Jim Harwood

I thought it was about the JASTA bill---any comments , thoughts, or surprise that you had no idea this political fight was going on right under your nose? How is that about the Queen? And if you doubt Obama is the personal property of the Queen I'd be happy to debate it with you. Let me guess your'e another "subject" come to tell us Yanks how evil an empire we run, is that correct?

How do interested 911 researchers miss the recent fight led by Bob Graham of Florida and the late Walter Jones Republican congressman from North Carolina along with a few other key individuals including family members of people killed in terrorism of 911 to get the JASTA bill passed? It's acronym for "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism" and this bill was vetoed by President Obama and his veto was nullified by Congress. This allows the families of 911 victims to sue the Monarchy of Saudi Arabia which is something I never hear mentioned by 911 truthers. It was not an easy fight to get the JASTA bill passed especially with the Queen's personal servant President "Obomber" in the White House. Bob Graham interview 2018 https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2018/10/25/bob-graham-saudi-arabia-khashoggi JASTA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Against_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_Act

Latest tweet by President Trump. Have the JFK buffs ever had a President this willing to engage the enemy right out in the open and yet they're so dense they believe the British controlled media that Trump is evil. If Trump were evil they would have treated him the same way they treated that traitor Barrack Obama. QUOTE : I am fighting the Fake (Corrupt) News, the Deep State, the Democrats, and the few remaining Republicans In Name Only (RINOS, who are on mouth to mouth resuscitation), with the help of some truly great Republicans, and others. We are Winning big (150th Federal Judge this week)! 2:20 PM · Sep 15, 2019·Twitter for iPhone

Michael-- did you know former President Obama vetoed the JASTA bill from Congress that would allow the families of 911 to bring suit against the Saudi Monarchy? See if you can get your head around that or go see your local bartender for guidance. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sept11-saudi/congress-rejects-obama-veto-saudi-september-11-bill-becomes-law-idUSKCN11Y2D1

Ron, there is nothing moral about a Democracy , majority rules, a lynch mob is the epitome of democracy.

Be quiet we don't want Michael Clark to read the word British...he considers it hijacking even if truthful. And for Paul it appears a lot of the laundered money by the Saudi's went through British owned territory the Cayman Islands-- more koolaid Paul? The New York Times reported Saturday on a longstanding CIA partnership with Saudi Arabia, whose current manifestation is the joint program to arm Syrian rebels, a program that President Obama authorized in early 2013. According to the Times account, under that secret program called "Timber Sycamore," the Saudis provided funding and purchased weapons for existing Syrian rebel factions, and the CIA trained the fighters in secret camps in Jordan. The Times account, however, was carefully written to exclude certain known features, including the existence of the Anglo-Saudi "Al Yamamah" deal, dating back to 1985, in which the British and the Saudis used an oil-for-arms barter deal to create massive offshore "black" accounts, used to bankroll and arm a wide range of global insurgencies. While the CIA-Saudi intelligence partnership is unquestionably accurate, it is a subsumed "junior partner" feature of the much more solid Anglo-Saudi alliance. According to the New York Times account, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who ran Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Directorate (GID) at the start of the Syrian destabilization, purchased large amounts of weapons in Eastern Europe and provided them, with CIA assistance, to the various Syrian rebel groups, including groups that were actually al-Qaeda fronts. Again, the Times told a half-truth. In addition to Eastern Europe, there was a well-documented flood of weapons that went to Syrian rebels from Benghazi, Libya, in a joint British/American intelligence program that was partly exposed with the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission there. Those weapons, confiscated after the overthrow and assassination of Qaddafi, were funneled through Qatari and Turkish channels into Syrian rebels, including al-Qaeda and ISIS. Former U.S. DIA head Gen. Michael Flynn has publicly exposed the Obama Administration's own involvement in arming the Syrian rebels, despite DIA warnings that this would only strengthen the hard-core jihadists, and could lead to the creation of a caliphate in the Syrian-Iraqi border region. When Prince Bandar was bounced as head of the GID, the program, the Times reported, was turned over to Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Kingdom's Interior Minister and Crown Prince. Bin Nayef was close with CIA Director John Brennan, dating back to Brennan's tenure in the late 1990s as CIA Station Chief in Riyadh. The Times account made clear that the Saudi-CIA partnership dated back much further. In the late 1970s, when the CIA was under intense Congressional scrutiny and restricted in its operations, the Saudis created what was called the "Safari Club," a multinational covert intelligence program, involving Morocco, Egypt and France, to carry on some of the CIA's covert operations in Africa. During the Reagan years, as is well known, the Saudis poured money into the Afghan mujahideen, matching U.S. Congressional funding dollar for dollar. The Saudis also, courtesy of Bandar, gave $32 million to the Contras, through Cayman Islands bank accounts. The mujahideen funding ran through CIA-managed bank accounts in Switzerland. Those accounts were, in fact, likely part of the "Al Yamamah" program as well, which was a major source of money to the Afghan war against the Soviets. The Times story barely mentioned the fact that the Saudis have been a major source of funding to ISIS and Nusra throughout the Syrian war, which shows how the Anglo-Saudi combine plays both sides in the conflict, to maximize the death toll and create permanent chaos. The Times briefly cited William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism advisor, pointing to the hypocrisy of partnering with the Saudis in any kind of anti-jihad coalition, since the Saudis are the biggest patrons of the jihadi terror.

