Showing posts with label illegitimate government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegitimate government. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Lies Bushco Told About 911

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

On the topic of 911, we --the people --have won NO battles. Even worse --chances that we will ever win a battle for truth over bullshit, justice over obstructions of justice shrink with each passing day.

That is true despite the fact that the Bush conspiracy theory of 911 --a conspiracy theory of some 19 Arab 'tursts' --is easily proven to be BS on its face. In short -NOTHING said by Bush about 911 was true. Here's a very, very short list of 911 anomolies anyone of which brings down the whole rotten edifice...
  1. NO airliner crashed at the alleged site in PA. Flight 93, we were expected to believe, managed to bury itself upon impact. It's a convenient lie designed to cover up the fact that no airliner wreckage was ever visible at the alleged 'crash' site. The myths and lies can be put to rest with a simple excavation.
  2. WTC 7 was 'pulled'. Silverstein himself said so and every demolition expert in the world knows that that is, indeed, the case. The building had been prepped.
  3. The laws of the CONSERVATON OF MATTER and ENERGY were not repealed. See any phsycist at M.I.T. to confirm that; ERGO --no airliner struck the PENTAGON and no wreckage traceable to an airliner WAS EVER recovered.
  4. KEROSENE --jet fuel is kerosene --will NEVER burn hot enough to melt or weaken steel. In addition, THERMITE was found and confirmed by experts and published in peer-reviewed papers.
  5. The BBC interviewed several 'said' hijackers though they were said by Bush partisans to have died in the attacks. Dead men don't give interviews. Another fatal flaw in the official conspiracy theory.
  6. American Airlines is the source for information that AA Flights 11 (North Tower) and 77 (Pentagon) did not fly on 911.
My approach is the A. Conan Doyle approach...
When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however implausible, must be the truth!
The Bush 'theory' is the only 'conspiracy' theory of 911 that meets the definition of the term --conspiracy --most precisely.

Bush's critics, however, rarely advance a theory at all. They are most often labeled 'conspiracy theorists' for merely shooting holes in the Bush conspiracy theory. But for reasons unknown to me, millions have a mental blind spot that prevents or short-circuits rational dialogue about 911.

Also see: AA Exposes Bush's 'Big Lie': Flight 11 DID NOT FLY on 911!



Undeniable new 9-11 WTC DRONE PLANE PROOF (NOT UA 175)

Monday, July 04, 2011

Road Trip to Ground Zero: Get on Board

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, perhaps the most famous fictional detective of all time, himself expert in the science of criminology, wrote:
"When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!"
With respect to the crime of 911, it is past time to eliminate the impossible, i.e, the Bush 'theory' of 911, often called the 'official conspiracy theory of 911'.

Following is my short list --not of mere improbabilities --but fatal impossibilities any one of which destroys the Bush 'official conspiracy theory of 911'! All impossibilities listed may be verified against the laws of physics, logic and empirical observation. If the official conspiracy theory of 911 is impossible, then it is a lie and a deliberate one!

Some are obvious but somehow ignored by the media. For example, Hani Hanjour is said to have boarded and then high jacked Flight 77. But the Washington Post reported that Hani Hanjour could not have gotten on board because he did not have a ticket. Nor is his name on the only official, admissible shred of evidence to have survived Bush's orders to destroy evidence and that is the official autopsy report released to Dr. Olmsted in response to his FOIA request.

More recently, NTSB records revealed that the cockpit door on Flight 77 was never opened during the fight. Ergo: the Bush official conspiracy theory of 911 cannot even explain how it was possible to have hijacked a flight of which there is no record, no evidence, no autopsy report to prove that any alleged hijacker ever got on board to begin with.

Bushco cannot place the 'suspects' at the scene of the crime.

Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911 is utterly impossible; there is not a shred evidence of any sort to support it.
  1. There are no arabs on the only admissible scrap of evidence related to the crash at the Pentagon, that is, the official autopsy report released to Dr. Olmsted in response to his FOIA request. No arabs. A mere list of passengers which anyone can type up is NOT evidence admissible in court. And there is no evidence that anyone but Pentagon employees are buried at Arlington National Cemetary.
  2. Official NTSB data indicates that on Flight 77, the cockpit door was never opened during the flight! So --not ony is there no evidence that Hani Hanjour was ever on board, he could not have hijacked the airliner had he been on board. Unless --of course --he could walk through a closed door! Perhaps he was inspired by David Copperfield who 'walked' through the Great Wall of China!
  3. 3) No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever recovered from the Pentagon. A single engine rotor that was photographed on the Pentagon lawn is about 1/3 the size of each of two much, much larger rotors (of Titanium/Steel alloy) that would have been found had a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. No --the wreckage did not vaporize. And, unless the laws of physics are repealed, the total weight of wreckage will equal the weight of the un-crashed aircraft.

    There is a photo (and video, as I recall) of some four to six white-shirtered, presumably Pentagon employees, hauling off 'debris' on a cart that they carried on their shoulder. This was NOT 757 debris. Unless The Bush administration repealed the laws of physics, specifcially the laws of the conservation of matter and energy, the total weight of the debris would have been equal to the weight of the uncrashed 757 minus the weight of spent fuel.
  4. None of the crashes in New York were the flights that were alleged to have struck the towers. AA records indicate the the alleged flights had been mothballed for several months. In fact, the 757 has often found itself in service to the U.S. government. The United States Air Force fitted four 757-200s for VIP transport duties (C-32A). The USAF also operates two 757-200 aircraft (C-32B) for use by the U.S. State Department Foreign Emergency Support Team. These aircraft are painted solid white with only a small American flag and the USAF serial number on the fuselage.
  5. 911 is a crime like any other!
Anyone who would solve 911 must place the suspect at the scene of the crime. Candidates not having method, motive, and opportunity must be eliminated. That applies to Bushco's scapegoats --some 14 Arab hijackers who cannot be placed the scene of the crime, specifically NONE of them can be placed on any hijacked flight at any time! Until the BBC tracked down some of the alleged hijackers and interviewed them AFTER they were said to have died on 911, I might have been inclined to believe that they had not even existed. But --in any case --a living hijacker in a post-911 world disproves the Bush theory.

5) 127,520 --that's the weight in pounds of a typically outfitted 757. The wreckage on the Pentagon lawn was carried off atop a crate carried aloft by four or five skinny office dudes in white shirts and ties. There is NO WAY that over 50 TONS of wreckage was carried off on the shoulders of wimps! There is NO WAY that some 50 tons of airliner wreckage was ever recovered at any time at the Pentagon. The laws of the conservation of matter and energy were NOT repealed though Bushco might have wanted to.

Bottom line: the Bush administration --primarily Bush Jr himself, Dick Cheney who supervised, Don Rumsfeld (who almost gave the game away when he referred to the 'MISSILE that struck this building (the Pentagon), Condo Rice et al are the most obvious suspects. They had 1) method 2) motive, and 3) a golden opportunity, much like the opportunity A. Hitler had as a result of the Reichstag Fire. [See: William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich]

Conan Doyle was right. 911 is simple when you eliminate the impossible. Next: eliminate the smokescreen, the irrelevant BS, the flack that was thrown up, the distractions, the rabbit trails, the diversions, the misdirection.

At its heart:
  • the Bush Administration committed acts of mass murder and high treason'
  • the Bush administration lied about it, ordered the destruction of evidence that might have PROVEN them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt'
  • the Bush administration dared to question the patriotism of good and loyal Americans;
  • the Bush administration tried to blackmale and, in other ways, intimidate good, loyal, patriotic Americans who have a DUTY to question elected leaders, public servants and anyone taking an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.
It is significant that Bush lied about 911, in fact, never told anything resembling the truth with respect to 911. All were lies except the fact that 'something' terrible', something everlastingly evil happened that day. I covered numerous high profile murder trials in both Odessa, TX and Houston, TX, trials that featured legendary attorneys like Percy Foreman, Dick DeGuerin and Warren Burnett, whom the media called the 'heir apparent' to Clarence Darrow. As a result of my observations inside high profile murder trials, I concluded that 1) those who are innnocent of a crime DO NOT lie about them and, in fact, it is against their interests, counter-productive to do so; 2) only the GUILTY lie about crimes and only the guilty are motivated to do so!

It is therefore relevant and highly revealing that Bush and Bushco lied consistently and repeatedly about 911! It was an elaborate and well-coordinated 'full-court press' to commit numerous crimes and cover them up! It was --in fact and by law --a conspiracy! As a result, nothing said by Bush or Bushco is verifiable in any way --scientifically, causually, legally! And that is only so because they are guilty! Bush lied, thousands of Americans died! The act of mass murder called 911 was and remains an act of murderous high treason!

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Exposing Lies About the FED, the CIA, the Murder of JFK

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

New allegations about CIA involvment in the murder of JFK put a glaring spotlight on the current bankster crisis. Those who pull off crimes are, naturally, most motivated to lie about them! The CIA, therefore, looks very guilty of two murders that ripped America apart: the murders of JFK and RFK.

As news broke this week that CIA lies about the JFK murder had been exposed, I recalled that among the motives for JFK's murder was his threat to abolish the FED, the very source of the government's 'funny money' and most certainly, the root cause of the current banking collapse. JFK had threatened to strip the power of the FED, smash the CIA into 'a thousand pieces' and abolish the oil industry's sacred cow: the Oil Depletion Allowance. No President since has dared piss off so many powerful and ruthless people.

JFK tried to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest

The move would have bypassed the Fed by restoring to the government the power and authority to issue currency. Executive Order 11110 gave the US government the ability to create its own money --backed by silver! It just might have put the FED out of business.

Some background and basic economics: to pay it's bills, the US government borrows money from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Federal Reserve Notes are not backed up by anything. 'Silver certificates' issued under the authority of JFKs order would have been backed up by government owned silver. The government would no longer borrow from the FED to pay its obligations. It would have done so with 'silver certificates' issued by the government itself.
Like any commodity, Federal Reserve notes are subject to the laws of supply and demand. The demand for Federal Reserve notes might have collapsed altogether and the FED itself might have been forced out of business.

Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level. It would have would have made it possible for the government to repay its debt without having to borrow worthless 'notes' from the Fed and having to repay them later at interest.
Executive Order 11110 was never repealed. One wonders why no other President ever bothered to utilize it. Could it have had anything to do with the fact that JFKs order made him very, very unpopular throughout the banking establishment? JFK was brutally murdered in Dallas just five months after issuing the order. No more silver certificates were issued. The FED's gravy train was still intact.

FED owners do not have ready access to $trillions$ needed to float the U.S. debt and deficit. They don't need it! The FED 'creates' money with a bookkeeping entry, writing out a check to the US government in exchange for US bonds. Cashing the check is easy; the US Government banks at the Federal Reserve.

It's a scam in which no "real" money, no hard currency is exchanged. Government agents are never seen walking out of the FED offices --under armed guard --carrying bullion, coins, or, indeed, anything of real value. The Fed makes an 'entry' in the books! The government makes an entry in its books!
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
--Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson, I believe, had foreseen what has happened in fact. That is the context in which the latest news should be considered.
The October 17 Times story was another such example. It revealed, perhaps for the first time in any major US newspaper, that the CIA has been deceiving the public about its own relationship to the JFK assassination.
    On the Kennedy assassination, the deceptions began in 1964 with the Warren Commission. The CIA hid its schemes to kill Fidel Castro and its ties to the anti-Castro Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil, or Cuban Student Directorate, which received $50,000 a month in CIA support during 1963. In August 1963, Oswald visited a New Orleans shop owned by a directorate official, feigning sympathy with the group’s goal of ousting Mr. Castro. A few days later, directorate members found Oswald handing out pro-Castro pamphlets and got into a brawl with him. Later that month, he debated the anti-Castro Cubans on a local radio station.
That the October 17 story was published at all is astonishing. According to Lexis Nexis, there have only been two earlier references to the CIA Joannides documents controversy in any major US newspaper: a brief squib in the New York Daily News in 2003 announcing the launching of the case, and a letter to the New York Times in 2007 (of which the lead author was Jeff Morley) complaining about the Times’ rave review of a book claiming that Oswald was a lone assassin.
--The JFK Assassination: New York Times Acknowledges CIA Deceptions
Just last year, the BBC reported that it was the CIA that was behind the murder of RFK, JFK's younger brother.
The new video and photographic evidence -- the result of a three year long investigation --"puts three senior CIA operatives" at the scene of the murder.
Three of these men have been positively identified as senior officers who worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami base for its Secret War on Castro.
David Morales was Chief of Operations and once told friends: "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard."
Gordon Campbell was Chief of Maritime Operations and George Joannides was Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations. Joannides was called out of retirement in 1978 to act as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination. Now, we see him at the Ambassador Hotel the night a second Kennedy is assassinated.
[See also: CIA Involvement in the assassination Of Robert Kennedy]
--CIA role in Kennedy killing
--Evidence That the CIA Murdered RFK
As with the 1963 murder of JFK in Dallas, lingering questions dog the official theories. Powder burns indicated that three shots had been fired from very close range from 0 to 1-1/2 inches though no witness could place Sirhan closer than three feet. Sirhan's gun held only eight bullets but a total of ten were recovered. Three were found in Kennedy. Two were lodged in a pantry door frame. One was found in an airspace. Presumably four more were found elsewhere. Significantly, four bullets 'touched' Kennedy to include the three that were recovered --lodged --in his back. At no time was Sirhan ever behind RFK.
Inexcusably, the door frames were burned, the Los Angeles Police Dept. claimed no bullets were found lodged in the "bullet holes", and two expended bullets (inexplicably dug out of wood) were soon found in the front seat of Sirhan's car. The LAPD then destroyed their records of the tests that had been done on the "bullet holes" in the doorframe. 
--Facts about the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination
Like the fatal flaws in the official conspiracy theory of 911, the holes in the government's JFK story are fatal.
  • No competent or sane sniper/hit man would choose to shoot anyone from the TSBD. The 'view to a kill' was obscured by branches and leaves as photos taken that day prove! It was and remains the worst of several possible locations!
  • Zapruder frame 313 proves conclusively that the fatal shot came from the front, the so-called Grassy Knoll
  • No sniper in his right mind would choose a kill spot providing no possibility of egress or escape! Oswald would have had to have ditched his rifle and run down some six flights! No 'hit man' would have tried it! It's stupid! The place would have been 'sealed'!
  • I have visited Dealy Plaza! The picket fence afforded cover, egress and a clear unobstructed shot of the 'target' from a distance about one third that of a site in TSBD.
  • From TSBD, the motorcade is moving laterally and then away; from the picket fence, the target's lateral motion relative to the 'shooter' is minimal. A non-expert could have made the shot but, in fact, it was an expert who did!
I interviewed a witness to the JFK murder many years after the fact. Rosemary Willis was but a child on that fateful day and her story has been ignored by the mainstream media. When we met, she produced several boxes of color slides that had been taken by her father that fateful day in Dealy Plaza.

Referred to in the literature of the assassination as the "little girl in the red dress", she is seen in the Zapruder film running along the south side of Elm Street. Her father, Phillip Willis, taking 35mm color slides, can also be seen in the Zapruder film, looking forward at his daughter, perhaps calling to her. She stops suddenly just as the Presidential limousine is partially blocked by a sign between the motorcade and Abraham Zapruder's camera.

