History, one thousand years hence, will see a shorthand record of the state-approved coup d’etat.
The future’s historians will see a group of World War II-era presidents, followed by the assassination of President Kennedy and right then, almost simultaneously, the rapid ratification of the twenty-fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. Then the futile Southeast Asian land war, the Civil Rights Acts and urban race riots.
Other details about the decades will recede, one thousand years from now, the Beatles, maybe, a walk on the Moon - just shorthand survives - in the future historians’ understanding of our United States history.
I won’t dig out my T.B. MacCaulay, my Thomas Carlyle, my Tott, Elton, or my dusty old Edward Gibbon for you, but suffice it to say, as one who has read political history, that kings and emperors wrote and re-wrote the record of their illegitimate ascensions, at will and after the fact, thoughout all of our recorded history, across the world.
To believe in them makes you a positivist, a sucker, a naïve believer in progress and the State’s eternal accuracy, honesty and diligence.
I will not footnote or add a bibliography to this piece. The information you all are aware of, it is public and the facts are well known. I believe the theme, the thesis, the theory I present here follows from the facts, both inductively and deductively. Inductively, it makes sense of all the specifics, all the questionable government acts - and deductively it follows from this general principle: People in power tend to cover their tracks when they arrive illegitimately.
Historically, however one got into office, if he was finally. Emperor or King or President, it was legal. It had to be “legal.”
Now in the civil republic that we call the United States, in fall of 1963, certain forms were followed and certain associations were formed.
Acts were committed that were apparently crimes, but they were actually quite “legal,” under the secret regulations and security clearances then in existence, inside the Pentagon and White House, and then made legal again -
The trace of the actions and the identities of the actors are found in a few paragraphs of Constitutional forgiveness, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, written in 1965 and ratified in 1967. A kind of ‘killing under color of law’ theory emerges from the study of the period, from the biographies and history of the U.S. leadership in the 1960s.
Much hinges on the Cabinet. The 25th amendment tells us that all or part of the Cabinet majority, with the Vice President also on board, shall have the power to decide on the incapacity of the sitting president. This means the role of Treasury Secretary C.D. Dillon becomes crucial in the deed and the aftermath. By deed and aftermath I mean principally, the Dealey Plaza ambush and the Warren Commission’s investigation. Read the twenty-fifth amendment, Vice President Lyndon Johnson is in there, and so is Treasury Secretary C. Douglass Dillon.
The Treasury Secretary is the top of the chain of command for the Secret Service. If Occam’s Razor points to too many suspects, then a unity forms from that, a super-ordinate explanation, an over-arching scheme, both simple and comprehensive. All is explained by the scenario described, in 1965, in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
The subsequent rationale, or ex post facto legislation - which ratifies a change in government after the fact, this technique is as old as the written language.
Lyndon Baines Johnson, Douglass Dillon, J. Edgar Hoover, the powerful Dulles brothers, these cabinet members and cabinet-level advisors to Kennedy and Johnson. I think they are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. They could decide upon the President’s incapacity to perform as commander.
The militant reactionary political enemies of John Kennedy formed powerful nodes of power in the web of secret defense interests. It is the unspeakable reality of American political violence which is at historical issue. In 1963 mercenaries and Mafiosos were engaged full-time in the Caribbean and along the Gulf Coast of the U.S., that traditionally unstable US tropical southern border (since Dutch, Spanish and French times, and the war of 1899). Cuba, a right wing mob casino paradise, was lost to the radical, Fidel Castro. John Kennedy failed to initiate the armed air invasion plans the CIA had hoped for and the Bay of Pigs failed miserably.
Now we all know that John Kennedy was a charismatic and intellectually bright man, but he had a strong egocentric aspect, and orgies of all kinds generally followed closely on his person and his staff. After spending a lifetime considering critically the scope and magnitude of what I know and what I know I know, through both cognition and metacognition, deductive and inductive reasoning, published and private sources:
I find it was an inside job, it was a government job, and it was put up to important people as a fait accompli, “a done deal.”
The assassination was presented to Lyndon Johnson, C.D. Dillon, J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as a done deal, a fait accompli, before and after the fact.
This was done by the spies, Kennedy’s enemies. The militant force used the security mechanisms in place to declare John Fitzgerald Kennedy unfit for security clearances and sensitive positions of authority.
Someone in defense intelligence or the CIA circa 1963 took this type of intercepted intelligence to a higher level, 'Well, Jack’s now takin’ the Sandoz doses with Cord Meyer’s wife, LSD thing they’re on now, he’s crazy now, totally mentally unfit do to anything as commander in chief, now he’s clinically, criminally, chronically insane, according to Caption b subsection A, paragraph E, and so on …'
I paraphrase, and form a theoretical scenario. My theory doesn’t hinge on Jack Kennedy using LSD, or having syphilis, or even suffering from Addison’s adrenal deficiency. My theory hinges on the willingness of the spies, his enemies, to declare him incompetent, and I think the theory is a reasonable conclusion.
And so that was that, from the Plans Directorate and 111th they scrambled to work, and the angry Cuban Alpha 66 group did the heavy lifting, with their partners, the mob. Douglass Dillon, Kennedy’s inexplicable choice for Treasury secretary, was the ultimate head of the Secret Service in 1963. The fix was in, and it was “legal,” due to incapacity.
Why Jack Kennedy made Clarence D. Dillon the head of the U.S. Treasury, no one will ever know. Robert Lovett had turned it down. Dillon, Reed & Co. was a Wall Street institution and C.D.Dillon was a sort of late model Andrew Mellon for President Kennedy. An attempt at bipartisan Cabinet leadership, and a sop to the right. Anyway, C.D. Dillon ran the 1963 Secret Service, a branch of Treasury then, and he and the intelligence paramilitary put the thing into place, and then they covered up the assassination with the Warren Commission and the Twenty Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Nothing else explains the route, the failure to prepare, the lack of running boards on Jack’s presidential limousine. Why no running boards, why drive at walking speed, why the slow detour? We can’t blame a building or a fence or a knoll, people did this. They think they committed no crime. But they implicated themselves in the apologia, which is the 25th Amendment.
Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was elevated to the now compromised (or politically constrained) Presidency, was sitting in the Oval Office while the 25th Amendment went through. After that Cabinet members and a V.P. had the power to incapacitate the President.
This organic legislation, a fundamental addendum to the republic’s Constitution, implicates Clarence Douglass Dillon (whose name was on the currency in the 1960’s), the amendment indicts Vice President Johnson and other cabinet level advisors in the defense and domestic security web, it explains the acts of Johnson’s friend and protector, J. Edgar Hoover, and possibly Sect. Robert MacNamara, and possibly Maxwell Taylor, the 1964 ambassador to Saigon.
This top-down scheme allows for the coordinated order of events seen in the event and its aftermath. The amount of troubling illogic in the murder and all the bizarre aftermath points to a Program, a Program approved by at least a few heads of Cabinet.
Jack was a playboy, a movie star, a total wild man. The people that lived up his rear-end, taping him, snapping pictures and listening in, they caught him being very naughty, and they took the case upstairs. Incapacity. Dulles got on board with all his baggage. The plan came off the books, the plane was off down the runway, and at Dealey Plaza the deal went down...
In the future, this will be the conventional wisdom, and all the rough consensus about a government conspiracy points toward this explanation, the “legal” model.
Sources? The Twenty-fifth amendment, that’s about as primary as you get, and the Warren Commission, and all it suggests, and neglects, that is primary, that is substantive, that is contemporary.
Affidavits of the assassins and the assassin’s helpers, and the investigative reporting of Seymour Hersh, and the late Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Dorothy Kilgallen, and the behavior of the 1963 Secret Service in the primary document, a color film by Abraham Zapruder, and the photos of the railroad overpass crowded with people over Kennedy’s bloody head…is that a primary source, a film of a walking speed open-car ambush?
The top guys did it. Those that control the FBI, the Naval Hospital, military intelligence, and secret service would never have co-operated without orders from higher-ups. I present a coherent, compelling, cohesive hypothesis, a theory to explain the facts.
In Dallas, Mr. Barnes was there, and Mr. McCord, Eugene Brading and Jimmy Files, Niccolletti the hit man, Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, and Dave Morales, Lansdale the ugly American, he was there, and all together, so it looks like a government job, with mob contractors participating, similar to what was planned for Castro.
I’m a patriotic American and I wish the current officeholders of the Secret Service, Pentagon and the Treasury well, I really do.
But in 1963 the Republican Treasury Secretary C.Douglass Dillon was a responsible party. Lyndon Johnson was a responsible party. John Edgar Hoover was in authority. Alan Dulles and the Cabell brothers were responsible. Ed Clark was implicated. Tracy Barnes was implicated. William Harvey was implicated. Dave Morales was implicated. Clint Murchison was implicated. H.L. Hunt was implicated. David Attlee Phillips and Desmond Fitzgerald were involved in the murder, and they were gung-ho patriotic Americans.