I believe this book was published 15 years ago https://www.abebooks.com/9780306813115/Black-Prince-Sea-Devils-Story-0306813114/plp

Michael isn't this section of this website dedicated to the assassination of President Kennedy? If the British are pertinent in my answer or input in a thread then what's the problem? And please show me all these threads I have hijacked. Your personal preference aside, if you know how to do that. And Michael , this thread has included the name Professor Peter Dale Scott, the all knowing anti American conspiracy buff. The dear Professor just hates our imperial system. But read his CV and let me know if he isn't likely a loyalist to the Crown playing off the USA as the imperial power while covering up for the real imperial power on this planet? But my goodness the Professor is just so British and a Lancer Award Winner. Leave it to the JFK buffs. 😉 And I believe T.S. Eliot was MI6 agent. PETER DALE SCOTT: CURRICULUM VITAE Born Montreal, January 11, 1929. Married (1) Mary Elizabeth Marshall, June 16, 1956 (divorced, 1993): three children (Catherine Dale, Thomas, John Daniel). Married (2) Ronna Kabatznick, July 14, 1993. A Canadian citizen. Education and Teaching: B.A. (McGill University, Montreal), 1949. First Class Honors in Philosophy, Second Class Honors in Political Science. Studied six months at Institut d’Etudes Politiques, Paris; and two years at University College, Oxford (1950-1952). Ph.D. in Political Science (McGill), 1955. Dissertation on The Social and Political Ideas of T.S. Eliot. 1952-1953. Teacher at Sedbergh School, Montebello, Quebec. 1955-1956. Lecturer, Department of Political Science, McGill University. 1961-1966. Speech Department, University of California, Berkeley: Lecturer (1961); Acting Assistant Professor (1962); Assistant Professor (1963). 1966-1994. English Department, University of California, Berkeley: Assistant Professor (1966); Associate Professor (1968); Professor (1980). Retired 1994. Professional Service Foreign Service Officer, Canadian Department of External Affairs, 1957-1961: Twelfth and Thirteenth Sessions, United Nations General Assembly, 1957, 1958; Canadian Embassy in Warsaw, Poland (1959-1961); United Nations Conference on Statelessness (Geneva, 1959); United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and Immunities (Vienna, 1961) Senior Fellow, International Center for Development Policy, Washington, D.C., June-November 1987. Fellowships Canadian Social Sciences Research Council, 1956-57. Guggenheim Fellow, 1969-1970. Honors and Awards International Center for Development Policy, Freedom Award, 1987. Finalist, Canadian Governor-General’s Award for Poetry, 1988. Reed Foundation Poetry Chapbook, Dia Art Foundation, 1989. Writer in Residence, University of Toronto, Fall 1992. Honorable Mention, Mencken Awards, Best Book, 1992. Sylvia Meagher Award, Coalition on Political Assassinations, 1996. JFK Pioneer Award, JFKLancer, 1997. Resident, Bellagio Study Center, Aug.-Sept. 1997. Lannan Poetry Award, 2002 (with Alan Dugan). Lannan Writing Residency, Marfa, TX, March-April 2004 Honoree at Symposium and Seminars, Open Center, New York City, March 13-20, 2010. Two journal issues devoted to his poetry: Chicago Review, Fall 1998; Agni, 31/32 (1990).

