JFK vs. The Federal Reserve

[Terry Mauro]

Terry,

I think you could make a stronger argument that it was a psy-op

designed for MINIMUM visual effect.

By pre-empting all regular programming that weekend (Saturday

and Sunday) it left people to stew in their grief with less to take

their minds off it.

I think Mr. Knight's recollections are telling because he doesn't

include any memories of Saturday and Sunday.

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

Don't nit-pick me with your "Saturday and Sunday" excuse of a ploy in attempting to discredit or make light of the fact that people were so distraught that possibly some of them might not have even remembered what day it was, while they were going through it!

Personally, after all that's been said in this thread, I don't give a damn what you think, anymore. I happened to be sorry and still grieving for what was allowed to occur, and for the events that culminated in the escalation of a totally deceitful and unneccessary war perpetrated on the citizens of this country by those Wall Street profiteers/privateers, for the intended purpose of fullfilling their profit margins that equated body counts with the bottom line. Included in my grief are those who lost their lives, their minds, friends, former boyfriends, my patients at the V.A., and U.C.L.A. affiliated medical centers, and your very own cousin, and brother, notwithstanding.

I have nothing more to say on this thread.

[Cliff Varnell]

To my fellow Forum members and the gentle reader at large:

I am here to discuss the cover-up of the assassination of John Kennedy,

the assassination itself, and its ramifications and implications that reverberate

into the current day.

I'd prefer a lively but polite exchange of views.

Otherwise, it's just engaging in a flame-y Parlor Game, albeit a game

I have enjoyed considerably in the past, I must admit.

For all of those so inclined to bare their fangs at me over points of

disagreement, may the following inventory of my life experience give

you just one moment of pause going forward.

I spent 20 years dealing No Limit Lo-Ball and Texas Hold'Em in northern

San Mateo county CA poker houses, watching people use well-timed verbal

jabs as a way of making a living.

I spent the better part of nine years engaged in point-by-point debate

on the subject at hand on usenet, and I've seen every rhetorical dodge, feint, slip,

spin, gambit and bluff.

I rarely stray into areas where I'm not confident of my command of the

facts.

Let's all play nice, okay?

Otherwise, pack a lunch...

Edited December 23, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

"Well, I think you're a Neo-Con shill givin' the Texas perps a pass, so there."

I'd bitch-slap you, if I wasn't laughing so hard at you! I'm more of a Socialist,

If that's the case I sincerely apologize for the imprecision of my retort.

The way you wrap your ugly little smears in high self-righteousness makes you kin

to Karl Rove, exactly.

I stand corrected.

[Lee Forman]

To my fellow Forum members and the gentle reader at large:

I am here to discuss the cover-up of the assassination of John Kennedy,

the assassination itself, and its ramifications and implications that reverberate

into the current day.

I'd prefer a lively but polite exchange of views.

Otherwise, it's just engaging in a flame-y Parlor Game, albeit a game

I have enjoyed considerably in the past, I must admit.

For all of those so inclined to bare their fangs at me over points of

disagreement, may the following inventory of my life experience give

you just one moment of pause going forward.

I spent 20 years dealing No Limit Lo-Ball and Texas Hold'Em in northern

San Mateo county CA poker houses, watching people use well-timed verbal

jabs as a way of making a living.

I spent the better part of nine years engaged in point-by-point debate

on the subject at hand on usenet, and I've seen every rhetorical dodge, feint, slip,

spin, gambit and bluff.

I rarely stray into areas where I'm not confident of my command of the

facts.

Let's all play nice, okay?

Otherwise, pack a lunch...

I agree Cliff - we should all try to maintain a sense of professionalism. As for your responses here - agreed that there appears to have been a motive which would imply the use of rifles to push blame on a Castro stint - let's never forget how many people he was executing on a daily basis at one point - gagged even, so that even their final words couldn't even be uttered as per Valladares - however - how well read are you with respect to PSYOPS? I assume that you are - but thought I would simply ask the question. A book could be written - which I have no intention of doing - with respect to the funding, the origins, the organizations involved, the projects, the reasons, the people, the progress, the implementation, etc, with respect to PSYOPS. There is plenty of documentation - even though some fill-in is probably required. I suggest that PSYOPs made a statement here. Funny that Aquino should write such an interesting report on PSYOPS years later.

