JFK and the Ku Klux Klan

[Ian Kingsbury]

What I find odd is the fact that Blakey was no dummy

But "hey they tricked me too" is a bit hard to swallow considering

The direction of the HSCA investigation.

Once a lawyer always a lawyer.

[Paul Trejo]

What I find odd is the fact that Blakey was no dummy

But "hey they tricked me too" is a bit hard to swallow considering

The direction of the HSCA investigation.

Once a lawyer always a lawyer.

Senator Richard Schweiker, who ran the HSCA along with attorney Richard Sprague before attorney Robert Blakey muscled his way in, would have done a better job with the HSCA investigation, in my opinion.

I personally doubt that Blakey was fooled -- I believe he was hired by the CIA to continue to hide the Oswald files at all costs.

See -- the obvious reason for hiding the Oswald files has little to do with Oswald -- he's dead and gone and no threat to anybody. This is one of the proofs that Oswald did not act alone -- he was not the lone nut killer -- otherwise why make his CIA and FBI files into a National Security issue?

It occurred to me that the continuing threat of the USSR had made the Oswald files into a National Security issue. But since 1990 even the USSR has been dead and gone, and no threat to anybody.

So, then, what is the National Security issue?

Just like Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and Chief Curry would pretend to be "fooled" by the Lee Harvey Oswald debacle, I believe Robert Blakey signed this new demand to release Oswald's files to make a pretence of being fooled. On the contrary. He was in on the deception during the HSCA period.

Will the JFK records be unsealed this year? I've written to the White House twice about this, asking for a reply. (During the elections last year I always received a reply to my White House queries.) No reply.

The only reason I can see for concealing the Lee Harvey Oswald files today, in 2013, must still be National Security. But who or what is being protected after half a century?

Surely, given the official USA Government's HSCA conclusion of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, we must admit that some people who were in their thirties in 1963 are still alive today. When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced that the Oswald files would be released to the American public in 75 years, he was probably protecting young men and women he knew to be involved.

Who were they? We can't be certain until we see the files -- but we can guess about specifics. The US Government did not believe that these people continued to be threats -- otherwise they would have prosecuted them. Instead, they are to be protected. Thus, they're not foreigners -- they're Americans.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Terri Williams]

What I find odd is the fact that Blakey was no dummy

But "hey they tricked me too" is a bit hard to swallow considering

The direction of the HSCA investigation.

Once a lawyer always a lawyer.

Senator Richard Schweiker, who ran the HSCA along with attorney Richard Sprague before attorney Robert Blakey muscled his way in, would have done a better job with the HSCA investigation, in my opinion.

I personally doubt that Blakey was fooled -- I believe he was hired by the CIA to continue to hide the Oswald files at all costs.

See -- the obvious reason for hiding the Oswald files has little to do with Oswald -- he's dead and gone and no threat to anybody. This is one of the proofs that Oswald did not act alone -- he was not the lone nut killer -- otherwise why make his CIA and FBI files into a National Security issue?

It occurred to me that the continuing threat of the USSR had made the Oswald files into a National Security issue. But since 1990 even the USSR has been dead and gone, and no threat to anybody.

So, then, what is the National Security issue?

Just like Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and Chief Curry would pretend to be "fooled" by the Lee Harvey Oswald debacle, I believe Robert Blakey signed this new demand to release Oswald's files to make a pretence of being fooled. On the contrary. He was in on the deception during the HSCA period.

Will the JFK records be unsealed this year? I've written to the White House twice about this, asking for a reply. (During the elections last year I always received a reply to my White House queries.) No reply.

The only reason I can see for concealing the Lee Harvey Oswald files today, in 2013, must still be National Security. But who or what is being protected after half a century?

Surely, given the official USA Government's HSCA conclusion of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, we must admit that some people who were in their thirties in 1963 are still alive today. When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced that the Oswald files would be released to the American public in 75 years, he was probably protecting young men and women he knew to be involved.