I must inform you Paul you're wrong on all counts. The adult Mexican population inside the United States is employed at labor sometimes skilled (construction) and sometimes unskilled at rates much lower than their American predecessors (I can see you in 1852--"Well hell man what would these negroes be doin if they was back in Africa...might as well have three square meals and a roof over your head") . The last stat I read stated close to half the Mexican population is in the USA working. And the terrible conditions you whine about are caused by the same forces that are forcing these Mexican's to flee their country to find work. And I am not as simple minded as you to describe President Trumps actions as "protecting the American worker". He is enforcing the sovereignty of the United States,exactly what you want a President to do. If he is failing it's in the area of American system economics which he could deploy at a moments notice and rebuild not only the collapsed United States but Mexico , as well as the entirety of Ibero America PS- 'The British don't control the drug trade" You're the koolaid drinker Paul. Top money laundering centers Bahamas British Cayman Islands - British Grenadines - British Nevis - British St. Vincent Island- British St. Kitts- British And the #1 drug money laundering bank is British run HSBC https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/hsbc-files I shiver to think what would happen if the British did run the worlds drug trade.

I wasn't criticizing remittances, the Mexican people or the American people. I was just describing the current system of using cheap labor by the financiers, why they created this mess (who by the way create the narco state in Mexico) and how they benefit. To correct you it's the British who are behind the drug trade not only in Mexico but in all of it's many incarnations. It's not the USA that's behind the drug trade. And the El Paso and Dayton shooting are the work of intelligence networks looking to turn you liberal types into sock puppets against the President. In short just like with JFK's murder you're being manipulated by the same people responsible for the shootings. It's also fitting that you and your employer would have no problem with the concept of slave labor; and seasonal at that,. You're once again proving my point. This is not an immigration issue it's about massive flows of cheap labor moving from place to place like cattle, with no borders to stop them.

President Trump is not anti Mexican and his policy for a wall is not about immigration, it has to do with sovereignty on both sides of the border. If the financiers that FDR fought and JFK fought were able to move "cheap labor" from one place to the next at their whim this would benefit them financially in a huge way. Let's take 10 million Mexicans flushed into the United States over a decade to replace Union workers and non union workers and on average their (Meican) wage is $2.50 hr less than it was before they replaced the American worker. That works out to a $25 million per hour in wage savings and $200 million per day and $1 billion per weeks and $52 billion per year, all for the bankers. Now that's terrorism, that's slavery, that's the destruction of both Mexico and the USA. Not only that but there is this thing called remittances, where Mexican workers in the United States wire money back to their relatives in Mexico. This becomes a source of foreign exchange for Mexico to repay their illegitimate national debt owed to US and City of London bankers. And one other thing. If 28 million Mexican workers aged 22 to 55 are working in the United States then Mexico has lost a potential work force it requires to create wealth and maintain such basic needs as food and infrastructure due to this "British East India" style game of destruction.

How about FDR/Stalin--that combo seemed to work quite well? You know even before the British installed Barrack Obama in the White House , Putin and Russia were honoring the 125th birthday of Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of our greatest Presidents. From Irish Times February 2007-- The Russian's praise FDR and seek to emulate him and his ideas. Russia celebrated his 125th birthday in 2007 while the US citizens watched the Superbowl. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/russia-s-resurgence-1.1195950 By the way in 2005 it was reported that Putin detained the young junior Senator from Illinois Barrack Obama and his cohort Senator Richard Lugar for some 3 hours in Russia on suspicion of being British spies. We know Lugar was knighted by the Queen and Obama daddy hails from British colony Kenya. Mau Mau country.

