Who Killed JFK?: Texas Oil Industry

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, I meant, of course, any assassination other than John's contention that it was the motive behind JFK's.

Having offered none other I assume you agree then ihat if in fact the preservation of the oil depletion allowance was the motive behind JFK's death it was the FIRST TIME IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that a political leader was murdered over a provision of the tax code? I mean, it is preposterous on its face, in my opinion.

[Mark Knight]

My understanding of the way that the tax code is changed in the United States is that a bill originates in the House of Representatives, and it is first considered by the House Ways and Means Committee. After passage by the committee, the bill is then considered by the entire House, where it is subject to amendment; if passed by the house, the bill then goes to the Senate. In the Senate, after a similar committee hearing, the bill must be considered by the entire Senate. If the bill then passes the Senate, it next travels to a joint House-Senate conference committee, where any differences between the House-passed version and the Senate-approved version are worked out. It is only after this rigourous procedure that the President has the option to sign the bill. Often the bill presented to the President for signature bears little resemblance to the bill the President initially pushed the introducing House member to sponsor.

In light of that, I would tend to agree with Tim, that Kennedy's advocacy of eliminating the oil depletion allowance would seem to have scant chance of being the PRIMARY motive for the assassination. After all, Kennedy's tax bill, which provided a tax CUT for most Americans, was bottled up in Congress at the time of his assassination, with little chance of passage. Surely this group of rich and powerful oil men could lobby/wine and dine/outright bribe enough Senators and Representatives to have a similar effect on any changes to the oil depletion allowance? Sure, the stakes were in the millions of dollars; but with 535 members of Congress, odds are that the elimination of the depletion allowance could have been scuttled without a single shot being fired, and without a single life lost.

Don has made the point that money, power, and revenge were most likely the motives behind the assassination, and I tend to agree with him that it was more likely a combination of all three, rather than one factor exclusively, that precipitated the events that deadly day in Dallas. In my opinion, the question has never been WHICH was the motive; rather, the question remains: to what degree did each of these reasons factor into the assassination?

That, my friends--as they said years ago--is the $64,000 question.

Edited April 20, 2005 by Mark Knight

[John Simkin]

I would tend to agree with Tim, that Kennedy's advocacy of eliminating the oil depletion allowance would seem to have scant chance of being the PRIMARY motive for the assassination. After all, Kennedy's tax bill, which provided a tax CUT for most Americans, was bottled up in Congress at the time of his assassination, with little chance of passage. Surely this group of rich and powerful oil men could lobby/wine and dine/outright bribe enough Senators and Representatives to have a similar effect on any changes to the oil depletion allowance? Sure, the stakes were in the millions of dollars; but with 535 members of Congress, odds are that the elimination of the depletion allowance could have been scuttled without a single shot being fired, and without a single life lost.

Of course the Texas oil lobby could have bribed politicians not to have passed JFK’s legislation. After all, that it what they had been doing for 30 years. The problem for the Texas oil men was that JFK was determined to make an issue of this subject.

Samuel Rayburn made it clear to the oil industry that his primary objective was to keep the subject locked inside the committees he controlled. Once a president managed to get it debated on the floor of the Senate, it would mean the beginning of the end of the oil depreciation allowance. As Rayburn told one senator. If the issue came to a vote in the Senate: “they’d cut it to fifteen, ten, five per cent – maybe even take it away altogether. Do you think you could convince a Detroit factory worker that the depletion allowance is a good thing? Once it got on the floor, it would be cut to ribbons.”

That is why JFK posed a threat to the oil industry. If he was willing to take on the oil industry, maybe he would be willing to look at those large armaments contracts that were going to companies in Texas and California (the arrival of John McCone as head of the CIA heralded the financial interests of these two states coming together).

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark, I meant, of course, any assassination other than John's contention that it was the motive behind JFK's.

Having offered none other I assume you agree then ihat if in fact the preservation of the oil depletion allowance was the motive behind JFK's death it was the FIRST TIME IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE WORLD that a political leader was murdered over a provision of the tax code?  I mean, it is preposterous on its face, in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

For your information, yes I do believe that JFK's determination to scrap the oil depletion allowance was one of the factors behind the assassination. There were others. In fact, when reading about his short time as President the only thing that surprises me is that he wasn't assassinated earlier. The queue of people who must have wished him ill included the military (Joint Chiefs), arms manufacturers, the oil industry, steel executives, elements of the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, girlie boy Hoover, the Israeli Government and LBJ. Sorry Tim, can't find a place for Castro anywhere. Haven't you been reading John's postings on the Suite 8F Group or Larry's postings dealing with Billy Sol Estes and the murders implicating the Johnson/Carter group? The evidence of Texas involvement is compelling, IMO.