- lee

[Cliff Varnell]

I agree Cliff - we should all try to maintain a sense of professionalism. As for your responses here - agreed that there appears to have been a motive which would imply the use of rifles to push blame on a Castro stint - let's never forget how many people he was executing on a daily basis at one point - gagged even, so that even their final words couldn't even be uttered as per Valladares - however - how well read are you with respect to PSYOPS? I assume that you are - but thought I would simply ask the question. A book could be written - which I have no intention of doing - with respect to the funding, the origins, the organizations involved, the projects, the reasons, the people, the progress, the implementation, etc, with respect to PSYOPS. There is plenty of documentation - even though some fill-in is probably required. I suggest that PSYOPs made a statement here. Funny that Aquino should write such an interesting report on PSYOPS years later.

- lee

Hi Lee

Thanks for helping restore some civility to the thread...Terry brought up the subject

of assassination-as-psyop. I doubt I am anywhere as well read on the subject as

yourself (or Terry for that matter, for all I know).

I was relating my emotional reaction to the events of Saturday and Sunday following

the assassination. I was 8 and there was nothing on TV. I certainly didn't mean to

denigrate any one's emotional response to the events of Friday the 22nd or Monday

the 25th, or to imply that I took JFK's death lightly. In fact, my sister has reminded

me (I'd forgotten this) that JFK died one week after my first personal pet, a turtle,

was crushed under the couch. A week after JFK's death one of our favorite uncles

died. My sister tells me I was wailing about all three deaths, but I don't remember.

I personally don't buy the assassination-as-psyop scenario, but I thought it was

interesting to consider.

Anyhoo...As we say on the south side of Haight St. -- happy holidays y'all!

Edited December 24, 2006 by Cliff Varnell

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Varnell, I don't know what the TV stations showed where you lived on November 22, 1963...but where I lived, the local NBC affiliate aired Huntley and Brinkley, and the FILM showing Jackie in the blood- and brain-spattered dress over and over and over...just because they didn't have videotape, doesn't mean they didn't have the capacity to show FILM over and over and over...which is exactly what they DID.

And the network coverage WAS nearly a 24-hour news cycle...for that entire weekend, from Friday thru Monday, regular programming was suspended. And since not everything going on WAS news, the network showed several of the film clips repeatedly. No, it wasn't as frequently as CNN's headline news on the half-hour; but it WAS enough to sear the image of the widow in the blood-soaked, brain-spattered dress into the collective consciousness of America.

Or at least the consciousness of those of us who WATCHED it on TV...which I believe you admitted you DIDN'T.

So...if you didn't see the coverage as it happened, have you watched the kinescopes? Or are you simply drawing your conclusions from what you "think" went on the air in 1963? I actually SAW the coverage in 1963, and SAW the repeated showings of Jackie in the blood-soaked and brain-spattered dress; therefore, my defense of Terry's recollections are based upon my own recollections, which apparently were similar. You, sir--unless you've since watched the kinescopes of the coverage--are merely basing your position on what you've either read or have been told. While I don't doubt the quality of your research, I think in this particular case you're making assumptions which haven't any basis in fact.

But Merry Christmas to you anyway.

Edited December 24, 2006 by Mark Knight

[Myra Bronstein]

...

Personally, after all that's been said in this thread, I don't give a damn what you think, anymore. I happened to be sorry and still grieving for what was allowed to occur, and for the events that culminated in the escalation of a totally deceitful and unneccessary war perpetrated on the citizens of this country by those Wall Street profiteers/privateers, for the intended purpose of fullfilling their profit margins that equated body counts with the bottom line. Included in my grief are those who lost their lives, their minds, friends, former boyfriends, my patients at the V.A., and U.C.L.A. affiliated medical centers, and your very own cousin, and brother, notwithstanding.

I have nothing more to say on this thread.

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Major General in Marine Corps history, and two time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

Also see General Butler's book "War is a Racket"--

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Anti-War-...TF8&s=books

[Terry Mauro]

Mr. Varnell, I don't know what the TV stations showed where you lived on November 22, 1963...but where I lived, the local NBC affiliate aired Huntley and Brinkley, and the FILM showing Jackie in the blood- and brain-spattered dress over and over and over...just because they didn't have videotape, doesn't mean they didn't have the capacity to show FILM over and over and over...which is exactly what they DID.

And the network coverage WAS nearly a 24-hour news cycle...for that entire weekend, from Friday thru Monday, regular programming was suspended. And since not everything going on WAS news, the network showed several of the film clips repeatedly. No, it wasn't as frequently as CNN's headline news on the half-hour; but it WAS enough to sear the image of the widow in the blood-soaked, brain-spattered dress into the collective consciousness of America.