David do you ever make a point regarding the subject matter? Every response from you is actually a non response.

Deleted

David, you lack the ability to think. Now we are off on a mission to define the word libertarian as opposed to the Russell issue. Libertarians do not believe in Government, they believe they should be free to do "their own thing" and in all the ways that statement implies. Your own pasted definition clearly shows they are mad as haters. Now what is your darn argument? So far you've made no points of any relevance.

How does it show that? According to the official government report there was no "plot" so therefore what are you talking about?

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration decided Thursday to declassify a key name long sought by relatives of 9/11 victims who are suing Saudi Arabia over allegations of that country's involvement, but declined to release the name publicly. The name of the individual, which the 9/11 families believe may support their allegation of Saudi involvement in the terror attacks, will be disclosed to the plaintiff's lawyers under a protective order. The order makes it illegal for those attorneys to release the name to the public, meaning the identity of the individual will remain a secret — at least for now. The decision by the FBI and the Justice Department was a partial victory for the 9/11 families, who have been fighting in court to compel the Trump administration to hand over the name. Terry Strada, who chairs the group 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism, called it "a good result." “The families are dedicated to getting to the truth, and we shouldn't have to beg for this sort of basic information, or be kept in the dark, about the Saudi role in the attacks," Strada said in a statement. Still, the administration did not declassify other documents the 9/11 families have sought as part of their lawsuit, although the FBI said more documents could be produced in the future. The FBI pointed out that the name of the individual had been the families' top priority, calling it "the primary piece of information that the plaintiffs in the 9/11 litigation have been seeking." The Saudi Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House, which earlier referred all questions about the matter to the Justice Department, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The long-awaited decision involved whether to disclose the name of a person who allegedly directed two men in California who assisted hijackers in the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 families and their lawyers believe the person may be a Saudi official, but the name was redacted when a 2012 summary of the FBI's inquiry into the matter was previously released. But the decision pitted President Donald Trump's efforts to show he's seeking justice for 9/11 victims against his desire to maintain close ties with Saudi Arabia, already strained in the wake of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents last year. Trump has worked to preserve the relationship with the Saudis despite widespread criticism in Congress of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's leadership. Lawyers for the 9/11 families have sought to get the unredacted version released by the FBI, and a deadline for the Justice Department to decide whether to release was delayed several times at the government's request, most recently until Thursday. In the end, the Justice Department declined to invoke the "state secrets" privilege, a provision in U.S. law that allows the government to refuse to release information in lawsuits that could undermine national security. The FBI said in a statement that the decision was made "in light of the extraordinary circumstances of this particular case." "The Attorney General has decided not to assert the State Secrets privilege over that name," the FBI said. Advocates for the 9/11 families were given some reason for optimism this week when Jim Kreindler, a prominent attorney representing some of the 9/11 families, was a guest of the White House at a ceremony at the Pentagon marking the anniversary of the attacks, several people familiar with his attendance tell NBC News. White House officials have previously maintained that the decision about how to handle the legal matter rests with Attorney General William Barr. But the significant implications for the U.S. relationship with close partner Saudi Arabia, combined with Trump's past record of seeking to influence Justice Department decisions, has raised speculation that he might get more personally involved. Although 15 of the 19 attackers in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens and mastermind Osama bin Laden was born there, Saudi Arabia's government has long denied involvement in 9/11. The 9/11 Commission that investigated the attacks found it likely that Saudi government-funded charities did fund the attacks but did not find evidence that the government or senior Saudi officials were involved. The lawsuit against Saudi Arabia was enabled by a 2016 law called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act that allowed for a civil suit against a foreign state if it supports international terrorism against Americans or their property. Former President Barack Obama vetoed the law, warning it could create a precedent for the U.S. or its officials to be sued in foreign courts, but Congress voted to override his veto.

