John Simkin

I agree with Marvin Liebman that “their talk about capitalism and free enterprise merely served as a smokescreen that obscured their real purpose, which is make the rich richer at the expense of those in society who are less fortunate.” What surprises me is that he took so long to grasp this point. After all, he probably had these views when he was a member of the American Communist Party. I can understand why he rejected the Communist Party after it defended Stalinism. However, it does seem very surprising that he went from left-wing authoritarianism to right-wing authoritarianism. It is still not clear to me what policies the Young Americans for Freedom supported in 1960. I know there was a lot of talk about freedom. However, after reading a great deal about William Buckley, it is clear that he was no great lover of freedom. He had a long record of trying to deny the freedom of expression of people who disagreed with him. His support of McCarthyism and right-wing military dictatorships are just two obvious examples of his hypocritical views on freedom. My idea of freedom was best expressed by Rosa Luxemburg who wrote in The Russian Revolution (1918): “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” Luxembourg was of course murdered a year after she wrote this by people who disagreed with her. By the way, I don’t agree that “Lenin was right”. See the following thread for a discussion on this issue: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6140

I have of course read these historians. Are you suggesting that I have been unduly influenced by these right-wingers? This idea will excite Tim Gratz. My main influences are on the liberation left. For example, books by people like Victor Serge: From Lenin to Stalin , Destiny of a Revolution and Memoirs of a Revolutionary. Serge was a member of the Left Opposition group in Russia that included Leon Trotsky, Karl Radek, Adolf Joffe, Alexandra Kollontai and Alexander Shlyapnikov. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSserge.htm I have of course read all Trotsky’s books on the revolution: My Life (1930), History of the Russian Revolution (1932), The Russian Betrayed (1937) and Stalin (1941). He is of course a great writer but a dubious historian. He is far too self-serving in his books. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUStrotsky.htm The most important book on the revolution was one of the first published on the topic: Rosa Luxemburg’s, The Russian Revolution (1918). Luxemburg was one of those who disagreed with Lenin about seizing power in 1917. She supported the view of Marx that you cannot have a successful revolution without a politically conscious proletariat. That is why Marx believed the first revolution would take place in advanced industrial countries like England and Germany because of their history of class struggle. Luxemburg argued that if the revolution took place before the development of mass political consciousness, you would replace capitalism with a new form of dictatorship. She was completely against Lenin's "vanguard" theory. She argued that if this happened, the Communist Party will become the new ruling class. This is indeed what did happen. Luxemburg eventually agreed to lead a revolution in Germany in order to protect the gains made in Russia. She believed that if successful revolutions took place in the advanced industrial states, this would enable Lenin to develop a more democratic political system in his own country. Of course, while Russia was under attack from outside, these reforms would never take place. Luxemburg was murdered in 1919 by the same forces who were to become leading figures in the rise of Nazism. As Luxemburg wrote in The Russian Revolution: “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” That is why she was a democratic revolutionary socialist. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSluxemburg.htm

Yes.

Message from Cyril H. Wecht. Dear JFK Assassination Researcher, By now, I'm certain you are aware of the serious legal problems with which I have been confronted in recent weeks. It is not possible to discuss this matter in any detail within the context of this letter, but I will simply state that my attorneys -- who include former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and J. Alan Johnson, former U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania -- strongly believe the charges against me are unjustified. All of them agree that this vindictive inquisition is completely indefensible and that ultimately, I will prevail. Unfortunately, the legal defense that I must mount all the way through a prolonged trial will be astronomically expensive. But I have no choice. My entire life is literally at stake -- personally, professionally and financially. And most important, the incredible emotionally traumatic impact this investigation has had on my wife, children and grandchildren must be reversed. Your financial assistance in this critical matter would be deeply appreciated and, together with similar contributions from other key individuals, might even prove life-saving. Should you find yourself in a financial position to contribute to this cause, please direct it to the "Wecht Legal Defense Fund" at 1119 Penn Ave., Suite 404, Pittsburgh, PA, 15222. Thank you for your consideration of this fervent plea. With kind regards, Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D. p.s. There is no particular reason to believe that my four decade-long search for the truth in the assassination of John F. Kennedy is the cause of this prosecution, but neither is there reason to believe that resistance to that work is not one of the government's motivating factors. It is of note, for instance, that the F.B.I. has seized all of my JFK assassination files and correspondence, even though none of the allegations against me have been related in any way to that case.