Or at least the consciousness of those of us who WATCHED it on TV...which I believe you admitted you DIDN'T.

So...if you didn't see the coverage as it happened, have you watched the kinescopes? Or are you simply drawing your conclusions from what you "think" went on the air in 1963? I actually SAW the coverage in 1963, and SAW the repeated showings of Jackie in the blood-soaked and brain-spattered dress; therefore, my defense of Terry's recollections are based upon my own recollections, which apparently were similar. You, sir--unless you've since watched the kinescopes of the coverage--are merely basing your position on what you've either read or have been told. While I don't doubt the quality of your research, I think in this particular case you're making assumptions which haven't any basis in fact.

But Merry Christmas to you anyway.

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

Hi Mark,

There was one thing that really stood out in my mind that weekend. Out of all the pre-empted programming, only one show was allowed to air, and I can't remember if it was on Saturday night or Sunday night. It was The Judy Garland Show. She was forced to go on, even though she was under the impression that they would pre-empt her and allow her to head to D.C. for the funeral.

I remember how upset and shaken she was, trying to be the good trouper, in spite of her very palpable grief. She was alone, without any guests, as I recall, and dressed in black for every number. I figured that was her only way of expressing her profound sorrow, and being in mourning, while having to perform under such duress. But, it was the final number at the close of the show that gripped my heart and had my Mom and I, sobbing. One simple statement: "This is for you, Jack." and she broke into an emotional, tearful rendition of "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic" in her inimitable style and grace of delivery.

This was only to be matched equivocally, on the day of the funeral, by the way Jackie had the military marching band reproduce "Hail To The Chief" in a heart-wrenching dirge, so beautiful as to render it unrecognizable to my young ears. "Daddy, what's the name of that song, they're playing?" "It's called 'Hail To The Chief, Terry.' Only, they're playing it as a dirge." "What's a dirge?" "It's a musical accompaniment to a funeral, or a processional march, and it's played very slowly, Honey."

You could feel the drums in your chest, like during the Macy's Day Parade, only the meter was drawn out between the major to minor chord progressions, pulling a sob up into your throat with every roll of the drums. It was unbelievably beautiful, and I've never heard it played that same way again. And, I kept thinking of how much John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln meant to us, as a people, and a nation. Those are the visions and thoughts that were eternally seared into my memory from Friday afternoon to Monday evening, that Thanksgiving weekend.

[Terry Mauro]

...

Personally, after all that's been said in this thread, I don't give a damn what you think, anymore. I happened to be sorry and still grieving for what was allowed to occur, and for the events that culminated in the escalation of a totally deceitful and unneccessary war perpetrated on the citizens of this country by those Wall Street profiteers/privateers, for the intended purpose of fullfilling their profit margins that equated body counts with the bottom line. Included in my grief are those who lost their lives, their minds, friends, former boyfriends, my patients at the V.A., and U.C.L.A. affiliated medical centers, and your very own cousin, and brother, notwithstanding.

I have nothing more to say on this thread.

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by Major General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Major General in Marine Corps history, and two time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

Also see General Butler's book "War is a Racket"--

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Anti-War-...TF8&s=books

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

Thank you, so much for posting this, Myra. A good friend of mine posted a dissertation on General Butler a couple of years ago over at Prouty's. His name, Jim Hackett.

I wish you a safe and happy holiday, and a hopeful New Year, if that's at all forthcoming for this country. I know your heart and mind are in the right place.

With love,

Ter

[Dawn Meredith]

Mr. Varnell, I don't know what the TV stations showed where you lived on November 22, 1963...but where I lived, the local NBC affiliate aired Huntley and Brinkley, and the FILM showing Jackie in the blood- and brain-spattered dress over and over and over...just because they didn't have videotape, doesn't mean they didn't have the capacity to show FILM over and over and over...which is exactly what they DID.

And the network coverage WAS nearly a 24-hour news cycle...for that entire weekend, from Friday thru Monday, regular programming was suspended. And since not everything going on WAS news, the network showed several of the film clips repeatedly. No, it wasn't as frequently as CNN's headline news on the half-hour; but it WAS enough to sear the image of the widow in the blood-soaked, brain-spattered dress into the collective consciousness of America.

Or at least the consciousness of those of us who WATCHED it on TV...which I believe you admitted you DIDN'T.

So...if you didn't see the coverage as it happened, have you watched the kinescopes? Or are you simply drawing your conclusions from what you "think" went on the air in 1963? I actually SAW the coverage in 1963, and SAW the repeated showings of Jackie in the blood-soaked and brain-spattered dress; therefore, my defense of Terry's recollections are based upon my own recollections, which apparently were similar. You, sir--unless you've since watched the kinescopes of the coverage--are merely basing your position on what you've either read or have been told. While I don't doubt the quality of your research, I think in this particular case you're making assumptions which haven't any basis in fact.

But Merry Christmas to you anyway.

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

Hi Mark,

There was one thing that really stood out in my mind that weekend. Out of all the pre-empted programming, only one show was allowed to air, and I can't remember if it was on Saturday night or Sunday night. It was The Judy Garland Show. She was forced to go on, even though she was under the impression that they would pre-empt her and allow her to head to D.C. for the funeral.

I remember how upset and shaken she was, trying to be the good trouper, in spite of her very palpable grief. She was alone, without any guests, as I recall, and dressed in black for every number. I figured that was her only way of expressing her profound sorrow, and being in mourning, while having to perform under such duress. But, it was the final number at the close of the show that gripped my heart and had my Mom and I, sobbing. One simple statement: "This is for you, Jack." and she broke into an emotional, tearful rendition of "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic" in her inimitable style and grace of delivery.

This was only to be matched equivocally, on the day of the funeral, by the way Jackie had the military marching band reproduce "Hail To The Chief" in a heart-wrenching dirge, so beautiful as to render it unrecognizable to my young ears. "Daddy, what's the name of that song, they're playing?" "It's called 'Hail To The Chief, Terry.' Only, they're playing it as a dirge." "What's a dirge?" "It's a musical accompaniment to a funeral, or a processional march, and it's played very slowly, Honey."

You could feel the drums in your chest, like during the Macy's Day Parade, only the meter was drawn out between the major to minor chord progressions, pulling a sob up into your throat with every roll of the drums. It was unbelievably beautiful, and I've never heard it played that same way again. And, I kept thinking of how much John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln meant to us, as a people, and a nation. Those are the visions and thoughts that were eternally seared into my memory from Friday afternoon to Monday evening, that Thanksgiving weekend.

Terry:

What an eloquent rendition of that weekend. You brought it all back. That was such a lonely time for me as I did not know another soul who thought it was a conspiracy. Jackie and Caroline kissing the coffin, and John-John's salute were other sob- inducing moments. But, like with 9-11, at first it was simply surreal.

Myra: Thanks for the reminder of that wonderful speech on war. How utterly appropriate. I wonder if W has ever read this. Not that it would change him. When "Heart of Stone" was written those boys never dreamed they'd be singing about a future president. (Several in fact; let's not ever forget his father, Bush the first. )

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Mr. Varnell, I don't know what the TV stations showed where you lived on November 22, 1963...but where I lived, the local NBC affiliate aired Huntley and Brinkley, and the FILM showing Jackie in the blood- and brain-spattered dress over and over and over...just because they didn't have videotape, doesn't mean they didn't have the capacity to show FILM over and over and over...which is exactly what they DID.

And the network coverage WAS nearly a 24-hour news cycle...for that entire weekend, from Friday thru Monday, regular programming was suspended. And since not everything going on WAS news, the network showed several of the film clips repeatedly. No, it wasn't as frequently as CNN's headline news on the half-hour; but it WAS enough to sear the image of the widow in the blood-soaked, brain-spattered dress into the collective consciousness of America.

Or at least the consciousness of those of us who WATCHED it on TV...which I believe you admitted you DIDN'T.

So...if you didn't see the coverage as it happened, have you watched the kinescopes? Or are you simply drawing your conclusions from what you "think" went on the air in 1963? I actually SAW the coverage in 1963, and SAW the repeated showings of Jackie in the blood-soaked and brain-spattered dress; therefore, my defense of Terry's recollections are based upon my own recollections, which apparently were similar. You, sir--unless you've since watched the kinescopes of the coverage--are merely basing your position on what you've either read or have been told. While I don't doubt the quality of your research, I think in this particular case you're making assumptions which haven't any basis in fact.

But Merry Christmas to you anyway.

