the world, she still has a lot to learn. Why? Because in the world of the State Department -- they sit in ivory towers or are, as we also say about other officials in the FBI itself, "yes men," people who say yes to everything and everybody.

[Fernandes] Wasn't that true of you?

[Costa] It was not true of me. There is a saying in the FBI: big cases, big problems; little cases, little problems; if there are no cases, there are no problems. Those people, who have never had a case, never investigated a case, and never conducted an operation, are the ones who enter the field of administration...

[Fernandes] ...and it is they who have power.

[Costa] Power. It is they who are in command of the FBI today, with no problems, but also with no cases and no actions in their careers. FBI Director Robert Mueller is a person who does not have the institution's respect. And he is detested, hated. People see him as a knight who jumps on his horse and gallops until the horse dies -- until the horse drops from so much riding, from exhaustion. Many of the good people who used to work in the FBI, many of the most talented, have left. An agent today spends up to 75 percent of his time entangled in bureaucracy and 25 percent of his time investigating. And when investigating, most of his time is spent following the slogan CYA.

[Fernandes] What is that?

[Costa] Cover your ass. [preceding three words in English] That has become the principal theme in the FBI, beginning with training at the academy. Now for someone at the top of the FBI, the slogan is KMA, meaning "kiss my ass." [preceding three words in English] The institution is becoming demoralized; the agents know that investigations and agents that do not meet the interests of the views held by the director and the Bush administration are likely to be marginalized.

[Fernandes] We have already talked about the FBI, the CIA, and how far you tried to go. Let us talk about actions in Brazil by the DEA specifically. What is the story, what is the situation with them in Brazil?

[Costa] The DEA donates millions of dollars to the PF, and not just in the form of equipment, but also in the form of money. The DEA does what it wants where it wants, and regardless of protocol, there is no monitoring whatsoever of its activities. It hires informers, has set up a network, pays Brazilian citizens for information, infiltrates the PF and uses the latter's information and men. And all because it "donates."

[Fernandes] Cash?

[Costa] Cash.

[Fernandes] Using money, does the DEA also monitor or carry out PF operations in the name of the PF or in partnership with the PF, as Carta Capital was reporting as early as 1999?

[Costa] As Carta Capital reported, and even more. And that is something absolutely unthinkable in the United States. It would never happen with the DEA, the FBI, or any of our institutions. No one in those organizations can receive money the way it is done here. It is corruption. And if the thing is so open, why does the money go into an individual's bank account?

[Fernandes] Because if it goes into the account of the police or the Ministry of Justice, then when the government cuts back on spending, it freezes the use of that money -- it also keeps that money.

[Costa] Well, if it does that, the money goes to the Treasury. So on that basis, they hand the police over to foreigners? I do not see the logic in that.

[Fernandes] Neither do I. But what the DEA itself says is that it does not give the money directly to the PF because when the government restricts spending, it no longer lets the police have that money.

[Costa] But is it the DEA that makes decisions here or is it the Brazilian Congress, the country's government?

[Fernandes] That is a good question. And Carta Capital has been asking it over these past few years -- for the past five years to be exact.

[Costa] That is a shame and a completely ridiculous amount for us and for a continent-sized country like Brazil.

[Fernandes] For sale in exchange for a few million dollars?

[Costa] Right. How can a country sell its PF for a few million dollars? Another thing: Does that police superintendent pay taxes on the money going into his bank account? That is also a violation of Brazilian law, committed by PF superintendents with the connivance of the state. It is probably also a violation of U.S. laws, since money is supposed to be given not to individuals but to institutions. How can you expect to be taken seriously?

[Fernandes] In other words, a section chief in the PF who receives $4 million or $5 million through his personal bank account is violating the law if he does not declare that money on his income tax return. And if he does declare it, how does he pay?

[Costa] Five million, but that is not all. It is not just the DEA and the NAS, but all our institutions are donating...

[Fernandes] Americans are so nice!

[Costa] None of that is prohibited in the United States. So if Brazil allows it, well...

[Fernandes] Let us be "influenced."

[Costa] So do not complain: "Our money, our rules."

[Fernandes] The information I have is that at more than one of those meetings by the secret services at the embassy on Mondays, there was serious discussion of how to "influence the Brazilian press." Is that correct?

[Costa] Well, I cannot confirm anything like that. I cannot state what happens...

[Fernandes] At a secret meeting. Okay, I understand perfectly.

[Costa] We are discussing things openly here, but...

[Fernandes] ...there are aspects of secret matters that you must keep to yourself...

[Costa] ...that I must keep to myself because I have responsibilities to my country and the institution that I served for 22 years. But if Brazil is a little naïve in its way of managing things politically... well, I too, as an American citizen, have the right to express certain things that I consider wrong, provided that doing so does not influence or harm my country and help yours. Do you understand?

[Fernandes] I understand, obviously, and it does not mean that you are not loyal to your country and do not respect Brazil...

[Costa] Obviously not. Consider this: I am an American citizen, and I love my country, but I feel that the country's foreign policy has long been...

[Fernandes] Wrong?

[Costa] Wrong, and now I have the right and even the duty to express myself on that subject. I am granting this interview and making these revelations because I like Brazil, I respect Brazil, and I have a Brazilian wife and Brazilian children...

[Fernandes] You are criticizing policy and decisions, not countries. That is very clear to me.

[Costa] I am criticizing policy; I am not criticizing anything else.

[Fernandes] Are you going to remain in Brazil?

[Costa] My decision is to live in the United States and to live in Brazil. I do not have it -- having such a thing is prohibited -- but I know, for example, that there are agents who have dual citizenship, and I am almost certain that the FBI does not want to hear about that problem.

[Fernandes] Is it true that among secret agents there is a certain fear of returning to the United States nowadays?

[Costa] Within the FBI itself and in the CIA, I have heard military aides, chiefly colleagues of mine who work abroad, that there is a certain fear...

[Fernandes] Why the fear of returning?

[Costa] Because we who are on the front line itself and have obtained information know how possible it is that one or two nuclear bombs will be detonated in an American city in the future. I hope it never happens, but that big fear certainly exists. We have just witnessed that terrible, but predictable, attack in Madrid. It is just as predictable that they will try it in Great Britain, in London.

[Fernandes] When you say "have information," is it because an incident of that kind has already occurred or you have intercepted something of that kind?

[Costa] Yes, there has been an incident of that kind...

[Fernandes] What incident was that?

[Costa] A... a dirty bomb that could have been detonated in Washington... a radioactive bomb was prevented from detonating...

[Fernandes] In what year was that?

[Costa] It was almost two years ago. Many things have happened since 11 September.

[Fernandes] Would that be near FBI headquarters in Washington?

[Costa] Close by there in Washington, yes, but obviously there was no bragging about it. If it had been revealed to the full extent, it would have caused panic in the U.S. population...

[Fernandes] Wait a minute. That story has to do with somebody named Padilla or something like that, who was arrested in Chicago, I believe, and who is still being held incommunicado today. Is that right?

[Costa] I cannot mention names, but since you are saying it, that is precisely the man.

[Fernandes] What was the target?

[Costa] Washington. Eight blocks in the area of the Mall -- that would have been the epicenter. It would have hit the National Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court even though it was a dirty and rudimentary bomb...

[Fernandes] When you say "dirty bomb," what exactly do you mean?

[Costa] I mean an atomic bomb, although in this case with less power.

[Fernandes] You were able to prevent one, but you may not be able to prevent the second one, is that right?

[Costa] Since the fall of the Soviet Union, many of the countries that were part of the republics were left with nuclear weapons, devices, and warheads. We suspect, for example, that Kazakhstan may have sold one or two nuclear warheads to Iran. Remember the most recent case: the father of the Pakistani nuclear program who was selling secrets to other nations.

