Don Jeffries

Francis, Fascinating stuff. Thanks so much for posting it. In America, the likes of Charles Lindbergh and Joseph Kennedy (father of JFK) were bitterly opposed to the U.S. entering the war, at least prior to Pearl Harbor (which saved them from the "facsist" label). The great poet Ezra Pound, who made wartime speeches from Italy supporting Mussolini and condemning Roosevelt and the allies in scathing terms, was sent to a Washington, D.C. mental institution after the war, and kept there for a decade. His only "illness" was his violent opposition to WWII, and his generally obsessive preoccupation with "the Jews."

Stephen, Yes, I've read Cornwell's book. I wasn't very impressed with her Sickert theory, not the least of which because she never even mentioned Stephen Knight, who first mentioned Sickert in connection with the Ripper murders. I also saw her on t.v a few times promoting her book, and wasn't taken by her personality, either.

Stephen, Great idea; Jack the Ripper has fascinated me for many years as well. As befits my conspiratorially inclined nature, I am intrigued by the possibility of Royal involvement, either via the Duke of Clarence himself, or the freemasonic connection (with Sir William Gull as the actual murderer), as postulated by the late Stephen Knight in his "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" and the recent film "From Hell." I realize most of the respectable researchers into the case have dismissed such theories, but they make a lot of sense to me. An unsolved mystery is always the best kind!

John, I think this is an overly broad attack on Penn Jones. He was an eccentric character, and some of his information later turned out to be exaggerated or untrue, but he also published a lot of important, truthful information. If nothing else, Penn Jones deserves our respect for being the first journalist to point out all the mysterious deaths connected to the assassination. "The Continuing Inquiry"-the monthly periodical he published for almost a decade, provided a wealth of material for researchers. I count myself as fortunate to have been a long-time subscriber.

Pat, I think Vincent Salandria's perspective on this is right on. I don't know how else to explain the childish, inept nature of the coverup, except that it was done on purpose. If we assume (I certainly do) that the most powerful forces in our society were behind the assassination and the subsequent coverup, then certainly they would have been able to come up with a more sophisticated cover story. Conspirators of this caliber would not have come up with anything as ridiculous as the single-bullet theory, if they desired that the public never know the truth. They would have known that the bullet holes in JFK's clothing offer complete and utter disproof of this alone. They wouldn't have utilized an obviously mob-connected sleazeball like Jack Ruby to silence Oswald, especially while he was being "protected" by more than 70 police officers! There would have been any number of less suspicous ways to kill Oswald, most notably as he was "resisting" arrest in the Texas Theater. We also have the fact that criticism of the Warren Report was permitted, at least as far as articles and books were concerned (produced by mainstream publishing houses), creating widespread skepticism amongst the public at large. Other controversial subjects, wherein the author argued a large, governmental conspiracy theory, have not been produced by the same large publishing houses. For instance, many argue that the official versions of the Oklahoma City bombing and the 911 attacks were just as ridiculous as the official version of the JFK assassination. There aren't any books exposing the flaws in those official theories in the public library (well, okay, there is one about the OKC bombing-"Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror" by Hoffman, which I urge everyone to read-but you get the point). And the fact that EVERY television journalist continues to support the absurd Warren Commission fairy tale, just supports Salandria's contention. They WANT us to know they know, and when the likes of Peter Jennings stare into the screen and mouth lies, they are sending the message to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the case that they are totally aware they are lying, and are aware that you know they are lying. The people who killed JFK knew that the public is basically apolitical, and except for a small minority like us, would realize that Oswald didn't do it, but wouldn't care about finding the real culprits. This very sad reality is reflected in polls that have consistently shown that while a huge majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, almost as large a majority do not support a new investigation. That's the mindset we have to deal with, and the real conspirators were educated enough to realize that ahead of time. Call it doing an endzone celebration, or a morbid victory dance, but I look at all the conspiratorial tidbits scattered throughout the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits- which the original band of critics exposed so well-as a "in your face" type of statement by the conspirators. "Yes, we're saying this undamaged bullet caused 7 wounds, and we're even going to publish photos of identical bullets that came out badly damaged in test firing in our exhibits. Yes, we're going to still claim that JFK was shot only from behind, even though the one clear home movie of the killing we're going to (grudgingly) admit to be shown reveals that his head went backwards after the shot, in violation of a basic law of physics. Yes, we're going to claim that Oswald achieved this shooting on his own, even though we're going to include the fact that the top shooters in the country couldn't duplicate his feat as part of our record. Yes, our legal staff is not going to call some of the most crucial witnesses to the crime, and they are going to track down completely irrelevant people who had nothing at all to do with the events being "investigated." Yes, our post-assassination scenario for Oswald is going to be filled with the most illogical series of movements imaginable, and will feature a series of laughable witnesses that no real prosectution team would have used. Yes, we are going to have the alleged assassin gunned down on live TV, by an easily discovered low-level mobster, while he is shackled between two police officers, and our only answer to the obvious "he was silenced" reaction will be that Ruby was grief-stricken and didn't want Jackie Kennedy to testify at a trial. Yes, there will be a series of unnatural deaths of those who are connected in some way to the events in Dallas, and this will become common knowledge. Yes, we will publish some truly startling testimony from Jack Ruby, where he literally begs Earl Warren & co. to take him back to Washington so that he can 'tell the truth.'" I think you get my point (which I probably took too long to make). I think the conspirators would have been able to coverup this crime a lot better than they did, if they really wanted to. The fact is, I agree with Vincent Salandria that they wanted us to know.

Tim, I would argue that the counsels employed by the Warren Commission did an excellent job. However, we probably would disagree on what their job was; I happen to believe it was to coverup, not to investigate. First, they did this by limiting the scope of their report; they divided the "investigative" responsibiity into a handful of areas, and as Mark Lane used to point out, none of them dealt with the question of who committed the crime. The Warren Report was essentially a biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, the Hearings and Exhibits were clearly and obviously padded to make it look like a massive invesigation had been conducted, and the premise from the outset was simply to buttress the FBI's very slim initial report on the assassination, produced only days after the crime had been commited. To say that the FBI's "investigation" was lacking is to be very, very kind to the FBI. I don't think that innocent young lawyers ignore crucial witnesses like Admiral Burkely, while somehow tracking down the likes of Mrs. Viola Peterman, who had been a neighbor of the Oswalds when Lee was an infant, and hadn't seen or spoken to any member of the Oswald family for over 20 years. There is no innocent explanation for calling someone like that as a witness, and if you read her testimony (which rambles on for several pages, and is longer than much of the testimony from witnesses who were at the scene of the crime and possessed pertinent information), you can observe the obvious "padding" going on by counsel. This "padding" process is evident in much of the testmony, as Specter, Belin, Ball, Liebeler and co. ask the witnesses about their childhoods, education, families, job history, and other completely irrelevant questions, while often forgetting to ask crucial and obvious questions. A good example of this would be the testimony of Sandra Styles, who was standing beside Elsie Dorman as she flimed the motorcade (she evidently missed the shooting itself, although this film has a curious history). First of all, the Warren Commission naturally didn't even call Ms. Dorman as a witness. It did take the testimony of Ms. Styles, but counsel David Belin neglected to ask her anything about her impressions of the shooting (what she heard, where the shots came from, etc.). He did find time to ask her about the high heels she was wearing that day, however. The Hearings and Exhibits are filled with this kind of stuff, and it points very clearly towards a staff that knew exactly what it was doing, and did it very well.

Denis, I've disagreed with you on many matters relating to the JFK assassination, but you showed a lot of courage during the Holocaust debate. I also do appreciate your regular VCR alerts and TV updates. Are you being asked to leave? If not, why would you?

Mike, I think we need to seperate the right of every individual to free speech from an employer's right to demand a teacher adhere to a particular curriculum. This may sound surprising coming from me, but I don't believe, for instance, that Ernst Zundel, or any other teacher, should be indoctrinating students with their own agenda. Zundel wasn't sent to prison for that this time (I believe he was charged with publishing and distributing holocaust "denial" material), but that was the reason he first came under scrutiny. While I can recognize that a textbook or a curriculum can't reflect the views of a very small minority (revisionists or "deniers"), that is a seperate issue from the right of individuals or groups to publish their views, use public facilities for rallies, etc. In the case of the JFK assassination, however, we find that a clear majority of the people do reject the "official" story, while all textbooks and curriculum promote it. I think it would be perfectly appropriate for teachers who are covering the JFK assassination to go over the main points of controversy and to let students know that most people believe there was a conspiracy. I think that all teachers need to be careful about injecting their own opinions into the curriculum. This doesn't change my strong opposition to laws against holocaust "deniers" or any other renegade thinkers, and being imprisoned for their upopular ideas.

Bill, Great post! I have never read this before. You learn something new everyday. IMHO, the Secret Service itself got a free ride that day, and some really good critics are still willing to excuse their indefensible failure to react in Dealey Plaza.

My problem with Marina is that although her inconsistent, fantastic Warren Commission testimony did irreperable harm to her husband, she has never really recanted any of the things she said. She has mentioned being scared, and used by the authorities, which I readily understand and can sympathize with. However, I think she owes it to the memory of her husband to at least admit some of the things she testified to were untrue. For instance, the ridiculous tale about holding the bathroom door so that Lee wouldn't leave and try to shoot Nixon. Or her testimony about the attempt on General Walker. Or her claim that she did take the obviously faked backyard photos. It should always be remembered that almost all the damning evidence about Oswald's character comes from either Marina or Ruth Paine (with a bit of DeMohrenschildt thrown in as well). Since Ruth and Michael Paine certainly aren't going to come clean at this point, it would be nice if Marina would tell us everything she knows about the strange relationship she shared with them. I don't believe Marina has commented publicly about Ruth Paine in years, if ever, or addressed the speculation that has surrounded her possible role in setting Lee up. If Marina is genuinely interested in the truth, and in clearing the name of her childrens' father, then she should directly answer the questions we have about her testimony, the Paines, and anything else she knows.

I think the Paines, especially Ruth, were involved in setting Oswald up in some way. Both of them are still alive, and should be among the very first witnesses questioned if there is ever a real investigation into the assassination of JFK.

Richard, I think we've been down this road before, but I'll repeat my position on Craig. The fact that he was unsure about the license tag on the Rambler doesn't detract from the fact that he reported seeing a man resembling Oswald fleeing towards one right after the assassination. This initial report was confirmed byat least two other witnesses, all unconnected to one another, who reported seeing the same thing. Craig's life was a nightmare after the assassination. Like many human beings would have done in the same situation, he probably came to believe he was a more important part of the story that day than he really was. The same thing might be said about Jean Hill, to a lesser extent. Still, I wouldn't dismiss either one of them out of hand. Craig would still have been a better witness for the defense than any witness the prosecution could have produced. We wouldn't have to depend on the faulty recollections and human frailties of this one deputy, if anyone else had been doing their job that day in Dallas.

According to the best witness(IMO) on the 6th floor after the shooting, Weitzman wasn't even there. Tom Alyea of WFAA has always been critical of the DPD's handling of evidence that afternoon, but he was there when the rifle was found, and it was not a Mauser. IMO Weitzman's affidavit was made after he heard all the speculation that took place, ie, "looks like a Mauser". Many researchers have also accredited Weitzman with being a firearms expert, although he simply worked in a sporting goods store for awhile. He actually spent years in the ladies garment business, which was where his expertise was. If the second officer is Roger Craig, he changed his story so often he cannot be considered a credible witness regarding the rifle. During an interview with the LA Free Press in 1968, Penn Jones(who was with Craig) had to keep correcting him because he made so many misstatements. And Craig was never close enough to the rifle(by his own admission) to read MAUSER stamped on the rifle. I suggest if anyone is interested, do a search on Tom Alyea. A good starting point would be Allan Eaglesham's excellent site: www.manuscriptservice.com RJS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Richard, The second officer who signed a sworn affidavit identifying the rifle as a mauser was Eugene Boone. I know your opinion of Craig, and I don't share it. Yes, he did embellish things over the years, but IMHO on the day of the assassination, he was just about the only member of Dallas law enforcement who was trying to do a great job. Certainly, his initial report about seeing a man resembling Oswald running down the slope of the knoll to a Rambler station wagon was coroborated by at least two other witnesses. He's a lot more credible, in my book, than the best witnesss the Warren Commission ever produced. As for Tom Alyea, after all these years, I believe he still thinks Oswald did it. Sorry, but in my book, anyone with any knowledge of the assassination who believes the official fairy tale has zero credibility.

John, That's really absurd behavior on his part. You were a lot fairer to him than most people would be. He certainly wouldn't have lasted more than a few posts at the other JFK forums I know of. You even started a thread on the holocaust, which would seemingly be something he'd be interested in. Anyway, I had no idea that wasn't his name; is his real identity someone we'd know?

Seymour Weitzman was among the identifiers of the rifle found on the 6th floor. He identified it as a Mauser, later changed his mind. Seems like he was a key witness to support the conspiracy, until his mind was changed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Antti, Seymour Weitzman played a key role more than once on November 22, 1963. Not only was he one of the two officers who found a rifle on the 6th floor (both of them signing sworn affidavits that it was a German Mauser), he encountered the aforementioned SS agent, and also found a piece of skull, which apparently belonged to JFK. I have always wondered why he wasn't interviewed in the years following the assassination. We do know that he had some kind of mental problems later, and was institutionalized. You can still access online (sorry, don't have the url) the HSCA report on him, as well as a long interview with a psychiatrist who treated him. According to these reports, Weitzman talked often about all the people who had died that had connections to the assassination, and definitely believed there was a conspiracy.

I'm with Jack here (as I usually am). The KGB credible? This note did appear rather mysteriously, and while it's hard to prove it's from Oswald, I wouldn't definitely dismiss it as a hoax on the grounds cited by Tim. You may recall that it was an early tactic of the CIA to claim that the critics were either commie dupes or unconsciously touting Soviet propaganda.

Terry, Right on! It's great to know another ex-Spotlight subscriber! We sound like kindred spirits; too many people get caught up in the "left" and "right" labels. That little newspaper was very influential in my thinking, and I still consider myself a populist, probably because they published so much stuff about the history of populism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's why we seem to be showing up at the same sites concerning the travesties of justice that we both abhor. Call me an Independent Progressive Populistic Socialist, because I believe in all of those ideals. Of course, there are those who'd rather call me an anarchist, but that's not really where I'm coming from, except in the case of Fascist regimes, like the one running rampant and roughshod over our constitutional rights as individuals, in D.C. today. Fascist, now that's a word that I just can't seem to put down, for some reason...But, as far as being identified with any specific group, I'd much more prefer to be labeled a revolutionary, but that wingnut Newt Gingrich, coined the term for his party's massacre of the democratic congress in 1994, and bastardized its meaning for me, forever. I loved the Noontide Press, and bought quite a few copies of The Secret Team to pass out to my classmates and professors at CSUDH. In fact, a copy seems to burn a hole in my pocket anytime I have one in my possession. To me, Prouty is God! And, I don't need to hear any upstarts from the holy-roller peanut gallery take me to task for saying so! I could care less what they think. Anyhow, I've always respected your views and your mindset, Don. You're very well thought of, for your work on the assassination, as well as the political arena. And right about now, Rich would pipe up about "cutting the atta-boy posts", if I remember correctly. So, I'd better go check the mercury-loaded bullet post before I hit the hay. Catch you tomorrow. Ter <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Terry, Thanks for the kind words. I feel the same way about you.

I totally forgot about Demjanjuk's plight, and only remember reading about his extradition to Israel to stand trial. I'm sure the news of his conviction being overturned by the Israeli Supreme Court was conveniently buried somewhere on the backt pages of the API/UPI news editions, as this would be considered less news worthy than the sensationalistic banner headlines of his original capture and deportation. As far as my remark about Zundel being deported to Germany, I somehow got the idea that he was a German ex-patriate, who settled in Canada, later gaining citizenship. Sorry, my mistake. I still stand by my original convictions concerning this sentence being taken to the extreme, though. Compared to our own George Lincoln Rockwell, Zundel seems tame, but that's only my humble opinion. BTW, while I was residing in Orange County, in the early 90's, I supported the ACLU, and held a subscription to The Spotlight, simultaneously for about five years. If it hadn't been for The Spotlight, I never would have found Col. Prouty. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Terry, Right on! It's great to know another ex-Spotlight subscriber! We sound like kindred spirits; too many people get caught up in the "left" and "right" labels. That little newspaper was very influential in my thinking, and I still consider myself a populist, probably because they published so much stuff about the history of populism.

Bernice, I hope you don't think I would ever advocate restricting your right to free speech; if I'm defending Ernst Zundel's rights, I certainly would defend yours! I'm not sure what you mean about deporting Zundel to Germany. I believe he is a Canadian citizen. He was abducted (and that's really the only appropriate word for it) from Tennessee (had moved from Canada to escape the thought police, I guess) a few years back, and taken to Canada, where he has remained, in solitary confinement, for two years. We in the U.S. should certainly be wary about deporting those we think are criminals of some kind. Remember the case of John Demjanjuk, a Cleveland auto worker, who had been a model member of his community for decades, before being accused by the Office of Special Investigations of being "Ivan the Terrible," responsible for the deaths of thousands in the Treblinka concentration camp. After going through a great ordeal (all of the supposed "criminals" arrested and deported by the OSI are, due to the events in question, very elderly; actually Demjanjuk was one of the younger defendants, but still not a young man), he was tried in Israel and convicted. However, showing that they were more fair and impartial than their counterparts in the U.S.A., the Israeli Supreme Court overturned the conviction and admitted what his supporters had known all along; that there was no evidence he was "Ivan the Terrible." I haven't read about Demjanjuk for many years, and am not sure if he's even still alive (he'd have to be pretty old). I do know that our government, led by the OSI, did not want him allowed back in this country, even after the Israeli Supreme Court had overturned the verdict and no one in Israel had any interest left in trying to prosecute him. Anyhow, his tragic case is another example of our government losing all sense of fairness and justice when it comes to those labeled as "nazis." Hopefully, Ernst Zundel will eventually fare better.

But these are not legitimate analogies and do not stand up to rational comparison. Neo Nazis are not "identified" and dealt with in the same way as the victims of McCarthyism were. . Young Muslims banged up without charge in inhuman conditions by a repulsive Whitehouse regime have absolutely nothing in common with anti semitic historians getting into trouble with the law in Canada or elsewhere. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dawn, I agree completely; many families were indeed ruined by the red scare. However, the same exact thing has happened to many "holocaust deniers," and they have families, too. I'm sure Ernst Zundel's family isn't much happier than he is about that two years worth of solitary confinement. I wouldn't have supported the witch hunt against "commies" and "pinkos" in the '50s, and I think it's only consistent to be just as opposed to the witch hunt against "holocaust deniers" (albeit on a much less grand scale) around the world today. "Open Air" access to all information and a free exchange of all ideas and opinions is the only way to find the truth about a particular part of history. Andy, What alleged "commie" or "pinko" was ever dealt with as harshly as Ernst Zundel has been dealt with? A Hollywood blacklist is one thing; solitary confinement is another. This doesn't minimize what many liberals went through in the 1950s, but at least most of those who were alleged to be "commies" had the sympathy of many liberals, in the entertainment industry and academia. No one appears to have any sympathy for the likes of Ernst Zundel, except his fellow historical revisionists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ________________________________- Keep in mind that entire families were ruined by the "Hollywood black list". Writers could no longer work, some killed themselves. Their crime? Often marching or being in some way associated with a peace movement!! Woody Allen did a wonderful movie about 30 years ago on this outrageous historical "event". I believe it was called "The Front". See it. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did some research some time ago on Greer's background. I'm pretty much convinced this poor guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. In no way, shape or form was he involved in the conspiracy, or slowed the limo deliberately. The son of a farmer, he had never completed high school. He came to the US from Ireland in 1930. Prior to WWII, and after service in the US Navy during the war, Greer worked as a chauffeur. He was hired by the Secret Service in October 1944 in the uniformed division, working as a guard at the Bureau of Engraving. In 1950, he was assigned to the White House essentially as a go-fer, assigned to pick up food for the White House kitchen. He drove the SS follow up car, drove Presidents Truman and Eisenhower on occasion, and was Mrs Eisenhower's driver. When JFK was elected, Greer was assigned as his senior driver. IMO, Greer was not your typical SSA. He had little education, little training, and was simply a driver. He was never assigned as a "protector" of anyone. During the shooting in Dealey Plaza, he reacted slowly, slowed the limo to look behind him, and had to be told by Kellerman to "get us out of here". In short, he was shocked, surprised, and he "choked". As I said, he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. RJS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Richard, Al knows that we disagree on the subject of Secret Service culpability in Dealey Plaza, but I thought you and I were on the same page. I don't think Greer's modest background-although it makes for a nice story-has anything to do with his total lack of response during the app. six seconds of shooting. Greer and his fellow agents had to have been warned to be extra-cautious, if anything, with the climate in Dallas (remember Adlai Stevenson had been attacked just the month before by extremely conservative citizens there). He had been driving the presidential limousine for quite a while, and as I mentioned before, a one hour seminar should have been sufficient for him to know not to slow down (or stop) when he heard the sound of gunfire during a presidential motorcade. The fact that he turned around, saw JFK's obvious reaction to the first shot that struck him, and continued watching him until the fatal head shot, speaks volumes about his culpability, IMHO. At the very least, he should have sped up instantly once he saw JFK's hands rising to his throat (after hearing the sound of gunfire). One of the very first steps that should have been taken in a real investigation of the assassination of JFK would have been the intense grilling of each Secret Service agent in the presidential contingent. They should have been asked the hard questions about total lack of reaction, the late night drinking the night before, and the undeniable fact that LBJ's Secret Service contingent was not confused at all, reacting instantly and keeping their man out of the line of fire. It's true that it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and second-guess the response of these agents, in an undeniably stressful and fast-paced series of events. However, that was their job, and they had all been well-trained for it. Presumably, they had all been told that when shots are fired, there is very little time to react, and that they must be prepared to protect the president instantly. I can understand one, or two, or even three agents being lethargic and not reacting at all to the sound of gunfire, but for every agent there to stare into space, or actually slow the car down in the case of Greer, without running towards JFK to push him down out of the line of fire, is completely unbelievable to me. In terms of conspiracy, the most obvious participants, IMHO, were the Secret Service agents assigned to protect JFK.

We've often heard that Greer was not JFK's regular driver, and this has sometimes been used to excuse his inept performance in Dealey Plaza. I would think that even a one hour seminar would have imparted enough information to a presidential limousine driver to make him realize that you don't slow down (or perhaps stop) when you hear the sound of gunfire during a motorcade. The total lack or reaction by JFK's entire Secret Service contingent that day was inexcusable and should have been properly investigated. Of course, we could say the same thing about the crime itself. If I recall correctly, Vince Palamara interviewed Greer's son years after the assassination. The son admitted that Greer didn't personally like JFK, and his reason was that "well, he was Catholic, you know," or words to that effect. I would urge all critics to read the great research done by Palamara, much of which is available online.

Hi Don: Yes we have had nice exchanges in the past and we will again, just because we may differ on thougths, well on these type of sites, I believe that is what they have been created for, we are fortunate to have access to them... No I am not an extremist by any meaning of the word....I posted the link so that people would have the opportunity to see perhaps some of all that was behind the reason for this action...there were three countries involved here, not one... I do think that hate literature, and such can help to urge others groups to take on minoritys and such and that can and does lead to riots, beatings and racists remarks...Children and the youth are very vulnerable to such, if taught in the home, or as some say, LHO was indoctrinated in some way to his Communist leanings because of a pamphlet he was handed on a street corner,which I also think was just more crap from the coverup people...but anyway such can happen and does happen...then they become involved in such groups and the hate spreads... There are many documents not released on all this, like another we know of...therefore I do support my government for shutting down perhaps this one link to such being curbed...at this time......I find it difficult to believe that three governments have no reasons for trying to curb this man and his leanings...and his literature,which is support for hate groups....just because he does not swing the club, does not mean he is not giving them a reason to pick such up or not encouraging them by inciting and in a way handing it to them.... I think when we see this type of literature, or a remark made to say a man,woman or child on any type of descrimination, that is the time to speak out, not after the fact, like now...if that had been done and perhaps people had ,had the courage in the first place, but that is not the way of human nature..as we know, none of this may have happened in the first place in history...I hear lots of well I didn't say anything or I didn't do anything "because"... Remember the poem.."then they came for me".... I have no answers to this type of subject, but I do know that in the past and in the future, as I have and my family, when such a remark is made, or a joke supposedly to be funny, takes a pot shot at any religion or race, they are not allowed, not in our presence...we make our disagreement known... that is what I have tried to teach my children and grandchildren and their spouses. We have grandchildren whose Mom is indian, we have seen the looks, and seen the smiley snears, and we know about all about the remarks that were spoken after....we don't live with it, we shoot back, and always have...so do not in anyway any of you, jump to nor, make any remark or hint about me being in any way an extremist, nor your conclusions as some of you have as you have not walked in my shoes, and know nothing about me , simpley because I posted a link that I thought, you all might read first, before you made any remarks, it was to give you simply some background on the given subject...as I did not see any real knowledge about Zundel being stated.. All I do know, is that if this man and his types are allowed to spread their poison whether by phamplets, radio, web sites whatever, it spreads it is a desease, and is now more prevailant, in some ways, than I have seen in many years....it is not just against a certain race of people but also towards any minority, any colour and other creeds.... Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but not when it hurts and can incite others being beaten,targeted or hurt and maimed in anyway...this is the other side to the coin perhaps....with the Freedom of speech comes much responsibility.. To all, instead of spouting off on a Forum, the next time you hear a joke directed at a minority group or another religion, or are passed a phamphlet, or come to a site who preaches this unacceptable trash, make your thougths known, don't just talk about it on here, do something about it, even if it is only a written complaint to such a site, even if it is a remark to such a person, when handing him or her back the phamplet...and teach and tell your youth WHY it is wrong...if that does make me an extremist then so be it.....I am perhaps thinking though I also agree I do not like to see anyone imprisioned , for no reason there is too much posting going on his plight and not the plight of others that he has been preaching his hate against all these years....and has encouraged others to harm in some way..Hate breeds hate, labels enourage others to use them, it is not remembered when the label is removed, it is only recalled that the accustation was made...as Dennis has done with Ian and myself....that is an old disinfo ploy as we of the JFK assn forums know all about....swing first with no proof nor documentation, and accuse whomever of whatever you feel like it at the time, label him a disinfo or CIA or whatever, it'll stick, well not this time it shall not Dennis....shame on you...you spout off, without thinking at times, and by taking what I stated out of context, and without even reading the link first, that I thought you and others perhaps may be interested in.....And speaking of free speech, it is my right to express myself that I do support my Government without being jumped on for it....for whatever reason...and in this case whether you or any disagree, that is my opinion....right now...Zundel and his kind need to be stopped,and not by just talking about it on Forums....hate is a desease and needs to be wiped out.... Now go ahead and take all the pot shots you want, all or any of you, I have had my say,for now..I will be back..... in otherwards ladies and gentlemen, put up or shut up, do something about it real problem not just talk...words are very cheap as we all know, if not then we should...... B <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bernice, I appreciate your comments. I think you're letting the subject matter (nazis, jews) cloud the larger issue at hand, which is a matter of basic civil liberties. BTW, Zundel is not the only "holocaust denier" in prison now. I don't have the names handy, but I know there have been others imprisoned in Germany, France, Australia and Canada (if not elsewhere) for the same "thought crimes." Zundel is just the most noteworthy, in my mind, because of the incredibly harsh manner in which he's been treated. I can tell you have a sensitive, bleeding heart. So do I. I've never liked jokes that make fun of particular groups, either. I've always been attracted to the underdog, the outsider; when my children were small, I would always make sure that they never learned to say "you can't play" to some new kid that wandered up to their group. Try to understand how Zundel must feel at this point. The man must really believe in his convictions; he has already had two trials prior to this imprisonment. All he'd have to do to stay out of jail, apparently, is to stop "denying" the holocaust. The fact that he refuses to do this may reflect his stubborness, but it also demonstrates he's willing to suffer for his beliefs. Maybe, just maybe, he's so sure of himself for a very good reason. In other words, the revisionists could be right.

Don, It seems that the clear-cut facts regarding Zundel's imprisonment in a state of solitary confinement regarding his "not so" free-expression, in challenging the validity of what may have been the purpose of Auschwitz's gas chambers, may be over-shadowed by the emotional backlash that has become similar to a knee-jerk response by society-at-large. While I, as well as most of my generation, and I say this with all due respect for those who've suffered the atrocities, have been made witness to the horrors via the numerous televised accounts, as well as the actual photographic footage taken by the liberators of the death camps. I am also acutely aware of the impact these visual scenes have had on my conscience as a human being, and as witness, to that which has been entered into the historical record. I, much as yourself, regard this imprisonment as a violation of human rights taken to the other extreme. I fail to see the danger Zundel proposes, as far as fear of incitement to riot, or advocation of the mass rounding up of ethnic groups with the re-instatement of the concentration camps. In fact, I view this as a direct insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people as a whole, and a direct affront on their ability to be trusted to make cognizant decisions on their own. Solitary confinement for expressing an opinion? Then, I assure you, there are a whole lot of us down here in the lower forty-eight, whom I fear, would thus be so confined. Perhaps, our brethren to the north may not have had the opportunity to totally absorb the implications of how all of this may impact their future ability to make informed, or collective decisions, and their right to remain doing as such. The emotional outrage elicited by a subject such as The Holocaust, will continue to cloud any future debate that runs counter to the historical record, even if such a debate were to challenge that "the gas chambers were merely de-lousing facilities, that ended up being responsible for the deaths of those who were elderly, or infirmed, or those whose immune systems had been extremely compromised by the harsh living conditions they were subjected to, in these camps". Millions still died, regardless of whether, directly or indirectly, due to insecticides, or gas, or starvation, be it Jew, Gypsy, Pole, or other ethnic group not recognized by the "German Aryan" ideology as to that which constituted "a pure, white, race". Every picture tells a story. And, as an eight-year-old, I was subjected to many nightmares after witnessing what I had seen chronicled on television of Auschwitz, Dachau, and Bergen-Belsen. And even though I reserve the right "to never forget", I also reserve the right to dissent, whether through the art of discourse, or peaceful, public demonstration. The erosion of the right to express an opinion is still considered an infringement of The Bill of Rights, at least it still was, here in the U.S. Therefore, what has taken place with respect to Canadian law, I can only view as a threat to the Constitutional rights of those of us, here in the States. And, while I realize how backward and loutish our system may be, how corrupt and derelict our government is to allow itself to be bought and sold by the very entities we search out to nail to the cross for assassinating JFK, I still reserve the right to express my difference of opinion and make known my abhorrence to this Nazi Fascist Oligarchal regime, fraudulently placed in power in D.C., along with its bogus Federal Reserve International Banking Cartel, and its Wall Street Gambling houses. And, I also reserve the right to describe the methods I'd personally choose to "ice", "liquidate", "eliminate", or "annihilate" them all from the face of the earth, without fear of being thrown into solitary confinement, or some other form of human rights harrassment. Any person, or country, enacting a law proclaiming that an individual's right to express oneself in any form of dissent, or divergence from what is deemed to be "the norm", or what is considered to be "politically correct", and, that "said" individual deserves to be thrown in jail, exiled to Siberia, or worse, is someone who no longer thinks with an independent mind and therefore, deserves to live in an autocracy where they can be told exactly what to think, what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and thus be devoid of any urge or passion to ever think in a creative or critical manner, again. Utopia. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Terry, Great comments. I think more people would speak out against what is being done to Zundel if they could simply eliminate "nazi" from the equation and see the situation for what it is; a non-violent individual suffering cruel and unusual punishment for espousing unpopular ideas about a slice of history.

But these are not legitimate analogies and do not stand up to rational comparison. Neo Nazis are not "identified" and dealt with in the same way as the victims of McCarthyism were. . Young Muslims banged up without charge in inhuman conditions by a repulsive Whitehouse regime have absolutely nothing in common with anti semitic historians getting into trouble with the law in Canada or elsewhere. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Andy, What alleged "commie" or "pinko" was ever dealt with as harshly as Ernst Zundel has been dealt with? A Hollywood blacklist is one thing; solitary confinement is another. This doesn't minimize what many liberals went through in the 1950s, but at least most of those who were alleged to be "commies" had the sympathy of many liberals, in the entertainment industry and academia. No one appears to have any sympathy for the likes of Ernst Zundel, except his fellow historical revisionists.