Also, where's your proof that JFK's murder was the FIRST TIME ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that a leader was murdered over a tax issue, as you so sensationally describe it? Do you possess the documented, authenticated reasons for all other political assassinations?

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

Also, where's your proof that JFK's murder was the FIRST TIME ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that a leader was murdered over a tax issue, as you so sensationally describe it? Do you possess the documented, authenticated reasons for all other political assassinations?

Mark, in recorded history there have been 1,378 political assassinations, none of which related to changes in tax policy. I am categorizing the motives behind each one.---Just kidding.

My point is that I am UNAWARE of any other assassination attributed to such an arcane motive as a tax deduction so I leave it to the proponents of that theory to list other examples or to admit that it is their position that the Kennedy assassination was sui generis.

No room for Fidel? Gosh, Mark, Castro on September 7, 1963 articulated the reason he would have to retaliate if American efforts on his life continued.

No one has yet offered one scintilla of evidence that an oil baron or anyone who ever even stepped foot in Suite 8F had anything to do with the assassination.

We can speculate who killed JFK until the cows come home. As you pointed out, he had made many enemies. But speculation is not evidence. I await the evidence.

[Tim Gratz]

And by the way Mark (and John) it is recorded historical fact that the KGB has both committed and attempted to commit political murders.

With the possible exception of LBJ, can you identify a single member of Suite 8F whoever committed a murder?

[John Simkin]

And by the way Mark (and John) it is recorded historical fact that the KGB has both committed and attempted to commit political murders.

With the possible exception of LBJ, can you identify a single member of Suite 8F whoever committed a murder?

What is wrong with the LBJ example? Why can you attempt to implicate Castro but not allow me to provide LBJ's name?

As an expert on the capitalist system I would have thought you would be aware that if you have got enough money you can arrange murders without it being directly linked back to you.

What I can do is show how politicians and business leaders work together to defraud the American population. That is what I was trying to do with my page on the Suite 8F Group. I have also attempted to show that they had good reasons to want JFK dead. Of course, I am unable to provide any evidence that they ordered the assassination of JFK. Nor can you provide one piece of evidence that Castro ordered the assassination of JFK.

More importantly, you cannot provide any logical argument about why Castro should have done such a thing. That is why you find it impossible to find any other members to support your theory. Even those who have expressed it in the past, for example, Joe Trento, are now too embarrassed to post messages of support.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark wrote:

Also, where's your proof that JFK's murder was the FIRST TIME ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that a leader was murdered over a tax issue, as you so sensationally describe it? Do you possess the documented, authenticated reasons for all other political assassinations?

Mark, in recorded history there have been 1,378 political assassinations, none of which related to changes in tax policy. I am categorizing the motives behind each one.---Just kidding.

My point is that I am UNAWARE of any other assassination attributed to such an arcane motive as a tax deduction so I leave it to the proponents of that theory to list other examples or to admit that it is their position that the Kennedy assassination was sui generis.

No room for Fidel?  Gosh, Mark, Castro on September 7, 1963 articulated the reason he would have to retaliate if American efforts on his life continued.

No one has yet offered one scintilla of evidence that an oil baron or anyone who ever even stepped foot in Suite 8F had anything to do with the assassination.

We can speculate who killed JFK until the cows come home.  As you pointed out, he had made many enemies.  But speculation is not evidence.  I await the evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

Despite my suspicion that your continuing intransigence is a very funny gag at our expense, I must point out that this "arcane" tax deduction which you dismiss as a possible assassination motive is not really a tax deduction at all. I might have misled you by describing it as such in an earlier post. If you refer to John Simkin's illustration in the thread titled "Oil Depletion Allowance--Good or Bad" you'll see that the ODA is not an expense like Postage, Rent or Salaries. These expenses can be written off (for tax purposes) only insofar as they are incurred in the normal course of earning an assessable income eg. if you spend $100 on Postage in any given accounting period, then you are entitled to a tax deduction of $100. The ODA, however, by a miracle of Texas logic, departs from the "Expenses" side of the ledger and attaches itself to the "Revenue" side. ie. The 27.5% is deducted from revenue earned, not expenses incurred---a far greater income tax deduction. Why else would the Texas lobby lock it up in committees for 30 years?

Regarding your request that opponents of your theory have not provided a "scintilla" of evidence, what would you like Tim--- a taped confession corroborated by eyewitness testimony? a DVD of the entire assassination tableau with a narrative by NBC ending with rolling credits for all participants? Authenticated minutes of the final assassination planning meeting complete with notes and attachments? Say the word and they'll be winging their way to your door forthwith. "Show me the evidence" he says. The world ain't ready for another Gerry Posner. You gagmeister.

[Pat Speer]

I agree with the premise stated but can provide an alternative conclusion suggesting "there exists some evidence linking Ruby to" Israeli intelligence.  While on the surface a link to Trafficante provides a convincing cover for the propriator of a "strip joint" it is Ruby's Jewish religion that seems to be the one consistant factor in his life.  Thirty days of prayer after the death of his father, attendance at Jewish services befor going to the DPD, unidentified men he entered the DPD with, admission that he was acting as an interpeter for the Israeli press, lie detector inconsistancies, desire to go to Washington to tell the "truth" all could point to a connection to Israeli intelligence.  One can only imagine the advantages that could be gained by Israeli intelligence if they could silence a "rouge" agent for the US or for both Russia and the US.  Both super powers would become indebted to them.  (James Jesus Angleton was the CIA laison to Israeli intelligence)

Just different thoughts,

Jim Root

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim, in trying to understand Ruby's obsessive concern that a malevolent force was out to get the Jews, and his worry that his actions had somehow fed into it, I went back and read the testimony of Bernard Weissman, who'd purchased the full-page ads calling Kennedy a traitor on the day of the assassination. When one reads this testimony one finds that Weissman was the lone Jew in a circle of Birchers, and that they'd received backing from H.L. Hunt (as I remember) among others.

I believe it's reasonable to assume that Ruby was worried that the same men who pressured him into killing Oswald had also pressured Weissman into putting his name on the ad. This would explain his fear that Jews were being used as scapegoats and that some retaliation was planned.

Dimestore psychology, for sure. But it makes more sense than assuming Ruby's guilt about killing Oswald, which many considered a brave act, would by itself have been the trigger.

[Jim Root]

Pat

Dimestore psychology perhaps but hey that is what we all are engaging in on this board as we speculate on the mindset of the various personalities that surround the assasination of JFK.

The Ruby question is one that I avoided for years while I attempted to develop or rather follow my original hypothisis dealing with the assassination. Originally I felt that if I considered Ruby as a part of a conspiracy from the begining I would be prejudicing my research. It was not until I became convinced that there was some sort of conspiracy that Ruby's actions could be explained.

My hypothisis has taken me back, more than thiry years before the assassination, and forward again in the lives of the very few people that I believe were involed in pre assassination antics that led to the assassination of JFK and the coverup of the assassination. Ruby has been a stumbling block in every consistant facet, in my opinion, except where it comes to his religion.

If there was a need to eliminate Oswald because of his connection to US intelligence then there was a need for Ruby. There was a need for somebody that could not be traced to US intelligence but could be traced to to other tangible conspirators such as organized crime and the Cubans. In this wasy he would serve the duel purpose of eliminating Oswald and deflecting suspicion from the actual plotters.

"Jim, in trying to understand Ruby's obsessive concern that a malevolent force was out to get the Jews, and his worry that his actions had somehow fed into it"

One of my former students recently returned from a year of "front line" duty in Iraq. He is a very good friend of my oldest son and we are very close to the family. This nice boy, that I taught in school, was involved in the killing of many enemy combatants. I can imagine Ruby (an honest human being with all his own faults) sitting in a Dallas jail questioning if what he did was right, wondering why he had been chosen (fate or otherwise) to be in the position he was in. This "nice boy" was changed by the events of his life. He has become withdrawn and is a different person.......he is not a little boy any longer.

Did the same happen to Ruby after he shot Oswald? It is easy for me to accept that it could. But that is "dimestore psychology."

Jim Root

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

What is wrong with the LBJ example? Why can you attempt to implicate Castro but not allow me to provide LBJ's name?

John, perhaps my challenge re "a member of the Suite 8F group" was too broad. What I meant was a Texas oliman or Texas businessman.

LBJ was a politician not a businessman.

Going all the way back to Brutus, there are, of course, many examples of assassinations arranged by political rivals.

So while I do not believe that LBJ murdered JFK, if he did it would not be a first.

So with that clarification can you point out any other political assassinations motivated by anything as arcane as a dispute over tax policy?

John also wrote:

More importantly, you cannot provide any logical argument about why Castro should have done such a thing. That is why you find it impossible to find any other members to support your theory. Even those who have expressed it in the past, for example, Joe Trento, are now too embarrassed to post messages of support.

There are many incidents of "leaps of logic" on this Forum but your latter statement that Trento is now too embarrassed on his previous advocacy of Angleton's "KGB did it" theory that he will not post must rank as amongst the largest leaps. You do not even know that Trento has taken much time to even read this Forum. He is supposedly a member, and I am on here rather frequently and I have never seen him on it (unless he only logs on as a guest). Do you seriously contend that his failure to post here allows you to conclude that he has changed his mind?

Regarding a logical argument why Castro may have orchestrated the assassination, I have posted them repeatedly so perhaps you can tell me what you disagree about.

1) The US had continually attempted to kill Castro. I assume you agree with this fact. Retaliation against attempts to murder you are certainly a motive--don't you agree?

2) The US plots to kill Castro were continuing. The assassination could have been motivated by an attempt to sidetrack those plots. That is certainly a significant motive (similiar to self-defense). Do you dispute self-defense as a motive to kill?

3) The US under RFK was organizing a second invasion of Cuba called Second Naval Guerilla. Please state whether you agree with this or not. If so, an assassination to sidetrack an invasion of his country was certainly a motive, was it not?

Now you may contend that it was foolish for Castro to act on those motives, or you can argue that Castro seriously believed in the sincerity of JFK's peace efforts (which even Lisa Howard concluded in 1964 were nothing but a Kennedy sham) and his hope that those efforts would stop the invasion and assassination plots. But ypu cannot argue that Castro LACKED motive to kill JFK.

Of course the CIA was rightly condemned for its failure to report the CIA-Mafia plots to the Warren Commission precisely because they provided a clear motive for Castro to strike back. Was this condemnation unjustified? Do you seriously contend that US efforts to kill Castro did not give him indeed the strongest of possible motives (self-preservation)?

Finally, there are reliable reports that Castro hated JFK (perhaps with good reason if JFK was behind the efforts to kill him). Castro could have been motivated to kill JFK by nothing more than simple hatred.

Edited April 22, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

"The Texas Connection" by Zirbel claims that the Kennedy sponsored bill to reduce the oil depletion allowance was soundly defeated during the 1962 Congressional Session and never again brought up, making it highly unlikely that Kennedy would be killed because of his prior support of a bill that had no chance of ever being enacted.

Does Zirbel have the facts correct?

If he does, is not the oil depletion allowance theory substantially disproven?

[John Simkin]

"The Texas Connection" by Zirbel claims that the Kennedy sponsored bill to reduce the oil depletion allowance was soundly defeated during the 1962 Congressional Session and never again brought up, making it highly unlikely that Kennedy would be killed because of his prior support of a bill that had no chance of ever being enacted.

Does Zirbel have the facts correct?

If he does, is not the oil depletion allowance theory substantially disproven?

Zirbel's book is very poor and is just a collection of points made by other authors. As I explained on my page on the Suite 8F Group JFK took on the oil industry in 1962. On 16th October, 1962, Kennedy was able to persuade Congress to pass an act that removed the distinction between repatriated profits and profits reinvested abroad. While this law applied to industry as a whole, it especially affected the oil companies. It was estimated that as a result of this legislation, wealthy oilmen saw a fall in their earnings on foreign investment from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.

On 17th January, 1963, President Kennedy presented his proposals for tax reform. This included proposals to remove special privileges and loopholes. He made a point that hhe wanted to do away with the oil depletion allowance. It is estimated that the proposed removal of the oil depletion allowance would result in a loss of around $300 million a year to Texas oilmen.

No doubt the oil industry had bought enough votes to stop this legislation going through. However, as I said before, the problem for the Texas oil men was that JFK was determined to make an issue of this subject.

Samuel Rayburn made it clear to the oil industry that his primary objective was to keep the subject locked inside the committees he controlled. Once a president managed to get it debated on the floor of the Senate, it would mean the beginning of the end of the oil depreciation allowance. As Rayburn told one senator. If the issue came to a vote in the Senate: “they’d cut it to fifteen, ten, five per cent – maybe even take it away altogether. Do you think you could convince a Detroit factory worker that the depletion allowance is a good thing? Once it got on the floor, it would be cut to ribbons.”

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgroup8F.htm

[Jim Root]

John

John J. McCloy was partner in the law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hope, Hadley & McCloy during the period 1961-1989. He represented the major oil companies (known as the Seven Sisters) during this period. His duties included OPEC negotiations, antitrust investigations annd divestitures.

What is interesting is that he took this position at about the same time that he ceased being a Kennedy "advison" which dates to October of 1961.

As I have stated on other threads McCloy seems to have had a falling out with Kennedy over arms negotiations with the Soviets etc. There seems to be some evidence of McCloy dealings with Bobby Kennedy, as Attorney General, on behalf of the oil companies that were less than productive.

I tend to believe that McCloy was a major player in the assassination conspriacy. Does this dovetail in with some of your information?

Jim Root

[Mark Stapleton]

John

John J. McCloy was partner in the law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hope, Hadley & McCloy during the period 1961-1989. He represented the major oil companies (known as the Seven Sisters) during this period. His duties included OPEC negotiations, antitrust investigations annd divestitures.

What is interesting is that he took this position at about the same time that he ceased being a Kennedy "advison" which dates to October of 1961.

As I have stated on other threads McCloy seems to have had a falling out with Kennedy over arms negotiations with the Soviets etc. There seems to be some evidence of McCloy dealings with Bobby Kennedy, as Attorney General, on behalf of the oil companies that were less than productive.

I tend to believe that McCloy was a major player in the assassination conspriacy. Does this dovetail in with some of your information?

Jim Root

Jim,

John McCloy's activities on behalf of the Government did not cease in 1961.

On 15 June 1963, the same day Kennedy wrote a strongly worded letter to Israeli PM David Ben Gurion (which Ben Gurion never opened), he also sent a letter to Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser. In both letters, JFK warned of the dangers of the continuing arms race in the Middle East and expressed his interest in the parties reaching some form of agreement to curb this development. He ended his letter by saying that in accordance with his earlier readiness to discuss the matter through a Presidential envoy, he named John McCloy to speak on his behalf because of his "unmatched experience in the arms control sphere".

This comes from Avner Cohen's 1998 book, "Israel and the Bomb" which I intend to make the subject of a new thread shortly. Cohen is a senior research fellow at the National Security Archive at George Washington University. He has taught and researched in universities in Israel and the United States (from the book's back cover). The book was the result of a ten year research project and has over 1200 footnotes.

Anyway, McCloy met Nasser in Cairo on 27 June 1963. This was the first stop on a two part mission which was intended to include a trip to Israel (the latter was called off after Nasser's negative response to McCloy's proposals). Robert Komer, National Security Council advisor on Middle East affairs, and JFK both expressed disappointment at McCloy's performance.

From Chapter 12, "the Arabs and Dimona" (pp249-250):

"On 5 July,1963 Kennedy sent his toughest letter on the matter of Dimona to Israel's new PM, Levi Eshkol. McCloy was not informed of the letter. Two days later the State Department cabled Ambassador Badeau, asking him to see Nasser for clarification of the points on which McCloy had failed to elaborate, that is, the American concern over Dimona. Badeau was asked to tell Nasser that the "Dimona reactor is now in an advanced stage of construction and, while intended for peaceful purposes, it does have the potential capability of producing fuel for nuclear weapons". He was told to stress to Nasser that it was the American estimate "that Israelis are not and have not decided to start developing such weapons. However, Israelis are approaching the stage where their combination of technical skills and physical plant, though developed for peaceful uses, also could give them the capability for producing a nuclear weapon within a few years if the arms race should expand into highly sophisticated fields".

The cable again linked the UAR missile project and Israel's nuclear development: the Egyptian work on advanced missile development allowed the Israelis to justify "their moving into the nuclear weapons field if they should decide to do so". This was the reason for the U.S. initiative.

The cable also criticized the Egyptians for their opposition to inspection and international safeguards for reasons of national sovereignty, even though Egypt had no significant nuclear facilities. This objection-in-principle to inspection only served the Israelis, who already had nuclear facilities at the time, by allowing them to reject international inspections of facilities on similar grounds and argue that Egypt was secretly developing nuclear weapons. It would be in Egypt's interests to accept the external safeguards and allow the United States to press Israel on this matter.

This attempt by JFK to correct McCloy's failure to accurately spell out to Nasser what his position on the arms race was is the most likely point where JFK and McCloy fell out, IMO.