Once again President Donald Trump shows his willingness to fight the "Deep State" aka "British Empire. President Trump has declassified the name of one of the suspected Saudi conspirators. There s a on going lawsuit by survivor victims and victims families against the Saudi Government. British agent Barrack Obama vetoe'd the bill allowing the 911 victim's to sue but congress nullified the veto. WASHINGTON — The Trump administration decided Thursday to declassify a key name long sought by relatives of 9/11 victims who are suing Saudi Arabia over allegations of that country's involvement, but declined to release the name publicly. The name of the individual, which the 9/11 families believe may support their allegation of Saudi involvement in the terror attacks, will be disclosed to the plaintiff's lawyers under a protective order. The order makes it illegal for those attorneys to release the name to the public, meaning the identity of the individual will remain a secret — at least for now. The decision by the FBI and the Justice Department was a partial victory for the 9/11 families, who have been fighting in court to compel the Trump administration to hand over the name. Terry Strada, who chairs the group 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism, called it "a good result." “The families are dedicated to getting to the truth, and we shouldn't have to beg for this sort of basic information, or be kept in the dark, about the Saudi role in the attacks," Strada said in a statement. Still, the administration did not declassify other documents the 9/11 families have sought as part of their lawsuit, although the FBI said more documents could be produced in the future. The FBI pointed out that the name of the individual had been the families' top priority, calling it "the primary piece of information that the plaintiffs in the 9/11 litigation have been seeking." The Saudi Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House, which earlier referred all questions about the matter to the Justice Department, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The long-awaited decision involved whether to disclose the name of a person who allegedly directed two men in California who assisted hijackers in the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 families and their lawyers believe the person may be a Saudi official, but the name was redacted when a 2012 summary of the FBI's inquiry into the matter was previously released. But the decision pitted President Donald Trump's efforts to show he's seeking justice for 9/11 victims against his desire to maintain close ties with Saudi Arabia, already strained in the wake of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents last year. Trump has worked to preserve the relationship with the Saudis despite widespread criticism in Congress of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's leadership. Lawyers for the 9/11 families have sought to get the unredacted version released by the FBI, and a deadline for the Justice Department to decide whether to release was delayed several times at the government's request, most recently until Thursday. In the end, the Justice Department declined to invoke the "state secrets" privilege, a provision in U.S. law that allows the government to refuse to release information in lawsuits that could undermine national security. The FBI said in a statement that the decision was made "in light of the extraordinary circumstances of this particular case." "The Attorney General has decided not to assert the State Secrets privilege over that name," the FBI said. Advocates for the 9/11 families were given some reason for optimism this week when Jim Kreindler, a prominent attorney representing some of the 9/11 families, was a guest of the White House at a ceremony at the Pentagon marking the anniversary of the attacks, several people familiar with his attendance tell NBC News. White House officials have previously maintained that the decision about how to handle the legal matter rests with Attorney General William Barr. But the significant implications for the U.S. relationship with close partner Saudi Arabia, combined with Trump's past record of seeking to influence Justice Department decisions, has raised speculation that he might get more personally involved. Although 15 of the 19 attackers in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens and mastermind Osama bin Laden was born there, Saudi Arabia's government has long denied involvement in 9/11. The 9/11 Commission that investigated the attacks found it likely that Saudi government-funded charities did fund the attacks but did not find evidence that the government or senior Saudi officials were involved. The lawsuit against Saudi Arabia was enabled by a 2016 law called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act that allowed for a civil suit against a foreign state if it supports international terrorism against Americans or their property. Former President Barack Obama vetoed the law, warning it could create a precedent for the U.S. or its officials to be sued in foreign courts, but Congress voted to override his veto.

I haven't a clue what point you think you made with the gibberish above.