[Fernandes] In fact, no one knows what happened to all of the former Soviet arsenal, right?

[Costa] It is not very encouraging to talk about that, especially in public, but in fact, no, no one knows. There was not a very serious inventory immediately afterwards, chiefly on the part of Russia. And another thing: Many of the Russian generals had to sell weapons to be able to maintain their armies.

[Fernandes] To maintain their private armies?

[Costa] No, state armies, but in the bedlam of the post-Soviet Union period, they were the commanders in chief, the managers of a huge war machine. So to survive and maintain all that at a minimum level, it was necessary to earn money...

[Fernandes] By selling weapons?

[Costa] By selling weapons; nothing could be more logical. So there is very great fear that something catastrophic may occur in the United States or one of its allied countries in the future. I hope it does not happen, but that fear exists among the services.

[Fernandes] Why are you revealing this?

[Costa] Among other reasons, so the world will know that the ordinary American citizen is not arrogant, overbearing, and antidemocratic, as the current administration is.

[Fernandes] Would you be meaning to show that not all the US secret services behave in the same way?

[Costa] Not all. My own colleagues in the intelligence services -- many of them -- disagree with the way things are being done in Bush's administration. A great many of my colleagues in the FBI -- the secret services -- feel as I do, and that is another reason why I am speaking out. People need to know that, even in the United States. If they want, I will testify before Congress.

[Fernandes] The U.S. Congress or the Brazilian Congress?

[Costa] If there are guarantees, I will go before the U.S. Congress and the Brazilian one! What I think is the same as what even leaders, some leaders, and even colleagues in the CIA and members of the State Department -- and I am talking about high-level officials in the State Department and other government organizations -- think and feel. Exactly the same way as what I am expressing here, but they are not going to speak out; they are afraid to speak out. They also feel that the Bush administration is basically a gang of madmen...

[Fernandes] Of fundamentalists and fanatics...

[Costa] It has nothing to do with religion, but with the political interests and private interests of people who have not the slightest knowledge of what the world is like. Your government -- the one you have now, Lula's government -- is acting with caution and keeping a degree of necessary distance even in business matters.

[Fernandes] Give me an example.

[Costa] The GPS [Global Positioning System], the global navigation system. The world depends on the United States, although there are two systems: the GPS in the United States and the Russian system...

[Fernandes] Which one has Brazil adopted?

[Costa] Brazil is adopting the European system known as Galileo.

[Fernandes] So what? What is the difference? I did not understand any of that.

[Costa] It is a good decision because Brazil is not subject, first of all, to changes in location. That is, GPS is a military system that also serves the civilian world: a ship, aircraft, or car may have GPS. On several occasions, for example, during the wars in Bosnia and Iraq, the Defense Department simply shut down access by civilians. It endangered civilian aircraft and ships that had to go back to using maps and compasses.

[Fernandes] Why did it shut off access?

[Costa] In case of conflict, of war, those are its eyes in the dark. If you are the only one with access, your strategic advantage is tremendous. You have eyes in a world of the blind.

[Fernandes] As an example: If Brazil had, hypothetically, a disagreement with the United States and the Brazilian GPS was the US system, right?

[Costa] If it was the American system, the only thing necessary would be to shut off access, and your Armed Forces would be blind.

[Fernandes] Were you familiar with COAF [Financial Activities Oversight Council], the Brazilian system for tracking money laundering that was headed by Adriane Sena in Fernando Henrique Cardoso's administration?

[Costa] I had a good relationship with her and some of her high-ranking subordinates, and I even provided special training in money laundering for several COAF members. She was very fond of saying that Brazil's money laundering laws, although copied from those in the United States, were superior to the latter.

[Fernandes] Is that true?

[Costa] Is it true? Yes. You have laws; that is a fact. You have some fantastic and wonderful laws for combating that type of crime.

[Fernandes] What about the results?

[Costa] Where's the beef [preceding three words in English]? That was always the question I would ask Adriane whenever she came up with that story about excellent legislation. As far as I could find out, Brazil never recovered illicit money through COAF and its laws. It only did so when I, in the FBI, recovered the money from Judge Lalau, and through our legislation, which is certainly inferior to Adriane's. Several times I had to say: "Well, you forgot the money." They would answer: "Oh, right; we will come get it." And it took I don't know how long for the money to be handed over, and then only because I had to remind them of it in addition to doing all their work for them. Just think: Lalau almost succeeded in selling the apartment in Miami for $1 million. The only reason he did not was that I got a court order on my own initiative. The Banestado [Parana State Bank] case was another one where I provided assistance. The idea for a task force for joint action between the institutions came from the FBI -- from me. I trained and provided courses all over the country for the Civil, Military, and Federal Police and for judges, government attorneys, and prosecutors, and many of them went to the United States for training on my budget. The organization that really functions, or at least used to function, is the investigative branch of the INSS [National Social Security Institute].

[Fernandes] Why aren't they able to recover illegal money abroad?

[Costa] Technically, COAF exists to trace illicit assets and then hand the case over to the Public Prosecutor's Office for prosecution and recovery. Not long ago the Ministry of Justice created the Department for the Recovery of Assets and International Legal Cooperation. From what we saw and knew, those organizations have no idea, to say the least, of how to pursue those cases. They have still not justified their existence. In the United States, when there is a shortage of personnel, the government usually hires private companies to do that kind of investigating and pays them a percentage: from 10 to 25 percent of what is tracked down. You have a number of companies here that are capable of doing that work. Why don't you use them?

[Fernandes] What is the situation with Brazilian politicians? Do you watch their activities?

[Costa] Yes, yes.

[Fernandes] Is there a file on each one?

[Costa] Well, all the information on people about whom such information is worthwhile -- those who have power and influence. That is part of one's duties abroad: to know who people are. It is essential. But whether Brazil does it or not is something I do not know. It ought to be doing so through its intelligence agencies.

[Fernandes] As head of the FBI, what kind of relations did you have with politicians, governors...

[Costa] I knew several of them. Amazonino Mendes (Amazonas) was a good friend, and Esperidiao Amin (Santa Catarina). I knew Jaime Lerner (Parana) and several others. I feel that they are somewhat naïve about international relations, with the exception of Amazonino, a shrewd man. Garotinho...

[Fernandes] You knew Garotinho?

[Costa] He is a good friend and a talented politician. He was the only Brazilian politician invited to President Bush's inauguration in January 2000. He was invited by me through the then mayor of Miami, Joe Carollo, and he was introduced to Governor Jeb Bush, the President's brother, on a night when there was a snowstorm. We were wearing tuxedos. He was with me at the State Department and the OAS, and we went to FBI headquarters in Washington...

[Fernandes] Was Garotinho relaxed?

[Costa] Very relaxed. I remember that at FBI headquarters, he gave his card to my secretary and said: "I am giving you this card so that someday you will be able to say that here at FBI headquarters, you met someone who would later become president of Brazil." He is talented, but I feel that he went too fast; he is still very young and should not have run for president.

[Fernandes] This is a world of spies and has its own rules. You certainly know that the "service" is not going to like what you have revealed during this long interview...

[Costa] That is obvious; it is a very secretive organization. But I am not going to reveal any information that I should not, or any investigative techniques, equipment, or what is being done in an investigation of this or that person, another institution, or another country. That is something that would harm not only the FBI but also the American nation. But what I can say and must say is that the organization is going down the drain, that it is doing things that are wrong and not serving American society or the world. Everything is being badly managed, and I am going to say...

[Fernandes] What if they try to discredit you?

[Costa] That is what I expect, since I have known the animal for 22 years and know what it is like. We will wait. This is a story that may still have many chapters, each one spicier and more spectacular if they want it that way. Facts of interest not only to Brazil but to the entire international community, including the U.S. Congress. We are just at the beginning...

[Fernandes] What if you suddenly come down with terminal flu?

[Costa] (laughter) If terminal flu attacks me...

[Fernandes] A sudden flu, so to speak.

[Costa] A sudden flu, as you say. Well, I have also learned, from the very people who trained me, to protect myself and face up to things. Many things that could be exposed have already been recorded and written down and are in the proper hands in case something happens to me...

[Fernandes] In case of terminal flu, will it be known why you had that flu?

[Costa] Yes, and so will a lot more, a whole lot more, of what we have talked about or not talked about here.

[Fernandes] Do you intend to write any specific material about your 22 years as an FBI agent and chief?

[Costa] I have already produced part of my memoirs, and that is also...

[Fernandes] In an undisclosed place and...

[Costa] (laughter) It has to be that way...

[Fernandes] In case of sudden flu...

[Costa] And delivered to trusted people who will know what to do if something out of the ordinary happens. I assure you that those are facts that would lead to tremendous international repercussions. As for the first part of my memoirs, I even have an idea already for the name of the book...

[Fernandes] What is the name of the book?

[Costa] "FBI, Myth and Reality." I am going to relate specific cases, stories, and so on in detail. What is, what is not, and what should be, the extent of human and financial waste, and how the American people are also not being well informed even about what the FBI really is.

[Fernandes] The British are the great allies of the Bush administration. Do you spy on the British, on the Blair government, in London?

[Costa] (laughter) Well, I am also not going to comment on that... in the world of espionage, all is fair, so to speak, but I do not want to talk about spying on the British. That is information that cannot be revealed.

[Fernandes] What about that recent episode in which Tony Blair's government had a wiretap on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan?

[Costa] What surprises me is that in that operation, the ones who were caught and exposed were the British.

[Fernandes] (laughter) But Carlos, that is typically British humor.

[Costa] (laughter, only laughter)

[Fernandes] Will that matter of espionage at the United Nations be reported in detail in the book?

[Costa] Well, you are going to have to wait and buy the book.

[Fernandes] Concerning that matter of wiretapping and espionage, what is the climate in Washington like today: What is the situation with civil rights?

[Costa] There is a shrinkage in civil rights. Our society is becoming less and less democratic. The police can enter a home and conduct searches without court authorization or, what is more, without so much as having to explain their reasons to a judge. An apology by national security is all that is needed. Nowadays, for example, there are secret courts.

[Fernandes] Secret courts?

[Costa] Courts where chief agents like me appear in Washington in a room that is secure from monitoring devices and wiretaps and completely insulated -- a closed chamber that is completely secret so that nothing leaks out and nothing is open to the public -- and testify before a special judge on some case or other. The result is that under the name of national security and terrorism, authorization is quickly obtained for telephone taps and various kinds of listening devices. Things have reached the point that currently there are more secret authorizations than normal ones in the United States. Imagine the opportunities that creates for arbitrary actions and abuses. FBI agents are highly literate; most judges do not understand anything and will swallow anything with just a few questions. There are no controls over that.

The so-called checks and balances, which are basic to our democratic system, have been laid aside in this case. Those are exceptional powers for a police force. And I say here that I have never testified on false grounds during my career in the FBI.

[Fernandes] Last, here is what we can call a personal question. What is the meaning of the verb "sanction"?

[Costa] (laughter) To sanction is an order or authorization given by the government to exterminate someone. To kill...

[Fernandes] To suddenly terminate the biological life of another.

[Costa] The FBI does not sanction. That authorization is given by the CIA. It had existed...

[Fernandes] Since World War II...

[Costa] Since World War II, and it continued to exist until President Gerald Ford, after the Nixon era, issued an executive order prohibiting sanctions.

[Fernandes] Sanctioning is a fine euphemism. It is politically correct, right?

[Costa] The great and brilliant President Bush has again authorized assassinations. In my opinion -- and I know it is also the opinion of many colleagues in the FBI and the CIA -- it is something barbarous, against the most basic principles of humanity and a democratic society, the one that is viewed as the most moralistic and civilized in the world. The one that calls itself the world's police force.

[Fernandes] Especially since there is always someone who will have to decide what is or is not a political assassination -- who will decide on the life or death of a target.

[Costa] And that is where the problem lies, because those whom some may consider enemies or terrorists may be regarded by others as liberators. For example, when the English Pilgrims already in the United States revolted against the British Crown to obtain their independence and become an independent country, they were regarded as terrorists or something similar to that by the British.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

*****************CASE SOLVED**************

NEW!!!!

Barr McClellan's new book "Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.," backs up our conclusion reached years ago: THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON (LBJ) MURDERED PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY (JFK).

Read the reviews from Amazon.com (Rank #59)

Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Some Relevant Facts About the JFK Assassination

By Phil Brennan
Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2003

There's an explosive new book that lays out a very detailed – and persuasive – case for the probability that the late President Lyndon Baines Johnson was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

I say persuasive because the author, Barr McClellan, was one of LBJ's top lawyers, and he provides a lot of information hitherto unknown to the general public – much more of which he says is buried in secret documents long withheld from the American people.

"The American public has waited forty years to hear the truth about the JFK assassination," McClellan says. "For government agencies to withhold critical evidence and not cooperate with the [1998 investigation conducted by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)] is a form of obstruction of justice. Under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, the public should be granted access to these documents."

According to McClellan and Doug Horne, a former ARRB investigator, hundreds of relevant documents were withheld from the 1998 investigation into the JFK assassination. They believe that these materials are now in the possession of the National Archives, relocated from sealed files previously controlled by the CIA and FBI.

McClellan also asked for a formal review of the evidence in his book, "Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.," which establishes a direct connection between LBJ and an individual involved with the assassination and cover-up.

"At this time we need to see what else is missing and what else would be helpful to presenting the entire truth," McClellan continued. "The Senate Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice could make the request of the National Archives and should do so."

Now, in normal circumstance I would tend to view this latest explanation of who was behind the killing of JFK as exactly that – just another theory among dozens. But the circumstances are not normal. Poll after poll establishes that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the official verdict of the Warren Commission is simply not borne out by what little is known publicly about the case.

McClellan's new book adds to those facts and names a second suspect he says was a longtime assassin for Lyndon Johnson, whom he portrays as ... well, as being homicidal whenever he or his many concealed interests were threatened.

Add to that the incredible inconsistencies in the FBI and Secret Service investigations, which reek with the stench of cover-up, and one can't escape the conclusion that if LBJ did nothing else in dealing with the aftermath of the assassination, he sure as hell clamped a lid on any evidence that contradicted the official finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman acting solely on his own initiative.

I report all of this as a prelude to revealing what I know about the matter but have never before written about – in the beginning, because I had a wife and seven children to protect, and since, because I had no reason to revisit the matter.

Let's start with this: McClellan and others before him have discussed the fact that LBJ faced some pretty awful prospects, including not only being dumped from the 1964 ticket but also spending a long, long time in the slammer as a result of his role in the rapidly expanding Bobby Baker case – something few have speculated about because the full facts were never revealed by the media, which didn't want to know, or report, the truth.

Sometime in early 1963 I was approached by a young lady with whom I had worked on Nixon's 1960 campaign staff. She asked me if I would meet with her fiancé, who was in great difficulty – and in danger of being murdered.

At the time I was on the staff of the House Republican Policy Committee, and one of my assignments was to keep my bosses up to date on what was going on behind the scenes in the Cold War, analyzing intelligence that came our way and otherwise engaging in a never-ending clandestine, back-alley war with the Democrat majority.

I was also writing a Washington column for Bill Buckley's National Review magazine under the cover name Cato, a fact known only to the top GOP House leadership, which allowed me to do the column as long as I didn't use my byline or write it on government time.