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

Hi Mark,

There was one thing that really stood out in my mind that weekend. Out of all the pre-empted programming, only one show was allowed to air, and I can't remember if it was on Saturday night or Sunday night. It was The Judy Garland Show. She was forced to go on, even though she was under the impression that they would pre-empt her and allow her to head to D.C. for the funeral.

I remember how upset and shaken she was, trying to be the good trouper, in spite of her very palpable grief. She was alone, without any guests, as I recall, and dressed in black for every number. I figured that was her only way of expressing her profound sorrow, and being in mourning, while having to perform under such duress. But, it was the final number at the close of the show that gripped my heart and had my Mom and I, sobbing. One simple statement: "This is for you, Jack." and she broke into an emotional, tearful rendition of "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic" in her inimitable style and grace of delivery.

This was only to be matched equivocally, on the day of the funeral, by the way Jackie had the military marching band reproduce "Hail To The Chief" in a heart-wrenching dirge, so beautiful as to render it unrecognizable to my young ears. "Daddy, what's the name of that song, they're playing?" "It's called 'Hail To The Chief, Terry.' Only, they're playing it as a dirge." "What's a dirge?" "It's a musical accompaniment to a funeral, or a processional march, and it's played very slowly, Honey."

You could feel the drums in your chest, like during the Macy's Day Parade, only the meter was drawn out between the major to minor chord progressions, pulling a sob up into your throat with every roll of the drums. It was unbelievably beautiful, and I've never heard it played that same way again. And, I kept thinking of how much John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln meant to us, as a people, and a nation. Those are the visions and thoughts that were eternally seared into my memory from Friday afternoon to Monday evening, that Thanksgiving weekend.

Terry:

What an eloquent rendition of that weekend. You brought it all back. That was such a lonely time for me as I did not know another soul who thought it was a conspiracy. Jackie and Caroline kissing the coffin, and John-John's salute were other sob- inducing moments. But, like with 9-11, at first it was simply surreal.

Myra: Thanks for the reminder of that wonderful speech on war. How utterly appropriate. I wonder if W has ever read this. Not that it would change him. When "Heart of Stone" was written those boys never dreamed they'd be singing about a future president. (Several in fact; let's not ever forget his father, Bush the first. )

Dawn

[David Collins]

Interesting discussion about Federal Reserve. After looking at 9/11 I come to realize the importance of banks and the people who put the international bankers at the top of the elite pyramid are very correct in doing so. It's an angle which is very much misunderstood and could well have been just as important as Texas Oil, Military Industrial Complex as far JFK goes. The problem is that it is behind the scenes. Nevertheless the CIA has not been created to protect the US, but to protect the interests of Wall Street. (OSS also mainly consisted of bankers) So they could have played a major role in the background, but we'll never know...

[Lee Forman]

Interesting discussion about Federal Reserve. After looking at 9/11 I come to realize the importance of banks and the people who put the international bankers at the top of the elite pyramid are very correct in doing so. It's an angle which is very much misunderstood and could well have been just as important as Texas Oil, Military Industrial Complex as far JFK goes. The problem is that it is behind the scenes. Nevertheless the CIA has not been created to protect the US, but to protect the interests of Wall Street. (OSS also mainly consisted of bankers) So they could have played a major role in the background, but we'll never know...

Back to topic? I have some funny bits and pieces I would like to keep adding. I was hoping the author of the thread would join in.

'james warburg sandoz' makes for some interesting google reading.

'The Warburg clan' would make an interesting thread.

- lee

Exposing the IRS fraud

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: April 15, 1999

1:00 a.m. Eastern

Three cheers for Joe Banister, the former special agent for the Internal Revenue Service, who actually went to the trouble to study the constitutionality of his employer, came to the conclusion it was illegal and had the nerve to confront his bosses.

No surprise, Banister was given a few hours to clean out his desk.

But the people who ought to be turned out of their jobs are the elected and unelected officials who have permitted this fraud to be perpetrated on the American people for so long.

Think about it. You've seen the IRS literature (and I use that term loosely) that claims the filing of tax returns is "voluntary." If you believe that, just watch what happens when you forget to volunteer that return by April 15. All hell breaks loose. Your bank accounts can be seized. Some have even been thrown in jail.

No, there's nothing voluntary about our federal tax system, though the fraud of voluntarism is perpetrated to get around some basic problems of constitutionality such as the little matter of self-incrimination.

Americans by birthright cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. Yet the IRS does just that every single day -- and today more than any other day of the year.

Banister also contends, as others have, that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never ratified. And he points out that income taxes have been used to pay the interest on the national debt rather than for actual government operations.

Banister's claims are not, as you might expect, being denounced as the rantings of a lunatic, a fringe nut, an anti-government zealot. Hard-working certified public accountants, attorneys, even other IRS agents have lined up behind him in support of his report.

Officially, the IRS would not address Banister's allegations. Banister had hoped his superiors could persuade him his conclusions were wrong, straighten him out with the facts he was missing and ease his moral and legal concerns. Instead, they asked for his resignation and showed him to the door.

Just try getting answers to these same issues yourself. You'll get no help from the IRS. So far, the agency hasn't been forced to deal with such questions because their con game has been so effective. The overwhelming majority of Americans have been coaxed and coerced into signing away their rights and property. Nobody wants to take on America's Gestapo. They've seen what it is capable of doing, the wrath it can invoke, the damage it can impose -- even on members of Congress.

It seems just about everyone who has been around the IRS understands the nature of the hoax. They just don't talk about it out loud. It's dangerous.

Every year or so, some members of Congress decide to show us how brave they are by beating up on IRS "excesses." They hold hearings. They hold press conferences. They bring in witnesses with their identities shielded. It makes for good television and soothes the concerns of ordinary Americans who hate the IRS. But nothing really changes. Because our elected officials never deal with the real root problem.

The real root problem with the IRS is that it is an illegitimate, fraudulent government agency that derives its power from fear and intimidation of law-abiding taxpayers.

We are unlikely ever to hold congressional hearings into the basic nature and powers of the IRS because even congressmen are not immune to the attacks of this powerful and dreaded bureaucracy.

Several members of the House of Representatives have told me that they are afraid of the IRS. They fear speaking out about such issues because of the repercussions. Members of Congress! If they are afraid, if they have reason to fear, what about the rest of us -- the mere mortals who are totally at the mercy of these goons?

The game is rigged. Not until enough Americans realize just how badly the system is flawed will anything ever come of it. Maybe the Joe Banisters of the world will help wake up the slumbering sheep.

Until that day comes, just think about this: It's April 15th, and do you know where your money went?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.

[Michael Hogan]

For all of those so inclined to bare their fangs at me over points of

disagreement, may the following inventory of my life experience give

you just one moment of pause going forward.

I spent 20 years dealing No Limit Lo-Ball and Texas Hold'Em in northern

San Mateo county CA poker houses, watching people use well-timed verbal

jabs as a way of making a living.

I spent the better part of nine years engaged in point-by-point debate

on the subject at hand on usenet, and I've seen every rhetorical dodge, feint, slip,

spin, gambit and bluff.

I rarely stray into areas where I'm not confident of my command of the

facts.

Let's all play nice, okay?

Otherwise, pack a lunch...

Yeah, there's the guy that lets you know that he's read three of four books on poker and is now an expert. He's convinced he knows poker and you don't. He brags about himself and radiates a know it all attitude that belittles the skills and abilities of others. He's cocksure, conceited, arrogant, and convinced he's the best player at the table. He's always talking, telling you how the game should be played and where you went wrong. He eagerly points out your mistakes, oblivious to his own. The players at the table that are easily intimidated may fall victim to his tactics.

But the players that know the game see him for what he really is.....just another easy mark.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Cliff Varnell]

For all of those so inclined to bare their fangs at me over points of

disagreement, may the following inventory of my life experience give

you just one moment of pause going forward.

I spent 20 years dealing No Limit Lo-Ball and Texas Hold'Em in northern

San Mateo county CA poker houses, watching people use well-timed verbal

jabs as a way of making a living.

I spent the better part of nine years engaged in point-by-point debate

on the subject at hand on usenet, and I've seen every rhetorical dodge, feint, slip,

spin, gambit and bluff.

I rarely stray into areas where I'm not confident of my command of the

facts.

Let's all play nice, okay?

Otherwise, pack a lunch...

Yeah, there's the guy that lets you know that he's read three of four books on poker and is now an expert. He's convinced he knows poker and you don't. He brags about himself and radiates a know it all attitude that belittles the skills and abilities of others. He's cocksure, conceited, arrogant, and convinced he's the best player at the table. He's always talking, telling you how the game should be played and where you went wrong. He eagerly points out your mistakes, oblivious to his own. The players at the table that are easily intimidated may fall victim to his tactics.

But the players that know the game see him for what he really is.....just another easy mark.

Touche, Michael. They always go broke in the end...