The team of mercenaries and hitmen that had worked under federal control in the late 50’s were also implicated; Sam Giancanna, Mr. Marcello, Mr. Trafficante, the infamous Johnny Rosselli, Mr. Niccoletti and his driver Jimmy Files, they were all implicated. And the medical crews, and the FBI, and the Dallas police, who failed to protect the suspect. Oswald, who was lost to history, made one substantive statement “I am a patsy.” His career in counter-intelligence is evidence for my theory.
A highly-classified document once existed, it was the authorization for the executive action. Incapacity (with the eye dotted and the tee crossed) of the Commander in Chief; JFK was stripped of his security clearances, and his removal was officially authorized.
But in the Constitution itself is another rapidly written, but after the fact, rationale. This is an ex-post facto, presidential ascension, legitimacy rationale, a document like the ones we have seen so many times in British and Roman history. It was a national security crisis…and John Kennedy was clinically insane, from drugs. Kennedy was declared clinically incapacitated and was stripped of his security clearance, because he had indulged in the psychedelic LSD-25, which the CIA had introduced for mind control and human experimentation in the Chemical Warfare Program MK/ULTRA. The same agencies had spied on Kennedy and discovered this mistake.
The Twenty-fifth amendment gives cover to the events of November, 1963; especially since the Vice President and some of his Cabinet level advisors were still in power in 1965 when it was composed, and even in 1967, when it became law, ratified in “the summer of love.”
Why this sudden rush to radically re-write the rules for a Presidential succession? Dallas and the unusual ascension of Lyndon Baines Johnson was the motivation.
What laws or rules drive good historical theory? Theories explaining evidence must be concise, compelling, coherent, cohesive. The simplest scheme possible to explain all the known facts and misunderstandings. Occam’s razor, or the law of parsimony should drive theory derived from evidence. Keep it simple stupid. No bells and whistles.
So with the Kennedy assassination, a simple answer, an explanation, at last. But damn it is hard to swallow, despicable murder…like Julius Ceasar, or Alexander II.
This was a story of top-down orders, from the VP and a Cabinet bloc. The Commander-in-chief had suffered “incapacity.” During the Cold War, involving the Cuban mercenaries, and secret nuclear operations…
Johnson, Hoover, C.D. Dillon, Alan Dulles, the Warren Commission and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, how does all this fit together? A top down, top level security crisis, an executive action, a non-crime, a “legal” event.
May God in Heaven bless our martyred leader, John F. Kennedy, and God protect us all.
Full Version: Was the Assassination of President Kennedy “Legal?
QUOTE (Shanet Clark @ Nov 25 2004, 10:42 PM)
History, one thousand years hence, will see a shorthand record of the state-approved coup d’etat. The future’s historians will see a group of World War II-era presidents, followed by the assassination of President Kennedy and right then, almost simultaneously, the rapid ratification of the twenty-fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. Then the futile Southeast Asian land war, the Civil Rights Acts and urban race riots.
Other details about the decades will recede, one thousand years from now, the Beatles, maybe, a walk on the Moon - just shorthand survives - in the future historians’ understanding of our United States history.
I won’t dig out my T.B. MacCaulay, my Thomas Carlyle, my Tott, Elton, or my dusty old Edward Gibbon for you, but suffice it to say, as one who has read political history, that kings and emperors wrote and re-wrote the record of their illegitimate ascensions, at will and after the fact, thoughout all of our recorded history, across the world.
To believe in them makes you a positivist, a sucker, a naïve believer in progress and the State’s eternal accuracy, honesty and diligence.
I will not footnote or add a bibliography to this piece. The information you all are aware of, it is public and the facts are well known. I believe the theme, the thesis, the theory I present here follows from the facts, both inductively and deductively. Inductively, it makes sense of all the specifics, all the questionable government acts - and deductively it follows from this general principle: People in power tend to cover their tracks when they arrive illegitimately.
Historically, however one got into office, if he was finally. Emperor or King or President, it was legal. It had to be “legal.”
Now in the civil republic that we call the United States, in fall of 1963, certain forms were followed and certain associations were formed.
Acts were committed that were apparently crimes, but they were actually quite “legal,” under the secret regulations and security clearances then in existence, inside the Pentagon and White House, and then made legal again -
The trace of the actions and the identities of the actors are found in a few paragraphs of Constitutional forgiveness, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, written in 1965 and ratified in 1967. A kind of ‘killing under color of law’ theory emerges from the study of the period, from the biographies and history of the U.S. leadership in the 1960s.
Much hinges on the Cabinet. The 25th amendment tells us that all or part of the Cabinet majority, with the Vice President also on board, shall have the power to decide on the incapacity of the sitting president. This means the role of Treasury Secretary C.D. Dillon becomes crucial in the deed and the aftermath. By deed and aftermath I mean principally, the Dealey Plaza ambush and the Warren Commission’s investigation. Read the twenty-fifth amendment, Vice President Lyndon Johnson is in there, and so is Treasury Secretary C. Douglass Dillon.
The Treasury Secretary is the top of the chain of command for the Secret Service. If Occam’s Razor points to too many suspects, then a unity forms from that, a super-ordinate explanation, an over-arching scheme, both simple and comprehensive. All is explained by the scenario described, in 1965, in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
The subsequent rationale, or ex post facto legislation - which ratifies a change in government after the fact, this technique is as old as the written language.
Lyndon Baines Johnson, Douglass Dillon, J. Edgar Hoover, the powerful Dulles brothers, these cabinet members and cabinet-level advisors to Kennedy and Johnson. They are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. They could decide upon the President’s incapacity to perform as commander.
The militant reactionary political enemies of John Kennedy formed powerful nodes of power in the web of secret defense interests. It is the unspeakable reality of American political violence which is at historical issue. In 1963 mercenaries and Mafiosos were engaged full-time in the Caribbean and along the Gulf Coast of the U.S., that traditionally unstable US tropical southern border (since Dutch, Spanish and French times, and the war of 1899). Cuba, a right wing mob casino paradise, was lost to the radical, Fidel Castro. John Kennedy failed to initiate the armed air invasion plans the CIA had hoped for and the Bay of Pigs failed miserably.
Now we all know that John Kennedy was a charismatic and intellectually bright man, but he had a strong egocentric aspect, and orgies of all kinds generally followed closely on his person and his staff. After spending a lifetime considering critically the scope and magnitude of what I know and what I know I know, through both cognition and metacognition, deductive and inductive reasoning, published and private sources:
I know it was an inside job, it was a government job, and it was put up to important people as a fait accompli, “a done deal.”
The assassination was presented to Lyndon Johnson, C.D. Dillon, J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as a done deal, a fait accompli. This was done by the spies, Kennedy’s enemies. The militant force used the security mechanisms in place to declare John Fitzgerald Kennedy unfit for security clearances and sensitive positions of authority.
Someone in defense intelligence or the CIA circa 1963 took this intelligence upstairs: “Well, Jack’s now takin’ the Sandoz doses with Cord Meyer’s wacky wife. We were pretty sure we had him on the syphilis charge but this LSD thing they’re on now, he’s crazy now, totally mentally unfit do to anything as commander in chief, He’s clinically, criminally, chronically insane, according to Caption b subsection A, paragraph E, and so on …”
My theory doesn’t hinge on Jack Kennedy using LSD, or having syphilis, or even suffering from Addison’s adrenal deficiency. My theory hinges on the willingness of the spies, his enemies, to declare him incompetent, and I think that is a reasonable conclusion.
And so that was that, from the Plans Directorate and 111th they scrambled to work, and the angry Cuban Alpha 66 group did the heavy lifting, with their partners, the mob. Douglass Dillon, Kennedy’s inexplicable choice for Treasury secretary, was the ultimate head of the Secret Service in 1963. The fix was in, and it was “legal,” due to incapacity.
Why Jack Kennedy made Clarence D. Dillon the head of the U.S. Treasury, no one will ever know. Dillon, Reed & Co. was a Wall Street institution, I guess, and C.D.Dillon was a sort of late model Andrew Mellon for President Kennedy. An attempt at bipartisan Cabinet leadership, a sop to the right. Anyway, C.D. Dillon ran the 1963 Secret Service, a branch of Treasury, (the Untouchables) and he and the CIA put the thing in place, and then they covered up the assassination with the Warren Commission and the Twenty Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Nothing else explains the route, the failure to prepare, the lack of running boards on Jack’s presidential limousine.
Why no running boards, why drive at walking speed, why the slow detour? We can’t blame a building or a fence or a knoll, people did this. They think they committed no crime. But they implicated themselves in the apologia, which is the 25th Amendment.
Lyndon, who was elevated to the now compromised (or politically constrained) Presidency, was sitting in the Oval Office while the 25th Amendment went through. After that Cabinet members and a V.P. had the power to incapacitate the President.
This organic legislation, a fundamental addendum to the republic’s Constitution, implicates Clarence Douglass Dillon (whose name was on the currency in the 1960’s), the amendment indicts Vice President Johnson and other cabinet level advisors in the defense and domestic security web, it explains the acts of Johnson’s friend and protector, J. Edgar Hoover, and possibly Sect. Robert MacNamara, and possibly Sect. Dean Rusk.
This top-down scheme allows for the coordinated order of events seen in the event and its aftermath. The amount of troubling illogic in the murder and all the bizarre aftermath points to a Program, a Program approved by at least a few heads of Cabinet.
Jack was a playboy, a movie star, a total wild man. The people that lived up his rear-end, taping him, snapping pictures and listening in, they caught him being very naughty, and they took the case upstairs. Incapacity.
Dulles got on board with all his baggage. The plan came off the books, the plane was off down the runway, and at Dealey Plaza the deal went down...
You may say where are your sources, Shanet Clark? Show me that the Vice President and the Cabinet Secretaries set up Jack Kennedy, show me where the listening posts caught him tripping out and going wild… and show me where he was declared incapacitated by security personnel.
Let’s just say I heard it from an usually reliable source. In the future, this will be the conventional wisdom, and all the rough consensus about a government conspiracy points toward this explanation, the “legal” model.
Sources? The Twenty-fifth amendment, that’s about as primary as you get, and the Warren Commission, and all it suggests, and neglects, that is primary, that is substantive, that is contemporary. Another source is confidential, but well placed to know.
Affidavits of the assassins and the assassin’s helpers, and the investigative reporting of Seymour Hersh, and the late Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Dorothy Kilgallen, and the behavior of the 1963 Secret Service in the primary document, a color film by Abraham Zapruder, and the photos of the railroad overpass crowded with people over Kennedy’s bloody head…is that a primary source, a film of a walking speed open-car ambush?
The top guys did it. Those that control the FBI, the Naval Hospital, military intelligence, and secret service would never have co-operated without orders from higher-ups. I present a coherent, compelling, cohesive hypothesis, a theory to explain the facts.
In Dallas, Mr. Barnes was there, and Mr. McCord, Eugene Brading and Jimmy Files, Niccolletti the hit man, Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, and Dave Morales, Lansdale the ugly American, he was there, and all together, so it looks like a government job, with mob contractors participating, similar to what was planned for Castro.
I’m a patriotic American and I wish the current officeholders of the Secret Service, Pentagon and the Treasury well, I really do.
But in 1963 the Republican Treasury Secretary C.Douglass Dillon was a responsible party. Lyndon Johnson was a responsible party. John Edgar Hoover was in authority. Alan Dulles and the Cabell brothers were responsible. Ed Clark was implicated. Tracy Barnes was implicated. William Harvey was implicated. Dave Morales was implicated. Clint Murchison was implicated. H.L. Hunt was implicated. David Attlee Phillips and Desmond Fitzgerald were involved in the murder, and they were gung-ho patriotic Americans.
The team of mercenaries and hitmen that had worked under federal control in the late 50’s were also implicated; Sam Giancanna, Mr. Marcello, Mr. Trafficante, the infamous Johnny Rosselli, Mr. Niccoletti and his driver Jimmy Files, they were all implicated. And the medical crews, and the FBI, and the Dallas police, who failed to protect the suspect. Oswald, who was lost to history, made one substantive statement “I am a patsy.” His career in counter-intelligence is evidence for my theory.
A highly-classified document once existed, it was the authorization for the executive action. Incapacity (with the eye dotted and the tee crossed) of the Commander in Chief; JFK was stripped of his security clearances, and his removal was officially authorized.
But in the Constitution itself is another rapidly written, but after the fact, rationale. This is an ex-post facto, presidential ascension, legitimacy rationale, a document like the ones we have seen so many times in British and Roman history. It was a national security crisis…and John Kennedy was clinically insane, from drugs. Kennedy was declared clinically incapacitated and was stripped of his security clearance, because he had indulged in the psychedelic LSD-25, which the CIA had introduced for mind control and human experimentation in the Chemical Warfare Program MK/ULTRA. The same agencies had spied on Kennedy and discovered this mistake.
The Twenty-fifth amendment gives cover to the events of November, 1963; especially since the Vice President and some of his Cabinet level advisors were still in power in 1965 when it was composed, and even in 1967, when it became law, ratified in “the summer of love.”
Why this sudden rush to radically re-write the rules for a Presidential succession? Dallas and the unusual ascension of Lyndon Baines Johnson was the motivation.
What laws or rules drive good historical theory? Theories explaining evidence must be concise, compelling, coherent, cohesive. The simplest scheme possible to explain all the known facts and misunderstandings. Occam’s razor, or the law of parsimony should drive theory derived from evidence. Keep it simple stupid. No bells and whistles.
So with the Kennedy assassination, a simple answer, an explanation, at last. But damn it is hard to swallow, despicable murder…like Julius Ceasar, or Alexander II.
This was a story of top-down orders, from the VP and a Cabinet bloc. The Commander-in-chief had suffered “incapacity.” During the Cold War, involving the Cuban mercenaries, and secret nuclear operations…
Johnson, Hoover, C.D. Dillon, Alan Dulles, the Warren Commission and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, how does all this fit together? A top down, top level security crisis, an executive action, a non-crime, a “legal” event.
May God in Heaven bless our martyred leader, John F. Kennedy, and God protect us all.
Other details about the decades will recede, one thousand years from now, the Beatles, maybe, a walk on the Moon - just shorthand survives - in the future historians’ understanding of our United States history.
I won’t dig out my T.B. MacCaulay, my Thomas Carlyle, my Tott, Elton, or my dusty old Edward Gibbon for you, but suffice it to say, as one who has read political history, that kings and emperors wrote and re-wrote the record of their illegitimate ascensions, at will and after the fact, thoughout all of our recorded history, across the world.
To believe in them makes you a positivist, a sucker, a naïve believer in progress and the State’s eternal accuracy, honesty and diligence.
I will not footnote or add a bibliography to this piece. The information you all are aware of, it is public and the facts are well known. I believe the theme, the thesis, the theory I present here follows from the facts, both inductively and deductively. Inductively, it makes sense of all the specifics, all the questionable government acts - and deductively it follows from this general principle: People in power tend to cover their tracks when they arrive illegitimately.
Historically, however one got into office, if he was finally. Emperor or King or President, it was legal. It had to be “legal.”
Now in the civil republic that we call the United States, in fall of 1963, certain forms were followed and certain associations were formed.
Acts were committed that were apparently crimes, but they were actually quite “legal,” under the secret regulations and security clearances then in existence, inside the Pentagon and White House, and then made legal again -
The trace of the actions and the identities of the actors are found in a few paragraphs of Constitutional forgiveness, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, written in 1965 and ratified in 1967. A kind of ‘killing under color of law’ theory emerges from the study of the period, from the biographies and history of the U.S. leadership in the 1960s.
Much hinges on the Cabinet. The 25th amendment tells us that all or part of the Cabinet majority, with the Vice President also on board, shall have the power to decide on the incapacity of the sitting president. This means the role of Treasury Secretary C.D. Dillon becomes crucial in the deed and the aftermath. By deed and aftermath I mean principally, the Dealey Plaza ambush and the Warren Commission’s investigation. Read the twenty-fifth amendment, Vice President Lyndon Johnson is in there, and so is Treasury Secretary C. Douglass Dillon.
The Treasury Secretary is the top of the chain of command for the Secret Service. If Occam’s Razor points to too many suspects, then a unity forms from that, a super-ordinate explanation, an over-arching scheme, both simple and comprehensive. All is explained by the scenario described, in 1965, in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
The subsequent rationale, or ex post facto legislation - which ratifies a change in government after the fact, this technique is as old as the written language.
Lyndon Baines Johnson, Douglass Dillon, J. Edgar Hoover, the powerful Dulles brothers, these cabinet members and cabinet-level advisors to Kennedy and Johnson. They are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. They could decide upon the President’s incapacity to perform as commander.
The militant reactionary political enemies of John Kennedy formed powerful nodes of power in the web of secret defense interests. It is the unspeakable reality of American political violence which is at historical issue. In 1963 mercenaries and Mafiosos were engaged full-time in the Caribbean and along the Gulf Coast of the U.S., that traditionally unstable US tropical southern border (since Dutch, Spanish and French times, and the war of 1899). Cuba, a right wing mob casino paradise, was lost to the radical, Fidel Castro. John Kennedy failed to initiate the armed air invasion plans the CIA had hoped for and the Bay of Pigs failed miserably.
Now we all know that John Kennedy was a charismatic and intellectually bright man, but he had a strong egocentric aspect, and orgies of all kinds generally followed closely on his person and his staff. After spending a lifetime considering critically the scope and magnitude of what I know and what I know I know, through both cognition and metacognition, deductive and inductive reasoning, published and private sources:
I know it was an inside job, it was a government job, and it was put up to important people as a fait accompli, “a done deal.”
The assassination was presented to Lyndon Johnson, C.D. Dillon, J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon, as a done deal, a fait accompli. This was done by the spies, Kennedy’s enemies. The militant force used the security mechanisms in place to declare John Fitzgerald Kennedy unfit for security clearances and sensitive positions of authority.