The FBI seized the Willis photos but returned them years later. I looked at them on a light table with a loupe. I immediately recognized Dealy Plaza, the limousine, the motorcade, the Texas School Book Depository, the Pergola, the Grassy Knoll, the Triple Underpass, place names now burned into the consciousness of a scarred nation.
One Phillip Willis took a series of 12 photos of Dealy Plaza, where Kennedy was shot, in the minutes before and after the assassination. Mr. Willis' photos and testimony before the Commission appear in the report.
He was not questioned about the eighth photo, a shot of the Book Depository entrance shortly after the shooting. As Willis later pointed out, one of the men in the photo "looks so much like (Jack Ruby), it's pitiful". FBI agents questioning Willis agreed with him that the man bore a powerful resemblance to Ruby. When Willis mentioned this to the Commission, no interest was shown. When the photo was published in the Warren Report, a considerable part of the face of the Ruby look-alike had been cropped away.
--JFK Conspiracy Theories
At last, Rosemary (if I may be so familiar) pointed out some especially interesting slides. One of them was a shot of the Pergola, above the grassy knoll, taken from her father's position on the south side of Elm Street. Through the columns, all was clear. Then Rosemary produced an old copy of Look Magazine and turned to a double page spread. Reproduced over facing pages was her father's photograph of the limousine with the Pergola behind it.

"Do you notice anything unusual?" she asked.

I had noticed something, something which I now believe was the result of FBI complicity in the cover-up of a murder! In the magazine spread, a train locomotive could plainly be seen between the columns. Indeed, there are railroad tracks in that area to this day as Google earth reveals. Those tracks were there in 1963 as well --as photos of the time reveal. It was in that rail yard that three "tramps" had been arrested prior to the Kennedy assassination. [See: JFK Conspirator Wanted Every Kennedy Dead ]

But why was there a locomotive in the published picture but no locomotive in the "slide"? Rosemary explained that after Look Magazine published her father's pictures, FBI agents took all her father's slides. As I recall, the slides were kept for several years. When they were returned at last, every slide that had depicted the train had been doctored. The train was gone. Only the FBI could have 'removed' the depicted train --but why?

It was clear to me that the answer to that question might very well have solved the JFK murder case! The removal of the train was intended to protect the guilty and it was equally clear that by removing the evidence, the FBI was overtly obstructing justice, protecting the identity/identities of murderers and traitors! The murder of JFK was not just a murder. It was an act of high treason!

Why would the FBI find it necessary to remove a train? What did the FBI find threatening about a train? I've speculated that the train was the egress, the perfect getaway for the assassins who fired the fatal shot from the grassy knoll just as Mark Lane had theorized years ago. That raises the question: why would the FBI protect an assassin's get-away? Unless the FBI was a part of the plot, lately called a coup d'etat, it would not.

However speculative my thoughts, it is fair to say that when you have uncovered the FBI's motive for removing the seemingly innocent picture of a train, you will have gone a long way toward explaining why the Warren Commission insisted upon the theory that the fatal shot came from the rear when any examination of the Zapruder film will reveal otherwise. Those who cover up are guilty! Count on it!

Addendum

Here's more about Rosemary Willis from Wikipedia:
Rosemary Willis (born 1953) was a close witness during the assassination of President Kennedy.

Clearly seen in the Zapruder film at the start of the assassination wearing a white, hooded coat and a red skirt, located to the limousine's left, she runs southwestward and parallel with the limousine. She races for a short while when the limousine was to her direct right.

At Zapruder film frame 190 (hereafter "Z-190"), she is seen slowing, then she stops running. Simultaneous with her slowing/stopping, she slightly turns her head to look upward toward the southwest corner of the Texas School Book Depository.

Immediately after the sitting upright President Kennedy is first hidden at Z-207 by the "Stemmons Freeway" traffic sign in the Zapruder film, Rosemary suddenly, and beginning at Z-214, snaps her head very rapidly 90 to 100 degrees westward --completely away from the depository southwest corner-- within only 0.16 second to then face Abraham Zapruder and the grassy knoll by Z-217.

Precisely 0.60 second after starting her extremely quick westward headsnap towards Mr. Zapruder and the grassy knoll, President Kennedy's head then emerges back into the Zapruder film view at Z-225 still sitting upright with his face and arms already displaying a physical reaction to having already been impacted by a bullet.

Importantly, in 1978 Rosemary was interviewed by investigators from the House Select Committee on Assassinations and stated that she heard at least 4 shots during the assassination. She also stated to the HSCA that while she was still facing the grassy knoll picket fence, she was attracted to view the quick movement of a person who quickly dropped down behind a "wall" out of her view. Rosemary was also documented in the HSCA report that her father, military veteran Phillip Willis, became upset when the Dallas policemen, sheriffs, and detectives --who first quickly ran onto the grassy knoll where he thought the shots came from-- then the authorities ran away from the grassy knoll.

Rosemary's sister, Linda, stated to assassination researcher and author Richard Trask (“Pictures of the Pain” 1994) that after the assassination she and Rosemary also saw someone find a piece of the president's head that had landed in the grass located at least twenty-two feet to the left of the president.

After the assassination Willis, along with her sister, father (Phillip), and mother (Marilyn) were present at the Kodak photographic laboratory getting her father’s assassination related photo slides developed when the Zapruder film was also developed and first shown to approximately nineteen persons.

Rosemary Willis was never called to testify to the Warren Commission.
--Wikipedia, Rosemary Willis

Excellent JFK Documentary


Wednesday, April 08, 2009

The Origins of US Illegitimacy: Fatal Flaws that Sink the Warren Commission

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It might have been so simple. JFK is gunned down in Dallas. The fall guy du jour --Lee Harvey Oswald --would take the rap. The patsy was said to have fired three shots from the Texas School Book Depository. One of them was said to have created injuries in both President John F. Kennedy and Texas Gov John Connally. Another --said to have killed the President --is likewise attributed to the single shooter in the famous sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

The Warren Commission's 'official theory' is shot through with more holes than Swiss chesse. If Lee Harvey Oswald had gone to trial he would have walked.
  • The fatal shot came from the front.
  • A 'Magic Bullet' was said to have defied the laws of physics (primarily gravity), requiring an elaborate and ex post facto violation of Occam's Razor to make it sound remotely plausible.
  • The 'Magic Bullet' --CE-399 --may have been planted or, more innocently, misidentified; the 'chain of evidence' is non-existent; and, had the case gone to trial, it would have been thrown out of court.
It is claimed that CE-399 was fired from what is 'said' to have been Oswald's rifle, an assertion that is impossible to support. The famous photo linking Oswald to the rifle is an obvious fake. It has been said that the 'chain of evidence' was broken. In fact, CE-399 --found on John Connally's gurney at Parkland Hospital --has no traceable history that places it at the scene of the crime.
I asked myself, Is the bullet sitting in the National Archives today really the same bullet recovered at Parkland Memorial Hospital in the wake of the Kennedy assassination? I decided to put the issue to the test.

Phantom Identification

It was on March 16, 1964 during James Humes' testimony before the Warren Commission (WC) that CE-399 was first introduced into evidence. Arlen Specter related on the record that CE-399's bone fides were "subject to later proof," but would be introduced with the proviso that the bullet was the same "missile which [had] been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally." The fact that Humes was the first witness to testify about CE-399, yet had played no part whatsoever its chain of custody, forced Specter to introduce CE-399 "subject to later proof." Fifteen days later, Specter queried SA Robert Frazier on CE-399's provenance:
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.

Mr. EISENBERG. The bullet is in the same condition as it was when you received it?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners.(3H428) [March 31, 1964]

Frazier established that the CE-399 bullet before him was the same one he'd received from SA Elmer Todd on 11/22/63. But Frazier's testimony that CE-399 was the same bullet handed to him by SA Todd, in and of itself, does not begin to establish whether or not it was the same bullet that actually came off the stretcher in Dallas.

Oddly, Elmer Todd was never called to testify before the WC. Nor were SA Richard Johnsen, or chief of Parkland Hospital security and former DPD detective, O. P. Wright, whom both figure prominently in the chain of custody of CE-399.

The WC did call on the employee who actually found the bullet. On March 20, 1964 the WC took Parkland Hospital orderly, Darrell Tomlinson's testimony. That was a mere four days after CE-399 was introduced during Humes' testimony. Incredibly, Tomlinson, whose testimony was taken in Dallas, was queried extensively about where he found a bullet (which stretcher), but was never shown CE-399 or asked to identify it as the bullet he found the day Kennedy was assassinated. Having Tomlinson ID the bullet is the "proof" that would have established that the bullet's bone fides were in order. But that didn't happen. What did happen was that the day after Tomlinson testified, Robert Frazier delivered CE-399 to the WC (See Figure 1).

--John Hunt, The Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet: E. L. Todd and CE-399
A key phrase is 'non-fatal'. Had this case gone to court, a single fatal wound might have been sufficient to get a conviction. Not even the Warren Commission believed the 'magic bullet' to have been fatal. That dubious honor belongs to the single bullet that struck JFK in the right forehead driving his head '...back and to the left'. The Warren Commission, however, failed to acknowledge the fact that whatever struck the President on Frame 313 of the Zapruder film came from the front --the grassy knoll. The elaborate 'magic bullet' upon which Arlen Specter gambled his good name and credibility, is irrelevant!
In contrast to the testimony of witnesses who heard and observed shots fired from the depository, the commission's investigation has disclosed no credible evidence that any shots were fired from anywhere else.

--Warren Commission Report, JFK Assassination
The Warren Commission knew that it could get away with such an absurdity. There were big names on the commission. But so egregious is this error, one must ask the obvious question: what was the Warren Commission deliberately trying to hide? Quick response: the government's own complicity in murder.

The Warren Commission did not fear a sudden outbreak of truth. The Zapruder Film, it was believed, had been sealed. Everything had been nailed down, covered up, or cover storied!

But since it was broadcast by Geraldo Rivera, the Zapruder film has gone mainstream. Until it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to have been tampered with, Zapruder remains a yardstick against which all other 'said' evidence must be measured for consistency. Frame 313, for example, is a dramatic moment of less than a tenth of a second in which the President was struck dramatically and mortally. All other timelines must conform to this and other key moments recorded on film.