Moreover, in my Cato column I had recently broken the story about the Billie Sol Estes scandal, which involved Estes' crony, Lyndon Johnson.

The young lady knew all that, and that's why she came to me. I agreed to meet with her fiancé, a South Carolinian named Ralph Hill. We met at the Market Inn, had a couple of martinis, and Hill told me his tale of woe.

He had come to Washington some time before and was steered to a fellow South Carolinian, one Bobby Baker, the powerful secretary of the Senate and a very close associate of Vice President Lyndon Johnson.

To make a long story short, Baker advised Hill to go into the vending machine business and promised him he'd arrange to get some major defense contractors to install the machines, which vended soft drinks, sandwiches, cigarettes and the like.

There was only one catch – Baker wanted under-the-table payoffs for his part in setting up what would be a very lucrative business opportunity with tens of thousands of potential customers who worked in defense plants.

True to his word, Baker got a number of defense contractors to agree to allow Hill the exclusive right to install his vending machines on their premises. It was an opportunity to print money by the barrel, and with those golden contracts in hand, Hill was able to go to the bank and borrow all the funds he needed to buy the vending machines and go into business. For a while he prospered – as did Baker.

But whatever he was paying Baker was not enough to satisfy the man who, for all intents and purposes, had the Senate under his thumb. He saw that the members of the Democrat majority got whatever they wanted – money, bimbos, LBJ's help, you name it. They were all in his pocket.

He could arrange multimillion-dollar contracts for the defense industry or take them away if he wanted. He was LBJ’s guy and was all-powerful and a very dangerous man to have as an enemy, a fact Ralph Hill learned when Baker put the bite on him for bigger payoffs.

The problem for Hill was that he had big payments to make on the loans he'd taken out to buy the equipment and set himself up in business, had some pretty steep overhead, and simply didn't have enough left over to boost his payments to Baker.

He tried to explain that fact of life to Baker, but the secretary of the United States Senate wasn't having any. He simply repeated his demands and threatened Hill that if he didn't pay up he'd see that Hill lost all those juicy defense plant contracts.

Bad went to worse, Baker made good on his threats, and Hill was facing bankruptcy. Moreover, it was made known to him that if he didn't simply fold his tent and go off without making trouble for Baker, he might meet with an unfortunate – and probably fatal – accident.

But Hill was facing bankruptcy and the loss of everything he had, and he simply would not give up. He was fighting for his life. And he had the guts to hang in there.

He asked me to help him. But I was completely a creature of the House side of Capitol Hill – the Senate side was foreign territory and, I hate to admit it, I didn't even have the vaguest idea of who this Bobby Baker, the Senate's imperial potentate, was.

I told Hill that his only way out was to expose Baker publicly, to get the story out – once it was public, Baker could not afford to retaliate. I advised Hill to file suit against Baker, laying out all the sordid details in the complaint, and once he had served Baker, to give me the complaint papers and I'd see that the media on the Hill got their hands on copies.

He did and I did – and I now found myself a potential target, not only of Baker's but of the media as well, but that's another story. I was able to get only two reporters to write the story – the late Clark Mohlenhoff, one of the best investigative reporters in Washington, and one other whose name I don't recall.

For the most part, the Washington press corps kept the lid on the story – until the late Bob Humphrey, then the GOP Senate leadership's spokesman, an incredibly gifted strategist and a mentor, asked me to tell the story to the late Delaware Republican Sen. John Williams, a crusader for good government and a crackerjack of an investigator.

Sen. Williams asked me to introduce him to Hill and I did. They got together with some Senate investigators for the GOP minority and Hill told them the whole story, including the part played by Vice President Johnson. Williams got his committee to launch an investigation and the lid came off.

A few days later, the attorney general, Bobby Kennedy, called five of Washington's top reporters into his office and told them it was now open season on Lyndon Johnson. It's OK, he told them, to go after the story they were ignoring out of deference to the administration.

And from that point on until the events in Dallas, Lyndon Baines Johnson's future looked as if it included a sudden end to his political career and a few years in the slammer. The Kennedys had their knives out and sharpened for him and were determined to draw his political blood – all of it.

In the Senate, the investigation into the Baker case was moving quickly ahead. Even the Democrats were cooperating, thanks to the Kennedys, and an awful lot of really bad stuff was being revealed – until Nov. 22, 1963.

By Nov. 23, all Democrat cooperation suddenly stopped. Lyndon would serve a term and a half in the White House instead of the slammer, the Baker investigation would peter out and Bobby Baker would serve a short sentence and go free. Dallas accomplished all of that.

Sometimes I wonder: If I had not met Hill and convinced him to go public with the story, and the Bobby Baker case and Lyndon's part in it had not come out as a result, would Dallas not have happened? I don't like to think about that.

And that's why I am convinced that McClellan is on to something. I hope he persists. There's an incredible amount of sordid government corruption that needs to be aired in public. As McClellan says, it's about time that the American people learned the truth about the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

And a lot more.

* * * * * *

Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

He can be reached at phil@newsmax.com.


THE GUILTY MEN: LBJ PRESIDENT-BY-MURDER

EXCLUSIVE! THE BANNED EPISODE SHOWING LBJ WAS BEHIND JFK'S MURDER

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 9 The Final Chapter, ep. 3 The Guilty Men, seg. 1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaWUcyjAeIk

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 9 The Final Chapter, ep. 3 The Guilty Men, seg. 2

www.youtube.com/watch?v=05AsvqWfzts

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 9 The Final Chapter, ep. 3 The Guilty Men, seg. 3

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJPWhn6P5fE

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 9 The Final Chapter, ep. 3 The Guilty Men, seg. 4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut-4QXzNBno

The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 9 The Final Chapter, ep. 3 The Guilty Men, seg. 5

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mzZGK9tNyM

The "Guilty Men" DVD, now supressed by the History Channel (hopefully temporarily) shows that Professor Jim Fetzer is on the cutting edge of the LBJ matter. We have never heard from so many about a single program, even receiving calls from overseas. The History Channel shipped 50,000 of these DVDs before they were stopped, according to some.

Jim Page wrote a letter to the editor on this, that was ignored by the Amarillo paper, even though they had asked the JFK Research Community to respond to their article on the LBJ "Guilty Men" documentary controversy!

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:27 AM Subject: Your article on LBJ "bashing" by History Channel

"Folks,

Please study this in more detail. It is not the History Channel claiming LBJ's involvement in the JFK assassination but rather a former LBJ attorney, a former LBJ mistress, a former LBJ Insurance agent, and Billie Sol Estes; a former LBJ scandal crony. These each tend to cross-confirm each other. There also should be documents in the National Archives from November of 1963 documenting an investigation into LBJ (Senate Rules Committee). Though these docs may be secret, a FOIA suit could probably get them released (I doubt a Republican administration would be too fired up to protect LBJ's legacy). Had Kennedy lived, LBJ would likely have gone to jail rather than be on the ticket in 1964 (Bobby Baker/Billie Sol Estes scandals). Following the assassination, the Senate investigation evaporated. And following the assassination, it was LBJ that would not leave without JFK's body (a violation of Texas law), it was LBJ who named and ordered the Warren Commission (reporting to him alone and bypassing RFK as Attorney General and shutting OFF emerging Dallas, State of Texas, and Congressional investigations), and it was LBJ who tried to intimidate the Parkland Hospital doctors into getting an Oswald deathbed "confession". And LBJ, it is learned relatively recently, didn't believe the Warren Commission either (though he wanted to blame Castro rather than himself).

Don't forget that Richard Nixon was also in town at the same time so the next two presidents of the United States were in Dallas as JFK was murdered (a rule in government takeovers from the U.S. security community is that conspirators should not align themselves with any particular political party-see Lutwak's seminal work on governmental takeovers "Coup d'Etat" p.80). And there are several references to the Kennedy Assassination in the Watergate material (see "From the President" pps 502-503...from the transcript of a meeting between Nixon and Haldeman on June 23, 1972...

Nixon--------------"We protected Helms from one hell of a lot of things."
Haldeman--------"Thats what Ehrlichman says."
Nixon--------------"Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, ...that will uncover a lot of things...this involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we will have nothing to do with ourselves...it was a...Cuban Thing. Cubans and the CIA."

In his autobiography, Haldeman tells us that Nixon used the codewords "The Cuban Thing" when talking about the JFK assassination. In the context of the above discussion, this indicates that Nixon was trying to blackmail the CIA into helping Nixon shut down the FBI Watergate investigation by threatening, specifically Helms, with some release of information about the Kennedy assassination.

And when Nixon later went down on Watergate, it was Gerald Ford, chief apologist for the Warren Commission's cover-up of the JFK assassination (and the FBI's Warren Commission informer), who came from nowhere to become the first unelected president of the United States...[EDITOR: Bush Junior is the second]

If you research the History Channel-LBJ flap further, you will be providing the nation a great service. It will prove to be a "gut check" for your organization on whether you report the news (however shocking) or just reprint government press releases. It's the difference between Pulitzer Prizes and mediocrity. I pray you are up to the task. If I can help you in any way with your research, please let me know.

Thanks and regards,

Jim Page


VIDEO: Corrupt Secret Service Supervisors Deny Security Men on JFK's limousine Running Boards that could block the upcoming ambush shots: Secret Service should be abolished as public censure for their complicity in JFK's murder

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

The Secret Service's complicity in the assassination is also THE major driving force behind the Zapruder film alterations: the limo actually slowing and stopping to help the shooters hit Kennedy. LHO didn't shoot anybody--overlooking this fact, a retired SS agent has just gone public:

Rocky Mountain News: State

Oswald had help, ex-agent says Coloradan convinced that more than one

By Ellen Miller, Special To The News November 21, 2003

GRAND JUNCTION - Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone when he killed President John F. Kennedy, and the president died because Secret Service agents failed at their jobs, a retired agent says.

"Officially, the answer to Oswald when somebody asks - because we were ordered to say it - is that the Warren Commission found that he acted alone," retired agent Jerry O'Rourke said. "But was there more than one gunman? Yes, personally I believe so. And my personal opinion about Jack Ruby is that he was paid to kill Oswald."

O'Rourke grew up in Telluride and attended Western State and Regis colleges, then spent 22 years in the Secret Service. Now retired and back home, he spoke this week to the downtown Grand Junction Rotary Club.

O'Rourke said his group of about 10 agents had protected Kennedy the morning of Nov. 22, 1963, at a breakfast speech in Fort Worth. Then the group left by air for Austin, the next stop planned on the president's Texas tour.

"We got the word (of the assassination) in the air, and we didn't believe it at first," he said. "Most of the agents had tears in their eyes. Agents believed in Kennedy, and we knew we failed our job in Dallas."

After his White House tour ended during Johnson's presidency, O'Rourke spent a year in the Secret Service intelligence division, which offered him glimpses into the investigation of Kennedy's death.

Those glimpses, and the accounts of other agents, have convinced O'Rourke that Oswald didn't act alone.

He cited several reasons:

. Kennedy had a number of enemies, any of whom could have plotted against him. They included people angered by his insistence on civil rights; organized crime; labor unions unhappy with investigations of them by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy; Cuban dissidents angry over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion; and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

. The shots attributed to Oswald were impossible to make. O'Rourke learned to shoot as a boy and trained as a military marksman. He said his visits to Oswald's perch at the Texas Book Depository have convinced him that no one could have fired a rifle three times so quickly, hitting the president and Texas Gov. John Connolly.

. The trajectory of one of the shots could not have been made by a gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository. The shot entered Kennedy's body at his lower back and traveled up, to exit near his throat.

. The circumstances of the autopsy were irregular. Texas law requires autopsies to be done in state, but agents, acting on the orders of White House, took Kennedy's body back to Washington, D.C. The autopsy was performed at Bethesda Naval Medical Center under secrecy that prevails to this day.

. Evidence was destroyed. O'Rourke said that on the day of the assassination, one agent was ordered to clean out the cars used in the motorcade, getting rid of blood and other evidence. The agent told O'Rourke that he found a piece of skull, asked the White House doctor what to do with it, and was told to destroy it.

. Instructions were given to lie. The agent in charge of motorcade protection told O'Rourke that he was told by the Warren Commission during his testimony that he did not hear a fourth shot and did not see someone running across the grassy knoll. But the agent insisted that his account was accurate.

. Evidence about the shots is in conflict. An open microphone on a motorcycle in the motorcade picked up four shots, not three.

"In my opinion, Hoover wanted the commission to find that Oswald acted alone," O'Rourke said.

"The complete file won't be released until 2027, and the reason for that is most of us will be dead by then."


We now hear of documents that Don Reynolds provided to investigators at the time of the JFK event in 1964, which are a prosecutors dream. So it is hopeful that this fracas will evoke some "Discovery". The Valenti Commission may not produce the results they, the establishment wanted.

Here is one of the Don Reynolds Documents quoted verbatim.

+++++++++++++

Memorandum from C.D. "Deke" DeLoach to Mr. Mohr dtd January 22, 1964 header:

DON REYNOLDS INFORMATION REGARDING CASE INVOLVING ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY

Don Reynolds is the unscrupulous owner of an insurance company in Silver Spring, Maryland. Walter Jenkins called me from the White House at approximately 5:30 p.m. today. He asked that I come over and see him immediately.

Upon seeing Jenkins, he told me that Pierre Salinger had just advised him and the President that an Insurance executive by the name of Megill, who has offices at 1612 K Street Northwest, and who operates the company known as Megill and Son, that Reynolds had given him information concerning the assassination of the President approximately two weeks ago.

Reynolds told Megill that President Johnson was soon to be impeached. He stated that "J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI had collected sufficient data to prove that President Johnson was involved in the assassination of the late President Kennedy" Reynolds stated that Governor Connally of Texas had been an accomplice of President Johnson's in the assassination of the late President Kennedy. Reynolds also told Megill that Clint Murchison had kept Oswald in a hotel in Dallas for several days prior to the assassination.

Salinger told the President that Megill is a very reputable individual and a person that would not give inaccurate information.

While I was in Jenkins office obtaining the above information, the President walked in and stated that he would appreciate the FBI interviewing Reynolds and pinning this information down as expeditiously as possible. I told the President I knew the Director would instruct that we get on this matter imediately. After the President left, Jenkins requested that we not interview Megill inasmuch as the President does not want Salinger to know this information was given to anyone else.

ACTION: It is suggested this memorandum be forwarded to the General Investigative Division and that Reynolds be interviewed as expeditiously as possible in connection with the above allegation.

cc: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Belmont, Mr. Rosen, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Jones (Then J Edgar Hoover wrote with his blue fountain pen: ("Do so at once.")

+++++++++++++

jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm

How close of an eyewitness do you want to the JFK assassination?

How about Jack Ruby?

He says:

"Gentlemen, I want to tell the truth, but I cannot tell it here. If you want a fair shake out of me, you have to take me to Washington

When I mentioned about Adlai Stevenson, if he was vice president there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy"

Asked if he would explain it again Ruby continued,

"Well the answer is the man in office now" - that man was Lyndon Johnson.

Watch the video clip (Windows media)


LBJ was going to jail for the Bobby Baker scandal and being dumped as VP in the 1964 election for Bobby Kennedy. He was a sick man with a heart condition. His only chance to stay alive politically and in real life was to get rid of JFK.

Put 2 + 2 together.

Who changed the luncheon location to reverse-engineer the required motorcade route for the near-ambush cross-fire? Who had law enforcement connections in Texas to pull this off? Study our power points here.

LBJ from Texas.

Motive, opportunity and means.

The JFK assassination conspiracy was all the hate anti-JFK groups brought together by one man who would be "king" for a day: LBJ.

Its time we try the case in absentia; the defendant LBJ. If found guilty his name should be stricken from the rolls of U.S. Presidents as a murderer and a traitor to his country. The Secret Service should be disbanded and a new outfit started with a new name to symbolically punish the SS for murdering their President.

WARNING:

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler - a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh - had this to say about "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:

THE FALL OF THE ATHENIAN REPUBLIC...

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance, From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy, From apathy to dependence, From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent American Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore 127 million, Bush 143 million

Square miles of land won by: Gore 580,000, Bush 2,427,000

States won by: Gore 19, Bush 29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore 13.2, Bush 2.1

Professor Olson adds, "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government owned tenements and living off government welfare..."

Olson believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and the "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

FINALLY! SOME GOOD NEWS! HOW WE CAN TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT FROM LOBBYISTS/SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS: STATE SELECTION OF STATE SENATORS POSSIBLE NOW

A patriot provides us some extremely important good news!

I think its time we state by state return control of the senate back to the state governments so the people of the state can start working directly through their states to discuss/debate NATIONAL ISSUES.

"I recently read the April Edition of your newsletter. In it you talked about repealing the 17th Amendment. I do not understand why the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. Under the constitution there is currently two methods for electing Senators. The first method is by the State Legislature (Article I Section 3 Clause 1) The second method is by popular election (17th Amendment). The popular misconception is that the 17th Amendment overrules the first method. The problem with this argument is two fold. First nothing in the 17th Amendment states that the first method cannot be used. In fact it would be unconstitutional for it to say that. This is due to Article V of the constitution, which is the article that allows the constitution to be amended. There are two restriction on amendments. The first restriction is not applicable anymore and has nothing to to with the election of senators. The second restriction is that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate". As can plainly be read by Article V, no change in the 17th Amendment is necessary.

Currently every state is consenting to the 17th Amendment. If the legislature of any state wanted to choose its state senators all it has to do is withdrawl its consent to the 17th Amendment. That state would then be allowed to choose its senators in accordance with Articles I based on what is written in Article V. As you can read from the above information, no change to the constitution is necessary. All that is needed is for States to choose their own senators."

Is there a statute of limitations on TREASON?

Special announcement for immediate and unrestricted release:

Gerald Ford's motto: Attack is Best Defense.

Gerald Ford, former President and last surviving member of the Warren Commission, has demonstrated his strategy again: Disguise your crimes by attacking the attacker. I am increasingly flabbergasted about what is possible in America. Why is the world and the History Channel swallowing his attack on the documentary "The guilty men"? For those who missed this headline news, it is the last episode of "The men who killed Kennedy" series, aired last November and originally scheduled for re-runs over the next nine years, which makes a case for Lyndon Johnson as a main conspirator in JFK's murder. Ford's coordinated protest with former Johnson cronies like Bill Moyers, Jack Valenti and Johnson's widow, has now even resulted in complete cancellation of all three new episodes, including those which were not attacked, like "The Love Affair" with Judyth Vary Baker, who makes a credible case for having been Lee Harvey Oswald's girlfriend, exonerating him from the Government's THEORY that he was the lone assassin. To my knowledge, this is an unprecedented form of censorship in the United States.

In all the heated discussions and controversy about the History Channel's documentary, whether LBJ had a role in the JFK assassination or not, it seems that one thing is overlooked : In this case, Lyndon Baines Johnson and his next door neighbor and close buddy J. Edgar Hoover are guilty of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, not because we can prove they ordered it or because we can prove they had any direct connection to the killing, but because we can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that those two men took steps and took actions that covered up the truth of the crime. Washing out and refurbishing the President's limousine is just one of many examples of destroying crucial evidence. This makes them AT LEAST accessories after the fact. And was it not to Bill Moyers that Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach sent the infamous memo: "The public should be satisfied that Oswald was the lone assassin"?

But what's more, Ford himself is guilty! Not only was it learned that he was secretly reporting on the Commission to FBI Director Hoover, but also, forced by declassified files, he has admitted that he instructed the Warren Commission to move Kennedy's backwound up by 5 inches !!! The significance of this cannot be overstated! For with a wound in the original location, there cannot be a single bullet theory and without a single bullet theory there cannot be a lone gunman. Last time I looked, this was called "tampering with evidence", which is a federal crime and in such an important case as the death of a president, it is also TREASON. Raised with my naive and Dutch set of values on freedom and democracy, I believe the man should be in jail, despite his rehearsed repetitions that the Commission "found no evidence of a conspiracy, foreign or domestic". Instead, he is allowed to bury essentially good documentaries. What is happening to America?

All three men, Johnson, Hoover AND Ford, took steps that altered, destroyed and hid evidence, ...... and this, by the way, is what changes what otherwise would have been a Texas homicide, to a national coup d'etat!

In order to provide a contra-weight to these outrageous proceedings of the on-going cover-up, I have made available for the public the first ever camera-interview with former special FBI agent James W. Sibert. This interview will be part of an upcoming film/documentary "Second Look, FBI agents re-examine the JFK assassination" (wanted: uncontrolled broadcasters). James Sibert, 84 years young, a former World War II hero and B-52 pilot, 21 year career FBI agent and American patriot, was present at Kennedy's autopsy in Bethesda. Like every other retired FBI agent featured in Second Look, he is also PISSED with his government for covering up such a major crime.

See and hear what he has to say about Gerald Ford and senator Arlen Specter, architect of the notorious single bullet theory that was (and still is) pushed down our throat.

Right here: www.jfkmurdersolved.com/sibert.htm

This is age of the Internet, the new revolutionary and independent medium that can spread the truth. Recent studies show that the web has surpassed conventional media as a news source. If you share my amazement, SPREAD THIS! Email to friends and/or your favorite news-outlets. This message is also posted there, thus forwarding the link is enough. The videoclip may be downloaded and used for any website.

Signed,

Wim Dankbaar (Netherlands)

Table of Contents

Slide 1: GETTING JFK INTO THE “KILL ZONE”: PROOF THAT THE SECRET SERVICE MURDERED THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. BY MILITARY-STYLE REVERSE PLANNING PROCESSES

Slide 2: OUTLINE Part I: Get JFK into Ambush Site

Slide 3: Static Defense

Slide 4: Mobile Defense is Best

Slide 5: Neither Static or Mobile Defense for JFK

Slide 6: The Ambush Site: Home of Dallas Police Department (DPD)

Slide 7: Mobile and Static OFFENSE favors shooters

Slide 8: Embittered USAF Special Operator Lansdale had motive and opportunity

Slide 9: Wheeled vehicles restricted to easily ambushed roads

Slide 10: Leading a moving target would wipe out everyone in limousine

Slide 11: Slow or stopped limo enables only JFK being hit

Slide 12: OUTLINE Part II: motorcade route to get JKK into kill zone

Slide 13: Where to ambush?

Slide 14: Myriad of threats await wheeled vehicles

Slide 15: Safer routes rejected = guilt

Slide 16: "L" shaped ambush

Slide 17: Why not route thru Main street?

Slide 18: Trade Mart was accessible without going down Elm street

Slide 19: Freeway convergance at triple underpass

Slide 20: There were 4 alternate routes

Slide 21: Main street too far away for ambush shooters

Slide 22: Unjustified, pre-meditated Elm Street motorcade route selection to get to Trade Mart instead of Fair Grounds for JFK speech is "Smoking gun" linking SS/LBJ to JFK's murder

Slide 23: Motorcade route set by the LEAD CAR edited out from Zapruder film

Slide 24: OUTLINE Part III: Secret Service gets JFK into position

Slide 25: SS agent Shipman murdered to get willing Greer to drive

Slide 26: More on SSA Shipman's death

Slide 27: Beware of "Suicide" with "help" by others

Slide 28: OUTLINE Part IV: Pre-position “patsy” to take blame for the murder

Slide 29: Russian-speaking Ruth Paine gets LHO minimum wage job at TSBD along Elm street

Slide 30: Wealthy Paine "helps" LHO weeks before JFK route publicized get TSBD job, Gee Thanks

Slide 31: How did Paine know to get LHO to TSBD unless ordered by conspirators?

Slide 32: OUTLINE Part V: Set-up the Kill Zone

Slide 33: "L" shape ambush awaits JFK

Slide 34: Target Reference Points (TRPs) marked street curbs = more non-LHO conspiracy pre-meditation (maybe Posner will "discover" some yellow spray paint cans in Marina's possession 44 years later)

Slide 35: Panel Trucks = U.S. Special Operators =Lansdale alibi: "visiting son in San Antonio, Texas"

Slide 36: Possible shooter/spotter team locations (LOS studies needed before-hand)

Slide 37: Arrogant non-chalance of Umbrella Man and Assistant sitting asses on curb while real patriots run up Grassy Knoll after asshole(s) who shot our President = smug satisfaction of their evil deed

Slide 38: LBJ in sunglasses with radio monitoring events--VPs are not to be co-located with POTUS but LBJ needed ironclad alibi because he was SOLIDLY GUILTY of murdering JFK

Slide 39: Cops facing wrong way, Cars on Dealey Plaza Street parked in wrong direction

Slide 40: Cars gone by time JFK motorcade reaches DP

Slide 41: Groden acquired film shows movement in 3 TSBD windows prior, during and after ambush

Slide 42: CIA operatives in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963 during JFK assassination, did they buy popcorn, too?

Slide 43: CIAsters Hemming and Conein on Houston street during murder

Slide 44: So was Morales and Shackley...

Slide 45: OUTLINE Part IV: Insure JFK not Jackie is hit

Slide 46: Jump seats installed day before so Nellie/John not near direct aimpoint of JFK

Slide 47: Yes, bubbletops are out of question when you want your principal killed

Slide 48: JFK limo's Side windows were UP at Love Field

Slide 49: Both Jackie and Nellie wore PINK to make stark contrast for shooters

Slide 50: In previous motorcades JFK had SS men surrounding him to spoil aim of possible shooters

Slide 51: On Nov.22 bystanders could reach out and shake JFK's hand limo was moving so slow!...and without SS agent flankers

Slide 52: Limo windows DOWN in Dealey Plaza, Dave Powers micro-manages JFK and Jackie's seating position in limo, hides motorcade home movie for years afterwards

Slide 53: What does Powers film reveal? Secret Service Agent Robertson tries to warn JFK, later killed

Slide 54: SSA Robertson under cover on assignment in Dallas hears of JFK assassination through work "grapevine", refuses to be a part of it

Slide 55: Before mainstream media (MSM) cover story settles TV reports a SECRET SERVICE AGENT WAS SHOT AND KILLED

Slide 56: Motorcycle cops ordered to stay back of moving target JFK limo to not block LOS for shooters

Slide 57: JFK limo isolated in lead position of second grouping of vehicles (no car/cycles in-close directly in front of his limo)

Slide 58: Shooting doesn't begin where a lonegunman LHO would have had frontal aspect shot LOS (Oliver Stone's JFK explains this well)

Slide 59: Altgens photo at time cross-fire shooting behins

Slide 60: Altgens photo is during the missing film footage censored out of the Zapruder film by the conspirators

Slide 61: Aerial view of when the Altgens photo was taken showing general LOS angles

Slide 62: where is Moorman and Hill?

Slide 63: Lead Car STOPPED UNDER UNDERPASS waiting for motorcade to catch up with JFK limo as lead duck in shooting gallery

Slide 64: Huge intersection followed by sharp 90 degree turn in violation of security procedures

Slide 65: DO NOT BEND DATA TO FIT ALTERED ZAPRUDER FILM!

Slide 66: Notice Elm street curve continues past 90 degree turn from Houston street

Slide 67: Car bunching in intersection proves Greer stopped limo to give shooters JFK kill shot; comfy rear running board on JFK limo not utilized by a SSA lest there be no murder

Slide 68: Drunk/hung-over/wracked-with-guilt SSA Greer doesn't turn sharp enough onto Elm; note recreation shows a sharp over-correction--footage REMOVED from Zapruder film

Slide 69: Photographic proof of driver Greer braking conspirators didn't destroy

Slide 70: JFK's LUNG PUNCTURED because he was hit IN THE BACK, missed bullet lodged in windshield

Slide 71: Suspicious black man in Dal-Tex building BEHIND JFK caught in Altgens photo; civil rights gratitude in action

Slide 72: Altgens photos shows LBJ's limo acting as a "jam car" with stopped SS cars and media kept out of kill zone during critical moments of murder

Slide 73: SSA Kivett's DOOR IS ALREADY OPEN before ambush begins

Slide 74: SSA Emory Roberts, clearly in on murder plot orders other SSAs to not react to shootings

Slide 75: What is Dave Powers so happy about? Run out of film after only 28 seconds of "shooting"?

Slide 76: Damn it! JFK is not dead yet! Phase II shootings signaled; SSA Hill notes bloody massacre yet limo in Z-film is crispy clean

Slide 77: Operatives are some "wild and crazy guys"

Slide 78: Not too shook up by JFK's murder, all in day's evil

Slide 79: Lansdale's Shooting Gallery

Slide 80: "The Lone Cameraman": Abraham Zapruder, "pillar of the community" to be designated "patsy" film witness

Slide 81: Badgeman and Black Dog Shooters on Grassy Knoll

Slide 82: Is Fedora Man Shooter James Files?

Slide 83: Diversionary couple at Grassy Knoll throw Coke bottle to help shooters getaway

Slide 84: TV footage documents Jean Hill saying she saw a man with a rifle run up the knoll

Slide 85: "Hero" SSA Hill is wearing a bullet-resistant vest that day, expecting some action, huh?

Slide 86: SSA assholes scurry to position selves with the new murderer-in-chief LBJ

Slide 87: On-again/off-again man with a conscience USMC General Victor Krulak identifies Lansdale as man in photo walking past the 3 tramps

Slide 88: DPD officer's with suspicious secret society patches

Slide 89: Noted author William Manchester describes these cops with cross patches as "KKKops"

Slide 90: Sheriff's Deputy Roger Craig sees LHO flee in Ruth Paine's Nash Rambler station wagon, LHO tells him later in custody to not "tie her into any of this" meaning she's up to her Quaker collar in the conspiracy. Surprised that Roger Craig was hunted down and murdered afterwards?

Slide 91: Who was the Brown-suited man?

Slide 92: Documentation on the Roger Craig Eye Witness Testimony

Slide 93: PART VII Kill patsy with "Feel Good" Hero (concept re-run on S11 with Flight 93)

Slide 94: LHO Cover Story put out within SECONDs of JFK's murder (like the 19 ragheads with box-cutter knives on S11) OOOPS! False Stories say LHO SHOT AND KILLED IN THE TEXAS MOVIE THEATRE, somebody not playing according to the script?

Slide 95: He even hung up on his mother...did he spit out Apple Pie, too?

Slide 96: UHO. Guess who is on the steps of the TSBD watching the JFK motorcade go by?

Slide 97: WHY is Lovelady's HEAD superimposed on LHO's body at the entrence of the TSBD in the Altgens photo during the time of the ambush?

Slide 98: Where was LHO? Where was Lovelady?

Slide 99: who is that "loner" on the LEFT side of the TSBD while Lovelady is "lovin the ladies" on the RIGHT side?

Slide 100: Why is LHO talking to someone in the background as the 3 "tramps" walk by the front of the TSBD? He's got a rifle and shooting scene to clean up on the 6th floor! Get crackin, marine!

Slide 101: Designated "Hero" DPD officer Tippet blackmailed into driving to LHO's boarding house is himself shot and a phony LHO wallet with phony LHO driver's license is dropped there to enrage DPD; nothing like turning on your fellow conspirators with "changes in plans", huh? Revolvers like LHO had don't eject spent shell casings, but some are left anyway for good measure, why not spray paint a Kilroy sign on the street with "LHO was here"?

Slide 102: Lansdale knows Body Doubles, ask the Huks, guess what DPD "Hero" turned into VICTIM looks like JFK?

Slide 103: LHO flees to RV spot in Texas Theatre with .38 revolver with DEFECTIVE FIRING PIN THAT CANNOT FIRE, DEputy Craig notes they clear front seats to lure LHO to run away for shooting spree to follow by "heroic" Barney Fife DPD officers and Sheriff's deputies, but refuses to pull gun and be shot dead according to plan

Slide 104: who the hell is this? This 5'9" thin "Harvey Oswald" isn't the 5'11" stocky "Lee Oswald" of the USMC!

Slide 105: Shit! LHO-whoever is still alive! KIll him for crying out loud! Threaten Ruby's sister, get him to do it PRONTO.

Slide 106: Ruby's .38 shot "helped" by knife wound in ambulance; someone should identify who got into the ambulance

Slide 107: Ruby awfully worried until LHOwhoever reported dead--with good reason!

Slide 108: LHOwhoever's escort Lavelle didn't wear pink buy he wore TAN to make it a good contrast in crowd to shoot the former, Lansdale was a fashion adman before the war

Slide 109: Part VIII Cover-Up Secret Service Complicity at ALL COSTS

Slide 110: "I'm gonna wash that assassination right out of my hair"

Slide 111: Phony "G" men in Dealey Plaza confiscating eyewitness film footage; this should be made illegal by an act of Congress or else we will continue to have crimes commited upon America

Slide 112: Disgrace-as-an-U.S. Army Soldier Gordon Arnold "Pussy" films motorcade then turns over his film to phony cop and doesn't beat the shit out of him when others were nearby to assist him, years later he's still scared for his life when "Badgeman" is revealed on camera to him

Slide 113: Remember TV News show MacNeil-Lehrer report? Its now Lehrer News Hour. His former partner was there and ran up knoll until Ruby called him off

Slide 114: Notice how at the critical seconds in the existing JFK murder films there's some mutilation taking place?

Slide 115: what's missing from current available Zapruder film from frame 132 to 133? No shadows of an in-camera edit, THE FOOTAGE WAS CUT, 132 FRAMES ESTIMATED REMOVED

Slide 116: What is so evil about the lead cars that they were removed? THEY SET THE MOTORCADE ROUTE NEEDLESSLY INTO THE ELM STREET KILL ZONE, without them also insinuates JFK is telling the driver Greer where to go like a limo driver

Slide 117: WHO is in the missing pilot car? SSAs Sorrells, Lawson and Army Reserve LTC Whitcomb

Slide 118: Jackie's white gloves scrubbed white of her husband's blood, limo is dulled but blood-less

Slide 119: Moorman clearly IN the street taking her famous picture; altered Zapruder film has her on grass

Slide 120: Nix Film also shows Moorman in the street, OOPS! conspirators failed didn't they?

Slide 121: Dave Healy shows how in 1963 composite film alteration was done. Simply shocking.

Slide 122: Film alteration, 1963-style

Slide 123: Where's the rear-ward head explosion?

Slide 124: NPIC film forgers missed limo brake lights

Slide 125: Need to concoct some medical evidence? No problem we got TWO bodies!

Slide 126: Part IX Problems and their Solutions

Slide 127: Connolly is hit. Oh Shit.

Slide 128: Was Connolly a two-for-one deal?

Slide 129: This limo is riddled with bullets. Send it back to be rebuilt.

Slide 130: Make mine a German Mauser, eh Italian Mannlicher-Carcano? Not. Real shooters wouldn't even target shoot with a M-C.

Slide 131: a MAUSER is recovered from TSBD not a M-C.

Slide 132: M-C re-planted into TSBD with 3 empty casings and 1 live round in chamber--problem is it cannot function unless it has 6 rounds in the clip--if it has a clip!

Slide 133: Dumbass DPD conspirators forgot to supply a clip, no clip no multiple shot firings by just turning the bolt = no chance in hell of LHOwhoever being lonepatsy

Slide 134: "Mommy, my clip got stuck!"

Slide 135: M-C doesn't match the M-C the DPD conspirators used in the forged LHOwhoever backyard photos

Slide 136: You think LHOwhoever would mind if we placed the M-C in his palm since he's lying in the morgue? I don't know, ask him.

Slide 137: Too many bullets found in the Dealey Plaza Outdoor Shooting Range

Slide 138: Now start count spent shell casings...

Slide 139: We need one at the TSBD, get one over there pronto

Slide 140: OK, so there was no bullet in the casing and it got dented

Slide 141: LHO was taught to fire from a loop-sling in USMC with a gas-operated M1 Garand rifle

Slide 142: if LHOwhoever was left-handed he has to raise his head to cycle the bolt of the M-C

Slide 143: Groden shows movement in TSBD windows by multiple persons, I guess they are all "lone macadams and posners"

Slide 144: Sight seeing 30 seconds after the ambush from the TSBD, no LHOwhoever visible, just the real asshole shooters and spotters

Slide 145: Arlen Spector said his BS single bullet lie would never fly today or tomorrow or ever.

Slide 146: Jackie defiantly wears the bloody dress

Slide 147: This Zapruder film forgery isn't turning out well, let's go with the SMALL conspiracy diversion

Slide 148: Oliver Stone's film, JFK exposes that U.S. Government officials killed JFK. Why he's not exposed the 9/11 false flag attacks is a mystery. Life has probably been threatened.

Slide 149: Part X Who is Responsible?

Slide 150: LBJ--a desperate and dying man. More so than LHOwhoever.

Slide 151: Why is DPD Chief Curry on Air Force 1 seeing murder LBJ sworn in as POTUS? Doesn't he like have a murder to solve?

Slide 152: Bobby Baker, Sol Estes scandals, losts of "suicides by multiple shotgun wounds to the head", TFX pay-offs, LBJ must have been inspiration for the Clinton's killing spree

Slide 153: LBJ had a hear attack in the '50s, he wasn't long for this earth

Slide 154: RFK to LBJ: "You killed my brother!"

Slide 155: Guilty Demeanor: LBJ booted out Jackie as soon as he reached DC and tossed out JFK's belongings. What a fucktard egomaniac.

Slide 156: Summay/Conclusion--WHAT CAN WE DO TODAY?

Slide 157: Remove LBJ from the rolls of U.S. Presidents and brand him as the crook and murderer he was. Remove the Secret Service from Presidential Protection, they cannot be trusted.

Slide 158: Exhume ALL the victim's bodies and have a straight-shooter like Cyril Wecht examine all the medical evidence. Award JFK the CMH for going to crazy fascist town Dallas, Order Justice Department to do its job and start prosecuting surviving JFK murder conspirators like George Herbert Walker Bush, his presidency should be removed from honored American history

Author: 4th Tactical Studies Group (Conspiracy)

Email: thejfkresearchsite@yahoo.com

Home Page: www.reocities.com/thejfkresearchsite

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country."