Who were they? We can't be certain until we see the files -- but we can guess about specifics. The US Government did not believe that these people continued to be threats -- otherwise they would have prosecuted them. Instead, they are to be protected. Thus, they're not foreigners -- they're Americans.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Very astute observation Paul.

Albert Lee Lewis' son was about 12 or so at the time JFK was killed. 75 years would be enough time for him to pass on first. It would be enough time for me to pass on, you'd figure. I'd have to live to the ripe old age of 86 to see the files unsealed.

By then, why would it even matter to the American public anyway? It almost seems like there is a method to the madness. I guess they want to make sure ANY eye witnesses are beyond the grave first, so the lie can become history, once and for all. Maybe 75 years gives me plenty of time to write about it, and then they can come along and open the files and once again, make me out to be a nutcase. What else would be new?

There ARE other people, besides me, who KNOW something. We all have to be discredited. 75 years is enough time to build a case against anything we might have said. I figure.

Even if the files are opened today, my money says the truth WILL remain hidden, forever. And I will be a nutcase forever. C'est la vie!

[William Kelly]

What I find odd is the fact that Blakey was no dummy

But "hey they tricked me too" is a bit hard to swallow considering

The direction of the HSCA investigation.

Once a lawyer always a lawyer.

Senator Richard Schweiker, who ran the HSCA along with attorney Richard Sprague before attorney Robert Blakey muscled his way in, would have done a better job with the HSCA investigation, in my opinion.

I personally doubt that Blakey was fooled -- I believe he was hired by the CIA to continue to hide the Oswald files at all costs.

See -- the obvious reason for hiding the Oswald files has little to do with Oswald -- he's dead and gone and no threat to anybody. This is one of the proofs that Oswald did not act alone -- he was not the lone nut killer -- otherwise why make his CIA and FBI files into a National Security issue?

It occurred to me that the continuing threat of the USSR had made the Oswald files into a National Security issue. But since 1990 even the USSR has been dead and gone, and no threat to anybody.

So, then, what is the National Security issue?

Just like Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and Chief Curry would pretend to be "fooled" by the Lee Harvey Oswald debacle, I believe Robert Blakey signed this new demand to release Oswald's files to make a pretence of being fooled. On the contrary. He was in on the deception during the HSCA period.

Will the JFK records be unsealed this year? I've written to the White House twice about this, asking for a reply. (During the elections last year I always received a reply to my White House queries.) No reply.

The only reason I can see for concealing the Lee Harvey Oswald files today, in 2013, must still be National Security. But who or what is being protected after half a century?

Surely, given the official USA Government's HSCA conclusion of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, we must admit that some people who were in their thirties in 1963 are still alive today. When Chief Justice Earl Warren announced that the Oswald files would be released to the American public in 75 years, he was probably protecting young men and women he knew to be involved.

Who were they? We can't be certain until we see the files -- but we can guess about specifics. The US Government did not believe that these people continued to be threats -- otherwise they would have prosecuted them. Instead, they are to be protected. Thus, they're not foreigners -- they're Americans.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Just to correct the record here, Sen. Richard Schweiker (R. Pa.) was not part of the HSCA, but rather was on the earlier Church Committee - the Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities (SSCIA), which included the Schweiker-(Gary) Hart subcommittee on the JFK Assassination.

Schweiker hired Gaeton Fonzi as a Senate investigator and based on Schweiker's recommendation to Richard Sprague, the first chief counsel to HSCA, Fonzi was hired by the HSCA as well.

I know John Simkin's Sparticus Biography : Biography says Schweiker was HSCA, but I think John will correct that. In Sept. 1976 Schweiker was a Senator and the HSCA was composed of Congressmen from the House of Representatives, so he should correct that one statement.

Schweiker was not a member of the HSCA, but he did recognize the sketch of "Maurice Bishop" as being David Atlee Phillips, who had testified before Schweiker's Senate Committee.