I agree. A total of 703 candidates were elected to the Constituent Assembly in November, 1917. This included Socialist Revolutionaries (299), Bolsheviks (168), Mensheviks (18) and Constitutional Democratic Party (17). The Bolsheviks were bitterly disappointed with the result as they hoped it would legitimize the October Revolution. When it opened on 5th January, 1918, Victor Chernov, leader of the Socialist Revolutionaries, was elected President. When the Assembly refused to support the programme of the new Soviet Government, the Bolsheviks walked out in protest. Later that day, Vladimir Lenin announced that the Constituent Assembly had been dissolved. Soon afterwards all opposition political groups, including the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and the Constitutional Democratic Party, were banned in Russia. Thus began the Soviet dictatorship. Of course, several revolutionaries, including Rosa Luxemburg, Julius Martov, Fedor Dan, Victor Serge, Vera Zasulich, Maria Spiridonova, etc. warned this would happen if you allowed a "vanguard" to take power. Leon Trotsky also believed this until he sold out to Lenin in 1917. That is why I don't think it would have been any better if Trotsky had gained power instead of Stalin on the death of Lenin. Much to the dismay of his former supporters, Trotsky advocated the idea of the State control of trade unions and their merging with government bodies. This lost him the support of former Mensheviks such as Alexandra Kollontai. By 1921 the Kronstadt sailors had become disillusioned with the Bolshevik government. They were angry about the lack of democracy and the policy of War Communism. On 28th February, 1921, the crew of the battleship, Petropavlovsk, passed a resolution calling for a return of full political freedoms. Vladimir Lenin denounced the Kronstadt Uprising as a plot instigated by the White Army and their European supporters. On 6th March, Leon Trotsky announced that he was going to order the Red Army to attack the Kronstadt sailors. However, it was not until the 17th March that government forces were able to take control of Kronstadt. An estimated 8,000 people (sailors and civilians) left Kronstadt and went to live in Finland. Official figures suggest that 527 people were killed and 4,127 were wounded. Historians who have studied the uprising believe that the total number of casualties was much higher than this. According to Victor Serge over 500 sailors at Kronstadt were executed for their part in the rebellion. In 1921 Alexandra Kollontai published her pamphlet The Workers' Opposition, where she called for the trade unionists to be given more political freedom. She also argued that before the government attempts to "rid Soviet institutions of the bureaucracy that lurks within them, the Party must first rid itself of its own bureaucracy." Trotsky's prestige in the government was now very high and those who held these anti-bureaucratic views were either dismissed from office or were sent abroad as members of the diplomatic service. Later, except for Kollontai (Stalin did not like killing women), the leaders of the Workers' Opposition, were executed.

It is of course this incident that began my conflict with Tim Gratz.

It is of course easy to admit to mistakes made 40 years ago. Now I have answered your smears about being anti-American and pro-Communist, are you willing to admit mistakes you have made today?

When you were joining the Young Americans for Freedom I was joining Solidarity (a small Libertarian Socialist group). Libertarian Socialists believe the Soviet Communist Part betrayed the socialist cause. The Libertarian Socialists in Russia were first destroyed by Lenin after the revolution. Those that survived that purge were destroyed by Stalin in the 1930s. As Libertarian Socialists we worked within the Labour Party in order to make it more “socialist”. I was also active in other pressure groups such as the Anti-Nazi League, Anti-Apartheid Movement, CND, etc. I still stand by those views. In fact, my politics have hardly changed since I was 18. My first political battles were against the Stalinists and Trotskyites in the Young Socialists. It is true I have not posted much on the Forum about the KGB or Stalinism. After all, unlike George Bush and the CIA I do not consider them a serious threat to my liberty. However, I have written a lot about them on my website. For example, see the following: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSnkvd.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSpurge.htm These two index pages will take you to the other pages on the evils of communism. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ColdWar.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Russian-Revolution.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Russia.htm

Tim Gratz and Michael Collins Piper might be interested in my pages on Scholl family and the White Rose Group: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERschollS.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERschollH.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERschollI.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERwhiterose.htm However, I am not sure what this would prove. Did the Americans join the war because of the way the Nazis treated people like Sophie Scholl? Of course they didn't. Don't you know it was Germany who declared war on the United States, not the other way round. FDR might have been keen to go to war with Hitler, however, he was aware that the American people would not let him do this.

It is true that I have posted a great deal about corruption in American politics. It is one of my main interests in history. See my pages on people like Ulysses Grant, Orville Babcock, William Belknap, William Tweed, Richard Croker, Tommy Corcoran, Bobby Baker, etc. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAgrantU.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbabcock.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbelknap.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtweed.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcroker.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcorcoran.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbakerB.htm It is not of course anti-American to be against corruption. For example, see my pages on people who exposed this corruption: for example, Thomas Nast, Charles Parkhurst, Seth Low, Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Ida Wells, Gerald Nye, etc. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnast.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAparkhurstC.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlowS.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jsteffens.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jtarbell.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWwells.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnyeG.htm Although I believe that FDR was one of your best presidents, a great deal of corruption started during his administration. As I have pointed out, the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence Complex started in 1940 with the blessing of FDR. I believe this is closely connected to the death of JFK and the fortunes of the MICIC definitely revived under LBJ with the Vietnam War. George Bush is only the latest front man for the MICIC. The Democrats were responsible for a great deal of this corruption as they were the party of power for much of the 20th century. However, in recent years, the Republicans have taking over this role with Reagan and the two Bushes. Between them, they have sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in order to satisfy the needs of their financial backers. A large percentage of these lives taken were of young American soldiers. Am I being anti-American to be concerned about that? I would have thought it is criminals like George Bush who really deserve the label of being anti-American. I have posted numerous accounts of the corruption of Tony Blair and his government. Does that make me anti-British? Blair leads a party that I was a member of for over 35 years. That does not stop me from exposing his corrupt government. I am against corruption wherever it takes place and whoever does it. We cannot build a democratic society until we root out all corruption.

It is not clear to me what policies these two groups were advocating. We know that the Democratic Party of the Deep South was a very right-wing group (racist, anti-trade union, anti-progressive taxation, in favour of blacklisting liberals, etc.). It was also an extremely corrupt organization that was under the control of the oil and armaments companies. What sort of policies would the Republican Party have needed to advocate to get their support? They of course did eventually stop supporting the Democratic Party, but that was because of the Civil Rights Acts passed in the mid-1960s. Very interesting story. Could you explain in more details about what Liebman meant by "Lenin was Right"? Were you right to convince Liebman not to publish his article?

An example of Tim's great debating skills? Provide examples of my anti-American as opposed to my anti-Bush views.

Report from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4722534.stm The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has said the United States must shut down Guantanamo Bay prison camp "as soon as is possible". Mr Annan backed a UN report calling for the closure of the camp where some 500 "enemy combatants" have been held without trial for up to four years. He said he did not agree with all findings, but said detainees could not be held "in perpetuity" without charge. The White House has dismissed the report as "a discredit to the UN". The UN says the US should try the approximately 500 inmates, or free them "without further delay". Mr Annan said bringing the detainees to trial would allow them to explain themselves. Only a handful of detainees have been tried so far. While he did not agree with all the findings of the report, Mr Annan said it was crucial to strike a balance. "The basic premise, that we need to be careful to have a balance between effective action against terrorism and individual liberties and civil rights, I think is valid," Mr Annan told reporters. White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected the call to close the camp. Mr McClellan said the military treated all detainees humanely. "These are dangerous terrorists that we're talking about," he added. "They are people that are determined to harm innocent civilians, or harm innocent Americans. They were enemy combatants picked up on the battlefield in the war on terrorism." A senior British minister also called for the camp to be closed. Speaking on the BBC television Question Time programme, Peter Hain said he would prefer to see Guantanamo Bay close. He also indicated that the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, agreed with him. The US has dismissed most of the findings of the report which include allegations of torture. It said most of the allegations were "largely without merit" as the five investigators never actually visited Guantanamo Bay. The investigators say they rejected an offer to go to Guantanamo, as they would not have been allowed to meet the prisoners. The report will be presented to the UN Commission of Human Rights, which authorised the report, at its next session in Geneva on 13 March.

I am awaiting this information. I will post it as soon as I get it.

Carl T. Curtis, Forty Years Against the Tide (1986) The Investigation Revived (pages 260-268) The investigation of Bobby Baker had begun late in October, 1963. By March, 1964, the six Democrats on the Committee had determined that the investigation must end. Until that month they never had called a single witness requested by the minority members. Senator Hugh Scott, addressing the Senate on March 16, 1964, put the situation well: "The majority members of the committee have been on the brink of ending the investigation as soon as they thought they could do so without incurring the wrath of the American public." Concerning this question, a most interesting meeting of the Committee was held on March 13. Senator Curtis offered, in the record, a letter signed by the three minority members, which he had delivered to the Committee's chairman on March 9. In this communication, the minority asked that more witnesses be called. Three of these proposed witnesses were Senate employees: Margaret Broome, Rein J. Vander Zee, and Jessop McDonnell, closely associated with Baker in his duties. Other witnesses asked for were people who had business transactions with Baker, or who were officers or partners in Baker's several enterprises: they were Matthew McCloskey, Max Kampelman, Paul Aguirre, Warren Neil, Charles Baker, Nick Popich, and two men connected with Riddle Airlines. In connection with Reynolds' disputed testimony and the refusal of Baker to testify, the minority asked that Walter Jenkins and George Sampson also be called. Curtis then asked that a copy of the affidavit of Milton Hauft, of March 12, 1964, be placed in the record. At this point McLendon, nominally counsel for the Committee but more realistically counsel for the majority, declared, "Mr. Chairman, I do not think that affidavit ought to go in the record." Curtis replied, "I'll read in the record," to which McLendon responded, "Wait a minute!" There followed a lively discussion, in which Curtis challenged the right of a Senate employee to overrule a senator. Insisting, Curtis began to read. The Chairman said "Wait a minute," to which Curtis answered, "I am on the record;" and to the reporter, "You take this down." He then succeeded in reading the affidavit: "I, Milton L. Hauft, living at 3801 Archer Place, Kensington, Maryland, do give this affidavit to Senator John J. Williams, of Delaware, of my own free will. "On this date I was called to the Internal Revenue Service to give information relative to tax returns I had prepared for Robert G. Baker. "During the course of presenting the information in my possession, I was questioned about some partnership tax returns prepared for the Carousel Motel. During the course of my association with Mr. Baker, I had never prepared any returns for the Carousel Motel. When presented with the return by the Internal Revenue Service, I noted that the signatures purported to be mine were forgeries. "As a result of this, I went back to the personal returns for Mr. Baker prepared by me, and on looking at the signatures on these returns I noted that the signatures as to the person preparing those returns were also forgeries and were not my signature. "This was reported immediately to the investigators of the Internal Revenue Service, and samples and specimens of my handwriting were also presented to them for matching purposes." This disclosure of tax-evasion and forgery set the Committee's majority back on their heels. Some twelve hours after Counsel McLendon had received a copy of the Hauft affidavit, he delivered a report to the Committee, setting forth the plan of the majority to end the investigation. McLendon's sentences seem wondrously inappropriate: "I think two conclusions may be drawn from this extensive investigation. First, it is highly unlikely that any additional evidence can be found materially differing from the type of evidence already placed in the record of the committee's hearings; and second, that it is a reasonable certainty that any additional evidence which can be produced will be repetitive and cumulative. If evidence differing substantially from the pattern of evidence already presented is in evidence, surely it would have been discovered in the course of the investigation." McLendon concluded by recommending that investigations into the activities of past or present Senate employees should cease, and that the Committee's staff immediately begin to prepare the Committee's report to the Senate. A Committee meeting was to be held to consider McLendon's recommendations. It turned out that Chairman Jordan already had prepared an advance news-release, to be issued after the anticipated meeting had concluded. The six Democratic senators seemed determined to close their eyes and ears to any additional evidence, though they had called not one witness requested by the minority. That abortive news-release -as matters turned out, never issued-stated that "the committee voted 6 to 3 to follow Major McLendon's recommendations." On the Senate floor, Senator Scott commented concerning this: "How clearly this proves that the evidence offered by minority senators over a three-hour period had been rejected before they had even been heard!" After controversy arose in the Committee hearing on March 13, Counsel McLendon added these words to his recommendation: "...except as to the matter relating to Mr. Hauft's affidavit presented to the committee on this date...." The investigation did not terminate quite so abruptly as Counsel McLendon desired. Curtis, leaving a closed session of the Committee's meeting, had read to the press McLendon's recommendation that the investigation be terminated and the staff disbanded. That gave the majority pause; and rather than dissolving itself, the Committee proceeded to consider whether it should receive testimony from those additional witnesses named by the minority. In the course of this heated meeting, the question of what testimony is relevant was discussed. Rule 19 provided that if any member of the Committee should request the appearance of a particular witness, that witness should be called unless the chairman of the Committee should find the proposed testimony to be irrelevant; if he should so find, there must be a vote of the members. It will be recalled that Bobby Baker, in his refusal to testify, argued that the investigation had no legislative purpose, and therefore he did not have to produce his records. The minority members of the Committee had pointed out repeatedly that although there are court decisions to the effect that a congressional committee does not have the power to expose for exposure's sake, and that such committees are limited to taking testimony that may serve a legislative purpose, this Baker case was different. For whether or not the Baker investigation might lead to legislation, the purpose of the investigation was to investigate wrongdoing among senatorial employees, and possibly among senators. Congress possesses the unchallenged power to determine its own procedures and to clean its own house. The Senate had directed its Committee on Rules and Administration to look into wrongdoing within the Senate's own immediate jurisdiction. Therefore the testimony of any witness who might know about malfeasance in office would be relevant testimony. The court decisions about calling citizens to appear before congressional committees were intended as protections against general "fishing expeditions" by such committees; those decisions did not apply to congressional management of Congress' own immediate internal concerns. Investigations of that sort may have no legislative purpose in view, and yet be proper and necessary investigations. Let us look at these witnesses whom the minority on the Committee wished to have called to testify-and whom the majority of senators on the Committee wished not to hear. Mrs. Margaret Broome had served as Bobby Baker's secretary before that position was taken by the pretty and ill-fated Carole Tyler. The record clearly indicated that some of Baker's transactions requiring investigation had taken place while Mrs. Broome had been Baker's secretary. At its meeting on March 23, the six majority members of the Comittee voted not to hear Mrs. Broome's testimony, and the three minority members to hear her. Mrs. Broome was excluded. The next witness-name on the list was that of Rein Vander Zee, who had been employed by the Senate in various capacities for some years. He had been assistant to Bobby Baker when Baker had been secretary to the Majority, maintaining a desk in the outer office of Baker's Capitol suite. In his statement, Vander Zee revealed that he had seen Don Reynolds in Baker's office; that he had been in Baker's house often; that he had attended a gathering in the home of Carole Tyler, who had lived in a house provided by Bobby Baker. Vander Zee also acknowledged that he was acquainted with Ralph Hill, had lunched with him, and had discussed with Hill the vending business and the Serv-U Corporation. Members of the Committee were aware that Vander Zee had discussed with other senatorial employees problems that had arisen about their pay and alleged kickbacks; and that Vander Zee knew of many telephone calls by Baker, and had traveled with the Baker crowd to the opening of Baker's motel at Ocean City. Nevertheless, Chairman Jordan ruled Vander Zee's testimony irrelevant; and the majority of the Committee sustained Senator Jordan. Six to three, the Vander Zee testimony was excluded. The next witness considered was Jessop McDonnell. Senator Cooper pointed out that McDonnell had said he had disliked Baker's way of doing things, and had been fired as an assistant to Baker. McDonnell desired to appear before the Committee. Jordan ruled McDonnell's testimony irrelevant, without troubling to learn what that testimony might be, and was sustained, six votes to three. McDonnell was excluded. Matthew McCloskey, who had built the stadium and become ambassador to Ireland, had been mentioned repeatedly in Reynolds' testimony. During discussion of whether McCloskey should be called as a witness, it was disclosed that the cost of the stadium had been fixed in 1957 at six million dollars; but that a year later Congress had passed a bill removing this cost-ceiling. The stadium contract had been awarded to McCloskey's company in August, 1960. McCloskey's low bid had been fourteen million dollars, but plan changes raised costs by three million dollars; so payments to McCloskey had brought the total cost of the stadium to nearly twenty million dollars. Regardless, McCloskey was excluded from testifying, six to three. The next possible witness was Paul Aguirre, who had traveled with Baker. They went together to New Orleans, where they looked into the possibility of participating in a housing development. They had stopped to look at a plot of land near the Shamrock Hotel, Houston. Also they had considered together a proposal for setting up trailer parks. Information had been given to the Committee that Baker had intervened on Aguirre's behalf with reference to a matter before the Federal Housing Administration. Aguirre's statement to the investigators informed the Committee that he met Baker, Carole Tyler, and Elli Rometsch, the party girl. Chairman Jordan ruled all this not pertinent to the Committee's business. Five to four, Aguirre was excluded as a witness. Incidentally, Aguirre had declared that had he been asked anything about what had taken place in New Orleans, he would have taken all the constitutional amendments, from the First to the Twenty-Eighth. (In the case of Aguirre, Senator Byrd voted with the Republican members of the Committee.) Then the Committee discussed the possibility of calling Warren Neil as a witness. Baker and Neil had been close friends. Neil had resided in Puerto Rico, and always had looked up Baker on trips to Washington. Neil had been Baker's host in a company apartment in Puerto Rico. Along with Aguirre, Neil had endeavored to find money from the labor unions to finance some of Baker's projects. Neil had conferred with Baker on means of reaching certain union leaders. Also Neil and Baker had talked about establishing a title-insurance company in Puerto Rico. Chairman Jordan ruled testimony by Neil irrelevant, and was sustained, six votes to three. Neil was excluded. What about Nick Popich, of New Orleans? He and Baker had been together several times, and had made many telephone calls to each other: the Committee had such information. Popich owned, among other things, a New Orleans restaurant, and was involved in constructing a pipeline in Washington. Baker was involved in an organization called the Pansatic Corporation. Popich had sent a thousand dollars in payment for stock in that corporation. The money had been returned to Popich; Counsel McLendon said that evidence suggested that the Pansatic stockholders didn't want Popich. Senator Curtis inquired whether this was because of Popich's bad reputation; McLendon replied that this was implied. The Committee's minority believed that Popich's testimony might bear on reports that "hot" money from gamblers and underworld characters had been funneled through Baker. Chairman Jordan held testimony by Popich irrelevant, and was sustained five to four, Senator Byrd again voting with the minority. Popich was excluded. Walter Jenkins' testimony was more needed, in the opinion of the minority, than that of any other possible witness. Reynolds and Young had testified to Jenkins' participation in the kickback for sale of insurance policies to Lyndon Johnson. Only the testimony of Jenkins might have refuted that of Don Reynolds. Senator John Sherman Cooper, once a Kentucky judge, with much knowledge of the law and a judicial temperament, made a strong statement as to why Jenkins should be called as a witness. Nevertheless, the Committee voted six to three not to call him. Jenkins was excluded. The next day, the Committee denied, six to three, a motion to recall Don Reynolds as witness. His testimony had been given earlier in executive session, not in public session; it was highly important testimony, worth reviewing in the light of testimony by others. Reynolds had been subjected to repeated attacks by the Committee's majority. Reynolds was excluded. Now the minority sought to call Max Kampelman, a former Senate employee, friend to Baker. He was one of the founders and organizers of the District of Columbia National Bank. Baker had subscribed to 1,700 shares in that undertaking, and had been allocated 1,500. Baker's stock was in Baker's name, but he had purchased a third of it for Fred Black, who had been involved with Baker in several transactions, among them the Serv-U Corporation. Another third of the Baker stock was for Edward Levinson, of Las Vegas, who took the Fifth Amendment; and the remaining third was for Benjamin S. Siegelbaum, of Miami, who also pleaded that he would not testify because he might incriminate himself. From this District of Columbia National Bank, Baker had borrowed $125,000 on an unsecured note. Testimony showed that Max Kampelman knew about this loan; Kampelman was counsel to the Bank, and a director. Baker had asked Kampelman how he, Baker, might buy stock in this bank. But the Chairman ruled that Kampelman should not be called, and was sustained by a vote of five to four, Senator Byrd voting with the minority. Kampelman was excluded. Then the name of Deane Beman was proposed as a witness. Senator Curtis said, "According to the committee counsel, the witness Hill had a conversation with Beman in which Beman was alleged to have said that he knew how Hill got the contract with Melpar. Beman refused to talk to our investigator. There was valid reason for our investigator going to see him. His testimony was both relevant and needed." Senator Cannon, acting as chairman, ruled that Beman's testimony would be irrelevant. Six to three, the chair was sustained. Beman was excluded. Should not Paul Ferrero be called to testify? Senator Scott put the case: "We have an interview on Mr. Ferrero which I would like to see. He is the Deputy Commissioner, Federal Housing Administration, who was called by Mr. Baker on behalf of Aguirre to obtain approval of a project in which Mr. Aguirre was interested, and I believe Mr. Ferrero either ruled against it or informed Mr. Baker that there was a ruling against it. I think his testimony would be interesting and valuable as showing whether Mr. Baker sought to influence Mr. Ferrero's decision, whether Mr. Baker's approach to him was on behalf of a client or whether it was made as secretary to the majority. We are investigating, among other things here, the improper use of influence...." Counsel McLendon advised Senator Cannon, in the chair, that Ferrero's testimony would not be material. Five to three (Senator Byrd not voting), Ferrero was excluded. Baker had been involved in Hampco (Haitian-American Meat Provision Company), a firm exporting meat from Haiti to Puerto Rico. Hampco was owned by the Murchison interest, headed by Clinton Murchison, Jr., of Dallas and New York. Strong evidence existed to the effect that Bobby Baker had negotiated with the Department of Agriculture in connection with Hampco's application for authorization to ship meat to Puerto Rico; also that Baker had received substantial sums of money through the good offices of the Murchison interest, amounting in one year to eight or nine thousand dollars. The instrument for this payment had been a kickback commission from a William E. Kentor, of the Packers Provision Company, Inc., a Chicago firm. Baker's law partner gave evidence that Baker himself got all the money from this Hampco transaction. The Committee's investigators could find no substantial services rendered by Baker to Hampco. Was the Hampco kickback to Baker payment for the use of his influence with the Department of Agriculture? Or might it have amounted to payment by Murchison to Baker for some other mysterious favor extended by Baker to the Murchison interest? At last the Committee agreed to hear the testimony of William E. Kentor, who had purchased meat from Hampco. On all meat delivered to him by Hampco, Kentor said at the Committee hearing, Kentor had agreed to pay a half-cent per pound to a law firm known as Baker and Tucker, in Washington. This agreement had been negotiated in Haiti with a Marshall Dancy, representing Hampco. At this testimony, the Committee's minority pressed for calling Marshall Dancy as a witness, so that they might explore this odd Baker transaction. The Chairman held that Dancy's testimony would be irrelevant. Five to three, Senator Byrd again not voting, the chair was sustained. Dancy was excluded. Here testimony at the Committee's hearings ended. The numerous additional witnesses sought by the minority had been weighed in the balance by the majority and found irrelevant, or else not considered at all. Much evidence had been covered up.

Carl T. Curtis, Forty Years Against the Tide (1986) Master Builders, Vending Machines, and Motels (pages 255-259) In terms of money, the affair of the hi-fi was a small matter by the side of the scandal about the construction of the stadium in the District of Columbia. Its builder was Matthew McCloskey, treasurer of the Democratic Party for a long period, and at the time of this investigation the ambassador to Ireland. Bobby Baker and Don Reynolds had been involved in the stadium scandal, as had been William McLeod, at that time clerk of the District of Columbia Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee handled the legislation required for the building of the stadium. Questioned by McLendon, Don Reynolds revealed that in the spring of 1960 he had participated in a meeting at Bobby Baker's office, called by Baker, attended also by McCloskey, McLeod, and Congressman John M. McMillan. McCloskey received the contract for the stadium, and Reynolds, as a broker, wrote the bond for the contract, with a premium on the bond of $73,631. Reynolds' commission on this performance bond was slightly more than ten thousand dollars. Shortly thereafter, Reynolds paid Bobby Baker the sum of four thousand dollars, "in compensation for his services in connection with the procurement of that bond." In addition, Reynolds was billed by William McLeod, clerk of the House District of Columbia Committee, for "legal services" in connection with the bond, for the sum of $1,500, which Reynolds paid. The two clerks for Senate and House did well out of the bond contract for the stadium, with the knowledge of the contractor and a member of the House. So the minority on the investigating committee pressed for calling Ambassador McCloskey to testify. He would be asked to give his version of that meeting in Baker's Capitol office; and why the performance bond for the stadium was handled by Reynolds as broker, when the firm actually acting as agent for the bond was Hutchinson, Rivinus, and Company, with which Matthew McCloskey's son-in-law was associated. He would have been asked, too, what he knew about Reynolds' kickback of four thousand dollars to Baker, and about other kickbacks, including the payment by Reynolds to McLeod. McCloskey had erected many other costly government buildings; he would ' have been asked what dealings, if any, he had had with Baker, or any other Senate employee, or any senator or former senator, in connection with other government contracts for construction. Senator Curtis asked that McCloskey be called. The Committee's chairman responded, after discussion, "Well, I'm going to be forced to rule that it is not pertinent to what we are doing here and we pass to the next one and we call the roll on this." The three minority senators voted to call Matthew McCloskey; the six Democrats voted against it. McCloskey did not testify at that time. That stadium cost the government a great deal of money; the total bill came to nearly twenty million dollars. Bobby Baker obtained his share. Throughout the period we have been discussing, Baker, through his Senate employment and the influence it brought him, was amassing a fortune in his Capitol office. Federal departments, officers in the executive branch, senators and their staffs-all took it that Bobby Baker was speaking as agent for the majority leader of the Senate, Lyndon Johnson. Never was any notice given that Baker might not be speaking for his employer. It was obvious that he could prevail upon government offices to grant licenses and permits, or to enter into contracts, because he spoke as secretary of the Senate-not as a mere private citizen. So great a dignitary as Bobby Baker found numerous opportunities-and varied ones-to enrich himself. Consider vending machines. During and after the Second World War, the vendingmachine business had grown a great deal. Machines were installed in factories with thousands of employees, and sold cold drinks, coffee, sandwiches, and candy; also hot chocolate. Factory management would contract with a vending company for the installation of machines. If Bobby Baker were to say a good word to a manufacturing company with government contracts, to the effect that the company would do well to place a vending contract with certain persons, his influence would be felt. The Committee's investigation of Baker had been initiated because of the suit of one Ralph Hill, proprietor of the Capitol Vending Machine Company, against Baker. Testimony taken by the Committee-Counsel McLendon asking the questions-shows how the secretary to the Senate operated. Hill testified that Bobby Baker, in February, 1962, had taken the initiative in this vending-machine affair by asking Hill to meet at the University Club with him and Eugene Hancock, who was involved in the vending business in Florida. At that rendezvous, Baker asked Hill to take Hancock to the firm of Melpar, Inc., near Four Corners, Virginia. Hill had not previously visited the premises of Melpar, nor did he know any of that firm's officers. Complying, Hill and Hancock were received at Melpar by a man named Bostick, Melpar's president, and Bostick's assistant, a man named Weid. Bostick told his guests that he had promised Bobby Baker a contract; and he instructed Weid to show the visitors anything pertaining to this vending contract. This contract was with Baker himself, not with a friend of Baker. A local vending company, at the time, was serving Melpar with vending machines. On their way back to Washington, Hancock told Hill that his own firm would not be interested in contracting with a small company like Melpar: "They were interested in big things, like North American." Hill was given to understand that the door was left wide open for Hill himself to make a proposal for a Melpar contract, perhaps without having to compete in bidding with the local vending firm, G. B. Macke. Hill did make a proposal from his Capitol Vending to Melpar; it was accepted by Melpar on March 23, 1962. And soon Hill learned that he was required to make a cash payment to Bobby Baker, who in person told him, "if the contract was valu able to us, we were making money out of it, and he wanted a thousand dollars a month. And so we argued back and forth, and we settled for $250." This monthly tribute, in small bills, Hill delivered personally to Baker in his office, "usually having to wait for him." Baker regularly counted the money in Hill's presence to make sure that other people were honest. But Hill's Capitol Vending received some compensation for this additional cost of doing business. Through Baker's intervention, Melpar found it expedient to grant to Capitol Vending what they had refused to grant before: a price increase at the plant for drinks from the machines, five to ten cents; and authorization to install hot chocolate in the machines. Thus, in effect, the employees at Melpar paid for Bobby Baker's monthly retainer. To parody a children's Sunday-school song, "Hear the nickels dropping, listen as they fall; Every one for Bobby's sake; he will keep them all." Capitol Vending's increase of net income because of this plum amounted to more than two thousand dollars a month. Baker then inquired of Hill, "Now, do I get my thousand dollars a month?" After bargaining, Hill agreed to pay Baker thereafter $650 monthly. But Baker was dissatisfied with such small potatoes from Capitol Vending; there were bigger fish to fry. Baker proceeded to organize himself a new vending-machine firm, the Serv-U Company. Quite promptly, Serv-U ousted the existing machine vendor at the North American Aviation Company, in California. This was accomplished when Serv-U had no contract anywhere else, and indeed did not own a single machine or a single sandwich. But we will turn to that contract later; just now we continue with Hill's account of the Melpar contract. In reply to McLendon's questions, Hill related that about the first week of April, 1963, Baker telephoned him that Capitol Vending was about to lose the Melpar contract; Serv-U would replace Capitol at Melpar. A meeting followed, at which Baker informed Hill "at least ten or fifteen times," obdurately, "You are going to lose Melpar. Mr. Bostick doesn't like you." Serv-U, supplanting Capitol, would try to pay Capitol some compensation. The testimony was clear that Baker himself placed the Melpar contract for Hill's company, and that Baker was able to obtain price increases and other concessions for Hill after nobody else had been able to persuade Melpar to raise machine prices to its employees. (A previously-refused concession to vend hot chocolate tasted particularly sweet to Hill.) What hold Baker had on Melpar and Bostick never was made wholly clear, except that Melpar profited from government contracts. Curtis questioned Hill: "So Mr. Baker gave and Mr. Baker took away: Is that right? He was the one you got the contract through originally? ...And the first word that you were going to lose it came from Baker?" "Correct," said Hill, in response to both inquiries. The ingenious Baker was carrying on many activities. He was in the real-estate business, and one of the people involved in building the Carousel Motel at Ocean City, Maryland (where later Carole Tyler came to her violent end). Baker's partners in the Carousel venture were two brothers named Novak. When funds were required for the purchase of land and for construction, often Baker would produce the money in cash. Mrs. Gertrude Novak, whose late husband had been Baker's partner, testified to the Committee that she frequently would obtain funds from Baker to pay current bills for the Carousel project. She stated that she was frightened by the large sums of money handed to her, usually in hundred-dollar bills. On one occasion, twelve thousand dollars in hundred-dollar bills was handed to her at Baker's office. Miscounting, Baker gave Mrs. Novak almost a thousand dollars too much. Carole Tyler, Baker's secretary, put the surplus back into a filing drawer. "Music is supplied by the ringing of the telephone; ...from government department to sherry party glides the contact-man, at once the product and the safety valve of this grotesque civilization."

You have constantly accused members of being anti-American or communist sympathizers when they have posted comments on the JFK assassination that you don’t like. You seem especially upset when people suggest that the CIA or someone in the Republican Party might have been responsible for the assassination. Recently you have attacked Michael Collins Piper’s theories on the assassination because you claim he is a neo-Nazi. You also posted questions demanding to know what his views were on the Second World War. I was returning the tactic by posting questions about your political philosophy. In fact, I think you are right. I believe our political philosophy does influence the way we see the JFK assassination. That is why you find it impossible to believe that the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence Complex killed JFK.

As I pointed out on the Guatemala Coup thread, there is no evidence that Jacobo Arbenz Guzman had anything to do with the murder of Francisco Javier Arana. However, it is true that he was very unpopular with the people of Guatemala when it was discovered that Arana tried to arrange a CIA backed coup (public opinion polls showed that he was unable to win in a democratically held election). This is what Tommy Corcoran told Thomas C. Mann, the director of the State Department’s Office of Inter-American Affairs in the spring of 1950. Public opinion polls showed overwhelming support for Arbenz. You have to understand that Arbenz was a national hero in Guatemala because of the role he played in removing the American-backed military dictatorship. Corcoran asked Mann if he had any plans to prevent Arbenz from being elected. Mann rightly replied: “That is for the people of that country to decide.” Unhappy with this reply, Corcoran paid a call on the Allen Dulles, the deputy director of the CIA. Dulles, who represented United Fruit in the 1930s, was far more interested in Corcoran’s ideas. “During their meeting Dulles explained to Corcoran that while the CIA was sympathetic to United Fruit, he could not authorize any assistance without the support of the State Department. Dulles assured Corcoran, however, that whoever was elected as the next president of Guatemala would not be allowed to nationalize the operations of United Fruit.” In November, 1950, Arbenz received more than 60 per cent of the popular vote. Samuel Zemurray, United Fruit Company's largest shareholder, ordered Corcoran to organize an anti-Arbenz campaign in the American media. This included the claim that Guatemala was the beginning of "Soviet expansion in the Americas". This included the story that Arbenz had murdered Arana. Dulles, Zemurray, and Corcoran tried to persuade Harry Truman to order the overthrow of Arbenz. Truman refused and that is why the CIA had to wait until Dwight Eisenhower was elected to power. Like other Republican presidents since 1954, Eisenhower had no scruples about overthrowing a democratically elected government. Even if the evidence suggested that Arbenz had murdered Arana, I would still be against the overthrow of his government by the CIA. Let us look at the logic of your position. The leaders of the Soviet Union suspected that right-wing forces murdered John F. Kennedy. Did that give the KGB the right to plot the overthrow of Lyndon Johnson? Why should the United States be the only country in the world that has the right to overthrow governments it does not like?

Martine Chevalier has just informed me that she has found someone to join our project: Christiane Berton-Heinen. When I get her full details I will fill in the application form. Please add your final comments on the different threads. Especially concerning the way we are going to have to find money from other sections to pay for the translations.

As I pointed out above, this section is kept for discussing books with their author. I cannot see how you cannot grasp that. I am in no way protecting Michael Collins Piper from the scrutiny of our members. You and others have already asked him numerous questions about his beliefs? You are free to continue to do this. You have now attacked the way I run this Forum on several different threads. I suggest that you start a new thread on the subject. (I will eventually be deleting on the irrelevant posts on this thread). Better still, why don’t you go away and establish your own Forum. Then you can run it in the way you like best. That will include only allowing people to join who agree with your views. Maybe you could form it with Tim Gratz. I am sure you would have great fun together.

I agree. Hopefully he will provide the evidence for his views on Israel's involvement in the assassination of JFK in the thread I have created for him.

Message from Martine: My colleague doesn't want to participate because, she doesn't speak English as good as you ask. For me, it's actually impossible. I'm coordinator in some other projects. If you don't receive any information from me until Friday the 17th of February, you could understand that our institution, with regrets, don't participate to your very interesting project. I'm looking to find someone else tomorrow and Friday. The meeting with Andy today to fill in the application form has been cancelled. We will meet up when we have managed to find a woman from a teacher institution that can communicate in English.

Ed Podesta and Ed Waller will both be giving presentations in March. I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread in an area of the Forum they can access. They can post any questions, opinions, etc. that they might have about the meeting.

You have said this many times over the last few months. What about discussing this issue here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6140

Some people, myself included, see George Bush and his Neo Cons as the new fascists. They definitely pose a serious threat to world peace. Like the Nazis, the New Cons are backed by those corporations keen to make war profits (see the outrageous contract that Bush has given Halliburton). As you appear to be a supporter of the Neo Cons, maybe you can answer the following questions. (1) Did you approve of the CIA plot to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954. (2) Did you support the creation of a blacklist in the 1950s that stopped people with left-wing opinions from working in the media? (3) Did you approve of the American invasion of Vietnam? (4) Did you approve of the CIA plot to overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile in 1973? (5) Did you support Reagan’s decision to fund the Contras in Nicaragua by illegal arms sales to Iran? (6) Did you support Reagan’s funding of death squads in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s? (7) Did you support the illegal invasion of Iraq? (8) Do you support the illegal occupation of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba? (9) Do you agree with holding people in prison without without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits? Do you agree with them being tortured? http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng