A Question for the Forum

[Robert Burrows]

If the JFK assassination was a coup, which I believe to be the case, has there been a legitimate presidentcy since November 22, 1963?

[Joe Bauer]

Good question.

[Guest]

Was that the first coup d’etat in the USA? 

[Robert Burrows]

36 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Was that the first coup d’etat in the USA? 

Perhaps the first successful one.

http://pages.suddenlink.net/dboffutt/index_files/davidoffuttcommentarylincolnassassination.htm

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

Perhaps the first successful one.

http://pages.suddenlink.net/dboffutt/index_files/davidoffuttcommentarylincolnassassination.htm

 

i was thinking of more recently, I saw a Netflix documentary (hardly the cornerstone of historical evidence I know) but, one part featured FDR. It alleged that he was perhaps murdered, rather than succumbing to his illnesses. The documentary also said one of his sons believed that and pointed the finger at Churchill’s high cabal. 
It also pointed out that he didn’t have an autopsy, yet it was in a state where it was mandatory by law. I think I read somewhere that the soviets asked to examine the body, but this request was refused. 
This all sounds a bit kooky without the context that was given or motive. You had this reasonable relationship between Stalin & Roosevelt, with Churchill being the third wheel. They expanded on this with Roosevelt being keen on dissolving British colonies or influence around the world. Then Roosevelt passes away and Truman comes in and the cold war begins, the stance of the soviet union becomes a hostile one. I haven’t researched it, or really looked in to it, it was interesting though.

There was a 1933 coup plot against Roosevelt, where I think they tried get a general out of retirement to lead it. I guess that points out he wasn’t well liked by certain interests. 

[Richard Booth]

On 9/6/2020 at 7:36 AM, Robert Burrows said:

If the JFK assassination was a coup, which I believe to be the case, has there been a legitimate presidentcy since November 22, 1963?

I have always viewed this as a coup that happened, and that our government has been untrustworthy, compromised, and illegitimate since then.

I can't name a single president since JFK who was truly good. Jimmy Carter comes close--he was a good person, I think, but his presidency is typically marred by the terrible economic malaise our country faced under his Presidency. Whether or not that can be attributed to him is another matter. So Carter gets close, I think.

However in Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush, and Obama I see people who are corrupt and had to play the game in order to get to the position. I have nothing much good to say about any of those people.

Edited September 8, 2020 by Richard Booth

[Richard Booth]

Something that reinforces how I think about this is the matter of RFK.

He won the Democratic nomination and we were set to get a good president and the same people who took out JFK took him out that night to pave the way for Nixon.

I find it highly suspicious that March 31 1968, LBJ announces he will not seek a second term and then immediately thereafter we have MLK (4/4/68) assassinated and RFK assassinated (6/5/68). To me this was some sort of cabal at the height of their power flexing. 

Later on, in 1983, the USSR was convinced that the United States was going to carry out a nuclear first-strike on them. In TV programs about this people always say "it's boggling that they believed we would do that" but if you look at it a certain way you can see why they would definitely believe that. Assuming JFK, RFK, and MLK were all assassinated as the result of a conspiracy and foisted upon the public and the world, you can see how the Russians would view us as irrational and violent and certainly capable of doing a first strike. Surely the Soviets knew the truth about these assassinations and the coup, and so it's with these things in mind that we have to consider their suspicions in 1983. 

[Joseph McBride]

From my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE: MY SEARCH FOR THE KILLERS OF PRESIDENT

JOHN F. KENNEDY AND OFFICER J. D. TIPPIT (2013):

 

My journey back to my original understanding of the Kennedy assassination coverup began in earnest in the early 1970s. Studying the Vietnam War as it unfolded and with the help of the revealing Pentagon Papers made me fully aware of how pervasive the level of deceitfulness involved in the assassination was in our governmental system. But it was the Watergate scandal that served as the decisive catalyst for my reexamination of postwar American history. This demonstrable conspiracy -- one of those rare political conspiracies everyone accepted as such -- and the many other crimes surrounding the Nixon presidency gave me a fresh awareness of the role of what Peter Dale Scott has since described as “deep politics” in American history. Scott, who has written perceptively on Watergate as well as the Kennedy assassination, is one of the writers who has drawn connections between those two events, which the mainstream media have regarded as distinct, even though some of the same high-level and lower-level players were involved. Scott writes in Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, “In each case an incumbent President was removed from office, after a build-up of suspicion and resentment inside his administration because of his announced plans and/or negotiations for disengagement from Vietnam.”

In fact, as I was beginning to recognize at the time of Nixon’s resignation in 1974, three presidents in a row -- Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon -- had been removed from office. It was becoming hard not to notice how the political system had changed with the Coup of ’63 and the coverup that followed. The calamitous turn in the Vietnam War when the Vietcong mounted the Tet Offensive in January 1968 led to President Johnson’s forced withdrawal from that year’s presidential race at the behest of his senior advisers, “The Wise Men.” That group was largely drawn from the leadership of the eastern establishment and including Clark Clifford, Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge, Douglas Dillon, and George Ball. Their decisive meeting with Johnson came on March 25, six days before he stunned the nation by announcing at the end of a televised speech about Vietnam, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.”

