Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Jason Ward]

14 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Or John birch society. Also, mb could be embassy.

jason - why do you keep referring to the CIA -did it conspiracy theory? You see any posts here with that title? 

Hi Paul,

I strongly feel too many good minds and resources are operating with a pre-conceived conclusion that the CIA (or some other murky government force) masterminded the assassination.  This may have disastrously kept the truth or some part of the truth from us for 50+ years.

In practical terms, the problem I'm discovering is that large quantities of data remain unearthed because the dominant focus was and largely still is on the CIA.  There are many many 1000s of pages relevant to the assassination that were never requested and were never released because everyone is chasing the CIA.   I hope to help change that with a FOIA request from the Mary Ferrell Foundation and by working with Rex Bradford and Bill Simpich.  There's plenty more out there we won't see in 2017.

I therefore feel it's relevant to point out the worst implausibilities of the CIA-did-it theory in order to gain interest from worthy and serious researchers both professional and amateur.   Most of us have a full time job so uncovering the truth is not something easily done alone.   In my opinion we can keep the possibility of some CIA resources involved in the assassination - but we also need to feel the imperative of demanding more information that our long term focus on the CIA has hindered us from doing.

 

regards

 

Jason

 

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

Jason - does a close examination of all that CIA agents were up to constitute a theory that they did it? There has been no shortage of requests for files from other intelligence agencies over the decades, and I - I'm sure we - fully support efforts to uncover forgotten and pertinent files wherever they originate from. To suspect and look carefully at one CIA agent or another, at their words and actions, their intersections with Oswald, etc. does not constitute a theory that 'they' did it. To suspect Dulles, or Phillips, or Harvey, or Angleton, or anyone else does not preclude a different conspiracy. I think it's nonsense to draw hard and fast lines between Military and reserve military units and individuals therein, and CIA units and individuals, between radical rightists in or out of government, or between active personnel and retired, whether CIA, FBI, US Army, Navy, whatever. You know how many were both CIA and military for instance. And if you are interested in files we don't have, look no further than our military branches.

Put simply, the conspiracy was of individuals, not organizations, joined together in common purpose. Why I reject your term 'CIA did it theory' is that it is misleading and seems to me to be echoing Paul Trejo, the only poster here who keeps repeating this mantra. It does no good to this research community to mischaracterize theories like Paul, and now you, are doing. I've said this in many ways on many posts over many months. I don't know anyone here who believes in a unified CIA did it conspiracy. 

I reject your premise on its face.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 5:51 PM, Paul Brancato said:

 ...Also, mb could be embassy...

Paul B.,

If MB meant 'Embassy' then 'MB SESIDE'  would have been 'Embassy Society.'

That doesn't sound like the name of any organization that would admit the biggest pimp in Dallas to be a member; so Jack Ruby can be ruled out.

The Polish Ambassador was recorded as saying that both Jesse Curry and Jack Ruby were members.

In my reading, the John Birch Society is the rational explanation.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited September 29, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ron Bulman]

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

TPaul B.,

If MB meant 'Embassy' then 'MB SESIDE'  would have been 'Embassy Society.'

That doesn't sound like the name of any organization that would admit the biggest pimp in Dallas to be a member; so Jack Ruby can be ruled out.

The Polish Ambassador was recorded as saying that both Jesse Curry and Jack Ruby were members.

In my reading, the John Birch Society is the rational explanation.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

MBsee could be a sub plot of MBC on behalf of (Shhh) Mockingbird.  JR wasn't the biggest pimp in town but he knew how to get ahold of That person when LBJ came to town.  Not to muddy the waters or anything.  JMho.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Ron Bulman]

16 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Hi Paul,

I strongly feel too many good minds and resources are operating with a pre-conceived conclusion that the CIA (or some other murky government force) masterminded the assassination.  This may have disastrously kept the truth or some part of the truth from us for 50+ years.

In practical terms, the problem I'm discovering is that large quantities of data remain unearthed because the dominant focus was and largely still is on the CIA.  There are many many 1000s of pages relevant to the assassination that were never requested and were never released because everyone is chasing the CIA.   I hope to help change that with a FOIA request from the Mary Ferrell Foundation and by working with Rex Bradford and Bill Simpich.  There's plenty more out there we won't see in 2017.

I therefore feel it's relevant to point out the worst implausibilities of the CIA-did-it theory in order to gain interest from worthy and serious researchers both professional and amateur.   Most of us have a full time job so uncovering the truth is not something easily done alone.   In my opinion we can keep the possibility of some CIA resources involved in the assassination - but we also need to feel the imperative of demanding more information that our long term focus on the CIA has hindered us from doing.

 

regards

 

Jason

 

 

Ok, you've answered it,  Who owned the cia?  Not Angleton or Dulles but...

  https://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Secret-Spymaster-James-Angleton/dp/1250080614

https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276166 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Paul Trejo]

I gather from Ron Bulman that he still subscribes to the CIA-did-it CT.   I gather from Paul Brancato that he wants to claim that Radical Right CT as his own, but he also wants to redefine it so that CIA leaders can be part of the "Radical Right."

I guess Paul Brancato doesn't know the full implications of the word, "Radical."   Radical implies pulling out a weed by its "roots".   The root of the word Radical is "radish" which is a root.

When you overthrow the government by its "roots" you don't use any of the leaders of the current Government, and you don't leave any remaining.  This is why General Walker accused the Pentagon and the CIA of being "Communist."  General Walker was a "Radical."

The final WC witness, Revilo P. Oliver, was a writer for the John Birch Society, which saw Washington DC in its entirety as a "Communist plot."  Here are some of Oliver's remarks about the CIA:

Mr. OLIVER. I have here a clipping from the Rocky Mountain News of this month noting that the CIA has been found giving money to the J. M. Kaplan fund. And many clippings like that...for example...the Dies committee identifying Rubenstein one or more persons named Jacob or Jack Rubenstein, as active in Communist organizations. The most significant one, of course, is the one in which a Jack Rubenstein appears as an organizer in one of the Communist youth movements....

Mr. JENNER. The report of your Santa Ana Valley High School speech on the evening of August 28, 1964, at least as reported in the Washington Post, on page 19, the issue dated August 30, 1964, purports to quote you as having said, "I don't know whether Oswald was paid by the CIA or by the Soviet secret police and it is just a matter of bookkeeping anyway." Did you make that statement in the course of your speech to the Santa Ana Valley High School audience?

Mr. OLIVER. ...I do not know whether Oswald was paid by the CIA, but I hear that there was testimony before the Warren Commission that he was.  There would be nothing improbable in that. The CIA worked for Castro in Cuba before he came to power...

Possibly one from the Times and one from the Herald Tribune:  "[The CIA] is believed to have instigated and financed the Communist smear against General Walker."  ...I am now interpolating from my speech...to say...I was relying on the considerations that the CIA may be operating International Media, the publishers of the "Oversexed Weekly," as it is generally called, "Overseas Weekly"...That is partly based on the identity of a stockholder and officer of this supposed corporation with an officer in the fictitious corporation that was set up to cover Radio Swan...

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited September 29, 2017 by Paul Trejo
added Revilo P. Oliver

[Paul Brancato]

Mr. Trejo - the Radical Right as you define it is not the only group that saw JFK as a traitor. And I know I was much clearer in my responses to your CIA did it repetitions than you have articulated. Whether consciously or not you use the straw man type of argument often. 

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mr. Trejo - the Radical Right as you define it is not the only group that saw JFK as a traitor. And I know I was much clearer in my responses to your CIA did it repetitions than you have articulated. Whether consciously or not you use the straw man type of argument often. 

Mr. Brancato,

Am I mistaken, or do you not believe that the leadership of the CIA and the Pentagon led the plot to assassinate JFK?

You and I have debated around five years now, and I have this clear impression.

You still publish a deck of cards with your top 52 JFK suspects, do you not?

Who are your top 5?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Jason Ward]

15 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

redefine it so that CIA leaders can be part of the "Radical Right."

Paul, maybe some greater clarity in nomenclature is in order?   

There are those on the Right, and there are the Radical Right.   We know Walker is the poster boy for Radical Right in assassination lingo.   But who else is or is not Radical Right?

Just to take a stab at it without meaning to stipulate or defend anything, I could hypothesize that the difference between regular conservatives and the Radical Right is the difference between those who:

          >favor lower taxes, traditional values, a strong military, laissez-faire economics

v.

          >those who share these same ideals but advocate a violent change of government

 

I think some of the arguing here is because we're not all on the same page in defining the Radical Right.  Perhaps a litmus test might be to ask if a conservative person believes the law can and should be broken to deliver the right wing agenda OR if they believe in following the constitutional framework of elections, legislation, and judicial oversight.

So...if we read some of what Goldwater says in this era, we might be tempted to nudge him towards the radical end of the spectrum - because he puts nuclear conflict on the table as a viable foreign policy option, he has apparent willingness to leave the South alone and continue Jim Crow, etc.  But I think he's faithful to the constitution and never advocates political violence or insurrection, so he's not the Radical Right in my book.

What about Curtis LeMay, George Wallace, Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, LBJ, Strom Thurmond, the Cabell brothers, E Howard Hunt?   What about your average cop or civil servant in places like Bogalusa, Louisiana or Selma, Alabama?   What about typical East Coast business conservatives like Time publisher Claire Boothe Luce or the Rockefellers?  The Pentagon brass?  The Rand Corporation and defense contractors?

 

Jason

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Paul Brancato]

I just looked through Caulfield's book on Walker and the radical right for information on the Congress of Freedom. 

Two things strike me - first the large presence of retired generals and colonels mostly connected to MacArthur.

But most importantly, according to the informant Somerset and other sources that Caulfield dug up, plans were afoot to assassinate hundreds of government and Civic leaders, Jews, etc. in order to save the country from Communists. it all sounds so ominous. Yet none of that actually happened. Instead, if we are to agree with Trejo, they assassinated a president and got away with it. 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Brancato]

14 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Paul, maybe some greater clarity in nomenclature is in order?   

There are those on the Right, and there are the Radical Right.   We know Walker is the poster boy for Radical Right in assassination lingo.   But who else is or is not Radical Right?

Just to take a stab at it without meaning to stipulate or defend anything, I could hypothesize that the difference between regular conservatives and the Radical Right is the difference between those who:

          >favor lower taxes, traditional values, a strong military, laissez-faire economics

v.

          >those who share these same ideals but advocate a violent change of government

 

I think some of the arguing here is because we're not all on the same page in defining the Radical Right.  Perhaps a litmus test might be to ask if a conservative person believes the law can and should be broken to deliver the right wing agenda OR if they believe in following the constitutional framework of elections, legislation, and judicial oversight.

So...if we read some of what Goldwater says in this era, we might be tempted to nudge him towards the radical end of the spectrum - because he puts nuclear conflict on the table as a viable foreign policy option, he has apparent willingness to leave the South alone and continue Jim Crow, etc.  But I think he's faithful to the constitution and never advocates political violence or insurrection, so he's not the Radical Right in my book.

What about Curtis LeMay, George Wallace, Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, LBJ, Strom Thurmond, the Cabell brothers, E Howard Hunt?   What about your average cop or civil servant in places like Bogalusa, Louisiana or Selma, Alabama?   What about typical East Coast business conservatives like Time publisher Claire Boothe Luce or the Rockefellers?  The Pentagon brass?  The Rand Corporation and defense contractors?

 

Jason

 

 

 

Great questions. What about Senator Eastland? Angleton? Lemnitzer?

[Paul Brancato]

On 9/29/2017 at 3:27 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Mr. Brancato,

Am I mistaken, or do you not believe that the leadership of the CIA and the Pentagon led the plot to assassinate JFK?

You and I have debated around five years now, and I have this clear impression.

You still publish a deck of cards with your top 52 JFK suspects, do you not?

Who are your top 5?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul - 36 cards, published about 1990 and reprinted a few years later. Back then I thought the chief suspects were LBJ and Hoover. Now I think it was carried out using foreign assassins, probably through William Harvey and QJWIN. My suspicion is that Angleton ran the operation, and that elements of the US military active and retired handled Dallas. My chief suspect in Dallas is Jack Crichton, whose 488th army reserve intelligence unit encompassed nearly all of DPD detective squad. The overriding motive was Treason. 

[Jason Ward]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I just looked through Caulfield's book on Walker and the radical right for information on the Congress of Freedom. 

Two things strike me - first the large presence of retired generals and colonels mostly connected to MacArthur.

But most importantly, according to the informant Somerset and other sources that Caulfield dug up, plans were afoot to assassinate hundreds of government and Civic leaders, Jews, etc. in order to save the country from Communists. it all sounds so ominous. Yet none of that actually happened. Instead, if we are to agree with Trejo, they assassinated a president and got away with it. 

 

Paul B,

Whether or not they ever went forward with any plans for a wider range of assassinations, nevertheless they were agreed that the country was literally on the brink of destruction at the hands of communists, Jews, and the civil rights movement.  They really did believe the end of America was on the horizon.  It's a level of desperate near hysteria I don't see in many others of the era.

...

...

Except possibly for the signature of Angleton through his deputy, the letter below may not have much to do with the Radical Right.  Nevertheless, I think it's interesting because of the near certainty that the call came at about 12pm Dallas time.  Apart from this call, there is one other notable lead in the UK (of which I am aware) involving 2 well dressed Americans overheard talking quietly in a pub about the upcoming death of Kennedy.

 

Jason

 

[Paul Trejo]

20 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Paul, maybe some greater clarity in nomenclature is in order?   

There are those on the Right, and there are the Radical Right.   We know Walker is the poster boy for Radical Right in assassination lingo.   But who else is or is not Radical Right?

Just to take a stab at it without meaning to stipulate or defend anything, I could hypothesize that the difference between regular conservatives and the Radical Right is the difference between those who:

          >favor lower taxes, traditional values, a strong military, laissez-faire economics

v.

          >those who share these same ideals but advocate a violent change of government

 

I think some of the arguing here is because we're not all on the same page in defining the Radical Right.  Perhaps a litmus test might be to ask if a conservative person believes the law can and should be broken to deliver the right wing agenda OR if they believe in following the constitutional framework of elections, legislation, and judicial oversight.

So...if we read some of what Goldwater says in this era, we might be tempted to nudge him towards the radical end of the spectrum - because he puts nuclear conflict on the table as a viable foreign policy option, he has apparent willingness to leave the South alone and continue Jim Crow, etc.  But I think he's faithful to the constitution and never advocates political violence or insurrection, so he's not the Radical Right in my book.

What about Curtis LeMay, George Wallace, Richard Nixon, J Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, LBJ, Strom Thurmond, the Cabell brothers, E Howard Hunt?   What about your average cop or civil servant in places like Bogalusa, Louisiana or Selma, Alabama?   What about typical East Coast business conservatives like Time publisher Claire Boothe Luce or the Rockefellers?  The Pentagon brass?  The Rand Corporation and defense contractors?

Jason

Jason,

Sure, let's define our terms if we are beginning to form some agreement, however loosely.

1.  What is the difference between Right and Radical Right, in 1963.  That's the question.  Let's not move time forward past the JFK assassination.  It's the period from 1954-1963 that we should be discussing, IMHO.

2.  Generically, Radical Right always speaks of the violent overthrow of the US Government for racist purposes.

3.  I agree with you that those who call for lower taxes, Christian values, a strong military and Freedom for Capitalism might be called Rightist (yet some Liberals are for these, too), but these alone can never make Radical Righists.

4.  There are some other values that I see on the Radical Right: White Supremacy; a Racial War in the USA that results in the suspension of the US Constitution, a State of Emergency, and control of the Government by the Military; and expulsion from the USA all Jews, Chinese, Mexicans, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and colored people.  (A smaller number also wants to expel Catholics as well.)

5.  The crux of the Radical Right in the USA in my opinion, is the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).  All the other Rightist movements in the USA are related in some hidden, secret, shame-faced way, to the KKK, admit it or not.

5.1.  Although the John Birch Society denounced racism and Anti-Semitism, they continued to turn a blind eye to their exclusively WASP chapters in the American South and West.

5.2.  The slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren," had one overwhelming meaning coast to coast, namely, "Repeal Brown vs. The Board of Education" of 1954.  This was the main cause of the Radical Right in the USA, from 1954-1963, IMHO.

5.3.  For example, the so-called "Citizens Councils" were originally called "White Citizens Councils".  That would be offensive outside the Deep South, so the name was softened.  The politics did not soften.  The "Citizens Councils" continued to lobby for school segregation to the bitter end (as well as keeping coloreds out of their neighborhoods).

5.4.  Guy Banister tried to run for office in Louisiana based on his opposition to the Brown Decision.

5.5.  Ex-General Edwin Walker tried to run for office in Texas based on his opposition to the Brown Decision.

5.6.  "Impeach Earl Warren" was one of their favorite slogans.

6. Guy Banister and Joseph Milteer had the same politics -- Segregation.

6.1.  Let us add the segregationist preacher, Reverend Billy James Hargis to that number.  Also, his mentor, Reverend Carl McIntire.   

7.  Barry Goldwater chose to work within the US Constitution, and he avoided all talk of a violent revolution to overthrow the US Government.  He cannot be counted among the Radical Right.

8.  The mere willingness to leave Jim Crow alone cannot be counted on the Radical Right.  

8.1.  To be counted among the Radical Right, one must insist on a return to the days before the Brown Decision; that is, to strictly segregate the races, and to oppress all colored people, with no mercy or pity.

9.  Curtis LeMay chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his membership in the Pentagaon.

10. George Wallace chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his running for US President. 

11. Richard Nixon chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his running for US President. 

12. J. Edgar Hoover chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his leadership of the FBI and his relentless investigation of the US Radical Right.

13. Allen Dulles chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his leadership of the CIA and in the Warren Commission. 

14. LBJ chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his refusal to seek a second term.

15. Strom Thurmond chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by his membership in the Senate.

16. The Cabell brothers chose to work within the US Constitution.  This is proved by the elder's leadership in the CIA, and the younger's Mayors seat in Dallas. 

17.  Very wealthy Civilians are unlikely to be Radical Right, because an overthrow of the US Government would also allow an overthrow of Capitalism -- which would be against their self-interest.  (This happened in Nazi Germany).

18.  The Pentagon brass chose to work within the US Constitution, obviously, by their membership in the Pentagaon.   

19.  E Howard Hunt confessed on his death-bed to a "sidelines" role in the JFK asassination plot.  He said that Frank Sturgis (a civilian) had invited him into the plot.

20.  An average cop or civil servant in places like Bogalusa, New Orleans, Selma or Dallas, IMHO, remains a Civilian.  It is therefore 50/50 whether they were capable of joining the Radical Right in their cities. 

20.1.  In the opinion of Professor Walt Brown, the most likely of successful assassins in any city, would be close to the local police, or members of the local police. 

21. In summary, the Radical Right wishes to overthrow the US Government by violent means.  Nobody who works in the US Government is a likely candidate.  Nor is any Capitalist (esp. the super-rich) likely to wish the overthrow of the US Government -- they are far more likely to work for a major voting shift in the direction of a Conservative Party. 

22.  The Radical Right in the USA is always linked -- at some level -- to the KKK.  That's my perception.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 1, 2017 by Paul Trejo
clarity

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Paul - 36 cards, published about 1990 and reprinted a few years later. Back then I thought the chief suspects were LBJ and Hoover. Now I think it was carried out using foreign assassins, probably through William Harvey and QJWIN. My suspicion is that Angleton ran the operation, and that elements of the US military active and retired handled Dallas. My chief suspect in Dallas is Jack Crichton, whose 488th army reserve intelligence unit encompassed nearly all of DPD detective squad. The overriding motive was Treason. 

Paul B.,

Thanks for candidly sharing your latest thinking on the topic.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo