Benjamin Cole

No, I do not think a former President should be censored by corporate-owned media, or anybody for that matter. I prefer to err on the side of freedom of speech. Sure, it may "feel good" when it is Trump being censored...but where does this end? Who decides? A future US President who tries to curtail the US military-foreign policy complex and thus is run out of office and then erased? And sheesh, the 300 whackos who occupied the Capitol for a few hours....this was or is a threat? To who? To what? Sadly, the rioters who occupied the Capital looked like the marginalized, the unhappy, the unemployable, the disoriented, the unorganized----yes, uncharitably, "the rabble." Hey, I have been unemployed, I know how it feels. I spent a life shopping at 99-cent stores. No boo-hoo, but stresses can build up. Save for a lucky break here or there---who knows, maybe I would join the rabble. But 300 rabble do not pose a threat to the US, despite what you see on CNN. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/brian-stelter-cennsorship-harm-reduction And I ask again---is Brian Sicknick the new Pat Tillman?

Jeff Carter-- Right. This is a spooky situation. America's liberal intelligentsia has become a shoddy, puerile parody of the old Russian stooges. The Democratic Party and media apparatchicks represent Wall Street, Big Tech, the multinationals, and Hollywood, with poisonous, censorious ID politics window-dressing for cover. And the multinationals love doing business in China.

My view is the Facebooks, Googles, Twitters, YouTubes etc. have to make a decision: 1. Are the Facebooks, et al like the phone company, and thus not liable for what is said over the wires. I can plan and execute a violent bank robbery over the phone wires, or have the fringiest political view imaginable, and no one says the phone company should cut off my service. I can hold a conference call and hurl homophobic, racial and sexist slurs, and no one says my phone service should be cut off. 2. Or are the Facebooks et al like media companies, responsible for content, and they will and must curtail content as they see fit, but will also accept liability? Right now, the Facebooks et al are happily straddling the fence, censoring as they see fit and not liable for content. Very comfy. My own take is the Facebooks et at have become de facto Town Squares, and thus should not censor anything, other than overt hate speech intended to incite violence. If the Central American Association of Hermaphrodites Against IntraPersonal Rape have a website and following, so be it. What is spooky is the number of establishment "news" organizations, especially in the US cable business, gung ho for repressing alternative news sites. (Well, the alt-news sites are bleeding off ad dollars too.) Add on: Is Brian Sickman a replay of Pat Tillman?

I put my faith in James DiEugenio, who has the reporter-historian's natural inclination----indeed, a compulsion----to tell the truth, let the chips fall where they may. I agree with the sentiments expressed above by Jeff Carter, that the US is entering a heightened era of censorship and disinformation. Corporate censorship combined with government disinformation. Reporters such as Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are on to this. Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the multinationals, Hollywood and the establishment Democratic Party have an agenda. And the GOP may be little better.

James DiEugenio is a leading historian, in part as he recognizes what happened in Indochina: A holocaust. But also the whole JFK assassination and back story....and much that has happened in foreign policy since.... I wonder what it mean for US historians when the best historians are often self-taught guys....same thing is happening in macroeconomics.... Hats off to DiEugenio.

John Newman suggests the Veciana-Bishop (Phillips) meeting never happened. But Veciana had been hinting at the Oswald-Bishop-Phillips meeting for decades. Then, "On January 16, 2016, the Assassination Archives and Research Center published a video on YouTube of a conference in which Veciana unequivocally stated that Maurice Bishop was in fact David Atlee Phillips."--Wikipedia. Newman is a serious researcher, but Newman relies on paper records that could be falsified or incomplete. Also, air travel was common even in 1963, meaning people could travel around quickly, within hours. My speculation is that Phillips set up a false-flag assassination attempt on JFK, with Oswald as the provocateur, and Oswald was supposed to miss. A false-flat fake assassination attempt. This would be enough to outrage the public and foment action to displace Castro. Oswald did miss, but someone else (probably anti-Castro CIA assets) unilaterally piggybacked on the operation and fired in earnest. Oswald was supposed to escape and never be seen again. My guess is Oswald's CIA-provided ride away from TSBD backed out under the circumstances, or Oswald concluded he had been set up to be a patsy, and he was safer not riding in a car provided by the CIA (the agency that had just framed him, from his perspective). This put the CIA is a bind (to put it mildly). The story that CIA assets murdered the President had to be stomped, or that Oswald had been a CIA asset operating under instructions. So, the Dulles Commission, aka Warren Commission, did what it did. PS Newman takes pains to paint Phillips' situation in Cuba as dangerously compromised by August 1959. That is, Castro's people had in custody people who knew the real Phillips. His cover was blown, or could be. Ergo, Phillips would not dare to meet Veciana in public places. etc. in 1959. Too risky. Everyone in CIA was worried that Phillips would be executed as a spy any minute. Then, Phillips departs Cuba abruptly a step ahead of Castro bad guys in...mid-February 1960. That is seven months later, after Phillips' cover had possibly been blown. 210 days later. With his family in tow, no less. Well, in Latin America, manana manana.