Henry Brandon, the chief American correspondent of the Sunday Times of London, reports in his autobiography, Special Relationships: A Foreign Correspondent’s Memoirs from Roosevelt to Reagan (1988), about a conversation he had with President Johnson in 1968, after that decision was made: “LBJ, aware by then of his public repudiation, seemed to drag a burden of anguish in his wake when he spoke his own epitaph during a flight to visit President Truman in Independence, Missouri, aboard Air Force One: ‘The only difference between Kennedy’s assassination and mine is that mine was a live one, which makes it all a little more torturing.’” (Johnson visited Truman in Independence on May 3 and October 11 of that year.) Former Secretary of State Acheson summed up the March decision by the Wise Men by saying that “we can no longer do the job we set out to do [in Vietnam] in the time we have left, and we must begin to take steps to disengage.” Carl Oglesby in The Yankee and Cowboy War interprets what he calls Johnson’s forced “abdication” as a Yankee power play by the Wise Men to “break off [from the Cowboys] a war believed to be unwinnable except through an internal police state, both sides fighting for control of the levers of military and state-police power through control of the presidency. Johnson’s Ides of March was a less bloody Dallas, but it was a Dallas just the same: it came of a concerted effort of conspirators to install a new national policy by clandestine means. Its main difference from Dallas is that it finally did not succeed.”

[David Josephs]

On 9/6/2020 at 11:51 AM, Chris Barnard said:

Was that the first coup d’etat in the USA? 

IDK... we might consider what Colonel House did to Woodrow Wilson via the Wall Street/Banking Syndicate of the Rothschilds to get the Rederal Reserve Act of 1913 passed giving a private entity the forever contract to regulate our money supply and charge us trillions in the process...

Kinda depends on how you define coup d'etat....   while so many include "violent overthrow" the "change in government" I believe is the essence of a coup... the change in where the power resides...

With the Fed Res Act of 1917....  The US becomes part of the world-wide Rothschilds banking empire....  one of the last few hold outs as our history had warned us over and over to stay away from Central Banks...  (side note: Aaron Burr kills Hamilton over whose banking interests would prevail and become the first attempt at a national bank....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Company  

“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Woodrow Wilson) signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

― Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.,

 

And before that, VP Johnson and Sec of State Seward among others were in on the killing of Lincoln conspiracy....

Before that, I wouldn't doubt it...

[Joe Bauer]

Once RFK was taken out and Hubert Horacio Humphrey Jr. was installed as the Democratic party candidate in 1968, the fix was in. The powers to be knew Nixon was going to win that election from day one. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Once RFK was taken out and Hubert Horacio Humphrey Jr. was installed as the Democratic party candidate in 1968, the fix was in. The powers to be knew Nixon was going to win that election from day one. 

 

Yes.  I believe both Carter and Obama early in their first terms were naïve enough to think they could make a difference, change things.  Maybe one did slightly, we have Obamacare.

[Steve Thomas]

“Democracy is the worst form of Government…”

By Richard M. Langworth 26 June 2009

https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

quoting Winston Churchill, 11/11/1947 in the House of Commons, as cited in his book, Churchill by Himself, page 547.

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”

Steve Thomas

[Guest]

On 9/11/2020 at 3:18 AM, David Josephs said:

IDK... we might consider what Colonel House did to Woodrow Wilson via the Wall Street/Banking Syndicate of the Rothschilds to get the Rederal Reserve Act of 1913 passed giving a private entity the forever contract to regulate our money supply and charge us trillions in the process...

Kinda depends on how you define coup d'etat....   while so many include "violent overthrow" the "change in government" I believe is the essence of a coup... the change in where the power resides...

With the Fed Res Act of 1917....  The US becomes part of the world-wide Rothschilds banking empire....  one of the last few hold outs as our history had warned us over and over to stay away from Central Banks...  (side note: Aaron Burr kills Hamilton over whose banking interests would prevail and become the first attempt at a national bank....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Company  

“This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Woodrow Wilson) signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

― Charles A. Lindbergh Sr.,

 

And before that, VP Johnson and Sec of State Seward among others were in on the killing of Lincoln conspiracy....

Before that, I wouldn't doubt it...

I read The creature from Jekyll Island, that was a transfer of power of epic proportions.  
 

I not so long ago read Ron Chernow’s “Alexander Hamilton, what a guy he was, one of the great Americans for sure but, with what a flaw he had that was present all through his life, if he was slighted, in any way shape or form, he could not leave it alone. It was so tragic first his son dying in a duel and them him, but, that I didn’t connect the two reading the book, a duel being such an uncertain outcome but, i see what transpired from that wiki link you posted. 
 

I haven’t read how Truman’s creation of the CIA was orchestrated or manipulated but, what a transferal or creation of power that was, pandoras box is forever open. 

[David Josephs]

4 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I read The creature from Jekyll Island, that was a transfer of power of epic proportions.  
 

I not so long ago read Ron Chernow’s “Alexander Hamilton, what a guy he was, one of the great Americans for sure but, with what a flaw he had that was present all through his life, if he was slighted, in any way shape or form, he could not leave it alone. It was so tragic first his son dying in a duel and them him, but, that I didn’t connect the two reading the book, a duel being such an uncertain outcome but, i see what transpired from that wiki link you posted. 
 

I haven’t read how Truman’s creation of the CIA was orchestrated or manipulated but, what a transferal or creation of power that was, pandoras box is forever open. 

You might enjoy "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" which is where I got my exposure to that time period.....  it's a free pdf online and a quick read... amazing stuff.

A theory I've had for a while is that the Military helped to create the CIA to act as a buffer between Military intelligence (ONI and MID - the oldest of US intel agencies) and what the public saw.   The CIA did their stonewalling while the Military proceeded with their intel activities virtually untouched...  Hoover had the SIS doing the Eastern Hemisphere and was pitching to take over all foreign intel work... but FDR said no and the Truman went his own way - with guidance of course...

Look at the first 4 Directors....  Navy, AF, Navy, Army..... then Allen Dulles.    So maybe I see it more as an added layer of insulation for Military Intelligence...

Interesting about Hamilton, didn't know that about him.

And I don't know if you'd call it a coup from the inside but didn't Lincoln have the Treasury print money rather than borrow from the "banks" of the time...??  Yes, here it is.... a kind of a coup in that without that change the North might have had a lot more trouble....    History is great - Truth stranger than fiction

Take care Chris
DJ

During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back.

Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

“... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had – their own paper money to pay their own debts...”

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

You might enjoy "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" which is where I got my exposure to that time period.....  it's a free pdf online and a quick read... amazing stuff.

A theory I've had for a while is that the Military helped to create the CIA to act as a buffer between Military intelligence (ONI and MID - the oldest of US intel agencies) and what the public saw.   The CIA did their stonewalling while the Military proceeded with their intel activities virtually untouched...  Hoover had the SIS doing the Eastern Hemisphere and was pitching to take over all foreign intel work... but FDR said no and the Truman went his own way - with guidance of course...

Look at the first 4 Directors....  Navy, AF, Navy, Army..... then Allen Dulles.    So maybe I see it more as an added layer of insulation for Military Intelligence...

Interesting about Hamilton, didn't know that about him.

And I don't know if you'd call it a coup from the inside but didn't Lincoln have the Treasury print money rather than borrow from the "banks" of the time...??  Yes, here it is.... a kind of a coup in that without that change the North might have had a lot more trouble....    History is great - Truth stranger than fiction

Take care Chris
DJ

During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back.

Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

“... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had – their own paper money to pay their own debts...”

it’s all so fascinating. I think Hamilton’s complex came from being a poor kid in the caribbean, likely illegitimate and his best pals father being his real father, the two looked very similar. He made it to the US or colonies at the time on a donation from an aunt I think and he definitely had issues about not being part of the aristocrat clique as a birthright, he had to get in that world on leadership and talent. In the same way JFK could read books almost overnight, Hamilton seemed to be able to do things at a lightning pace, whether learning from military tactical  books or studying law. For a long time he was Washington's chief confident and everything was not only going through him, he had huge influence on Washington himself. An idealism within him and an unshakeable conviction made him enemies, including of other founding fathers. So really part of what made him, and made america its own country, was also what led to his demise. Coming from nothing he always had the point to prove, he didn’t bask in the comfort of those had the comfort of wealth passed down generationally. Thats a story we see play out time and time again in real life and in film. 
 

History is wonderful, so educational, enriching and if you read enough of it, you just see human behaviours. Take the JFK/RFK assassinations, change the costumes, the weapons, the period of time and location and the same story could be playing out in ancient Greece or Rome. Dominance hierarchies, power corrupting, betrayal, jealousy, tragedy, tyranny etc. Its just so very sad when it happens to people trying to do some good.

 

Thank you for the link, i’ll take a look tomorrow. In regard to Lincoln, all I know was that he was shot in the theatre and died hours later. I really need to read a book about him and watch the film with Daniel Day Lewis, who I think is a great actor. 

 

Jackson i’d like to read about too, he was the last president who got the US out of debt and shut down the previous Federal reserve type racket which was also based on the Bank of England. In the UK we have something called a ‘subject access request’ where a member of the public is able to write to such an organisation and request details, such as who the shareholders of the bank of England are. They won’t tell you who 3% of the shareholders are though, you get stonewalled.