What in the world does the gibberish above actually mean? Let's see we have an Earl Warren in tears at the hands of LBJ, we have an ultra liberal Warren living in fear of right wing assassins because of his incredible record of support on civil rights and other liberal-libertarian actions? Hell David Libertarians don't believe in Government, they just follow the dictate of Aleister Crowley "do as thou wilt" . And how does Impeach Warren bill boards play a role in Senator Richard Russells demand that his SBT dissent be made a part of the Warren Commission conclusion? The billboards in Dallas were all part of the window dressing for the assassination. And this is a real doozy QUOTE: But being forced to serve and to be made to seem to endorse the ridiculous SBT is why Russell was angry in the phone call you posted. Harold Weisberg published a series of books called Whitewash and in one of them he dedicated an entire section to secret meetings of the commission including the meeting that had to do with Richard Russells "dissent" regarding the SBT. According to the book the McCloy/Dulles apparatus had a fake stenographer come in and take down Senator Richard Russells concern with the validity of the SBT. What do you think would have happened in September 1964 had the report contained the statement by one of the esteemed Commission members that stated "I don't believe it and therefore I am not putting my name to the conclusion that the same bullet that hit Governor Connally also struck President Kennedy". Some master mind President-- he sends Dulles and McCloy a man to stack the panel as you say and that man tries to destroy the entire fake report. You say he did it out of childish spite. To me that is the most childish comment I have ever read concerning the Kennedy case. Bye bye cover up.

What do you mean "stack the panel"? We know from Donald Gibson's book the WC was never LBJ's idea. How stacked can the panel be when you're number #1 plant Senator Richard Russell is causing a group heart attack by wanting to have his dissent against the SBT included in the finished report? LBJ had zero to do with the JFK murder and wanted nothing to do with the Presidency in the aftermath of Dallas. But I have no real clear idea what you're trying to suggest other than suggesting LBJ was a conspirator or a part of the cover up. The 9/18/64 telephone call between LBJ and Russell ought to clear both men as being part of the cover up. Hell they don't even understand the significance of Russell's objection to the SBT or LBJ's agreement to that objection. With his noted objection in the reports conclusions there goes the whole report; and it's demise caused by a person you suggest is a LBJ plant in order to stack the panel? What great detective work. PS- Russell complains that he doesn't like the staff (made up of Justice Department lawyers) writing the report that he'd rather speak for himself. What about that complaint dont you understand? Did you miss the recent Trump Dossier written by British Intelligence and used by complicit Justice and FBI people to get a FISA warrant concerning candidate Trump? What's the difference, I ask you what's the difference between the Trump dossier and the Warren Commission report? Lord Bertrand Russell who managed the conspiracy career of Mark Lane (Lane's book Rush to Judgement was written in London) was the first to publish a public critique of the Warren Report. He was given a copy of the report prior to it's release! How does a foreigner get his hands on the report prior to it's release? Maybe he had some friendly Justice Department lawyer just like Christopher Steele had Bruce Ohr? Are you guys simply so far gone you cannot figure out how the murder and cover up occurred and who was behind it? It was not LBJ or the US Government.

You dont know of any instance where LBJ objected to the SBT? Then you've never listened to this 9/18/64 telephone call with Commission member Georgia Senator Richard Russell. Beginning at the 1:52 minute mark Russell relates to the President that he dissented to the conclusion that one bullet struck both Connally and Kennedy and said he doesn't believe it to which LBJ responds "well neither do I". Furthermore Russell who is the more interesting speaker in this phone call says to the President that he wanted the Justice Department lawyers who actually wrote the fake report (you can hear Russell complain earlier in the phone conversation that he hated the "staff" writing the report that he'd rather speak for himself) to make a notation in the report that Senator Russell dissents regarding the SBT. In fact one of Weisberg's books detailed the charade that was pulled on Russell by the Dulles/McCloy group. They had Russell believe his doubts about the SBT had been noted in the report, when in fact his doubts never made the commission's final report. Weisberg said they went as far as having a fake stenographer present during Russell's statement. As far as the Jano's interview I don't know what you're talking about. For the former President to say "we were running a damn Murder Inc. in the Caribbean" is quite a shocking comment. And let's not forget, the USA does not own these islands, these islands are under the control of the British Empire and they're off shore money havens for Dope Inc., the British world wide drug business. So if there was a nest of assassins in the Caribbean they were under British control not the United States. That's the biggest miss that JFK buffs have. The assassination was not domestic but foreign. LBJ and Russell also discuss intelligence reports regarding alleged North Vietnamese attacks on US ships. LBJ is skeptical of the reports to say the least. He goes so far as to tell Russell he will not bomb anyone based on these fraudulent intelligence reports. I can only assume this is the Gulf of Tonkin from 1-1/2 months earlier. This bunk that LBJ was blood thirsty for Vietnam is not born out by the facts. What is born out by the facts is LBJ was one scared sob, wondering when the Kennedy assassins were going to kill him. He tried to flee the WH in 1965 and finally resigned in 1968. Quotes like "I'll get you your war just get me elected" is just more of the BS that's been introduced by the killers into the investigation of the Kennedy assassination. Enjoy the Russell/LBJ call from September 1964 if you have the time.

According to sources LBJ didn't even want to run for President in 1964. He wanted to hold the office together until the 1964 election was decided and then he would leave the spoils for the winner. He came under tremendous pressure to run in 1964 and of course he resigned in 1968. LBJ also didn't believe in the single bullet theory, didn't think going to war in Vietnam was a good idea, and didn't believe the Gulf of Tonkin story or the intelligence reports. Later after leaving office he confided during an interview that he believed we were "running a damn Murder Inc. in the Caribbean " . It wasn't long after that interview that LBJ departed this world. For a guy that's often fingered as a JFK mastermind killer, he sure went about covering it up in a strange way. He wasn't even a Warren Commission supporter nor was he a single bullet theory supporter.

Professor James Fetzers partner in crime in the 1998 book Assassination Science, Dr. Robert Burr Livingston was in correspondence through out his career with Dr. Walter Freeman the surgeon that performed the lobotomy on Rosemary Kennedy. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf1779n7fr/entire_text/ Livingston was big into "mind control" and I believe from his position at NIMH he financed Dr Harris Isbells(spelling) experiments on drug patients at the Lexington KY facility. Livingston was also one of the founding members of the Cosmos Club in Washington DC in 1964 along with the CIA and other mind benders. Might he also be related to Aaron Burr the assassin of the founder of our first national bank Alexander Hamilton? I would not be surprised in the least.

Let me add this bit of information as well: (By the way the Process Church was located less than 1/2 mile from Clay Shaw's home in the French Quarters in 1968) Inside the Rat’s Maze Consider what was carried out in San Francisco during 1965-1968. Consider the {intended effect}. By the 1960s, R.D. Laing and others at London’s Tavistock Institute were proclaiming that “no criteria for sanity actually exists,” and that psychedelic drugs could be used to remake an individuals concept of what is sane. The idea in San Francisco was to create an environment where traditional notions of sanity would no longer exist, to create an artificial reality where no outside influences could intervene. To give a sense of this, consider the Haight-Ashbury district geographically. It is a very small area, yet in that restricted zone, the following existed: The Grateful Dead lived at 710 Ashbury Street, Janis Joplin at 635 Ashbury, Country Joe and the Fish at 638 Ashbury, the Hell’s Angels at 719 Ashbury. The Jefferson Airplane were just across the Panhandle at 2400 Fulton Street. Charles Manson lived at 636 Cole St., and the Satanic Process Church of the Final Judgement, with which Manson was associated, was only two blocks away at 407 Cole. The Free Medical Clinic, where the CIA’s Jolly West operated, was at the corner of Haight and Clayton, and West’s crash-pad, where he deployed a team of underlings to dispense LSD was only a few blocks away. The Psychedelic Shop was at 1535 Haight Street; the San Francisco Oracle was a block-and-a-half away at 1371 Haight Street; and the Diggers Free Bakery was at 1350 Waller Street, one block off Haight Street.. The Avalon Ballroom, the Family Dog and the Fillmore launched psychedelic rock concerts with music and light shows that were deliberately designed to create a dissociative mental state. The Diggers and the S.F. Mime Troop filled the streets with absurdist theater and outlandish parades. The onetime burlesque queen Magnolia Thunderpussy sold erotic desserts at her 1398 Haight Street café. Spiritualism, meditation, so-called eastern-religions and other forms of “mind-expansion” were advertised on every street corner. And for four years the neighborhood was drenched in Billy Mellon Hitchcock’s LSD. This was all packed into a tiny neighborhood; it was concentrated, incessant, and it didn’t stop. The experiment was pushed to the breaking point to see if a radical transformation could be accomplished.