Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Liberty Lobby vs. E. Howard Hunt and the CIA


Recommended Posts

Liberty Lobby vs. E. Howard Hunt was a dangerous game of cat and mouse which ended

up as a Chess Match and a Game of Chicken. Whoever blinks first loses.

Continued below...

Edited by John Bevilaqua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberty Lobby vs. E. Howard Hunt was a dangerous game of cat and mouse which ended

up as a Chess Match and a Game of Chicken. Whoever blinks first loses.

Some members of the CIA figured out what the Liberty Lobby parents and affiliates had done in

the JFK hit and other hits, like those from The Pioneer Fund, The John Birch Society, The Congress

of Freedom and The Sons of Liberty, and others so The Liberty Lobby just wanted the CIA to know

that they had also figured out portions of what either current or former members of the CIA had done

in the JFK hit via E. Howard Hunt and Ray S. Cline and in many other political and non-political

assassinations over the years.

The Liberty Lobby vs. the E. Howard Hunt CIA lawsuit was just to create a stalemate between the

underground Far Right and the CIA Far Right, to answer everyone's questions. We get to snuff

integrationists, and Civil Rights leaders and Freedom Riders and you get to snuff your Commies and

your dictators and traitors and the other Eugenics targets, too.

We know about MKULTRA and your programmed assassins from Col. Ulius Amoss through Ray S. Cline

so don't play all high and mighty with us. We can use Byron DeLa Beckwith types for our projects or

Sam Bowers types or William Potter Gale or whomever we want. Did you forget that Dr. Hans J.

Eysenck was paid by BOTH The Pioneer Fund AND by your MKULTRA and H. Smith Richardson Projects,

too? So we both know all about Mind Control and the whole Manchurian Candidate thing. If we want

to train programmed assassins via The World Anti Communist League including the Palestinian Liberation

Organizations suicide bombers and the 9/11 kamikaze bombers what is it to you? You should never

have let that MKULTRA Genie out of the Bottle via Draper's Pioneer Fund. And you should never have

messed with Vonsiatsky's training of Japanese Kamikaze Pilots in Harbin, Manchuria, Manchuoko in the

first place. That is where the whole thing started. Then it moved from Harbin, to Tsingtao and Mukden

where Ray S. Cline was head of the OSS desk. And then into WACL when Cline headed that organization

along with Roger Pearson later on from The Pioneer Fund. You think these guys don't talk to each other?

And when Cardinal Mindszenty was brainwashed after World War II, why did you get all nervous about

the Mind Control Gap? That Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation meant well, but next you had the Satellite

Gap, then a Missile Gap, then the Nuclear Bomb ICBM Gap, and on and on and on. Next thing you know

the Arms Race created a stronghold for the Cold War Warriors and then they just had to have their

Viet Nam because you would not let them have Korea or Cuba or Hungary or the Berlin Wall like they

wanted for their showdowns. Too many Lines in the Sand by Rusk and Acheson not enough Shock and

Awe you see. Nothing like Shock and Awe for the old Military Industrial Complex. Sorta like their own

personal Fourth of July Celebration you know. Then Desert Storm became the first live televised CNN

War and the whole world was hooked on UTube Wars. Now look what you have done.

Why couldn't you have left well enough alone? Now Ray S. Cline is going to use the old Col. Ulius Amoss

trainees to kill people like Archbishop Oscar Romero, and Benito Aquino and the whole world will be in for a

100 years war. And that makes you pleased? Why am I not surprised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Like a lot of researchers, you obviously believe that the extreme right was behind the assassination of JFK. I think this theory fails for the same reason I don't believe that anti-Castro Cubans were the driving force behind it.

In 1963, while this was a much more conservative country in general, groups like Liberty Lobby, the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, etc., were marginalized and had very little real power. It is inconceivable that they would have been able to enlist at least some members of the Secret Service (which I think had to have happened, based on the total lack of response that day). It is inconceivable that they would have been able to keep virtually all of JFK's political friends silent about the conspiracy. Do you honestly think Earl Warren would have placed his name on a report he had to have known to be bogus, for the purpose of covering up for his political enemies on the far right?

As I've mentioned before, you are playing the "six degrees of seperation" game in order to bolster your theory that those on the far right are behind everything. Kind of like the McCarthyites finding a commie behind every tree. In one of your recent posts, you actually acted as if it were suspicious that a couple of your far right bogeymen were Unitarians! Is the Unitarian religion suspect because of that? Your post certainly seemed to imply that.

As in the case of the anti-Castro theory, where I've pointed out that Castro and Cuba basically died as a political issue when JFK was killed, let's look at what the far right was lobbying for (and against) in 1963, and what happened afterwards. On virtually every issue they were concerned with, the far right "lost" after JFK was assassinated. Things did not get "better," from their point of view, with the murder of the president they thought was a commie. The dreaded Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts were passed, the Immigration Reform act was passed, the federal government became much bigger and more involved in every facet of our lives in the ensuing years. Taxes were raised at every level, and there would be no truly powerful right wing movement until Reagan was swept into office in 1980. So, if they killed JFK, they must have been just as disappointed as the anti-Castro people at what transpired afterwards.

Finally, the biggest argument against the extreme right, or anti-Castro groups being behind the assassination is the duplicity of the entire mass media. It is an obvious fact that except for a few newspapers breathing their last gasps, the entire American establishment press would have been unsympathetic to the goals of any far right group in 1963. Over the years, our culture has titled more and more to the left, making them even less likely to support dogmatic anti-communists like Gen. Walker and company. If you think that the mainstream media today is still lying about the JFK assassination because they want to protect far right wing figures they disagreed with on every significant issue, then I think you are living in a different country than I am (but then maybe you are- not sure if you're in the U.S.)

Just a word about Liberty Lobby. I believe they changed quite a bit over the years. Like Terry Mauro, I was a subscriber to The Spotlight, the weekly newspaper they published. Once Curtis B. Dall died, I think their emphasis switched from a strict anti-communist line to a less predictable, populist tone. Yes, it is quite true that they often blamed Israel (and the Mossad) for just about every international event, but I learned to look past this and found a lot of their reporting to be very valuable. For instance, they were the first ones to run stories about widespread vote fraud, which was eventually gathered together in the excellent book "Votescam" by the late Collier brothers. We saw the fruition of what was first reported in the pages of The Spotlight back in the mid-1980s when Gore was robbed in Florida in the 2000 election. They also were well ahead of the pack in reporting on the medical benefits of vitamins and healthy eating and alternative sources of energy. In the days before the internet, The Spotlight was just about the only alternative news source we had.

When we concentrate on marginal groups with no real power, we let the truly powerful forces that I believe carried out the assassination and orchestrated the coverup (CIA, FBI, Pentagon, LBJ, etc.) off the hook. This was not an easy crime to pull off, and even if these splinter groups could have managed it, there is no way they would have been able to control the likes of LBJ, J.Edgar Hoover and the ENTIRE establishment press afterwards. Do you really think that Peter Jennings was lying for three hours on ABC television, on the 40th anniversary documentary they aired, because he didn't want to expose his "friends" on the far right? Just my two cents worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Like a lot of researchers, you obviously believe that the extreme right was behind the assassination of JFK. I think this theory fails for the same reason I don't believe that anti-Castro Cubans were the driving force behind it.

In 1963, while this was a much more conservative country in general, groups like Liberty Lobby, the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, etc., were marginalized and had very little real power. It is inconceivable that they would have been able to enlist at least some members of the Secret Service (which I think had to have happened, based on the total lack of response that day). It is inconceivable that they would have been able to keep virtually all of JFK's political friends silent about the conspiracy. Do you honestly think Earl Warren would have placed his name on a report he had to have known to be bogus, for the purpose of covering up for his political enemies on the far right?

As I've mentioned before, you are playing the "six degrees of seperation" game in order to bolster your theory that those on the far right are behind everything. Kind of like the McCarthyites finding a commie behind every tree. In one of your recent posts, you actually acted as if it were suspicious that a couple of your far right bogeymen were Unitarians! Is the Unitarian religion suspect because of that? Your post certainly seemed to imply that.

As in the case of the anti-Castro theory, where I've pointed out that Castro and Cuba basically died as a political issue when JFK was killed, let's look at what the far right was lobbying for (and against) in 1963, and what happened afterwards. On virtually every issue they were concerned with, the far right "lost" after JFK was assassinated. Things did not get "better," from their point of view, with the murder of the president they thought was a commie. The dreaded Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts were passed, the Immigration Reform act was passed, the federal government became much bigger and more involved in every facet of our lives in the ensuing years. Taxes were raised at every level, and there would be no truly powerful right wing movement until Reagan was swept into office in 1980. So, if they killed JFK, they must have been just as disappointed as the anti-Castro people at what transpired afterwards.

Finally, the biggest argument against the extreme right, or anti-Castro groups being behind the assassination is the duplicity of the entire mass media. It is an obvious fact that except for a few newspapers breathing their last gasps, the entire American establishment press would have been unsympathetic to the goals of any far right group in 1963. Over the years, our culture has titled more and more to the left, making them even less likely to support dogmatic anti-communists like Gen. Walker and company. If you think that the mainstream media today is still lying about the JFK assassination because they want to protect far right wing figures they disagreed with on every significant issue, then I think you are living in a different country than I am (but then maybe you are- not sure if you're in the U.S.)

Just a word about Liberty Lobby. I believe they changed quite a bit over the years. Like Terry Mauro, I was a subscriber to The Spotlight, the weekly newspaper they published. Once Curtis B. Dall died, I think their emphasis switched from a strict anti-communist line to a less predictable, populist tone. Yes, it is quite true that they often blamed Israel (and the Mossad) for just about every international event, but I learned to look past this and found a lot of their reporting to be very valuable. For instance, they were the first ones to run stories about widespread vote fraud, which was eventually gathered together in the excellent book "Votescam" by the late Collier brothers. We saw the fruition of what was first reported in the pages of The Spotlight back in the mid-1980s when Gore was robbed in Florida in the 2000 election. They also were well ahead of the pack in reporting on the medical benefits of vitamins and healthy eating and alternative sources of energy. In the days before the internet, The Spotlight was just about the only alternative news source we had.

When we concentrate on marginal groups with no real power, we let the truly powerful forces that I believe carried out the assassination and orchestrated the coverup (CIA, FBI, Pentagon, LBJ, etc.) off the hook. This was not an easy crime to pull off, and even if these splinter groups could have managed it, there is no way they would have been able to control the likes of LBJ, J.Edgar Hoover and the ENTIRE establishment press afterwards. Do you really think that Peter Jennings was lying for three hours on ABC television, on the 40th anniversary documentary they aired, because he didn't want to expose his "friends" on the far right? Just my two cents worth.

***************************************************************

Thank you, Don.

And, The Spotlight was also the first to break the news of Operation Watchtower, the cocaine connection into the U.S., under the auspices of Bush, Sr. during his and Reagan's administrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...