In addition, I also had similar feelings about G. Robert Blakey, who didn't "muscle in" but was appointed to take over as chief counsel to HSCA after Sprague was forced out. My feelings were personified especially after Blakey declared the HSCA records "Congressional Records" and had them sealed, saying, "I'll rest on the judgement of historians in 50 years," which forced us to lobby Congress for a decade to pass the JFK Act and release the records.

But Blakey has come out in favor of Jeff Morley's suit against the CIA and has said he now believes the CIA duped him and the HSCA by inserting Joannides and holding back on records. Blakey is also a member of an email exchange group and has permitted me to post some of his comments to the group, which give you some insights into his thinking, that I have done here:

JFKcountercoup: Grey and Relevant ? By G.W. Blakey

I don't think the "CIA paid" Blakey to do anything, but he did steer the investigation away from the intelligence agencies that were manipulating the committee, and towards the Mob as the primary conspirators, but the CIA didn't pay him to do it. He still has to make up for his sins.

BK

Edited March 20, 2013 by William Kelly

[Bernice Moore]

Thank you Bill for clarifying that information...b

[Ian Kingsbury]

Sprague was told by CIA ifyou want access to the files you have to sign a

Non disclosure contract ! .

Instead we get Blakey and Joannides what a team.

[Ian Kingsbury]

Bill

Just read Blakeys cop out speech ,what a crock of s@@t.

Did he sign up for the fame ?.

Why not just admit he knew he was being controlled was he that naive?.

Ian

He lives in a gray/grey world ? It's a shame the gray/grey matter was not

More abundant ,and he had the advantage of seeing how the Warren omission

Worked out problems.....ignore them .

Perhaps the template was faulty.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Ian Kingsbury

[Paul Trejo]

Bill

Just read Blakeys cop out speech ,what a crock of s@@t.

Did he sign up for the fame ?.

Why not just admit he knew he was being controlled was he that naive?.

Ian

He lives in a gray/grey world ? It's a shame the gray/grey matter was not

More abundant ,and he had the advantage of seeing how the Warren omission

Worked out problems.....ignore them .

Perhaps the template was faulty.

Ultimately, Robert Blakey was successful in keeping the truth -- the CIA file on Lee Harvey Oswald -- locked up and secret from the American public for another 30+ years after the Warren Commission's initial lock-up.

One can justify his actions on the grounds that the USSR was still brandishing nuclear warheads at the USA -- so that if concealing the CIA file on Lee Harvey Oswald was a matter of Cold War security, then the year 1979 was still too early to reverse the demand of the Warren Commission to seal Oswald's file away.

However, the USSR fell in 1990. It's been 23 years now, since the Cold War's been over. Can we please see the CIA file on Lee Harvey Oswald now? That's my plea.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 22, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Bernice Moore]

Paul; while on the search i came upon this, you may be interested...best b

bernice moore

To bmoore1242@rogers.com

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.ca/2007/07/secret-service-reads-just-about.html

threat...corroboration for FBI Clerk William Walther?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul; while on the search i came upon this, you may be interested...best b

bernice moore

To bmoore1242@rogers.com

http://vincepalamara...just-about.html

threat...corroboration for FBI Clerk William Walther?

Bernice, thanks for posting both these valuable items: (1) a blurb for Vince Palamara's upcoming book, Survivor's Guilt, due out this summer, which purports to be a more accurate account of the Secret Service bungling of their POTUS protection duty in Dallas on 11/22/63; and (2) an FBI document showing that a member of the KKK told the FBI on 15 November 1963 that the National States Rights Party (NSRP) had firm plans to kill JFK soon.

The second item is of great interest on this thread about the KKK and its possible involvement in the JFK slaying.

We should look at USA history very closely to see a direct relationship between the KKK and the NSRP. The buzz-word of the new KKK after the Supreme Court Brown decision that demanded the racial integration of USA public schools was "States' Rights."

The White Citizens' Councils that sprang up only two months after the Brown decision (17 May 1954) had a double slogan: "States Rights" and "Racial Integrity".

The term, "States' Rights" means that the Supreme Court has no right to tell the many States of the USA to integrate their schools. They based this on the 4th Amendment guaranteeing State Sovereignty -- immediately under the Federal Government. After the Civil War the States of the USA had total freedom to do anything they wanted -- except to keep and trade in human slaves. Otherwise, they were totally free.

Therefore, in the 1890's the South felt their oats again and established Jim Crow laws to prevent Black Americans from voting -- and to ensure they didn't vote, they would also make it nearly impossible tor Black Americans to learn to read. (This was a practice they mastered during the old slavery days.) Jim Crow arose in the 1890's to enforce racial segregation on an unprecedented scale after the Civil War, and the US Congress allowed them to do it.

US Presidents were powerless against Jim Crow. Even President Woodrow Wilson conformed to Jim Crow, and praised the first full-length motion picture, The Klansman (1917), and ensured that Princeton University remained totally segregated. President Calvin Coolidge himself failed to get anti-lynching legislation passed through Congress.

FDR was the first President to challenge the Jim Crow laws -- but his efforts were prelmiinary -- he formed the Fair Employment Practices Committee to ensure that the US government did not discriminate on the basis of race in its hiring practices. Truman added teeth to that Committee, and also successfully integrated the US Army in 1948. Eisenhower oversaw the passage of Brown v. The Board of Education in 1954, and he used Federal troops to integrate Little Rock high school in Arkansas in 1957.

In response to Brown, the KKK rose again in the form of the white-collar White Citizens' Councils (WCC) to oppose Brown, and when that failed, the KKK struck out again on their own. But the WCC feared that the atrocities for which the KKK was infamous would jeopardize their reversal of Brown. So the WCC spun off many other segregation organizations, including the States Rights Committee (SRC), the State Sovereignty Commission (SSC), and the National States Rights Party (NSRP).

The SSC became enormous in Mississippi, and soon became part of the State government itself. It collected State funds and financed the WCC organizations in Mississippi. The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission (like the Louisiania and South Carolina SSC organizations) made it illegal to operate an NAACP in their counties. (I salute the Mississippi Department of Archives & History, the MDAH, for its excellent historical web site on the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission.)

The KKK saw this enormous advance in legal segregation, so they made a new push forward in the early 1960's. JFK was a traitor, they said, because he supported Civil Rights, and as the WCC had effectively argued, Civil Rights was controlled by Communists.

On the topic of Civil Rights for Black Americans, the entire right-wing of USA politics was united for the first time in decades. This all happened during the JFK administration, and it came to a climax when James Meredith, the first Black American to register to attend the long-segregated Ole Miss Univeristy. JFK upheld the law with thousands of Federal Troops, and ex-General Edwin Walker (who had ironically integrated Little Rock high school) confronted JFK on 30 September 1962 with thousands of protesters from the White Citizens' Councils, the NSRP, the SCC and the KKK.

Bits of this historical drama are now available for viewing on YouTube at this URL: (...youtube.com/watch?v=YJ1CTuQgcMo&feature=youtu.be)

So, I find the claims of this witness from your second item, Bernice, to be eminently believable. It is a historical document of the first order.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited March 24, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[John Dolva]

To harken back to an earler point. The Bill that passed in '65 was not the bill prepared by JFK. It was revised and then after its (opportunistic) passing LBJ set about along with rulings by people like Hugo Black to stall its implementation. LBJ simply did not give it the teeth that jFK seemed to promise, in fact in various ways he oversaw a dismantling of its powers. (privately I've speculated that the defeat of the ERA became possible as a result). Hugo Black redefined 'individual' and therefore gave groups the right of individuals re association. Old schools closed and new non integrated ones sprung up. The discontent continued through the hot summers of the 60's. Goonsquads were assassinating blacks well into the late sixties and seventies to today. The same squad that shot four white students at Ohio had previously shot many more blacks not long before that.

IOW I contend that the rigtists did achieve their goals in many ways.

[Paul Trejo]

To harken back to an earler point. The Bill that passed in '65 was not the bill prepared by JFK. It was revised and then after its (opportunistic) passing LBJ set about along with rulings by people like Hugo Black to stall its implementation. LBJ simply did not give it the teeth that jFK seemed to promise, in fact in various ways he oversaw a dismantling of its powers. (privately I've speculated that the defeat of the ERA became possible as a result). Hugo Black redefined 'individual' and therefore gave groups the right of individuals re association. Old schools closed and new non integrated ones sprung up. The discontent continued through the hot summers of the 60's. Goonsquads were assassinating blacks well into the late sixties and seventies to today. The same squad that shot four white students at Ohio had previously shot many more blacks not long before that.

IOW I contend that the rigtists did achieve their goals in many ways.

John, I agree with your assessment of this Civil Rights history.

What it tells us today is that racial-integration was not a great success in the USA -- and that attacks on (integrated) public schools (i.e. trying to de-fund them or otherwise shut them down) continues to this very day.

I also agree that extreme rightists assassinated Black American leaders in the sixties and seventies, and that those responsible for more recent shooting (e.g. Ohio) are from the same ilk. (And this is what Terri Williams has been suggesting all along as well.)

This leads you to conclude that the rightists actually did achieve some of their their goals; and I can find no other conclusion to fit the facts.

It seems to me that after 60 years of Brown v. The Board of Education, we must finally agree that it was not a roaring success. It met massive resistance in the 1950's, and that massive resistance still shows itself in nationwide Tea Parties today.

American schools have suffered -- some high schools are surrounded with barbed wire and have armed guards at their gates -- they are little more than prisons. Some American public schools are hell holes from which we would hope to protect our own children.

Despite billions of dollars of investment, we still have American high school students graduating with near illiteracy levels, and American test scores continuing to decline in comparison with the rest of planet Earth.

I suspect that this public school disaster is probably the result of the American people continuing to massively resist Brown v. The Board of Education. This issue runs far deeper than we like to collectively admit. Here is a true collective engram.

The massive resistance to Brown -- even today -- suggests to me the sort of social energy with the actual power to kill JFK.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, as an elected public school board member for over a decade I'm going to take issue with a load of broad generalizations in this thread - I'm on the board in a small, very poor and very integrated school district in an extremely conservative state and county - yet our school has exceptional academic performance and no more security problems than when I attended it myself in the 1950's and 1960's. I would be the last to admit that in many areas there are major problems in public school education but if you really dig into the details you find the problems in the lack of a local tax base, school funding issues for new facility construction and a host of other individual problems rather than some "continuing massive resistance" to school integration. As far as the barbed wire schools you note, you bet...its the same situation you find in any area which has serious overallsecurity problems (Iraq comes to mind). The schools will reflect the level of security in their geography, no doubt about that..

It would be foolish to imagine there are not problems with integration but I think you stretch it too far - and I also think a great number of people write and expound on the failings of public education without sufficient data. I can tell you that in my state, as in many, there has been a rush to private and charter schools (perhaps some continuing resistance in that, no doubt) but if you look at the numbers objectively you find their overall academic results are no better than and in many cases worse than comparable public schools. Our small school outperforms a number of the very wealthy private charter schools in the state.

All of which has nothing to do with Kennedy assassination research but shows that it is still possible to press my buttons in regard to public

schooling and social justice issues I first became involved all the way back to the 1960/s ....grin.

-- Regards, Larry

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, as an elected public school board member for over a decade I'm going to take issue with a load of broad generalizations in this thread - I'm on the board in a small, very poor and very integrated school district in an extremely conservative state and county - yet our school has exceptional academic performance and no more security problems than when I attended it myself in the 1950's and 1960's. I would be the last to admit that in many areas there are major problems in public school education but if you really dig into the details you find the problems in the lack of a local tax base, school funding issues for new facility construction and a host of other individual problems rather than some "continuing massive resistance" to school integration. As far as the barbed wire schools you note, you bet...its the same situation you find in any area which has serious overallsecurity problems (Iraq comes to mind). The schools will reflect the level of security in their geography, no doubt about that..

It would be foolish to imagine there are not problems with integration but I think you stretch it too far - and I also think a great number of people write and expound on the failings of public education without sufficient data. I can tell you that in my state, as in many, there has been a rush to private and charter schools (perhaps some continuing resistance in that, no doubt) but if you look at the numbers objectively you find their overall academic results are no better than and in many cases worse than comparable public schools. Our small school outperforms a number of the very wealthy private charter schools in the state.

All of which has nothing to do with Kennedy assassination research but shows that it is still possible to press my buttons in regard to public

schooling and social justice issues I first became involved all the way back to the 1960/s ....grin.

-- Regards, Larry

Larry, I appreciate your viewpoint on this topic. I myself attended public schools from 1957-1970 in different places in California, and I can vouch for their inequality. Yet in t970 I had not yet heard about American high school graduates unable to read a common newspaper.

You're totally correct to reference the tax base of public school funding -- yet I would refer you to the California Prop. 13 initiative that began in the 1970's and was ultimately successful. It was called the "taxpayers' revolt" and it was targetted to public schools.

I remember it clearly because I played a minor role in the losing debates. Howard Jarvis himself came to our Community College in West Los Angeles to make his case for drastically reducing property taxes (the source of public school funding).

As I pointed out to members of the debate team on campus, Howard Jarvis was a former member of an Antisemitic rightist political group in the 1950's and 1960's, and he represented the extreme right-wing. (He had taken out a quarter-page ad in a racist street newspaper in 1961, and I had a copy of this paper.) Jarvis' motivation was rascist, I declared, although most of his followers just want to pay lower property taxes. He is being funded by racist groups, ultimately.

However, my debate team did not wish to confront Howard Jarvis with his past -- and partly as a consequence of that strategy our televised debate team lost soundly, and Howard Jarvis went on to make Prop. 13 a landmark political victory for his party. I note also that in this debate Howard Jarvis advocated private schools and the possibility of abolishing public schools.

"The money we spend on public schools is wasted," argued Jarvis. Now, I knew first hand the inequality of California public schools, however, it never once occurred to me that California funds for public schools was "wasted." Decades later, however, I realize the import of his words -- he was speaking from the viewpoint of the White Citizen Councils of the Deep South, which had proposed to abolish public schools soon after the Brown decision in the mid-1950's.

Because of subsequent "taxpayer revolts" and incessant movements toward "charter schools" and "private schools" and "home schooling" and "school vouchers", it appears to me that California public schools are not what they used to be -- they don't resemble the schools that I attended from 1957 to 1970.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Hogan]

I suspect that this public school disaster is probably the result of the American people continuing to massively resist Brown v. The Board of Education. This issue runs far deeper than we like to collectively admit. Here is a true collective engram.

The massive resistance to Brown -- even today -- suggests to me the sort of social energy with the actual power to kill JFK.

I think Larry Hancock's response to Paul Trejo's post was both tactful and accurate.

Paul's reply was accompanied by his customary geniality but true to the pattern of a debater, he avoids the nuts and bolts

of the issues by employing distracting irrelevancies when he is unable to defend his position with data or logic.

I like Paul, but the confirmation biases inherent in his posts are too tedious to deal with on an ongoing basis.

Here is another example:

.... He was a rich kid (like Mitt Romney) who lived in a bubble, and before Martin Luther King, Jr., JFK probably never met a Black American who wasn't a butler or a janitor.