Yes, it seems possible JFK's body could have been secreted out of Parkland through a tunnel exit. At that point, I suppose all that is needed is a body bag. Perhaps the body is placed onto AF2, which passed AF1 on the way back to DC. And then some work done on the body. Interestingly, Richard Lipsey (HCSA interview), said the autopsy doctors had concluded JFK had been struck by three bullets, all from above and behind, two shots to head and one to upper back. I suspect the shots and smoke from the Grassy Knoll area were a diversion. Of course, two shots to the head would have been simultaneous, given what we see on Zapruder film...Oswald had a single-shot bolt action rifle. I have to say, I am not a fan of conspiracy theories that have a lot of participants. But we have statements for the record from people at Bethesda that do not line up with the official record.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48753#relPageId=17 Interesting piece. The author seems unaware the bronze casket was so heavy that the absence of a body would not have been noticed.

Yes, various people assert the fancy bronze casket was never out of view, even for a moment, after JFK's body was put in. And yet there seems to be multiple credible witnesses that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda in a steel-colored, government-issue ordinary casket. Lifton posits the body was switched while in flight. I have always wondered if AF1 carried a government-issued casket as part of regular supplies. After all, AF1 could be expected to cross the Pacific from time to time with a bunch of older men on board, and a death might occur. Having a casket on board might not be so strange. Still, JFK aides say they sat with the bronze casket through th flight. Something fishy happened.

My speculation is between Parkland Hospital and Love Field, JFK's body was removed from the fancy bronze coffin, that is, before the fancy coffin ever got on AF1. Maybe while still in the hospital. On an elevator, something to that effect. Halt the elevator between floors for 30 seconds, remove body, place in body bag. Send the bronze coffin off on ground floor, ride with JFK's body down to basement and take it out the back. The bronze coffin was evidently so heavy (real bronze) that the absence of a body would escape notice. Like every other aspect of the JFK assassination, something does not add up....

Yes, a lone assassin, determined authoritatively within a few minutes....

Neither here nor there, but informative. In this interview E. Howard Hunt---a lucid, young Hunt---tells Buckley he would have murdered journalist Jack Anderson, had the order come down from the White House, which he thought was entirely possible. Well....

Add on: There was was a concerted effort to tar those with skepticism about the JFK Assassination as lefties, likely Communist sympathizers. A career could founder in the 1960s if one was thought a communist. See how Buckley suggests Mark Lane only wants to defend Oswald, as a fellow leftie.

Yeah, all well and good, but why no visuals on her performance?

I will try for more new substance in my comments. Thanks.

You have your views, and I have mine. I am expecting lots of identity-politics from Biden...and the multinationals determining trade policy with the CCP. Think of the NBA for clues. But we have a trans official in Biden Administration, so it all cool. (If there is anything I care about less than what you look like, it is your private sex life). BTW, a book that is neither left- or right-wing, but extremely insightful is, "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Michael Pettis. I highly recommend, give it a try. Good luck out there. Stay away from the kool-aid, whether red or blue.

Well, we probably won't settle the "Was Trump the Worst President Ever?" debate on a JFK Assassination forum (or any other). Suffice it say, from my perspective, the carnage of Vietnam (SE Asia), and the Middle East, fantastically expensive yet counterproductive, tops anything Trump did by a mile. To me, C19 is non-issue. Could have happened to any President, and in Europe they are doing little better against C19 than the US. Great Britain and a few other countries have actually fared worse (on a per capita basis). Trump will quickly pass into history, and his memory will not be sainted. Good riddance. The facts on the ground today: It was the multinationals, Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley that brought Biden into power. For a reason, and that reason was not Trump's orange hair, or his awful personality. A big reason was Trump's trade policies, maybe the only reason. Perhaps immigration too (upper classes always want cheap labor. Think of Southern plantation owners importing slaves--they liked immigration too). The Biden campaign was not run a platform of uniting America or the largest chunk of America, the employee-class. It was a loathsome and calculated campaign run on identity politics. Yet Biden represents economic elites.

"It nearly defines the Biden Presidency?" Oh, egads, yes (for public consumption). Synopsis: Q from reporter: "Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary has taken $7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street, in three years. Is she biased?' A: She is first female Treasury Secretary and was paid for extreme competence. (Dog whistle: You are sexist to suggest otherwise.) -------- Listen, Corporate America would install Attila the Hun if he favored their interests, or AOC. Personality has nothing to do with it, no matter how warped.

Who knows? Not me. But unless Trump becomes President again, and undertakes a few major wars for nothing, he strikes me as small potatoes. Corporate America wanted Trump out. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the multinationals, the CCP wanted him out. Why? That is the important question about the Trump Presidency. The identity-politics narrative, so obviously facile, is a diversion. And it worked. BTW--I loathe, detest and revile identity politics of any kind, in any direction. Back when Wallace did it, or now when it nearly defines the Biden Presidency (for public consumption).

Trump's follies just do not match the horrors of LBJ-Nixon, or even Bush Jr. There was nothing pleasant or admirable in Trump's personality. Good riddance. But consider this one toe, on the body that was Vietnam: "The newly tabulated figures indicate that at least 260 million U.S. cluster bomblets were released over Laos during the war — eighty-six bomblets for every person living in the country (the population was approximately 3 million in 1970)." That's just a toe on the body. The carnage was everywhere. James DiEugenio has correctly pointed out there was holocaust in SE Asia, with perhaps six million killed after US involvement there. And for what? I disagree with the identity-politics driven narratives, so popular---indeed an obsession---in mainstream media today. What is happening to Americans today is a corporatist-elite agenda, an undeclared economic assault on the nation's middle class, whatever your race or sex. Smedley Butler's take on foreign policy only needs updating, not revision. There is a terrific book out, "Trade Wars are Clas Wars," by Michael Pettis. Talk about required reading, this is it. It is not the "US vs. China." It is the multinationals and the CCP, and US leadership, against the employee classes of both nations. BTW--I loath, detest and revile the CCP for their horrid human rights abuses. Yes, the CCP is worse than US leadership. But note how little attention US media is paying to the jailing of Jimmy Lai, the Hong Kong publisher.

Right.

Great job of reporting and history-writing by James DiEugenio. What is interesting is that the interventionist foreign-policy JFK resisted continues to this day. It is worth pondering the observations of Smedley Butler, and the role today of the US military as a global guard service for multinationals. There is no one planning an attack upon the United States. Yet the US spends $1.3 trillion a year on the DoD, VA, DHS, black budget and prorated interest on the national debt. You read about "US interests" in this or that region. What interests? Not mine. Not anyone I know. Even spookier: The multinationals are deep into bed with Beijing and the increasingly repressive CCP. You see this confluence of interests in US news coverage, in compromised US foreign policy. Trump for all of his many flaws, was an positive aberration in this regard. And as brief an aberration as the establishment could make him. Perhaps JFK was taken down due to his foreign policy. I think the JFK assassination was a level below that, effected by some disgruntled CIA assets. But the case is still open.

I have always had reservations about the many people who said they saw Oswald before the assassination attempt, or saw Jack Ruby, or saw them together. Some may be reporting an actual Oswald double or plant, others may be succumbing to false memories, and yet others may simply be seeking drama and publicity. In the end, the "Oswald double" stories unimportant, as it seems clear to me already Oswald was a CIA asset, and one who was maneuvered to take part in a false-flag phony assassination attempt. Maybe the backyard photos are real, maybe faked. I suspect they are "real" and taken for the purpose of building the Oswald biography, just as the Walker photos are real, and at least parts of Oswald's trip to Mexico City are real, and Oswald's leafletting and TV-radio appearances in New Orleans are obviously "real." This is also why "the Mafia did it" does not ring true. They certainly were not setting up Oswald this way. It has the stamp of an intelligence-PR operation. The Mob did all this? I enjoy your insights. And yes, John Newman does get into the weeds. Still, reading actual documents is important. But Newman sometimes "reads" the redacted parts too. Beyond that, who is to say the key documents are monkeyed with to be misleading, or have simply vanished?

Yeah, and Phillips met with Oswald in Sept. 1963, at least by the on-record account of Antonio Veciana. The very solid researcher John Newman says the timing is off for the Phillips-Veciana-Oswald meeting...but Newman is working only with 50-year-old paper records, that might have been monkeyed with. I attached a file for your perusal. I don't know where to publish this yet. JFK-word=9:7:2020.docx

"Here's a question: assuming the photographs are real, what do we think Oswald was doing in posing for these? Why would he do that? Holding some newspapers to say "look I'm a Communist" and holding guns to say "look I'm violent" ? It really doesn't make any damn sense in the context of "they're real", does it? The only way it makes sense is that they're phony and designed to incriminate." ----- The backyard photos may be "real," along with the documents and photos regarding the General Walker shooting, and parts of Oswald's Mexico City jaunt. Oswald was willfully writing and docuenting the biography of a left-ing nut. In truth, Oswald was a CIA asset. I suspect Oswald was part of CIA "Northwoods"-type project, a phony JFK assassination attempt. Someone piggybacked on the operation, and shot JFK for real. This left Oswald as the patsy.