Someone in defense intelligence or the CIA circa 1963 took this intelligence upstairs: “Well, Jack’s now takin’ the Sandoz doses with Cord Meyer’s wacky wife. We were pretty sure we had him on the syphilis charge but this LSD thing they’re on now, he’s crazy now, totally mentally unfit do to anything as commander in chief, He’s clinically, criminally, chronically insane, according to Caption b subsection A, paragraph E, and so on …”
My theory doesn’t hinge on Jack Kennedy using LSD, or having syphilis, or even suffering from Addison’s adrenal deficiency. My theory hinges on the willingness of the spies, his enemies, to declare him incompetent, and I think that is a reasonable conclusion.
And so that was that, from the Plans Directorate and 111th they scrambled to work, and the angry Cuban Alpha 66 group did the heavy lifting, with their partners, the mob. Douglass Dillon, Kennedy’s inexplicable choice for Treasury secretary, was the ultimate head of the Secret Service in 1963. The fix was in, and it was “legal,” due to incapacity.
Why Jack Kennedy made Clarence D. Dillon the head of the U.S. Treasury, no one will ever know. Dillon, Reed & Co. was a Wall Street institution, I guess, and C.D.Dillon was a sort of late model Andrew Mellon for President Kennedy. An attempt at bipartisan Cabinet leadership, a sop to the right. Anyway, C.D. Dillon ran the 1963 Secret Service, a branch of Treasury, (the Untouchables) and he and the CIA put the thing in place, and then they covered up the assassination with the Warren Commission and the Twenty Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Nothing else explains the route, the failure to prepare, the lack of running boards on Jack’s presidential limousine.
Why no running boards, why drive at walking speed, why the slow detour? We can’t blame a building or a fence or a knoll, people did this. They think they committed no crime. But they implicated themselves in the apologia, which is the 25th Amendment.
Lyndon, who was elevated to the now compromised (or politically constrained) Presidency, was sitting in the Oval Office while the 25th Amendment went through. After that Cabinet members and a V.P. had the power to incapacitate the President.
This organic legislation, a fundamental addendum to the republic’s Constitution, implicates Clarence Douglass Dillon (whose name was on the currency in the 1960’s), the amendment indicts Vice President Johnson and other cabinet level advisors in the defense and domestic security web, it explains the acts of Johnson’s friend and protector, J. Edgar Hoover, and possibly Sect. Robert MacNamara, and possibly Sect. Dean Rusk.
This top-down scheme allows for the coordinated order of events seen in the event and its aftermath. The amount of troubling illogic in the murder and all the bizarre aftermath points to a Program, a Program approved by at least a few heads of Cabinet.
Jack was a playboy, a movie star, a total wild man. The people that lived up his rear-end, taping him, snapping pictures and listening in, they caught him being very naughty, and they took the case upstairs. Incapacity.
Dulles got on board with all his baggage. The plan came off the books, the plane was off down the runway, and at Dealey Plaza the deal went down...
You may say where are your sources, Shanet Clark? Show me that the Vice President and the Cabinet Secretaries set up Jack Kennedy, show me where the listening posts caught him tripping out and going wild… and show me where he was declared incapacitated by security personnel.
Let’s just say I heard it from an usually reliable source. In the future, this will be the conventional wisdom, and all the rough consensus about a government conspiracy points toward this explanation, the “legal” model.
Sources? The Twenty-fifth amendment, that’s about as primary as you get, and the Warren Commission, and all it suggests, and neglects, that is primary, that is substantive, that is contemporary. Another source is confidential, but well placed to know.
Affidavits of the assassins and the assassin’s helpers, and the investigative reporting of Seymour Hersh, and the late Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Dorothy Kilgallen, and the behavior of the 1963 Secret Service in the primary document, a color film by Abraham Zapruder, and the photos of the railroad overpass crowded with people over Kennedy’s bloody head…is that a primary source, a film of a walking speed open-car ambush?
The top guys did it. Those that control the FBI, the Naval Hospital, military intelligence, and secret service would never have co-operated without orders from higher-ups. I present a coherent, compelling, cohesive hypothesis, a theory to explain the facts.
In Dallas, Mr. Barnes was there, and Mr. McCord, Eugene Brading and Jimmy Files, Niccolletti the hit man, Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, and Dave Morales, Lansdale the ugly American, he was there, and all together, so it looks like a government job, with mob contractors participating, similar to what was planned for Castro.
I’m a patriotic American and I wish the current officeholders of the Secret Service, Pentagon and the Treasury well, I really do.
But in 1963 the Republican Treasury Secretary C.Douglass Dillon was a responsible party. Lyndon Johnson was a responsible party. John Edgar Hoover was in authority. Alan Dulles and the Cabell brothers were responsible. Ed Clark was implicated. Tracy Barnes was implicated. William Harvey was implicated. Dave Morales was implicated. Clint Murchison was implicated. H.L. Hunt was implicated. David Attlee Phillips and Desmond Fitzgerald were involved in the murder, and they were gung-ho patriotic Americans.
The team of mercenaries and hitmen that had worked under federal control in the late 50’s were also implicated; Sam Giancanna, Mr. Marcello, Mr. Trafficante, the infamous Johnny Rosselli, Mr. Niccoletti and his driver Jimmy Files, they were all implicated. And the medical crews, and the FBI, and the Dallas police, who failed to protect the suspect. Oswald, who was lost to history, made one substantive statement “I am a patsy.” His career in counter-intelligence is evidence for my theory.
A highly-classified document once existed, it was the authorization for the executive action. Incapacity (with the eye dotted and the tee crossed) of the Commander in Chief; JFK was stripped of his security clearances, and his removal was officially authorized.
But in the Constitution itself is another rapidly written, but after the fact, rationale. This is an ex-post facto, presidential ascension, legitimacy rationale, a document like the ones we have seen so many times in British and Roman history. It was a national security crisis…and John Kennedy was clinically insane, from drugs. Kennedy was declared clinically incapacitated and was stripped of his security clearance, because he had indulged in the psychedelic LSD-25, which the CIA had introduced for mind control and human experimentation in the Chemical Warfare Program MK/ULTRA. The same agencies had spied on Kennedy and discovered this mistake.
The Twenty-fifth amendment gives cover to the events of November, 1963; especially since the Vice President and some of his Cabinet level advisors were still in power in 1965 when it was composed, and even in 1967, when it became law, ratified in “the summer of love.”
Why this sudden rush to radically re-write the rules for a Presidential succession? Dallas and the unusual ascension of Lyndon Baines Johnson was the motivation.
What laws or rules drive good historical theory? Theories explaining evidence must be concise, compelling, coherent, cohesive. The simplest scheme possible to explain all the known facts and misunderstandings. Occam’s razor, or the law of parsimony should drive theory derived from evidence. Keep it simple stupid. No bells and whistles.
So with the Kennedy assassination, a simple answer, an explanation, at last. But damn it is hard to swallow, despicable murder…like Julius Ceasar, or Alexander II.
This was a story of top-down orders, from the VP and a Cabinet bloc. The Commander-in-chief had suffered “incapacity.” During the Cold War, involving the Cuban mercenaries, and secret nuclear operations…
Johnson, Hoover, C.D. Dillon, Alan Dulles, the Warren Commission and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, how does all this fit together? A top down, top level security crisis, an executive action, a non-crime, a “legal” event.
May God in Heaven bless our martyred leader, John F. Kennedy, and God protect us all.
Right on Shanet.
Don't forget to add Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford to the list of beneficiaries of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1967. Rockefeller didn't have a "legal" chance to get elected in 1964 so...
Pam
Shanet rightly rit:
But in 1963 the Republican Treasury Secretary C.Douglass Dillon was a responsible party. Lyndon Johnson was a responsible party. John Edgar Hoover was in authority. Alan Dulles and the Cabell brothers were responsible. Ed Clark was implicated. Tracy Barnes was implicated. William Harvey was implicated. Dave Morales was implicated. Clint Murchison was implicated. H.L. Hunt was implicated. David Attlee Phillips and Desmond Fitzgerald were involved in the murder, and they were gung-ho patriotic Americans.
Good going, Shanet...you are definitely on the right track. The above is not all inclusive or 100% accurate, but includes many of the major players.
Jack
But in 1963 the Republican Treasury Secretary C.Douglass Dillon was a responsible party. Lyndon Johnson was a responsible party. John Edgar Hoover was in authority. Alan Dulles and the Cabell brothers were responsible. Ed Clark was implicated. Tracy Barnes was implicated. William Harvey was implicated. Dave Morales was implicated. Clint Murchison was implicated. H.L. Hunt was implicated. David Attlee Phillips and Desmond Fitzgerald were involved in the murder, and they were gung-ho patriotic Americans.
Good going, Shanet...you are definitely on the right track. The above is not all inclusive or 100% accurate, but includes many of the major players.
Jack
Thanks Jack
Any line of research leading into John Kennedy's medical history, whether behavioural, psychological, psychosexual -- or strictly corporeal and pharmaceutical -- will lead to the Incapacity Pretext and Rationale. His adrenal condition was unknown and could have played a role in the 1964 election.
His reactions to cortiso-steroids of the period would have been idiosynchrous, but certainly the above cited scenario is reasonable, and leads to the Incapacity Pretext and rationale. Care must be used in demonstrating the contextual proof of the Incapacity Rationale and Pretext, as Mr. Kennedy's health and private personal issues, as addressed by the security clearance granting community and militant right wing political oppposition tend to tarnish JFK's earned elected and defended Legacy.
Your support appreciated, I am still learning from the massive amount of information available here and on the internet in general. That wasn't a comprehensive list, but I was trying to bring the Cabinet level and secret intelligence authorities into the light of day. Based on what has been posted recently, I would add Maxwell Taylor, William Bundy and McGeorge Bundy to the list of characters in a postion to strip JFK of his security clearances and push for his sanction on grounds of "incapacity." Jim Root and John Korienek have shown the power of Maxwell Taylor and Robert Lovett, and Lovett helps explain Clarence Douglass Dillon. The 1963 Secret Service is the key to the whole thing, along with the Naval and Armed Forces post mortems, this is what the 25th "exonerated" and where they left their guilty fingerprints, on the US Constitution... When you read the Twenty Fifth Amendment, notice a couple of things: the cold introduction "In the event the president is removed" sounds like a live report from Dallas, you could punctuate it "In the Event: The President IS removed" etc. By setting up the VP and Cabinet as arbiters of Presidential "Capacity," it strengthened the Executive Branch at the expense of the House and Senate, and is obviously an ex post facto rationalization for the events of 1963.
I believe this approach will be vindicated in 2039, and be common knowledge thereafter.
The assassination was "legal" for the militant reactionaries is power, those with a stranglehold on the Oval Office....hence the puzzlingly large and ambitious conspiracy we are confronted with in "faces in the crowd" the medical evidence, the FBI and Warren "investigations" etc.
Shanet
Any line of research leading into John Kennedy's medical history, whether behavioural, psychological, psychosexual -- or strictly corporeal and pharmaceutical -- will lead to the Incapacity Pretext and Rationale. His adrenal condition was unknown and could have played a role in the 1964 election.
His reactions to cortiso-steroids of the period would have been idiosynchrous, but certainly the above cited scenario is reasonable, and leads to the Incapacity Pretext and rationale. Care must be used in demonstrating the contextual proof of the Incapacity Rationale and Pretext, as Mr. Kennedy's health and private personal issues, as addressed by the security clearance granting community and militant right wing political oppposition tend to tarnish JFK's earned elected and defended Legacy.
Your support appreciated, I am still learning from the massive amount of information available here and on the internet in general. That wasn't a comprehensive list, but I was trying to bring the Cabinet level and secret intelligence authorities into the light of day. Based on what has been posted recently, I would add Maxwell Taylor, William Bundy and McGeorge Bundy to the list of characters in a postion to strip JFK of his security clearances and push for his sanction on grounds of "incapacity." Jim Root and John Korienek have shown the power of Maxwell Taylor and Robert Lovett, and Lovett helps explain Clarence Douglass Dillon. The 1963 Secret Service is the key to the whole thing, along with the Naval and Armed Forces post mortems, this is what the 25th "exonerated" and where they left their guilty fingerprints, on the US Constitution... When you read the Twenty Fifth Amendment, notice a couple of things: the cold introduction "In the event the president is removed" sounds like a live report from Dallas, you could punctuate it "In the Event: The President IS removed" etc. By setting up the VP and Cabinet as arbiters of Presidential "Capacity," it strengthened the Executive Branch at the expense of the House and Senate, and is obviously an ex post facto rationalization for the events of 1963.
I believe this approach will be vindicated in 2039, and be common knowledge thereafter.
The assassination was "legal" for the militant reactionaries is power, those with a stranglehold on the Oval Office....hence the puzzlingly large and ambitious conspiracy we are confronted with in "faces in the crowd" the medical evidence, the FBI and Warren "investigations" etc.
Shanet
QUOTE (Jack White @ Nov 26 2004, 06:07 AM)
Shanet rightly rit:
But in 1963 the Republican Treasury Secretary C.Douglass Dillon was a responsible party. Lyndon Johnson was a responsible party. John Edgar Hoover was in authority. Alan Dulles and the Cabell brothers were responsible. Ed Clark was implicated. Tracy Barnes was implicated. William Harvey was implicated. Dave Morales was implicated. Clint Murchison was implicated. H.L. Hunt was implicated. David Attlee Phillips and Desmond Fitzgerald were involved in the murder, and they were gung-ho patriotic Americans.
Good going, Shanet...you are definitely on the right track. The above is not all inclusive or 100% accurate, but includes many of the major players.
Jack
But in 1963 the Republican Treasury Secretary C.Douglass Dillon was a responsible party. Lyndon Johnson was a responsible party. John Edgar Hoover was in authority. Alan Dulles and the Cabell brothers were responsible. Ed Clark was implicated. Tracy Barnes was implicated. William Harvey was implicated. Dave Morales was implicated. Clint Murchison was implicated. H.L. Hunt was implicated. David Attlee Phillips and Desmond Fitzgerald were involved in the murder, and they were gung-ho patriotic Americans.
Good going, Shanet...you are definitely on the right track. The above is not all inclusive or 100% accurate, but includes many of the major players.
Jack
Shanet
The one name you seem to leave out.....William Draper.
Jim Root
The one name you seem to leave out.....William Draper.
Jim Root
QUOTE (Jim Root @ Nov 27 2004, 01:32 PM)
Shanet
The one name you seem to leave out.....William Draper.
Jim Root
The one name you seem to leave out.....William Draper.
Jim Root
Jim,
Now you've really nailed me with my ignorance. I can't recall ever even hearing of a William Draper. Please fill me in.
Tim
I know who he is talking about.
What's the angle?
Shanet
Jim,
Now you've really nailed me with my ignorance. I can't recall ever even hearing of a William Draper. Please fill me in.
Tim
What's the angle?
Shanet
QUOTE (Tim Carroll @ Nov 27 2004, 10:04 PM)
QUOTE (Jim Root @ Nov 27 2004, 01:32 PM)
Shanet
The one name you seem to leave out.....William Draper.
Jim Root
The one name you seem to leave out.....William Draper.
Jim Root
Jim,
Now you've really nailed me with my ignorance. I can't recall ever even hearing of a William Draper. Please fill me in.
Tim
Tim, Shanet
Perhaps this will help:
William H. Draper, Jr. had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he was
hired by Dillon Read & Co., New York investment bankers. Draper was
put into a new job slot at the firm: handling the Thyssen account.
We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking
Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan.
DILLON READ & CO.'s boss, Clarence Dillon, had begun working with
Fritz Thyssen some time after Averell Harriman first met with Thyssen
-- at about the time Thyssen began financing Adolf Hitler's political
career.
Jim Root
Perhaps this will help:
William H. Draper, Jr. had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he was
hired by Dillon Read & Co., New York investment bankers. Draper was
put into a new job slot at the firm: handling the Thyssen account.
We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking
Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan.
DILLON READ & CO.'s boss, Clarence Dillon, had begun working with
Fritz Thyssen some time after Averell Harriman first met with Thyssen
-- at about the time Thyssen began financing Adolf Hitler's political
career.
Jim Root
Thanks
Clarence Douglass Dillon, Wm. Draper, the Union Bank (Brown Bros. Harriman); Sullivan and Cromwell (the Dulles international law firm); Mr. Robert Lovett and Dillon-Read all coagulated into a giant octopus of internationalist (by that I mean their loyalties were not at all limited to the best interests of the USA) fascist shadow government in the US and abroad after 1945...
The interpenetration of these pro-fascist organizations help us to explain operation PAPERCLIP, the activities of Frank Wisner, Secretary Forrestal's madness and death, and other inexplicable and provocative events in 20th century US history. The US, because of the Cold War, never really de-mobilized or dropped its wartime censorship, or security clearances, etc., and in fact used these wartime cloaking devices to paper over US/Nazi relationships like the postwar Gehlen Org/Allen Dulles relationship, the postwar IG Farben/Dupont/Standard oil relationships and the postwar US rocketry boom (made possible by Nazi scientists on US agency and corporate payrolls). Of course assassinations and manchurian candidates (MK/ULTRA) followed on these "anti-communist" relationships being allowed to thrive, and these institutions claimed the 'MIC' and removed JFK.
This forms the background for JFK's loss of security clearance, executive sanction, the Warren Commission and the ex post facto legitimization attempt inherent in the 25th amendment...this is just a continuation of the research of Carl Oglesby and Fletcher Prouty, I add only the theoretical capstone, offering a new interpretation of the constitutional amendment circa 1965-1967........
Read it, Lyndon Johnson and C.D. Dillon are the main characters!
Shanet
Clarence Douglass Dillon, Wm. Draper, the Union Bank (Brown Bros. Harriman); Sullivan and Cromwell (the Dulles international law firm); Mr. Robert Lovett and Dillon-Read all coagulated into a giant octopus of internationalist (by that I mean their loyalties were not at all limited to the best interests of the USA) fascist shadow government in the US and abroad after 1945...
The interpenetration of these pro-fascist organizations help us to explain operation PAPERCLIP, the activities of Frank Wisner, Secretary Forrestal's madness and death, and other inexplicable and provocative events in 20th century US history. The US, because of the Cold War, never really de-mobilized or dropped its wartime censorship, or security clearances, etc., and in fact used these wartime cloaking devices to paper over US/Nazi relationships like the postwar Gehlen Org/Allen Dulles relationship, the postwar IG Farben/Dupont/Standard oil relationships and the postwar US rocketry boom (made possible by Nazi scientists on US agency and corporate payrolls). Of course assassinations and manchurian candidates (MK/ULTRA) followed on these "anti-communist" relationships being allowed to thrive, and these institutions claimed the 'MIC' and removed JFK.
This forms the background for JFK's loss of security clearance, executive sanction, the Warren Commission and the ex post facto legitimization attempt inherent in the 25th amendment...this is just a continuation of the research of Carl Oglesby and Fletcher Prouty, I add only the theoretical capstone, offering a new interpretation of the constitutional amendment circa 1965-1967........
Read it, Lyndon Johnson and C.D. Dillon are the main characters!
Shanet
Shanet:
A fellow Oglesbyan!
I still don't get Jim Roots' statement that:
"William H. Draper, Jr. had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he was
hired by Dillon Read & Co., New York investment bankers. Draper was
put into a new job slot at the firm: handling the Thyssen account.
We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking
Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan."
Is George Herbert Walker, Bush 41's maternal grandfather? What "Bush team" existed in 1927?
Shanet: I appreciate the framework of the 25th Amendment as part of a broader executive sanction provision, allowing more readily for the removal from office of presidents who become incapacitated or unfit (or unmanageable) without having to blow their brains out in public.
Tim
A fellow Oglesbyan!
I still don't get Jim Roots' statement that:
"William H. Draper, Jr. had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he was
hired by Dillon Read & Co., New York investment bankers. Draper was
put into a new job slot at the firm: handling the Thyssen account.
We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking
Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan."
Is George Herbert Walker, Bush 41's maternal grandfather? What "Bush team" existed in 1927?
Shanet: I appreciate the framework of the 25th Amendment as part of a broader executive sanction provision, allowing more readily for the removal from office of presidents who become incapacitated or unfit (or unmanageable) without having to blow their brains out in public.
Tim
Pamela
Thank you for helping out while I was traveling.
Jim Root
Thank you for helping out while I was traveling.
Jim Root
QUOTE (Shanet Clark @ Nov 25 2004, 09:42 PM)
I’m a patriotic American and I wish the current officeholders of the Secret Service, Pentagon and the Treasury well, I really do.
But in 1963 the Republican Treasury Secretary C.Douglass Dillon was a responsible party. Lyndon Johnson was a responsible party. John Edgar Hoover was in authority. Alan Dulles and the Cabell brothers were responsible. Ed Clark was implicated. Tracy Barnes was implicated. William Harvey was implicated. Dave Morales was implicated. Clint Murchison was implicated. H.L. Hunt was implicated. David Attlee Phillips and Desmond Fitzgerald were involved in the murder, and they were gung-ho patriotic Americans.
The team of mercenaries and hitmen that had worked under federal control in the late 50’s were also implicated; Sam Giancanna, Mr. Marcello, Mr. Trafficante, the infamous Johnny Rosselli, Mr. Niccoletti and his driver Jimmy Files, they were all implicated. And the medical crews, and the FBI, and the Dallas police, who failed to protect the suspect. Oswald, who was lost to history, made one substantive statement “I am a patsy.” His career in counter-intelligence is evidence for my theory.
But in 1963 the Republican Treasury Secretary C.Douglass Dillon was a responsible party. Lyndon Johnson was a responsible party. John Edgar Hoover was in authority. Alan Dulles and the Cabell brothers were responsible. Ed Clark was implicated. Tracy Barnes was implicated. William Harvey was implicated. Dave Morales was implicated. Clint Murchison was implicated. H.L. Hunt was implicated. David Attlee Phillips and Desmond Fitzgerald were involved in the murder, and they were gung-ho patriotic Americans.
The team of mercenaries and hitmen that had worked under federal control in the late 50’s were also implicated; Sam Giancanna, Mr. Marcello, Mr. Trafficante, the infamous Johnny Rosselli, Mr. Niccoletti and his driver Jimmy Files, they were all implicated. And the medical crews, and the FBI, and the Dallas police, who failed to protect the suspect. Oswald, who was lost to history, made one substantive statement “I am a patsy.” His career in counter-intelligence is evidence for my theory.
You have mentioned a lot of names here. Some are more likely than others to have been involved in the assassination. However, is it possible for all of them to have worked together on this? What is the motivation? Kennedy’s record did not pose a tremendous problem for most of those listed. Only Johnson had a strong motivate for wanting Kennedy dead and he would have made the necessary arrangements to be kept about from any evidence that linked him to crime. No do I think any of these leaders would have got involved with the Mafia. Far better to have used a far smaller and weaker organizations such as Interpen or Alpha 66.
Good point, the number of implicated individuals is one of the big problems.
My point is that a top down effort, approved by people very high up (as per the 25th Amendment) is the only scenario where all these people would have been able to co-operate and feel protected.
My point is that a top down effort, approved by people very high up (as per the 25th Amendment) is the only scenario where all these people would have been able to co-operate and feel protected.
QUOTE (Tim Carroll @ Nov 27 2004, 04:20 PM)
Shanet:
I still don't get Jim Roots' statement that:
"William H. Draper, Jr. had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he was
hired by Dillon Read & Co., New York investment bankers. Draper was
put into a new job slot at the firm: handling the Thyssen account.
We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking
Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan."
Is George Herbert Walker, Bush 41's maternal grandfather? What "Bush team" existed in 1927?
I still don't get Jim Roots' statement that:
"William H. Draper, Jr. had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he was
hired by Dillon Read & Co., New York investment bankers. Draper was
put into a new job slot at the firm: handling the Thyssen account.
We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking
Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan."
Is George Herbert Walker, Bush 41's maternal grandfather? What "Bush team" existed in 1927?
Shanet:
Can you help out with the above question.
Tim
Yes, I believe George Herbert Walker was Bush I's maternal grandfather. Jim's statement probably would make more sense if it read "Draper joined what would become the Bush team" although the Bushes from Ohio had built up their industrial interests and links to Harriman/Union Pacific by this time. I am not too familiar with the generations previous to Senator Prescott Bush, but they were wealthy industrialists back to the 1880s, I believe. By 1900 there was a Harriman/Bush link. ((not much help, we'll have to look it up))
John, further comment on the above:
Individuals with no personal motives? They may have just been following orders.
You apparently are growing more convinced with the Haley/Barr McClellan thesis, where #2 eliminates #1 to become #1.
I don't think that happened, because #3, #4, #5 and #6 wouldn't go along with such a personal and naked power grab.
My thesis is that MI/CIA ranking officials (Maxwell Taylor, McCone, McCloy, Dulles) went to #3 (treasury secretary Dillon) and described Kennedy's "incapacity, " and demanded a loss of security clearance eligibility, and this logically became the rationale for removal. It was based on intelligence on JFK's personal behavior. Marshall Carter, head of NSA, may have gone along.
In this way, #2 (Johnson) benefitted but did not initiate, he was handed the sanction as a 'fait accompli' by his Joint Chief and Cabinet leader. (taylor and c.d.dillon) A large and reciprocally compromising effort stemmed from this, where many different elements were employed with the knowledge that the FBI and other authorities would not prosecute them. In other words #3 (dillon) #4 (taylor) #5 (McCone) #6 (lovett) #7 (anderson) #8 (hoover) protected #2 (johnson)
when #1 was stripped of his clearances and suffered executive sanction.
I never would have come to this conclusion without reading the 25th amendment, which seems to authorize just such an effort and say
"its okay, but next time we'll do it this way, ie, no blood"
Shanet:
Can you help out with the above question.
Tim
John, further comment on the above:
Individuals with no personal motives? They may have just been following orders.
You apparently are growing more convinced with the Haley/Barr McClellan thesis, where #2 eliminates #1 to become #1.
I don't think that happened, because #3, #4, #5 and #6 wouldn't go along with such a personal and naked power grab.
My thesis is that MI/CIA ranking officials (Maxwell Taylor, McCone, McCloy, Dulles) went to #3 (treasury secretary Dillon) and described Kennedy's "incapacity, " and demanded a loss of security clearance eligibility, and this logically became the rationale for removal. It was based on intelligence on JFK's personal behavior. Marshall Carter, head of NSA, may have gone along.
In this way, #2 (Johnson) benefitted but did not initiate, he was handed the sanction as a 'fait accompli' by his Joint Chief and Cabinet leader. (taylor and c.d.dillon) A large and reciprocally compromising effort stemmed from this, where many different elements were employed with the knowledge that the FBI and other authorities would not prosecute them. In other words #3 (dillon) #4 (taylor) #5 (McCone) #6 (lovett) #7 (anderson) #8 (hoover) protected #2 (johnson)
when #1 was stripped of his clearances and suffered executive sanction.
I never would have come to this conclusion without reading the 25th amendment, which seems to authorize just such an effort and say
"its okay, but next time we'll do it this way, ie, no blood"
QUOTE (Tim Carroll @ Dec 3 2004, 10:59 PM)
QUOTE (Tim Carroll @ Nov 27 2004, 04:20 PM)
Shanet:
I still don't get Jim Roots' statement that:
"William H. Draper, Jr. had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he was
hired by Dillon Read & Co., New York investment bankers. Draper was
put into a new job slot at the firm: handling the Thyssen account.
We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking
Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan."
Is George Herbert Walker, Bush 41's maternal grandfather? What "Bush team" existed in 1927?
I still don't get Jim Roots' statement that:
"William H. Draper, Jr. had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he was
hired by Dillon Read & Co., New York investment bankers. Draper was
put into a new job slot at the firm: handling the Thyssen account.
We recall that in 1924, Fritz Thyssen set up his Union Banking
Corporation in George Herbert Walker's bank at 39 Broadway, Manhattan."
Is George Herbert Walker, Bush 41's maternal grandfather? What "Bush team" existed in 1927?
Shanet:
Can you help out with the above question.
Tim
QUOTE (Shanet Clark @ Dec 3 2004, 03:32 PM)
My thesis is that MI/CIA ranking officials (Maxwell Taylor, McCone, McCloy, Dulles) went to #3 (treasury secretary Dillon) and described Kennedy's "incapacity, " and demanded a loss of security clearance eligibility, and this logically became the rationale for removal. It was based on intelligence on JFK's personal behavior. Marshall Carter, head of NSA, may have gone along.
In this way, #2 (Johnson) benefitted but did not initiate, he was handed the sanction as a 'fait accompli' by his Joint Chief and Cabinet leader....
I never would have come to this conclusion without reading the 25th amendment, which seems to authorize just such an effort and say
"its okay, but next time we'll do it this way, ie, no blood"
In this way, #2 (Johnson) benefitted but did not initiate, he was handed the sanction as a 'fait accompli' by his Joint Chief and Cabinet leader....
I never would have come to this conclusion without reading the 25th amendment, which seems to authorize just such an effort and say
"its okay, but next time we'll do it this way, ie, no blood"
I believe that this "incapacity" framework goes a long way to explain how very high level men who, I'm sure, considered themselves honorable and patriotic, might have rationalized such a sanction to themselves.
Tim
I believe that this "incapacity" framework goes a long way to explain how very high level men who, I'm sure, considered themselves honorable and patriotic, might have rationalized such a sanction to themselves. RE tim carroll/
Thanks for the supporting angle. This rationalization wasn't enough exculpation for the principals (as long as it was classified, top secret indictment and only another deniable motivation).
The 25th amendment, due to its text and timing, explains, sheds light, exonerates and implicates these otherwise honorable and patriotic men mentioned in the Warren Commission and subsequent House investigations.
It is no light thing to charge the head of the Joint Chiefs or the Deputy Director of the CIA, or the Vice-Presidents and Treasury Secretaries of 1959-1969 with nefarious malfeasance and criminal conspiracy.
Unfitness, chronic incapacity for office, these are the quiet charges used to undermine an administration and rationalize a change in the 1963 commander in chief. The frenzy for taping, and extortion, and damaging compromising information (In God's Name 1979) defined the period from 1954 to 1974. The aspects of military coup surrounding Edwin Walker, the 1963 Secret Service and Maxwell Taylor tend to offer a super-ordinate cause, above the CIA activities in Cuba and the South.
The act of sending a nominal ABORT TEAM to observe and show some self- protecting foreknowledge, and non-cooperation, on the part of the CIA
--This may be the best way of understanding Tosh's evidence concerning
WM HARVEY and TRACY BARNES in the November 1963 JM/WAVE observation team out of the CIA. Gerald Ford's "slip" strongly supports this view.
And you can bet an arlington coup could cover up its autopsy at Bethesda.
Was Lyndon Johnson, Justice Warren and the authors of the 25th amendment covering up a military coup d'etat ?
Thanks for the supporting angle. This rationalization wasn't enough exculpation for the principals (as long as it was classified, top secret indictment and only another deniable motivation).
The 25th amendment, due to its text and timing, explains, sheds light, exonerates and implicates these otherwise honorable and patriotic men mentioned in the Warren Commission and subsequent House investigations.
It is no light thing to charge the head of the Joint Chiefs or the Deputy Director of the CIA, or the Vice-Presidents and Treasury Secretaries of 1959-1969 with nefarious malfeasance and criminal conspiracy.
Unfitness, chronic incapacity for office, these are the quiet charges used to undermine an administration and rationalize a change in the 1963 commander in chief. The frenzy for taping, and extortion, and damaging compromising information (In God's Name 1979) defined the period from 1954 to 1974. The aspects of military coup surrounding Edwin Walker, the 1963 Secret Service and Maxwell Taylor tend to offer a super-ordinate cause, above the CIA activities in Cuba and the South.
The act of sending a nominal ABORT TEAM to observe and show some self- protecting foreknowledge, and non-cooperation, on the part of the CIA
--This may be the best way of understanding Tosh's evidence concerning
WM HARVEY and TRACY BARNES in the November 1963 JM/WAVE observation team out of the CIA. Gerald Ford's "slip" strongly supports this view.
And you can bet an arlington coup could cover up its autopsy at Bethesda.
Was Lyndon Johnson, Justice Warren and the authors of the 25th amendment covering up a military coup d'etat ?
The full text of the twenty fifth amandment is now posted
on the regular forum threads.
While I believe John Simkins and James Richards have isolated
the basic structure of the "Tactical" aspects of 11/22/63;
I believe this theory, broad in scope, explains the larger "STRATEGIC" aspects.
The incapacity pretext may have been based on any number of things,
but please think to yourself what individuals like Maxwell Taylor, Edwin Walker and
James jesus Angleton would have thought of the tapes and photos of JFK,
his escapapdes and exploits....in the language of the day, executive action,
executive sanction, clearance violation, incapacity, unfit for duty....
were these the pretexts for the joint agency effort and cover-up?????
on the regular forum threads.
While I believe John Simkins and James Richards have isolated
the basic structure of the "Tactical" aspects of 11/22/63;
I believe this theory, broad in scope, explains the larger "STRATEGIC" aspects.
The incapacity pretext may have been based on any number of things,
but please think to yourself what individuals like Maxwell Taylor, Edwin Walker and
James jesus Angleton would have thought of the tapes and photos of JFK,
his escapapdes and exploits....in the language of the day, executive action,
executive sanction, clearance violation, incapacity, unfit for duty....
were these the pretexts for the joint agency effort and cover-up?????
Hi Shanet –
I’m pretty new to this group, and I’ve been doing a lot of catch up on various threads.
First of all, let me compliment you on a very well written piece that you started off this topic with. It was chilling to read and brought up things I had not considered with respect to the assassination. If you do not write in other venues I would urge you to do so; you have a natural talent for clear exposition.
I had never thought of the 25th Amendment in connection with the assassination, except that the JFK assassination obviously highlighted a need for making sure the Constitution took into account the human frailties of the Presidency.
The position you take revolves around how we all think about ex post facto.
I believe I am correct in saying that, in general, legal rulings in regard to ex post facto go in favor of the individual rather than to the state.
So, when the 25th Amendment talks about removal of the President for cause, by those authorized by it to do so, I assume that the individuals involved on an ex post facto basis would be protected by the positive aspects of ex post facto.
However, the 25th does not mention execution (state murder) as a means of removal, but I suppose it could indeed be construed to imply “by ANY means necessary.” And since there was no Federal Statute at the time about assassinating Presidents that would be in their favor also.
Federal Statute on murder? But Texas surely would have had laws proscribing murder in 1963. How would a general Federal Law, especially (even Positive) ex post facto protect the “guilty” from Texas law? That’s really stretching the positive side of ex post facto.
To sum up, I think more discussion on ex post facto would be informative. I think your position and theory is fascinating but I need more reason to swallow it.
Somewhere here I think 2039 came up as a revelation date? And I think I do understand that, in as much as Oswald and I share a birth year: 1939.
Regards,
Dave Bodner
I’m pretty new to this group, and I’ve been doing a lot of catch up on various threads.
First of all, let me compliment you on a very well written piece that you started off this topic with. It was chilling to read and brought up things I had not considered with respect to the assassination. If you do not write in other venues I would urge you to do so; you have a natural talent for clear exposition.
I had never thought of the 25th Amendment in connection with the assassination, except that the JFK assassination obviously highlighted a need for making sure the Constitution took into account the human frailties of the Presidency.
The position you take revolves around how we all think about ex post facto.
I believe I am correct in saying that, in general, legal rulings in regard to ex post facto go in favor of the individual rather than to the state.
So, when the 25th Amendment talks about removal of the President for cause, by those authorized by it to do so, I assume that the individuals involved on an ex post facto basis would be protected by the positive aspects of ex post facto.
However, the 25th does not mention execution (state murder) as a means of removal, but I suppose it could indeed be construed to imply “by ANY means necessary.” And since there was no Federal Statute at the time about assassinating Presidents that would be in their favor also.
Federal Statute on murder? But Texas surely would have had laws proscribing murder in 1963. How would a general Federal Law, especially (even Positive) ex post facto protect the “guilty” from Texas law? That’s really stretching the positive side of ex post facto.
To sum up, I think more discussion on ex post facto would be informative. I think your position and theory is fascinating but I need more reason to swallow it.
Somewhere here I think 2039 came up as a revelation date? And I think I do understand that, in as much as Oswald and I share a birth year: 1939.
Regards,
Dave Bodner
Thank you to Dave Bodner for the feedback.
Ex Poste Facto is often invoked, especially in issues of legitimacy, transition and sovereignty. In this case the 25th came in while Johnson was still in power, although he had been elected in his own right in 1964. The executives who made up the Cabinet and Joint Chiefs, the executives in the agencies gained ascendance somewhere along the line. Secretaries of the Navy, as John Simkin shows, had powerful ambitions and ruthless methods. Executive chiefs of the NSA 68 agencies had virtually limitless prerogatives. Culturally the concept of "EXECUTIVE ACTION or EXECUTIVE SANCTION were very much in the Air, as it were: OO7 James Bond was licensed to kill, the spy who came in from the cold was murdered, a few heads of state were murdered in the 1950's and 1960's, and a certain propaganda effort culminating in THE DAY OF THE JACKAL and EXECUTIVE ACTION really brought the issue to consciousness.
Recent LANCER postings point to a continued effort to brand John F. Kennedy a traitor, and guilty of treason. It is seriously put forth by some that JFK was a communist agent, and the recent postings on these forums show an intense interest on the NAVY and SEALS to impugn John Kennedy's medical record. The Point of view of these postings is that of the conspirators, the rage and hatred of those who would have stripped a sitting president of his security clearances and taken his life. While I have outlined medical and pharmacological pretexts for EXECUTIVE ACTION under the joint agencies, I now see that the TREASON charge, synonymous with the outrageous COMMUNIST charge, will be and has been the principle declarative position of the "MICC"
The militant reactionaries in positions of power who assented to his assassination by a joint agency effort saw JFK as a Soviet Spy, and immorally lax security risk who had sex with Iron Curtain spies, a man given to injections of amphetamines and weekends with mistresses and psychedelics. Just imagine what NSA chief MARSHALL CARTER, NAVY CHIEF OF STAFF ADMIRAL LEMNITZER, ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF JOINT CHIEF MAXWELL TAYLOR, TREASURY SECRETARY C.D. DILLON and the executives MCCONE HELMS and KARAMESSINES had in their files about John Kennedy.....how can anyone doubt that forces within the government used pretexts and rationalizations to remove him?
Ex Poste Facto is often invoked, especially in issues of legitimacy, transition and sovereignty. In this case the 25th came in while Johnson was still in power, although he had been elected in his own right in 1964. The executives who made up the Cabinet and Joint Chiefs, the executives in the agencies gained ascendance somewhere along the line. Secretaries of the Navy, as John Simkin shows, had powerful ambitions and ruthless methods. Executive chiefs of the NSA 68 agencies had virtually limitless prerogatives. Culturally the concept of "EXECUTIVE ACTION or EXECUTIVE SANCTION were very much in the Air, as it were: OO7 James Bond was licensed to kill, the spy who came in from the cold was murdered, a few heads of state were murdered in the 1950's and 1960's, and a certain propaganda effort culminating in THE DAY OF THE JACKAL and EXECUTIVE ACTION really brought the issue to consciousness.
Recent LANCER postings point to a continued effort to brand John F. Kennedy a traitor, and guilty of treason. It is seriously put forth by some that JFK was a communist agent, and the recent postings on these forums show an intense interest on the NAVY and SEALS to impugn John Kennedy's medical record. The Point of view of these postings is that of the conspirators, the rage and hatred of those who would have stripped a sitting president of his security clearances and taken his life. While I have outlined medical and pharmacological pretexts for EXECUTIVE ACTION under the joint agencies, I now see that the TREASON charge, synonymous with the outrageous COMMUNIST charge, will be and has been the principle declarative position of the "MICC"
The militant reactionaries in positions of power who assented to his assassination by a joint agency effort saw JFK as a Soviet Spy, and immorally lax security risk who had sex with Iron Curtain spies, a man given to injections of amphetamines and weekends with mistresses and psychedelics. Just imagine what NSA chief MARSHALL CARTER, NAVY CHIEF OF STAFF ADMIRAL LEMNITZER, ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF JOINT CHIEF MAXWELL TAYLOR, TREASURY SECRETARY C.D. DILLON and the executives MCCONE HELMS and KARAMESSINES had in their files about John Kennedy.....how can anyone doubt that forces within the government used pretexts and rationalizations to remove him?
QUOTE (Shanet Clark @ Dec 10 2004, 11:32 PM)
[qoute]I believe that this "incapacity" framework goes a long way to explain how very high level men who, I'm sure, considered themselves honorable and patriotic, might have rationalized such a sanction to themselves. RE tim carroll/ [/qoute]
Thanks for the supporting angle. This rationalization wasn't enough exculpation for the principals (as long as it was classified, top secret indictment and only another deniable motivation).
The 25th amendment, due to its text and timing, explains, sheds light, exonerates and implicates these otherwise honorable and patriotic men mentioned in the Warren Commission and subsequent House investigations.
It is no light thing to charge the head of the Joint Chiefs or the Deputy Director of the CIA, or the Vice-Presidents and Treasury Secretaries of 1959-1969 with nefarious malfeasance and criminal conspiracy.
Unfitness, chronic incapacity for office, these are the quiet charges used to undermine an administration and rationalize a change in the 1963 commander in chief. The frenzy for taping, and extortion, and damaging compromising information (In God's Name 1979) defined the period from 1954 to 1974. The aspects of military coup surrounding Edwin Walker, the 1963 Secret Service and Maxwell Taylor tend to offer a super-ordinate cause, above the CIA activities in Cuba and the South.
The act of sending a nominal ABORT TEAM to observe and show some self- protecting foreknowledge, and non-cooperation, on the part of the CIA
--This may be the best way of understanding Tosh's evidence concerning
WM HARVEY and TRACY BARNES in the November 1963 JM/WAVE observation team out of the CIA. Gerald Ford's "slip" strongly supports this view.
And you can bet an arlington coup could cover up its autopsy at Bethesda.
Was Lyndon Johnson, Justice Warren and the authors of the 25th amendment covering up a military coup d'etat ?
Thanks for the supporting angle. This rationalization wasn't enough exculpation for the principals (as long as it was classified, top secret indictment and only another deniable motivation).
The 25th amendment, due to its text and timing, explains, sheds light, exonerates and implicates these otherwise honorable and patriotic men mentioned in the Warren Commission and subsequent House investigations.
It is no light thing to charge the head of the Joint Chiefs or the Deputy Director of the CIA, or the Vice-Presidents and Treasury Secretaries of 1959-1969 with nefarious malfeasance and criminal conspiracy.
Unfitness, chronic incapacity for office, these are the quiet charges used to undermine an administration and rationalize a change in the 1963 commander in chief. The frenzy for taping, and extortion, and damaging compromising information (In God's Name 1979) defined the period from 1954 to 1974. The aspects of military coup surrounding Edwin Walker, the 1963 Secret Service and Maxwell Taylor tend to offer a super-ordinate cause, above the CIA activities in Cuba and the South.
The act of sending a nominal ABORT TEAM to observe and show some self- protecting foreknowledge, and non-cooperation, on the part of the CIA
--This may be the best way of understanding Tosh's evidence concerning
WM HARVEY and TRACY BARNES in the November 1963 JM/WAVE observation team out of the CIA. Gerald Ford's "slip" strongly supports this view.
And you can bet an arlington coup could cover up its autopsy at Bethesda.
Was Lyndon Johnson, Justice Warren and the authors of the 25th amendment covering up a military coup d'etat ?
Shanet:
Just read through this thread and as we approach the 22nd of November this year, I think it is time to look at the big picture in the way you have. As quoted in this post, honorable and patriotic men and women are probably thinking the same thing now, as they did in 1963 , that they are "doing the right thing" by continuing the cover up. Clearly, the Secret Service team protecting Kennedy that day were just following orders and did not see themselves as traitors. In fact, I have never seen men with lack of expressions on their face and the ability just to sit or stand there through all the shots, like these men. Finally, by a State sponsored Coup D Etat, don't you mean they will be calling it Regicide a thousand years from now, like I am calling it in 2006.
I thought the painting of the Generals in the autopsy room playing cards was a little too graphic.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.