Gerald Ford admitted to tampering with evidence while he was on the Warren Commission. In other words, Ford committed a federal crime the effect of which has kept the truth from the American people since 1963.
The initial draft of the report stated:
    "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."
Ford wanted it to read:
    "A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

--Gerald Ford's Terrible Fiction
Too timely, too convenient, the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by known mobster Jack Ruby necessitated the creation of the Warren Commission, a 'weighty' panel of well-known public figures, in other words 'big wigs' who could get away with promoting the official cover story.
"According to the Warren Report the missile hit JFK in the posterior neck, then without striking any hard object passed through the neck to exit at the front of his throat. It then entered Texas Governor John B. Connally's back at the right arm pit, sliding along his fifth rib, demolishing four inches of the rib before it exited his chest below the right nipple. The bullet then allegedly struck and shattered the radius of the right wrist on the dorsal side, then exited at the base of his palm and hit his left thigh just about the knee.

The Report then asserts that CE 399 traveled about three inches beneath the surface of the skin, hit the femur and deposited a lead fragment on the bone. Then, sometime later, with a spasm of reverse kinetic energy it spontaneously exited the hole in Connally's thigh and neatly tucked itself under the mattress of a stretcher parked in a hallway of the Parkland Memorial Hospital that the Report asserted was linked to the wounded governor. There it rested calmly under the mattress waiting for its rendezvous with history."

--Gerald McKnight, Researcher

The death of Lee Harvey Oswald who had always maintained that he was a 'patsy' was improbably convenient. It relieved the government of having to get a conviction. Most importantly, however, the Warren Commission could not risk a trial that would have exposed the cover up. That is motive enough to order a 'hit'. Certainly --a trial of Oswald would have been disastrous for a corrupt and perhaps illegitimate government. Oswald knew too much. And what he knew might have been made public. Would the 'powers that be' risk that?

The Zapruder film would have been played back in court, proving to any intelligent jury that the 'magic bullet' was not only wrong and inadmissible, it was irrelevant. The fatal shot came from the front, striking JFK just above his right eye, exploding his skull and driving his head back and to the left. Backward and to the left! If you doubt this, here is a link to a unique site: Zapruder Film Frame by Frame. Every frame of Zapruder is enlarged and accessible with a link. Zapruder can be examined, literally, frame by frame.

The murder of JFK may not have been the classic coup d'etat --but coup d'etat it was.

The many official lies about JFKs murder deflect attention from the real evidence that disproves the official narrative. Had this evidence been followed up it might have been proven that Lee Harvey Oswald:
  1. could not have fired the fatal shot;
  2. was probably not even in the depository window at the time of the murder
  3. would have been ill-placed as a shooter even IF he had a part of the bigger conspiracy.
  4. that the Depository is the least desirable location from which to pull off a hit.
See pictures of the 'magic bullet' [CE 399, click for larger image] at the JFK LANCER. This is the very picture of pristine. It is highly doubtful that it had even been fired, let alone create multiple wounds and extensive bone damage. Secondly, Zapruder frame 230 proves that John Connally had not been hit by the same bullet that magic bullet theorists say struck JFK. On this point, the expert testimony of a pathologist may be seen in the second video in the playlist posted below.

The Warren Commission simply discounted anything that didn't fit officialdom. The magic bullet was concocted by Arlen Specter though he has no experience in forensics! My opinion is, at least, as good as his and most certainly less biased in favor of anything that might benefit the GOP, the MIC, or the CIA.

Specter may have hoped to deflect attention from the real source of the fatal bullet that struck JFK just above his right eye from the front. Specter may have hoped to paper over the holes. Specter's motives are relevant to the Warren Commission's credibility. If it was Specter's motive to cover up the truth by diversion, then he is guilty of obstruction of justice --a Federal crime! Moreover, if the fatal shot came from the front, the 'magic bullet' is just another establishment red herring at best, a federal crime at worst. It hinges upon Specter's motives.

The Magic Bullet was entered into the chain of evidence before it had been taken out of Connally's leg --evidence that the 'official magic bullet theory' was concocted in advance of the investigation. The 'state' desparately sought anything that might shore up the cover story. Real investigations are not conducted in this manner. Cover ups are! Indeed, even the FBI and the Secret Service had stated in their separate reports that JFK and John Connally were struck by separate bullets. John Conally himself stated flatly that separate bullets had struck him and the President. The Warren report is a lie.

Planning for the JFK murder probably began with his historic inaugural address. Subsequently, he promised to smash the CIA into a 'thousand pieces'; he threatened to expose 'secret societies' and 'cults' that he believed posed a threat to the republic [Skull and Bones?]; he promised to abolish the FED. The nation, having endured the seemingly endless and tragic Viet Nam quagmire, abominable abrogations of Civil Rights, a war waged by the CIA and the FBI against civil liberties, it is easy to forget how revolutionary were JFKs words. His words were a threat, a 'clear and present danger' to the entrenched and corrupt establishment, the 'invisible government'.
Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

--John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961
Likewise, the entrenched establishment of about one percent of our own population could not have been happy with JFKs commitment to human rights.
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

--JFK, Inaugural Address
In 1961, many powerful forces in and out of the US government would have felt threatened by JFKs commitment to the United Nations, a body not merely opposed but reviled by powerful entrenched forces and interests inside the US.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far out paced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

--JFK, Inaugural Address
And then JFK struck at the very source of an evil 'livelihood' --the Military/Industrial complex about which Dwight Eisenhower had but recently warned.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors.

--JFK, Inaugural Address
The MIC is simply not interested in the 'freedom of man'. usually announced amid great chest beating and displays of arms and/or militia. This coup d'etat was an covert takeover by the low profile beneficiaries inside the Military/Industrial complex and throughout the CIA.

As subsequent events have proven since that date, Lincoln's vision of a 'government of the people, by the people and for the people' did, indeed, perish from this earth. If it was not the classic coup d'etat, we might have been better off if it had been. Our traitors are cowards who subvert us with secrecy, lies, and subterfuge. Some prefer the tyrant that can be seen to unseen 'spooks' who murder by stealth and proxy.

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 a 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.

--Secret Society Speech, President John F. Kennedy, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961
Was JFK warning of the Military/Industrial complex as his predecessor had done? Was he referring to the CIA? The Skull and Bones? Most certainly, all of the above given the proprietory interest Skull and Bones has in the world's number one terrorist organization --the CIA! Like the Mafia, the Axis of CIA/MIC/Skull and Bones is in the death business. Under the regimes of Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr, the nation itself become Murder, Inc.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
The following You Tube playlist is worth watching start to finish if one is interested in the truth about a coup d'etat that changed America for the worst, the state sponsored murder of John F. Kennedy.

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Has the Time Come to Abolish the State?



by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy 


A new book, Against the State by philosopher Crispin Sartwell, rejects with impeccable logic the traditional arguments in support of state legitimacy and power. Sartwell finds lacking all of the classics of Western political philosophy --Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Hume, Bentham, Rawls, Habermas and others. They were not only wrong, he says, but indefensible.

He lists three traditional arguments in support of state power:
  • social contract theories,
  • utilitarianism
  • justicial views
In the end, Sartwell argues, state power does not reside within the consent given it by the people but, rather, on coercion, primarily, the threat and use of deadly force. Sartwell argues that the state use of coercion does not follow from legitimacy. Rather, state use of coercion is without legitimacy and demonstrates the illegitimacy of the state. It is on this point, specifically, that I fully concur. I believe that only human beings have rights. States, like corporations, are mere legal abstractions. What right has a legal abstraction to require of any one of us anything whatsoever? What if 200 million people told the state to fuck off?

I might have welcomed a strong, centralized state had I been certain that it would exercise its awesome power only against those would subvert the liberties of individuals or rob them of the fruits of their labor, necessities, homes, families, educations, careers. Certainly, George W. Bush has proven as no other President in our nation's history has or could have done that there is, indeed, no state of any form that can be entrusted with the care of our rights or welfare. Americans have erred twice. We believed in the legitimacy of state power. We trusted the state.


Anarchist Philosophy




Sartwell Interview


Sartwell's critique of all forms of 'state' power are correct as far as they go. Until recently, it was easy enough to justify 'state power' generally as simply the best choice among few --none of which were good. Surely decision theory must have something to say about the nature of this no win proposition.

The rise to power of George W. Bush in a nation that likes to think of itself as 'Democratic' is cause enough to re-examine the legitimacy of every means by which state power is exerted, indeed the concept of 'state power' itself. Sartwell's skepticism is timely and well placed.

The very existence of someone like Bush is evidence if not proof that Democracies are as inclined as totalitarian states to war crimes, abrogations of 'civil liberties', subversion of the 'separation of powers' thought to be the institutional check against absolute power. The strongest case for Democracy has been compromised, perhaps shattered forever. As I have often put it: if my rights as a human being are violated what difference does it make to me whether those rights are violated by Adolph Hitler or George W. Bush? If wars of aggression, in violation of numerous international prohibitions and conventions, are perpetrated, what difference does it make whether the offending nation is a communist state or a beacon of free market capitalism and Democracy? If human beings are tortured, their persons violated, their lives taken upon callous orders by higher ups, what difference does it make to the victim whether the order should issue from Adolph Hitler or George W. Bush?

I might have welcomed a strong, centralized state if I were certain that it would exercise its awesome power only against those would subvert the liberties of individuals or rob them of the fruits of their labor, necessities, a home, a family, an education, a meaningful career. Certainly, George W. Bush has proven as no other President in our nation's history has or could have done that there is, indeed, no state of any form that can be entrusted with the care of our rights or welfare. As the guarantor of social justice, the Bush administration has failed miserably if not deliberately. It is for this reason that Sartwell's argument that Social contract models (Hobbes & Locke, primarily) rest upon 'submission rather than consent' is most powerful and especially well-timed. The very existence of a 'George Bush' supports Sartwell.

However attractive, it is hard to imagine anarchy as the solution. By definition, anarchy is no check against the rise of a repressive state which is sure to rise up in reaction. To create an institutional check is to end --by definition --the anarchy. A dialectic of that form tends to confirm Hegel and Marx.

Perhaps what Sartwell is really telling us is that we have at last arrived at that point in human evolution in which our species will fall victim to the 'states' of our own creation! Like the parasite which kills its host, states enabled the survival of our kind when other forces in the natural environment posed the greater threat. We found safety in numbers and for our survival made peace of sorts with tyrants. Is Sartwell telling us that all systems, pressed to their logical conclusions, fail?

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

All the President's Lies

The Bush administration became illegitimate when George W. Bush placed his hands on a black book and lied.
"I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."


Bush Lies While Under Oath!!!!
“When a man takes an oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. And, if he opens his fingers then -he needn't hope to find himself again.”

--A Man for All Seasons, Thomas More , pg. 140

Bush lied when the took his oath of office. He has failed to execute the office of President in a lawful manner, exceeding his power and authority. Most egregiously, he has not merely failed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", he has worked overtly to destroy it. This is high treason.
Once when challenged for his unwillingness to submit to the rule of law in an obvious snub of the Constitution, Bush screamed, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

And thus our Constitution has now become what Bush has made it. This annihilation of the foundational document of our republic was orchestrated by a president who swore an oath of honor to protect it, a devout Christian who promised to restore honor and integrity to the Oval Office.

Congress, in its acquiescence and subservience, is equally culpable. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced, "impeachment is off the table," she not only absolved Bush of all previous transgressions but paved a figurative superhighway for any to come. There's a reason Congress's approval ratings are even lower than the administration's.

--Michael Abraham, Bush's legacy is the end of law

The protection and defense of the Constitution was Bush's only job and he blew it. He deliberately subverted the Constitution and placed himself above the law with bogus, made up concepts for which there is absolutely no legal precedent in either American history or over 400 years of common law to which we are heir.
"Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race."

Plato, Republic 473c-d

It is not unfair to expect George W. Bush, a man of questionable background or academic achievement, to attain the ideals described by Plato who describes "philosopher kings" as "those who love the sight of truth" [See: Republic 475c ]. After all, it was Bush --not the sovereign citizens of the United States --who merely assumed what was euphemistically called a 'unitary executive'. The 'unitary executive', without precedent in American History, GOP 'focus group-speak' for dictatorship, placed Bush above the sovereignty of the people, above the legislative responsibilities of the Congress, and outside the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. For Plato and for the ideal of the "Philosopher King", we must all flip Bush off. He has not earned our respect, nor does he deserve our obeisance. He is rightly the object of our utter contempt!

Bush has not governed a free people, he has supervised a crime syndicate and gotten away with it. As a result, US forces are bogged down in a war that cannot be won against an enemy of our own making. It was a war begun upon a pack of black-hearted lies, an avoidable war fought to enrich the rich.

To what degree do Americans share his guilt by simply obeying the laws and, in passive ways, enabling his criminal, murderous regime? There is no pacifying a mass murderer. Too many Americans, passively complicit, have 'enabled' Bush's many crimes against the Constitution, against humanity, and the people of the US.
In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American people, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era. We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tell us.

— Abraham Lincoln, January 27, 1838

The government --the United States, itself --is a creation of the people.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

--Preamble, US Constitution

It is not just my opinion but also that of the distinguished jurist, Joseph Story, often cited in opinions of the US Supreme Court, that the Preamble establishes, as a principle of law, the sovereignty of the people of the United States. The Preamble is quite possibly the most important part of the Constitution. The following admonitions, therefore, are addressed directly to George W. Bush to whom I would add read my lips: you are NOT the sovereign. You are NOT the dictator of this nation. You are NOT the origin of the law of this land. You are NOT above the Congress. You are NOT above the courts. You are NOT the boss of me nor anyone else. Comprende?
Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?'' 3

Findlaw, [See also: J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: 1833), 462. For a lengthy exegesis of the preamble phrase by phrase, see M. Adler & W. Gorman, The American Testament (New York: 1975), 63-118. ]

I have dealt with specific violations in previous articles. In summary, however, it cannot be repeated often enough: the Presidency of George W. Bush is illegitimate, outside the law, and, therefore, Bush's every decree, flouting as they do the rule of law, are illegal. The decrees of this administration should be ignored, flouted, subverted; they are illegal! Illegitimate as he is, none of Bush's 'signing statements' are valid. None of the decrees issuing from this 'unitary executive' are valid. No order issued by Bush is lawful.

Every person of conscience faces existential choices in dictatorial or illegitimate regimes. The question is: at what point does compliance with illegal, unjust or unlawful decrees become complicity. The origin of morality lies in the exercise of one's individual conscience. Dictatorial regimes that deny to the individual this choice are 'state absolutists' in the Hegelian tradition. The exercise of individual conscience is often denied. The pressing issue has to do with how one retains the sense of self amid official fraud, how one reconciles the requirements of state vs those of conscience.
The government's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was a fraud. It was the greatest fraud in the history of our country. It probably was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of humankind. That doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence of the kind of government which allows this to happen. We can do something about it. We're forced either to leave this country or to accept the authoritarianism that has developed--the authoritarianism which tells us that in the year 2029 we can see the evidence about what happened to John Kennedy.

--Jim Garrison, closing summation



Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Technorati Favorites

, , ,

Spread the word

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine