W. Niederhut

Nice summary, Roger. The damning Zapruder film evidence was, obviously, suppressed and altered in a high-level CIA op, with the assistance of Henry Luce's old OSS man, C.D. Jackson, at Life magazine. Coincidentally, C.D. Jackson died of "natural causes" shortly before the WCR was released in 1964. Was C.D. Jackson, possibly, considered a security risk by the CIA? Jackson had worked as an Eisenhower staffer. Is it possible that he was perturbed by the WCR cover up?

Yeah, my wife and I were just talking about this issue last night. If I recall correctly, Eugene McCarthy was already running in the NH Democratic primary in '68, before LBJ announced on March 31st that he would not seek re-election. But RFK and Humphrey didn't enter the primaries until after March 31st, did they?

Sandy, C'mon, man. Biden and Blinken vetoed two UN cease-fire resolutions to put a halt to Netanyahu's Gaza genocide, while aggressively sending Bibi bombs and other military equipment. Ergo, Biden and Blinken have been actively complicit in Bibi's ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Now Biden has, apparently, realized that he bungled Gaza -- perhaps partly because his blunder may cost him Michigan. He is also worried now-- finally-- that his support for Netanyahu is potentially drawing the U.S. into another catastrophic war in the Middle East. IMO, the problem with Biden, from the beginning, is that he has always been enmeshed with the DNC/Wall Street establishment and the U.S. military industrial complex. That is why he refused to put a Progressive on the 2020 ticket, after eking out a narrow win over the Progressives--Bernie and Elizabeth Warren-- in 2020. As for standing up to Israel's right wing Likud Party apartheid regime, only the Progressives have had the courage and integrity to do so-- Bernie, Warren, AOC, et.al. Incidentally, Obama heatedly disagreed with Netanyahu's apartheid politics in Palestine, and the two men could hardly stand to be in the same room together. There's a detailed NYT reference on that subject, if you're interested.

Matt, To re-phrase my point, (above) Harris was Biden's choice, not the Democratic (primary) voters' choice-- after Biden eked out the nomination victory over Bernie and Elizabeth Warren in 2020. Harris ran a distant 5th or 6th in the 2020 Democratic primaries, behind Biden, Bernie, Warren, and Buttigieg. Newsome didn't run in 2020.

Matt, Harris was Biden's choice, all along. I watched the 2020 Democratic primary debates, and Harris was not that popular with Democratic voters, including me. I have nothing against her, but Biden should have put Elizabeth Warren on the ticket, IMO. Biden, himself, barely won the 2020 nomination. The Wall Street DNC establishment has repeatedly sabotaged Progressives.

Pat & Matt, Overall, the Biden team has done good work, but I have serious doubts about how Blinken has handled Biden's historic Gaza debacle. And, obviously, many foreign service people in the U.S. State Department (and Georgetown grad, Douglas Caddy) share my concerns. As I mentioned, Biden, himself, has recently recognized his blunders in backing Netanyahu's Gaza genocide. The recent attacks on U.S. troops throughout the Middle East (and on the U.S. Beirut embassy) are a direct consequence of Biden's grossly misguided collusion in Netanyahu's Gaza genocide. I sympathize with the Democratic impulse to circle the wagons around Biden -- given the dire threat of a second Trump Presidency-- but I also wish that wiser consultants (Obama? Axelrod?) could convince Biden to step down and let Gavin Newsome carry the 2024 torch.

The U.S. government-employed propagandist Michael Griffith's bogus, redundant McAdams-esque propaganda tropes smearing Col. L. Fletcher Prouty are obscene, embarrassing, and discrediting. Griffith's propaganda tropes have been repeatedly debunked on the Education Forum, but he persists in re-posting them on every single thread where Prouty's critically important observations of CIA history are discussed. It's an example of the propaganda technique of "repeating the lies" until poorly informed people believe them. Does Griffith's redundant U.S. government propaganda belong on the Education Forum? This is a rare social media platform where scholarly people discuss evidence-based "untold history" -- debunking the ubiquitous government-sponsored disinformation that has inundated our mainstream (and social) media during the past 60 years.

Sandy & Matt, The belief that Biden has been an effective President, for the most part,* isn't inconsistent with a belief that he needs to retire in January of 2025. He is experiencing significant cognitive deficits. A wise man should know when to call it quits. * I've made no secret of the fact that I have disagreed, since October, with Biden's support for Netanyahu's bombing of Gaza. Biden, himself, now seems to recognize his mistake, and the risk of being drawn into the longstanding Israeli/Neocon plan to engage the U.S. in a war with Iran. There are reports that Biden has recently referred to Netanyahu, accurately, as, "a bad f-ing guy."

So, it sounds like the SCOTUS isn't really focusing on the basic issue of whether Trump should be ineligible for public office, on the basis of the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Instead, they are focusing on the somewhat peripheral issue of a state's right to invoke the 14th. A cop out for Uncle Clarence Thomas and Boofer Brett.

Yes, not to be confused with Dubya Bush. As for Biden confusing Macron with Mitterand and Merkel with Kohl, we have a serious problem. This is no time for necro-diplomacy. Biden needs to step down, but he probably won't.

Roger, This is simply naive. LBJ was a psychopath who was chiefly interested in maintaining the illusion that he, McBundy, et.al., had not fundamentally reversed JFK's Vietnam withdrawal plans with NSAM 273. LBJ was a critical part of the Cold War conspirators' plot to reverse JFK's foreign policies by murdering JFK. He told the Joint Chiefs in December of 1963, "O.K., gentleman, you can have your war (in Vietnam.) Just make sure I get re-elected next year." As for LBJ's progressive domestic policies-- including Civil Rights legislation-- he pursued them for reasons of political self interest. He was wooing the liberal Democratic base-- after obstructing Civil Rights legislation for years in Congress.

When I was an undergrad at Brown in the 70s, I attended a lecture by author David Halberstam at Sayles Hall. Oddly, I don't remember much about Halberstam's lecture except for his preliminary joke about delivering the annual Brown University Charles W. Colson Political Science Address. 🤥

Well, good for these students. When I was an undergrad at Brown in the 70s, I participated in the student movement protesting South African apartheid, referenced in this Guardian article. Nothing major, but I think I ended up on an FBI watch list.

Coincidentally, Kevin Drum just posted a scathing review of the current stooges at Fox News. As usual, Kevin hits the nail squarely on the head. Yes, Fox News has gotten even worse – Kevin Drum (jabberwocking.com)

Jeff, Not hyperbolic, but, perhaps less filtered -- a more sincere expression of Prouty's honest beliefs about Lansdale's suspected involvement in the JFK assassination plot. Speaking as a physician, my opinion is that the Garrison letter should be taken even more seriously if it were written under the influence of opiates and/or benzodiazepines-- a pharmacologic variation on the old Roman adage, "En vino veritas." But Prouty detractors would probably be inclined to use your "painkiller" comment to conclude the exact opposite-- i.e., that his possible use of "painkillers" somehow invalidated Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis."

Yes, Robert, and Prouty also told us that Lansdale was quite the chameleon-- a master of deception who had a pre-OSS background in advertising. Conversely, my "psychiatric" take on Prouty is that he was a decent man-- a straight shooter who was genuinely disturbed by CIA psychopathy and the subversion of core American values by Dulles' Secret Team.

Sandy, Have you, Greg Doudna, and Ben Cole studied Prouty's March 6, 1990 letter* to Jim Garrison? (Red italics mine.) The claim that Prouty didn't consider his colleague, General Ed Lansdale, a primary suspect in the orchestration of the JFK assassination plot is simply false. IMO, this is, precisely, why John McAdams and the CIA propaganda people have been working so hard to impugn Prouty's reputation during the past 33 years. Prouty was a rare firsthand witness of CIA black ops who hit the JFKA nail on the head. * L. Fletcher Prouty (spartacus-educational.com) L. Fletcher Prouty, letter to Jim Garrison (6th March, 1990)

Supreme Court knows what to do with Trump’s immunity ploy. (slate.com)

Re-posting this for Sandy, Ben, and others who are, apparently, unfamiliar with Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis." The hypothesis is outlined in the Garrison letter referenced in my 2021 thread on the subject (above.)

Greg, It's hardly a "wild leap," given Lansdale's history of running black ops and psy ops for Allen Dulles and the Company. Lansdale told Prouty in (?) October of 1963 that he would be engaging in some "fun and games"-- following his "retirement" from the CIA/USAF at the end of October-- which Prouty understood as slang for "black ops." I started a thread here about three years ago about Prouty's "Lansdale Hypothesis," which Prouty had outlined in a letter to Jim Garrison. Prouty had a number of reasons for believing that Lansdale may well have been involved in helping to organize the JFK assassination op and mainstream media psy op. It's a hypothesis which, like any legitimate hypothesis, can be refuted by a single definitive contrary fact. Confirmation of the hypothesis is a more complicated, long-term process, which is difficult in cases of sophisticated black ops, where the agents are skilled at covering their tracks and creating false narratives. Unfortunately, whenever the subject of Prouty's observations of CIA history, Vietnam, Ed Lansdale, et.al., arises on the forum, Michael Griffith always floods the zone with horse manure.

KIrk, Mahogany Bay in Roatan was one of our ports-of-call. We did a snorkel tour to French Key, nearby, and it was fairly pristine. The only downer was that the weather was overcast that day. We didn't get to explore much of the island, which is mostly a rain forest. The buildings around Mahogany Bay had a definite British feel, somewhat like the Bahamas, and English is the main language on the island-- unlike the Honduras mainland, where Spanish predominates. There is also an indigenous black Roatan population of Garifuna people-- deported to Roatan from some French colonies by the British in the late 18th century-- who speak a distinct language that is a combination of English and French. I had an opportunity to listen to some Garifuna guys talking at one of our tour stops, and I had trouble understanding what they were saying.

Doug, In the absence of newspapers, I was hoping to catch up on the national and world headline news stories of the day-- like watching Dan Rather or Peter Jennings back in the day. So, I was disappointed to see entire "news" shows focused on commentaries about a single story. That said, I noticed a huge qualitative difference between the commentaries on MSNBC and Fox.

My wife and I returned home from Galveston and our Yucatan coastal cruise last night. We had a good time, despite some stormy weather on the way back to Galveston. One of the strangest things about this cruise was that my only access to the "news" all week was briefly watching MSNBC and Fox News on the cable television in our cabin, before dinner. I was truly shocked to see how limited-- and distorted-- the coverage of the "news" is on these two cable channels, because I haven't watched televised "news" for years. Both cable programs consisted mainly of lengthy opinion segments/interviews that were entirely focused on a single daily topic. There was very little information, and a great deal of opinion. Fox focused mainly on border hysteria, with video footage and lengthy diatribes about the U.S. being invaded and destroyed by illegal immigrants-- and the importance of impeaching Mayorkas and voting Biden out of office. I was aghast. The overarching theme was, "Vote for Trump." MSNBC was more reality-based, but was similarly focused on lengthy interviews about a single subject-- e.g., Trump's $83.3 million defamation ruling, and, later in the week, Biden's targeted strikes in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The overarching theme was, "Vote for Biden."

FYI, amigos, my wife and I are sailing from Galveston tomorrow on a one week cruise to the Yucatan and Roatan island. I decided not to spend $175 for internet service on the ship, so I'll be incommunicado for awhile. I hate to miss out on this week's news and memes about the messianic vigilante MAGA convoy heading for the border-- and additional damaging Trump court verdicts-- but it's the price I have to pay to thaw out in the tropics. Salud y pesetas.

Hallelujah! We could see this coming, with Trump's uncontrolled outbursts and insults of Carroll and Judge Kaplan. Imagine having to pay $83.3 million because of an inability, or refusal, to shut up.