THE ASSASSINATION STORY By Robert A. Surrey & Gen. Edwin Walker

[Paul Trejo]

...Walker was a closeted homosexal which came out in mid 1970's after he was arrested in a public bathroom...Interestingly enough, when Walker resigned from the Army he forfeited his pension. Early in Ronald Reagan's presidency, Reagan restored Walker's Army pension. Go figure that one...

Dan,

I tried to clarify many common misconceptions about Ex-General Walker in my 2012 essay for H.W. Brands that I now make available on Smashwords for 99 cents.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501625

As I try to show in my essay, the booting of General Walker from his Augsburg, Germany command was not really due to his Pro-Blue organization, nor due to his membership in the John Birch Society. The real reason that Walker was booted was because he failed to play nicely with the US Army newspaper, namely, the Overseas Weekly.

While the Overseas Weekly did complain that General Walker was a member of the John Birch Society, and that his Pro-Blue organization hired many professional speakers from the John Birch Society circuit to address Army Troops -- actually that article was designed to be a scandal, and not a series of official charges.

The Overseas Weekly published their scandal on April 16, 1961, and the Pentagon itself removed General Walker from his Augsburg command on the morning of April 17, 1961. The real reason for his removal was this "shore flap," i.e. Walker had involved himself in a European scandal during the Cold War. Major blunder; it showed he lacked the right stuff. Walker's political beliefs had nothing to do with that decision.

General Walker's fight with the Overseas Weekly newspaper had begun within weeks of his arrival in Germany in 1959 from Little Rock, Arkansas. Walker had refused to cooperate with the Overseas Weekly in any way, shape or form, and that raised eyebrows and suspicions.

Overseas Weekly reporters noticed that General Walker was unmarried (which was rare for Army officers) and that he never attended events or dinners with other Army Officers and their spouses, but regularly left the base during such occasions.

Reporters began to spy on Walker. The scandal they wanted to break was that Walker was gay. Walker complained loudly about all the spying, but the other US Generals and Army Officers expected General Walker to handle his problems himself. Eventually, in late 1960, General Walker sued the Overseas Weekly newspaper in a German Civil Court for their spying, and Walker won.

However, the Overseas Weekly editors fought back by preparing this April 1961 scandal to embarrass not only Walker, but the entire Pentagon. It worked. The Pentagon removed General Walker the very next morning. End of scandal.

The Pentagon never objected to Walker's Pro-Blue program, nor to his JBS membership. The official Army report admitted only that: (1) Walker had told his Troops personally that Eleanor Roosevelt and President Truman were "definitely pink;" and that (2) Walker had violated the Hatch Act by advising his Troops to use a biased voting advisory service to select candidates in the 1960 Elections. The tribunal gave General Walker a mild "admonishment" and then offered him another US Army training career in beautiful Hawaii.

Historians for the past half-century have mistakenly supposed that the specific charges of Overseas Weekly scandal were taken seriously by the Pentagon and JFK -- but that's simply a mistake. Even JFK hoped that Walker would accept the Hawaii post, because it was an embarrassment for any US General to resign and forfeit his 30 year pension.

Yet this was the second time that Walker had submitted his resignation to the Army to forfeit his pension -- the first time was in 1959, the year he joined the Birchers. This is from Walker's personal papers:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19611104_Walker_Resignations.JPG

The best evidence about this whole scenario is the Senate Subcommittee hearing on the Walker case in April 1962, where Walker extensively testified about how the Overseas Weekly was "subversive," and how they were really spying on his alleged brain tumor doctor visits.

Walker never mentioned his personal contacts in Germany, but they probably included the editor of the German newspaper, Deutsche-Nationalzeitung, namely, Dr. Gerhard Frey. We know this because Ex-General Walker contacted Dr. Gerhard Frey only 18 hours after the JFK assassination, with the following scoop:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 1, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Dan Doyle]

Paul, sorry to say that I’m not buying into Caufield’s book. Caufield’s thesis would have us believe that the prime motivation for Oswald and others in his orbit was racism, more exactly anti-integrationism, the segregation-forever sentiment. Anti-Communism, anti-Castro-ism, and the Cold War are deemed secondary. This is an unbelievable stretch. Like was said of the Watergate investigation, follow the money. These segregation-forever types, like General Walker, had no source of a big money equivalent to the CIA’s anti-Castro, anti Communist budget. Was there some crossover between the segregation warriors, right wing warriors and the Cold War warriors, sure, but Caufield fails to recognize that people are not one dimensional; rather that they are complex with multiple motivations. And Caufield is a M.D.; go figure that one.

I agree with Caufield’s point that LHO was a product of his times and environment. Any poor white kid of the the Jim Crow South during the 1940’s and ‘50s of would likely default to a segregationist and right wing point of view. But does this explain Oswald’s international pro-commie persona? The author doesn’t delve into it, seemingly to avoid the possibility of an intelligence connection.

The link the author makes between General Walker and Oswald is rather tenuous. Walker employed a man named Duff in December 1962. A restaurant owner and his wife in Dallas claimed that they saw Duff and Oswald eating in their restaurant in early 1963, months before the shooting at Walker’s house.

The link between Oswald and Banister comes about because Walker and Banister are big-time into the John Birch Society. And get this, the author proposes that Oswald’s pro-Castro, pro FPCC activities run out of Banister’s office building(544 Camp St) were NOT CIA or intelligence related even though Oswald was known to be a returned defector at the time. Instead Caufield claims that Oswald was working for Banister to grow Banister’s already sizable flies on subversives which Banister took with him when he left the FBI. Why did Banister want to grow his files on subversives? So access to them could be leased to certain State and police authorities in Louisiana and other southern states for the purpose of decapitating the civil rights movement using laws like Louisiana’s Communist Control Act of 1962. These kind of laws made it a crime with severe penalties to be active in civil rights causes if it could be established that an activist had associations with Communists or Communist front groups as documented by “authoritative ” sources like Banister’s files.

Caufield and I do share the notion that some type of false flag operation was in play that day in Dallas and Oswald was party to it. Caufield proposes that the nominal false flag operation was sold to Oswald as a “shoot and miss” attempt on JFK like the one at at Walker’s house. No bloodshed would be involved. This action would result in his arrest. The charges would be unprovable and a release from jail would follow. This is Caufield’s false flag “shoot-and miss” theory,

False flag operations are designed to establish a pretext for some other purpose, usually a military or diplomatic one. Caufield proposes that the intended pretext for this false flag action was to stir-up the citizenry into an anti-communist, anti-lefty frenzy which would result in the increased repression against The Civil Rights Movement, something that all anti-integrationists racists, like Walker, Banister, Ferrie and Oswald would applaud. I disagree with Caufield on this point. I think that whatever the nominal false flag operation that was in play on 11/22/63 , it was to be the pretext to take out Castro militarily, not to repress the Civil Rights Movement. Caufield and I also agree on this; JFK’s assassination was the result of the nominal false flag operation being hijacked by a rogue operation which Oswald had no knowledge of. Caufield thinks that the rogue operators were part of the hard right wing, anti-integration, racist crowd of Walker, Banister, H.L.Hunt, to name a few, and I think that the rogue operators were CIA heavies, like Angleton, Phillips, Howard Hunt, Morales, Cord Meyer, etc., These guys had already successfully produced regime change in places like Guatemala and Iran. And these CIA operators already knew how to do assassinations technically, but more importantly they knew, and this is evidence of their sophistication, that once the rogue operation was successful that those involved in the nominal false flag operation would have no choice but to cover up everything, the both the nominal and rogue operation, least they be ruined and the many of the institutions of this nation be severely tested. The “Castro-did-it” spin in the immediate hours and days after the assassination which Gaeton Fonzi wrote all about in his book The Last Investigation is also evidence of the perpetrator’s sophistication because it works with both cases, the nominal and the rogue. Of course Caufield doesn’t like Fonzi let alone Garrison.

The crucial flaw in Caufield’s thesis is the reality of the Cover Up. He actually thinks that lousy police work and political influence on the local and state level was the reason that his purported right wing perpetrators were never brought to justice. These perpetrators of Caufield’s were essentially a bunch of light weights when it came to regime change; let alone designing in an automatic cover up mechanism. And they had virtually zero political capital on the national level to influence a federal investigation unless one buys into the notion that all gays are in some big world-wide fraternity. Even though the FBI’s J.Edgar Hoover was gay and a tried and true racist, he would have thrown a right wing, gay, racist like General Walker under the bus in a heartbeat because Walker and his cohorts had little, if any, political cover on the national stage.

Now the CIA of Dulles, Angleton, Phillips, etc is another story. They had the means, experience, personnel, connections and brains to successfully pull off the assassination and design in an auto cover up feature. One would think that after 20 years of research , 50 something interviews and 800+ pages that Caufield could have come up with something a little more palatable.

[Ernie Lazar]

...Walker was a closeted homosexal which came out in mid 1970's after he was arrested in a public bathroom...Interestingly enough, when Walker resigned from the Army he forfeited his pension. Early in Ronald Reagan's presidency, Reagan restored Walker's Army pension. Go figure that one...

Dan,

I tried to clarify many common misconceptions about Ex-General Walker in my 2012 essay for H.W. Brands that I now make available on Smashwords for 99 cents.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501625

As I try to show in my essay, the booting of General Walker from his Augsburg, Germany command was not really due to his Pro-Blue organization, nor due to his membership in the John Birch Society. The real reason that Walker was booted was because he failed to play nicely with the US Army newspaper, namely, the Overseas Weekly.

While the Overseas Weekly did complain that General Walker was a member of the John Birch Society, and that his Pro-Blue organization hired many professional speakers from the John Birch Society circuit to address Army Troops -- actually that article was designed to be a scandal, and not a series of official charges.

The Overseas Weekly published their scandal on April 16, 1961, and the Pentagon itself removed General Walker from his Augsburg command on the morning of April 17, 1961. The real reason for his removal was this "shore flap," i.e. Walker had involved himself in a European scandal during the Cold War. Major blunder; it showed he lacked the right stuff. Walker's political beliefs had nothing to do with that decision.

General Walker's fight with the Overseas Weekly newspaper had begun within weeks of his arrival in Germany in 1959 from Little Rock, Arkansas. Walker had refused to cooperate with the Overseas Weekly in any way, shape or form, and that raised eyebrows and suspicions.

Overseas Weekly reporters noticed that General Walker was unmarried (which was rare for Army officers) and that he never attended events or dinners with other Army Officers and their spouses, but regularly left the base during such occasions.

Reporters began to spy on Walker. The scandal they wanted to break was that Walker was gay. Walker complained loudly about all the spying, but the other US Generals and Army Officers expected General Walker to handle his problems himself. Eventually, in late 1960, General Walker sued the Overseas Weekly newspaper in a German Civil Court for their spying, and Walker won.

However, the Overseas Weekly editors fought back by preparing this April 1961 scandal to embarrass not only Walker, but the entire Pentagon. It worked. The Pentagon removed General Walker the very next morning. End of scandal.

The Pentagon never objected to Walker's Pro-Blue program, nor to his JBS membership. The official Army report admitted only that: (1) Walker had told his Troops personally that Eleanor Roosevelt and President Truman were "definitely pink;" and that (2) Walker had violated the Hatch Act by advising his Troops to use a biased voting advisory service to select candidates in the 1960 Elections. The tribunal gave General Walker a mild "admonishment" and then offered him another US Army training career in beautiful Hawaii.

Historians for the past half-century have mistakenly supposed that the specific charges of Overseas Weekly scandal were taken seriously by the Pentagon and JFK -- but that's simply a mistake. Even JFK hoped that Walker would accept the Hawaii post, because it was an embarrassment for any US General to resign and forfeit his 30 year pension.

Yet this was the second time that Walker had submitted his resignation to the Army to forfeit his pension -- the first time was in 1959, the year he joined the Birchers. This is from Walker's personal papers:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19611104_Walker_Resignations.JPG

The best evidence about this whole scenario is the Senate Subcommittee hearing on the Walker case in April 1962, where Walker extensively testified about how the Overseas Weekly was "subversive," and how they were really spying on his alleged brain tumor doctor visits.

Walker never mentioned his personal contacts in Germany, but they probably included the editor of the German newspaper, Deutsche-Nationalzeitung, namely, Dr. Gerhard Frey. We know this because Ex-General Walker contacted Dr. Gerhard Frey only 18 hours after the JFK assassination, with the following scoop:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul writes: "The Pentagon never objected to Walker's Pro-Blue program, nor to his JBS membership."

This is another one of Paul's outright falsehoods.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, sorry to say that I’m not buying into Caufield’s book. Caufield’s thesis would have us believe that the prime motivation for Oswald and others in his orbit was racism, more exactly anti-integrationism, the segregation-forever sentiment. Anti-Communism, anti-Castro-ism, and the Cold War are deemed secondary. This is an unbelievable stretch. Like was said of the Watergate investigation, follow the money. These segregation-forever types, like General Walker, had no source of a big money equivalent to the CIA’s anti-Castro, anti Communist budget. Was there some crossover between the segregation warriors, right wing warriors and the Cold War warriors, sure, but Caufield fails to recognize that people are not one dimensional; rather that they are complex with multiple motivations. And Caufield is a M.D.; go figure that one...

Don, I interpret Caufield's book differently.

Edwin Walker never -- at any time -- openly stated in any public speech any opinion of racism, racial superiority or racial inferiority.

I realize that Walker led the racial riots at Ole Miss in 1962, and that most of his associates from 1962-1964 were bigots.

Yet it is important for history to note that Walker rejected all efforts to recruit him into the KKK and the ANP.

Walker's openly stated argument against the Supreme Court's Brown Decision was that States should have the right to choose whether to racially integrate or not, and this should never been settled by sending Federal Troops to a high school or college.

That is not, strictly speaking, a racist position. I realize those who hate General Walker will oppose me loudly on this point.

On the contrary -- Edwin Walker was a pragmatist. His main concern, politically, was Anticommunism. This was also the main concern of Robert Welch, founder of the JBS.

It just so happened -- by an accident of history -- that the Cold War Anticommunist movement at fever pitch, coincided with the Civil Rights movement at fever pitch in the early 1960's.

It was an accident of history that the JBS and the WCC would join hands at this moment in history. It made both sides stronger than they would have been separately. The racist movement became stronger by blaming the USSR for MLK. The JBS movement became stronger with their slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren!"

I do agree that Robert Welch and the JBS in general were not racists. Rather -- the JBS in the north tended to be non-racists, while the JBS in the South tended to be racist -- but the JBS itself was not racist.

And neither was General Walker.

However -- as it is regularly said in politics -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And also, politics makes strange bed-fellows.

My point is that Ex-General Walker was not above using the politics of George Wallace in order to advance his own purposes.

In my interpretation of Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), Ex-General Walker's motivation in the JFK assassination (and also in the Ole Miss riots of 1962) was to solidify the USA to oppose Fidel Castro in Cuba.

The entire motive for Ex-General Walker's plot to kill JFK was to invade Cuba and assassinate Fidel Castro.

The fact that Walker obtained intensive support from the followers of George Wallace was secondary, in my reading.

So, my interpretation is quite different, Don. You saw Anticommunism as secondary, while I saw racism as secondary.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 8, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Mr. Doyle - I couldn't possibly agree more with your rebuttal. Of course the CIA heavies had the means motive and opportunity, and as you point out the experience, to eliminate JFK.

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul, sorry to say that I’m not buying into Caufield’s book. Caufield’s thesis would have us believe that the prime motivation for Oswald and others in his orbit was racism, more exactly anti-integrationism, the segregation-forever sentiment. Anti-Communism, anti-Castro-ism, and the Cold War are deemed secondary. This is an unbelievable stretch. Like was said of the Watergate investigation, follow the money. These segregation-forever types, like General Walker, had no source of a big money equivalent to the CIA’s anti-Castro, anti Communist budget. Was there some crossover between the segregation warriors, right wing warriors and the Cold War warriors, sure, but Caufield fails to recognize that people are not one dimensional; rather that they are complex with multiple motivations. And Caufield is a M.D.; go figure that one.

I agree with Caufield’s point that LHO was a product of his times and environment. Any poor white kid of the the Jim Crow South during the 1940’s and ‘50s of would likely default to a segregationist and right wing point of view. But does this explain Oswald’s international pro-commie persona? The author doesn’t delve into it, seemingly to avoid the possibility of an intelligence connection.

The link the author makes between General Walker and Oswald is rather tenuous. Walker employed a man named Duff in December 1962. A restaurant owner and his wife in Dallas claimed that they saw Duff and Oswald eating in their restaurant in early 1963, months before the shooting at Walker’s house.

The link between Oswald and Banister comes about because Walker and Banister are big-time into the John Birch Society. And get this, the author proposes that Oswald’s pro-Castro, pro FPCC activities run out of Banister’s office building(544 Camp St) were NOT CIA or intelligence related even though Oswald was known to be a returned defector at the time. Instead Caufield claims that Oswald was working for Banister to grow Banister’s already sizable flies on subversives which Banister took with him when he left the FBI. Why did Banister want to grow his files on subversives? So access to them could be leased to certain State and police authorities in Louisiana and other southern states for the purpose of decapitating the civil rights movement using laws like Louisiana’s Communist Control Act of 1962. These kind of laws made it a crime with severe penalties to be active in civil rights causes if it could be established that an activist had associations with Communists or Communist front groups as documented by “authoritative ” sources like Banister’s files.

Caufield and I do share the notion that some type of false flag operation was in play that day in Dallas and Oswald was party to it. Caufield proposes that the nominal false flag operation was sold to Oswald as a “shoot and miss” attempt on JFK like the one at at Walker’s house. No bloodshed would be involved. This action would result in his arrest. The charges would be unprovable and a release from jail would follow. This is Caufield’s false flag “shoot-and miss” theory,

False flag operations are designed to establish a pretext for some other purpose, usually a military or diplomatic one. Caufield proposes that the intended pretext for this false flag action was to stir-up the citizenry into an anti-communist, anti-lefty frenzy which would result in the increased repression against The Civil Rights Movement, something that all anti-integrationists racists, like Walker, Banister, Ferrie and Oswald would applaud. I disagree with Caufield on this point. I think that whatever the nominal false flag operation that was in play on 11/22/63 , it was to be the pretext to take out Castro militarily, not to repress the Civil Rights Movement. Caufield and I also agree on this; JFK’s assassination was the result of the nominal false flag operation being hijacked by a rogue operation which Oswald had no knowledge of. Caufield thinks that the rogue operators were part of the hard right wing, anti-integration, racist crowd of Walker, Banister, H.L.Hunt, to name a few, and I think that the rogue operators were CIA heavies, like Angleton, Phillips, Howard Hunt, Morales, Cord Meyer, etc., These guys had already successfully produced regime change in places like Guatemala and Iran. And these CIA operators already knew how to do assassinations technically, but more importantly they knew, and this is evidence of their sophistication, that once the rogue operation was successful that those involved in the nominal false flag operation would have no choice but to cover up everything, the both the nominal and rogue operation, least they be ruined and the many of the institutions of this nation be severely tested. The “Castro-did-it” spin in the immediate hours and days after the assassination which Gaeton Fonzi wrote all about in his book The Last Investigation is also evidence of the perpetrator’s sophistication because it works with both cases, the nominal and the rogue. Of course Caufield doesn’t like Fonzi let alone Garrison.

The crucial flaw in Caufield’s thesis is the reality of the Cover Up. He actually thinks that lousy police work and political influence on the local and state level was the reason that his purported right wing perpetrators were never brought to justice. These perpetrators of Caufield’s were essentially a bunch of light weights when it came to regime change; let alone designing in an automatic cover up mechanism. And they had virtually zero political capital on the national level to influence a federal investigation unless one buys into the notion that all gays are in some big world-wide fraternity. Even though the FBI’s J.Edgar Hoover was gay and a tried and true racist, he would have thrown a right wing, gay, racist like General Walker under the bus in a heartbeat because Walker and his cohorts had little, if any, political cover on the national stage.

Now the CIA of Dulles, Angleton, Phillips, etc is another story. They had the means, experience, personnel, connections and brains to successfully pull off the assassination and design in an auto cover up feature. One would think that after 20 years of research , 50 something interviews and 800+ pages that Caufield could have come up with something a little more palatable.

Don, I interpret Caufield's book differently.

Edwin Walker never -- at any time -- openly stated in any public speech any opinion of racism, racial superiority or racial inferiority.

I realize that Walker led the racial riots at Ole Miss in 1962, and that most of his associates from 1962-1964 were bigots.

Yet it is important for history to note that Walker rejected all efforts to recruit him into the KKK and the ANP.

Walker's openly stated argument against the Supreme Court's Brown Decision was that States should have the right to choose whether to racially integrate or not, and this should never been settled by sending Federal Troops to a high school or college.

That is not, strictly speaking, a racist position. I realize those who hate General Walker will oppose me loudly on this point.

On the contrary -- Edwin Walker was a pragmatist. His main concern, politically, was Anticommunism. This was also the main concern of Robert Welch, founder of the JBS.

It just so happened -- by an accident of history -- that the Cold War Anticommunist movement at fever pitch, coincided with the Civil Rights movement at fever pitch in the early 1960's.

It was an accident of history that the JBS and the WCC would join hands at this moment in history. It made both sides stronger than they would have been separately. The racist movement became stronger by blaming the USSR for MLK. The JBS movement became stronger with their slogan, "Impeach Earl Warren!"

I do agree that Robert Welch and the JBS in general were not racists. Rather -- the JBS in the north tended to be non-racists, while the JBS in the South tended to be racist -- but the JBS itself was not racist.

And neither was General Walker.

However -- as it is regularly said in politics -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And also, politics makes strange bed-fellows.

My point is that Ex-General Walker was not above using the politics of George Wallace in order to advance his own purposes.

In my interpretation of Jeff Caufield's new book, Ex-General Walker's motivation in the JFK assassination (and also in the Ole Miss riots of 1962) was to solidify the USA to oppose Fidel Castro in Cuba.

The entire motive for Ex-General Walker's plot to kill JFK was to invade Cuba and assassinate Fidel Castro.

The fact that Walker obtained intensive support from the followers of George Wallace was secondary, in my reading.

So, my interpretation is quite different, Don. You saw Anticommunism as secondary, while I saw racism as secondary.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

For anyone who believes Paul Trejo's lunatic comment that:

"Edwin Walker never -- at any time -- openly stated in any public speech any opinion of racism, racial superiority or racial inferiority."

See page 425 of Caufield's book (bottom of page) regarding Walker comments in his speech before the Christian Crusade Convention in Oklahoma City on August 4, 1963.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Brancato]

Ernie - Thanks for pressing this point.

[Paul Trejo]

For anyone who believes Paul Trejo's lunatic comment that:

"Edwin Walker never -- at any time -- openly stated in any public speech any opinion of racism, racial superiority or racial inferiority."

See page 425 of Caufield's book (bottom of page) regarding Walker comments in his speech before the Christian Crusade Convention in Oklahoma City on August 4, 1963.

I noticed that reference Ernie, years ago. Yet it was claimed by a newspaper reporter -- whose credentials were biased to say the least.

Actually, in his published and official speeches, Ex-General Edwin Walker never said anything overtly racist.

In fact, people who doubt this will always cite that Oklahoma newspaper article in contrast -- BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE.

That's important. You yourself, Ernie, with your vast collection of Righist materials, have no other source.

I will also note that Caufield's CT case against General Walker is very new -- at least in terms of actual scholarship.

I continue to favor and recommend Dr. Jeff Caufield's book -- although I don't agree with it in all particulars. The same appears to be the case with Don.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 7, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

For anyone who believes Paul Trejo's lunatic comment that:

"Edwin Walker never -- at any time -- openly stated in any public speech any opinion of racism, racial superiority or racial inferiority."

See page 425 of Caufield's book (bottom of page) regarding Walker comments in his speech before the Christian Crusade Convention in Oklahoma City on August 4, 1963.

I noticed that reference Ernie, years ago. Yet it was claimed by a newspaper reporter -- whose credentials were biased to say the least.

Actually, in his published and official speeches, Ex-General Edwin Walker never said anything overtly racist.

In fact, people who doubt this will always cite that Oklahoma newspaper article in contrast -- BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE.

That's important. You yourself, Ernie, with your vast collection of Righist materials, have no other source.

I will also note that Caufield's CT case against General Walker is very new -- at least in terms of actual scholarship.

I continue to favor and recommend Dr. Jeff Caufield's book -- although I don't agree with it in all particulars. The same appears to be the case with Don.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

This is typical of Paul's attempt to ignore the obvious.

1. First of all, why do you claim that the newspaper reporter was biased? Specify how you went about ascertaining the alleged "bias". Did you contact the reporter?

2. Why do you think Walker was invited to attend and be the featured speaker at so many Citizens Councils meetings -- keeping in mind that you have previously claimed that virtually all those groups were originally named "White Citizens Councils"?

3. How do you explain Walker's speech to the American Conservative Club in Harrisburg PA in which he declared that: “I think I can match three good Americans in the KKK for every one in the Americans For Democratic Action or the Anti-Defamation League.” Keep in mind that the KKK was (at that time) listed on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations.

4. Why do you think Walker accepted the invitation to speak at a rally in Baton Rouge LA sponsored by “United Conservatives” which was a front for Citizens Councils of Louisiana -- where the only speakers were well-known racists such as Cong. John Rarick and Ned Touchstone? Touchstone was a KKK member and a rabid segregationist. Doesn't that give you a clue to Walker's personal beliefs?

5. Why would the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America (Robert Shelton) offer Walker the position of Grand Dragon of Texas during their July 1965 meeting in Shreveport LA? To your knowledge, has there ever been a KKK official or a KKK member or a KKK sympathizer in U.S. history who was NOT a racist? Why did Walker subsequently mention to someone that he was interested in that position?

6. In October 1965, why did Walker agree to speak to the Pasco County (FL) Federation For Constitutional Government – a front for the United Florida Ku Klux Klan of Dade County FL? Why would a KKK group invite Walker? To discuss his favorite TexMex recipes?

7. Why would Walker subscribe to Conde McGinley’s New Jersey newspaper, Common Sense, and make the comment in its 11/15/65 issue that: “I’ll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action.”

8. If Walker had no opinions regarding racial inferiority/superiority and his agreement with white supremacist arguments -- then why did he surround himself during his post-military career with prominent bigots including major officials of the explicitly racist Citizens Councils movement -- including Medford Evans (a leader in the segregationist movement and the editor of the Council's magazine) as well as accept countless speaking engagements before pro-segregation organizations?

9. Would you agree with the proposition that Walker wanted to be a major player in both Texas and national politics?

If you agree with that premise, then would it be reasonable to conclude that Walker knew that overtly racist politicians had no significant national audience because such individuals repelled more people than they attracted AND, most important of all, overt racists could never attract the type of support (endorsements, financial contributions, publicity, and votes) from the very people whom Walker most needed if he ever was going to have a shot at state and national prominence and success, i.e. the mainstream conservative movement as well as the non-racist radical right--such as Robert Welch?

Given the obvious truism just summarized above -- then don't you think your statement that

"Actually, in his published and official speeches, Ex-General Edwin Walker never said anything overtly racist" is blatantly fatuous?

Edited August 8, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, I stand by my statement, because Walker himself refused to join the KKK and any other racist group. Here is a private note from Walker's own desk -- undated, unaddressed, probably to himself:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19660606_Walker_Joins_Nothing.JPG

Walker's statements about there being more good men in the KKK than in the Communistic ADS was his hyperbole to express how evil the Communists were in his eyes.

It's CRUCIAL to recognize that Walker never joined the KKK, the ANP, the WCC or any other racist group -- even though he had ample opportunity, and even though his career of making political speeches was supported mainly by these Radical Right hate groups.

Walker expressed himself clearly in an interview in March 1963 during his Midnight Ride coast-to-coast tour with Segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis -- that he didn't regard any race as inherently superior or inferior -- but that it must be a matter of Free Will, and State's Rights, whether to racially integrate a public school.

For Walker, the issue was States Rights to CHOOSE, and not about any so-called master race.

We should never lose sight of Walker's key goal -- Anticommunism -- and his key theater -- Cuba and Fidel Castro. This became the motive and the opportunity for the JFK assassination.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 8, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, I stand by my statement, because Walker himself refused to join the KKK and any other racist group. Here is a private note from Walker's own desk -- undated, unaddressed, probably to himself:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19660606_Walker_Joins_Nothing.JPG

Walker's statements about there being more good men in the KKK than in the Communistic ADS was his hyperbole to express how evil the Communists were in his eyes.

It's CRUCIAL to recognize that Walker never joined the KKK, the ANP, the WCC or any other racist group -- even though he had ample opportunity, and even though his career of making political speeches was supported mainly by these Radical Right hate groups.

Walker expressed himself clearly in an interview in March 1963 during his Midnight Ride coast-to-coast tour with Segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis -- that he didn't regard any race as inherently superior or inferior -- but that it must be a matter of Free Will, and State's Rights, whether to racially integrate a public school.

For Walker, the issue was States Rights to CHOOSE, and not about any so-called master race.

We should never lose sight of Walker's key goal -- Anticommunism -- and his key theater -- Cuba and Fidel Castro. This became the motive and the opportunity for the JFK assassination.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

But you have never explained why "joining the KKK" is the one singular and critical piece of evidence which makes ALL other evidence worthless.

Furthermore, Walker DID join American Royal Rangers. He was to be its leader -- although he did not want his name publicly revealed.

Furthermore, Walker REPEATEDLY associated himself with racists and racist organizations. Why does that have NO impact upon you?

If you genuinely believe that all the evidence regarding Walker's repeated associations with racists and racist groups is totally irrelevant, THEN how can you possibly admire Dr. Caufield's book --- which is filled with comparable evidence about the radical right in the U.S. and which is intended for readers to accept as an indisputable pattern of beliefs and associations which Caufield then tells us we must acknowledge as being critical evidence for determining who was directly involved in, and/or who facilitated, and/or who knew about the murder of Kennedy?

You are totally delusional if you sincerely believe that Walker was solely concerned about "states rights". As I have repeatedly pointed out, many PRINCIPLED conservatives were opposed to proposed civil rights legislation because of genuine concerns over maintaining a correct balance between state and federal authority.

BUT those principled conservatives NEVER associated themselves with racist individuals, organizations, and publications the way Walker did. You will search in vain for a principled conservative who agreed to speak before a group like Americans For the Preservation of the White Race OR before KKK-front groups. You will NOT find principled conservatives who agreed to meet with the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.

And, obviously, no Imperial Wizard or any other senior Klan official ever offered a Grand Dragon position or any other Klan position to any mainstream conservative like Sen. Goldwater or Sen. Tower or Sen. Mundt or Cong. Walter Judd, or Cong. Gerald Ford, or Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, etc. Why not? Because racial bigots knew with absolute certitude, and without any hesitation, that such conservatives (whether Democrats or Republicans) would NEVER EVER associate themselves with, or endorse, or praise, or condone the KKK or any similar group.

YOU STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED why Walker chose to do something which NOT EVEN ROBERT WELCH ever did!

Edited August 8, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

(1) I agree with Caufield’s point that LHO was a product of his times and environment. Any poor white kid of the the Jim Crow South during the 1940’s and ‘50s of would likely default to a segregationist and right wing point of view. But does this explain Oswald’s international pro-commie persona? The author doesn’t delve into it, seemingly to avoid the possibility of an intelligence connection.

(2) The link the author makes between General Walker and Oswald is rather tenuous. Walker employed a man named Duff in December 1962. A restaurant owner and his wife in Dallas claimed that they saw Duff and Oswald eating in their restaurant in early 1963, months before the shooting at Walker’s house.

(3) The link between Oswald and Banister comes about because Walker and Banister are big-time into the John Birch Society. And get this, the author proposes that Oswald’s pro-Castro, pro FPCC activities run out of Banister’s office building (544 Camp St) were NOT CIA or intelligence related even though Oswald was known to be a returned defector at the time. Instead Caufield claims that Oswald was working for Banister to grow Banister’s already sizable flies on subversives which Banister took with him when he left the FBI.

(4) Caufield proposes that the intended pretext for this false flag action was to stir-up the citizenry into an anti-communist, anti-lefty frenzy which would result in the increased repression against the Civil Rights Movement, something that all anti-integrationists racists, like Walker, Banister, Ferrie and Oswald would applaud. I disagree with Caufield on this point.

(5) The “Castro-did-it” spin in the immediate hours and days after the assassination which Gaeton Fonzi wrote all about in his book The Last Investigation is also evidence of the perpetrator’s sophistication because it works with both cases, the nominal and the rogue. Of course Caufield doesn’t like Fonzi let alone Garrison.

(6) The crucial flaw in Caufield’s thesis is the reality of the Cover Up. He actually thinks that lousy police work and political influence on the local and state level was the reason that his purported right wing perpetrators were never brought to justice...Even though the FBI’s J.Edgar Hoover was gay and a tried and true racist, he would have thrown a right wing, gay, racist like General Walker under the bus in a heartbeat because Walker and his cohorts had little, if any, political cover on the national stage.

(7) Now the CIA of Dulles, Angleton, Phillips, etc is another story. They had the means, experience, personnel, connections and brains to successfully pull off the assassination and design in an auto cover up feature. One would think that after 20 years of research , 50 something interviews and 800+ pages that Caufield could have come up with something a little more palatable.

Don, I appreciate that you've put a lot of work into this response, and I want to offer you my feedback, point by point, so I numbered your points above. Here are my responses:

(1) You ask about Oswald’s international pro-commie persona, and I agree that Caufield did a partial job in explaining it. Caufield was mainly interested in the NOLA period of the pro-commie persona -- but the USSR period he left hanging. So you make a good point. As for a possible "intelligence connection," this was answered IMHO by former CIA-Agent Victor Marchetti, who said that Oswald fit the profile of a 1959 "dangle" operation of the CIA, consisting of dozens of participants in tandem. Oswald was still a teenager when he entered the USSR, so he was hardly a CIA Officer. But Oswald was a "wannabe" and this was his chance. Evidently, Oswald ruined his chance by marrying Marina and returning to the USA (probably at her urging). My evidence is that Oswald never had a steady job after that, and lived in dire poverty. Intelligence Agents don't live in dire poverty.

(2) I agree with you that Caufield's link between General Walker and Oswald is weak. Caufield linked Oswald with Guy Banister, but Jim Garrison had already done that. (Caufield had all of Jim Garrison's papers in his hands as he wrote this book -- and I perceive some competition.) In any case, I connect Walker and Oswald through George De Mohrenschildt, who hated Walker and who (along with Volkmar Schmidt) encouraged Oswald to join a conspiracy to assassinate General Walker. I think the evidence proves this, but Caufield neglects it. (Also, even if Duff and Oswald knew each other, Duff passed a lie detector test about the Walker shooting by the DPD, and he was exonerated. IMHO, the known conspirators with Oswald in the Walker shooting were Roscoe White, from the BYP, and Volkmar Schmidt, George De Mohrenschildt and several others)

(3) I agree with Caufield that the pro-Castro, pro FPCC activities run out of Banister’s office (544 Camp St) were NOT CIA. They were, IMHO, Banister's operation, and the FBI and the CIA were fully aware, but did not help Banister. Banister was his own boss. I also agree with Caufield that Banister and Walker cooperated with each other to sheep-dip Oswald. Banister was looking for mercenaries to slip into Cuba to kill Fidel Castro. Walker was looking for a patsy for the JFK assassination. Banister didn't object to Walker's goals. They cooperated in the sheep-dip. Banister led that NOLA effort. If the CIA was at all involved, it was in Mexico City -- and that was only to help Guy Banister infiltrate the FPCC to get a US mole into Cuba to kill Fidel Castro. So, I believe David Atlee Phillips when he wrote this in his manuscript, THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988). The JFK assassination was not on the radar of the CIA in Mexico City, as proved in 2014 by Bill Simpich, who showed that David Morales acted without the knowledge of the CIA-high-command, causing a MOLE HUNT which Simpich documented scientifically in his free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

(4) I agree with Caufield entirely that the "intended pretext for this false flag action was to stir-up the citizenry into an anti-communist, anti-lefty frenzy". The main goal was not to suppress MLK however -- the main goal was to Invade Cuba. I don't see how you can disagree, Don. Would you explain your disagreement further, please?

(5) The “Castro-did-it” spin flowing out of Dallas on the weekend of the JFK assassination was nipped in the bud by J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ. Just this was the intention of the "Lone Nut" theory which we both criticize. You haven't commented on this, Don. I'd like your opinion.

(6) I totally agree with you that the weakest point in Caufield’s thesis is the Cover Up. Yet I disagree with you as well, Don. IMHO the Cover-up was invented by J. Edgar Hoover at 3pm CST in response to the "Castro-did-it" spin coming out of Dallas. The Cover-up was the LBJ Administration's response to the Radical Right attempt to control the politics of the USA. The Cover-up actually saved the USA from another war, IMHO -- perhaps a nuclear war. It was as important as the JFK decision in the Cuban Missile Crisis. When we look back at history after the JFK Records Act is fulfilled, we should see this clearly.

(7) As for the CIA -- even though David Morales and Howard Hunt admitted some complicity -- the hard evidence against the CIA is still lacking after 50 years. Despite all the literature about it. It's weak. Of course the CIA had the means to kill JFK, but so did the Pentagon. That's not enough. McCone didn't have the motive. The motive, the means and the opportunity all belonged to General Walker in Dallas, and his dedicated teams of supporters.

In conclusion, we agree on many points, Don. Most of all we agree that Jeff Caufield's new book isn't perfect. We even agree on points of imperfection.

Yet ultimately Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) has identified the John Wilkes Booth of the 20th century.

The fact that Dr. Caufield did not wrap up every detail with a silver bow is hardly his fault -- after an ocean of bone-headed theories and wasted effort that have filled the past half-century with ridiculous CT's.

In fact, the work of Dr. Caufield is only beginning. Further research into Edwin Walker is going to change US History -- and we are only getting started.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 8, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I'd like to get back to the theme of this thread -- the book titled "The Assassination Story" printed by American Eagle Publishing Co. and its President, Robert A. Surrey in Dallas, which had its headquarters in the very home of General Edwin. A. Walker.

Evidently Walker and Surrey wanted to capitalize on the JFK assassination in this way -- and to make use of their own, personal collection of hundreds of newspaper clippings from The Dallas Morning News and The Dallas Times Herald from 11/17/1963 through 12/12/1963.

Clearly they were breaking copyright law by failing to get permission from those newspapers to re-sell the articles -- although perhaps Surrey and Walker felt a certain proprietary interest in the content of the stories, anyway.

Walker pounded his fist in his Warren Commission testimony, so to speak, to insist that the JFK murder was a "conspiracy" and that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist of the FPCC variety, and the USA should act quickly against the USSR and Communist Cuba!

The most frequent stories of the weeks after the JFK assassination were about the Radical Right killing JFK, or the Radical Left killing JFK. I would guess that Walker and Surrey cherry-picked articles to promote their politics -- that Oswald was a Communist.

I would like to see this volume, to verify.

Also, another major story promoted by General Walker for the rest of his life is that Oswald was his shooter back in April, 1963, and that Walker himself knew it at the time, and he believed that RFK had hired Oswald to kill him. His story claimed that RFK set Oswald free in April, 1963, and that is how Oswald was free to murder JFK in November 1963. That was stated by General Walker to a German newspaper on the morning after the JFK murder. Here is a sample:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

• The reason the German article is dated 11/29/1963 is because the Deutsche-Nationalzeitung was only a weekly paper, published on Fridays. So this article came out on the Friday after the JFK assassination, even though Walker gave them the story only 18 hours after JFK was killled.

Walker wrote on this topic often throughout his life -- to the National Enquirer and to his Friends of Walker group in Dallas. H.L. Hunt himself was aware of this story, and spoke about it in his famous 1966 Playboy interview. Walker was still promoting this story as a very old man. Here is his final article on the topic, as far as I know:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf

• This Kerrville Daily Times article was perhaps the last one that Walker ever wrote on this topic. Notice Walker's signature on the typed original.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 8, 2016 by Paul Trejo