Jump to content

JFK vs. The Federal Reserve


Recommended Posts

When the theory that the FED got rid of JFK because of Executive Order 11110 has arisen in the past, I have posted this link to an article by economics professor Edward Flaherty.

The article seems to thoroughly debunk this theory, but I am no banker and know nothing about economics. If the article is wrong, I would appreciate someone pointing out why, and I will stop posting it whenever this subject arises.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senat.../flaherty9.html

Ron, I have no way of knowing if Edward Flaherty is a credible expert or some guy with an agenda. He seems to be very much into discrediting critics of the Federal Reserve. If you google his name you'll see what I mean.

He may be right; like you I don't have the expertise about economics to judge. But I wouldn't accept Flaherty's version without question. He could be another McAdams for all I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm starting to think that it's not terribly important whether or not President Kennedy bypassed the Federal Reserve bank to print US treasury notes. I mean, it's interesting, and the actual notes would be great metaphors (and evidence), but it already seems clear enough that he was at odds with the banking establishment.

I'm reading "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency." http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battling-Wall-Stre...y/dp/1879823101

It's remarkable. Totally bypasses the subject of which drooling thug aimed a gun at the President, and points to the people who likely bought the bullets.

Here's a passage, Pg 73 on:

"During Kennedy's presidency, David Rockefeller was emerging as one of the leaders of the financial community and of the upper class in general. He was president of Chase Manhattan Bank--in line to become its chief executive--and he was vice-president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In July of 1962, Life magazine featured an exchange of letters between David Rockefeller and President Kennedy. In this public and somewhat polite airing of differences, Rockefeller offered praise for some of Kennedy's actions, but he ultimately located the source of the country's economic problems in the president's policies. Claiming to reflect the concerns of bankers in the U.S. and abroad, Rockefeller advised the president to make a "vigorous effort" to control government spending and to balance the budget. He also suggested to Kennedy that interest rates were being kept too low and too much money was being injected into the economy. In his reply, Kennedy either rejected or ignored these arguments.

Rockefeller's concern for what he called "fiscal responsibility" was also expressed in a report issued around this time by another influential group with which Rockefeller was involved. This was the Committee for Economic Development, which was created in the early 1940s and largely made of of leaders from the major non-financial corporations in the U.S., including two of the directors of Time [magazine].

...

The commission wanted to make free trade and private initiative central to U.S. foreign policy.

...

When David Rockefeller ventured to publicly condemn Kennedy's policies he was adding his personal prestige to the campaign run by Morgan-Rockefeller related media. These interests were also represented within the Kennedy administration, and they attempted to steer Kennedy in certain directions, with little success.

As noted above, there was a clear split within the Kennedy administration over economic policy. The Kennedy group, which included Walter Heller and FDR Jr., opposed the Dillon-Federal Reserve group, which spoke for the major banks. Dillon was a close associate of David Rockefeller's and a director of the Chase Manhattan Bank. The Federal Reserve, particularly the New York regional bank, has always been tightly interconnected with Morgan and Rockefeller banking. William McChesney Martin, the Fed's chairman, would become supervisor of the Rockefeller family's trust fund.

...

In these conflicts, as well as those discussed earlier, Kennedy was coming up against those people variously referred to as the East Coast Establishment, Wall Street, finance capital, the higher circles, etc. The label is not important. In the end they all refer to Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the many other wealthy and influential families allied with them (including Harriman, Cabot, Lodge, Dillon, Bundy).

Kennedy's ideas about the responsibilities of the presidency, his attitude about economic progress and the role of the federal government in achieving that progress, his view of foreign aid and foreign policy, and his recommendations and actions in a variety of specific areas disrupted or threatened to disrupt established order. In that established order, in place for most of the century, major government decisions were to serve or at least not disrupt the privately organized hierarchy. Many in the upper levels of this hierarchy, most emphatically those in and around Morgan interests, were--and still are--involved in a relationship with the British establishment. Their ideas about the world are similar to, if not direct imitations of, those of that older British elite rooted in inherited wealth and titles and organized in the modern world around control of finance and raw materials.

In this world view, the Anglo-American upper class should maintain its global position by suppressing progress elsewhere and by preventing or containing disruptive changes within England and the United States. Important decision-making power should be kept in private hands, or, if necessary, in government agencies under their influence. From this perspective, Kennedy must have looked like a wild man. Economic growth, scientific and technological progress, expanding opportunity, development in the Third World, and social justice were the goals for Kennedy, not preservation of the class structure. Not only were the government policies he undertook intended to further this disruptive agenda; in many specific instances those policies meant that decision-making power was being taken over by the author of that agenda. Even where Kennedy's efforts only meant changes in the rules, these changes were intended to alter investment patterns and tax burdens in a way not in tune with upper-class interests.

Seen in this context, the rhetoric of the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Life and Newsweek makes sense. Also understandable is the unusual spectacle of a private establishment figure such as David Rockefeller going public to personally challenge the president. Rockefeller's Life magazine admonishment was polite; the polemics elsewhere were not. To label a popular president a cultist, a reactionary, a threat to freedom, was to engage in serious conflict with the democratically elected leader of the Republic. It suggested great anger, and it indicated a frustration produced by Kennedy's failure to heed the criticism.

President Kennedy's refusal to surrender to the pressures from such powerful forces was a demonstration of courage. In discussing the meaning of courage Kennedy said:

"A man does what he must--in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures--and that is the basis of all human morality."

His repeated efforts on behalf of economic progress and justice demonstrated the highest form of morality."

I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

I would love to see those letters exchanged between Rockefeller and the President, and the Committee for Economic Development report. Anyone got a lead on them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some information copied from the web, a few years ago.

The links all but the last, are now dead..but ....may be worth a read...

For anyone interested..

Government Editorial Keywords: JFK, FEDERAL RESERVE, RIPOFF

Source: Uncensored Media Weekly

Published: n/a Author: Anthony Wayne

Posted on 11/22/2000 09:03:04 PST by rubbertramp

Uncensored Media Weekly

JFK vs. The Federal Reserve

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Common Law Institute has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage - signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency - money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority:

"to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury."

This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assasinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America. "United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.

Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of instrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and real value worth something.

Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assasinated, no more of the Series 1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt: 1) war (Viet Nam); and, 2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal Reserve Bank.

Executive Order 11110

AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended -

(a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):

"(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b-) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b-)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and

(b-) By revoking subparagraphs (b-) and © of paragraph 2 thereof.

SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

JOHN F. KENNEDY

THE WHITE HOUSE,

June 4, 1963

Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998:

Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as amended by:

EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725;

EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;

EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;

EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003;

EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617

The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy's 1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of Kennedy's EO 11110. A search of Clinton's 1998 and 1999 EO's and Presidential Directives has also shown no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110.

The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as:

"Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."

Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:

"Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors".

The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks. Once again, according to Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:

"Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)".

The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the "money" we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:

"The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them".

Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is exactly what the privately owned FED is!

No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".

Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.

The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs' 1990 book Crossfire:

"Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.

Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks".

In a speech made to Columbia University on Nov. 12, 1963, ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy said:

"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."

In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own book... a true Profile of Courage.

This research report was compiled for Lawgiver.Org by Anthony Wayne

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

A Time Line of the National Bank

December 14, 1790 Alexander Hamilton proposes a Bank of the United States.

December 16, 1790 Patric Henry opposes the National bank because it is unconstitutional.

February 25, 1791 President Washington asks his cabinet members for opinions on the National Bank. Thomas Jefferson submitted that such a Bank was unconstitutional and would also violate the yet to be ratified 10th Amendment. Alexander Hamilton submitted that Congress's power to collect taxes, was also power to create a national bank. Not convinced by either side, Washington sided with Hamilton as it was Hamilton's job as Secretary of the Treasury to know what he was doing.

December 12, 1791 The Bank of the United States opens it's doors in Philadelphia.

January 21, 1793 Hamilton and the National Bank are accused of corruption and mismanagement. Opponents to the National Bank call for the demise of the unconstitutional Bank. Congress fails to act.

February 20, 1811 Congress refuses to let the National Bank renew its Charter on the grounds that the Bank is unconstitutional.

March 4, 1811, The Bank of the United States is dissolved.

January 20, 1815 President Madison vetoes a bill that would create a second National Bank.

January 8, 1816 Faced with financial hardship from the War of 1812, Congress proposes a 2nd National Bank. The Bill also allows the President to suspend hard currency.

March 14, 1816 The 2nd National Bank gets Congressional approval.

January 1, 1817 The 2nd National Bank opens for business.

January 9, 1832 The 2nd National Bank applies for it's Charter renewal 4 years early.

July 10, 1832 President Jackson vetoes the Bank's recharter on the grounds that the Bank is unconstitutional.

January 1835 With the National Bank powerless, Jackson successfully pays off the nations debt leaving the U.S. with a surplus of $5,000.

July 11, 1836 Paper money results in tremendous inflation in property value. President Jackson issues a Specie Circular mandating that land payments be made with gold and silver.

July 4, 1840 President Van Buren approves the Independent Treasury which allows the Federal government to control it's own money.

June 7, 1841 Henry Clay, on behalf of the Whig party, introduces legislation to abolish the Independent Treasury in hopes to replace the national banking system with a Federal Bank.

July 28, 1841 The Senate passes a bill, sponsored by the Whig party, to revive the 2nd National Bank by creating a Federal Bank that would be called The Fiscal Bank of the United States. (A State chartered Bank for the District of Columbia that would be used by the U.S. Government. ) President Tyler vetoes the bill as unconstitutional.

August 13, 1841 The Independent Treasury Act is repealed leaving the National government without a Banking system for the next 5 years. The Secretary of the Treasury deposits the government's money into State Banks.

September 3, 1841 Congress again tries to create a Federal Bank. This time, they set it up to be run by State office holders. Again, President Tyler vetoes it as unconstitutional.

September 18, 1873 A flood of paper money snowballs the Nation into a depression that lasts 5 years.

January 14, 1875 The Specie Resumption Act allows legal tender to be exchanged for gold. When the Act goes into affect in 1879, the nation starts to revive from the 1873 depression.

1907 The Nation again goes into a Depression because of paper currency, but J.P. Morgan saves the Nation from a major crisis by providing the government with $100 million dollars in gold.

December 23, 1913 In response to the National Depression in 1907, President Wilson gets Congress to pass the Owen-Glass Federal Reserve Act. The Act is intended to better regulate paper money.

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

B4Ranch

The link to Ed Flaherty's debunking of this myth is already on the thread at message # 13 (the reference to tin foil). Additionally, the text of the EX 11110 is part of the Official Notes to 3 USC sec 301 (the section deals with delegations of authority by the Prez), ostensibly in two places in the Official Notes - as a part of EO 10289 (originally 1951, with many subsequent amendments, a long list of things delegated to the Sec of the Treasury, EO 11110 is now mentioned only for revoking two old paragraphs that had authorized the Treasury to keep purchasing silver bullion) and standing alone as EO 11110 (in the latest edition of US Code Annotated, it's on 3 USCA sec. 301 page 863-864). EO 11110 was originally published (in June 1963) in 28 Federal Register 5605, and it's appeared in the official notes to 3 USC 301 ever since then. Clearly it hasn't been revoked, amended, or concealed. And reading it, especially keeping in mind the context of the EO 10289 which it says it is amending, makes it clear that it doesn't say what the kooks say it does.

EO 11110 was issued simultaneously with the enactment of the Silver Purchase Repeal Act, PL 88-36, June 4, 1963, 77 Stat 54, 1963 USCCAN 56, and that Act should be consulted for the context in which the EO was issued.

27 Posted on 02/14/2001 08:07:04 PST by DonQ

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

Acts Authorizing United States Notes

http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/usnotes.html#ACTS

B

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a speech made to Columbia University on Nov. 12, 1963, ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy said:

"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."

In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own book... a true Profile of Courage.

This research report was compiled for Lawgiver.Org by Anthony Wayne

The flatulence continues. (I realize that Bernice is just passing this on, so to speak. "Anthony Wayne" is the culprit, and ought to be ashamed of himself.)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&hl=alleged

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"During Kennedy's presidency, David Rockefeller was emerging as one of the leaders of the financial community and of the upper class in general. He was president of Chase Manhattan Bank--in line to become its chief executive--and he was vice-president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In July of 1962, Life magazine featured an exchange of letters between David Rockefeller and President Kennedy. In this public and somewhat polite airing of differences, Rockefeller offered praise for some of Kennedy's actions, but he ultimately located the source of the country's economic problems in the president's policies. Claiming to reflect the concerns of bankers in the U.S. and abroad, Rockefeller advised the president to make a "vigorous effort" to control government spending and to balance the budget. He also suggested to Kennedy that interest rates were being kept too low and too much money was being injected into the economy. In his reply, Kennedy either rejected or ignored these arguments.

Rockefeller's concern for what he called "fiscal responsibility" was also expressed in a report issued around this time by another influential group with which Rockefeller was involved. This was the Committee for Economic Development, which was created in the early 1940s and largely made of of leaders from the major non-financial corporations in the U.S., including two of the directors of Time [magazine].

...

The commission wanted to make free trade and private initiative central to U.S. foreign policy.

...

When David Rockefeller ventured to publicly condemn Kennedy's policies he was adding his personal prestige to the campaign run by Morgan-Rockefeller related media. These interests were also represented within the Kennedy administration, and they attempted to steer Kennedy in certain directions, with little success.

As noted above, there was a clear split within the Kennedy administration over economic policy. The Kennedy group, which included Walter Heller and FDR Jr., opposed the Dillon-Federal Reserve group, which spoke for the major banks. Dillon was a close associate of David Rockefeller's and a director of the Chase Manhattan Bank. The Federal Reserve, particularly the New York regional bank, has always been tightly interconnected with Morgan and Rockefeller banking. William McChesney Martin, the Fed's chairman, would become supervisor of the Rockefeller family's trust fund.

...

In these conflicts, as well as those discussed earlier, Kennedy was coming up against those people variously referred to as the East Coast Establishment, Wall Street, finance capital, the higher circles, etc. The label is not important. In the end they all refer to Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the many other wealthy and influential families allied with them (including Harriman, Cabot, Lodge, Dillon, Bundy).

Kennedy's ideas about the responsibilities of the presidency, his attitude about economic progress and the role of the federal government in achieving that progress, his view of foreign aid and foreign policy, and his recommendations and actions in a variety of specific areas disrupted or threatened to disrupt established order. In that established order, in place for most of the century, major government decisions were to serve or at least not disrupt the privately organized hierarchy. Many in the upper levels of this hierarchy, most emphatically those in and around Morgan interests, were--and still are--involved in a relationship with the British establishment. Their ideas about the world are similar to, if not direct imitations of, those of that older British elite rooted in inherited wealth and titles and organized in the modern world around control of finance and raw materials.

In this world view, the Anglo-American upper class should maintain its global position by suppressing progress elsewhere and by preventing or containing disruptive changes within England and the United States. Important decision-making power should be kept in private hands, or, if necessary, in government agencies under their influence. From this perspective, Kennedy must have looked like a wild man. Economic growth, scientific and technological progress, expanding opportunity, development in the Third World, and social justice were the goals for Kennedy, not preservation of the class structure. Not only were the government policies he undertook intended to further this disruptive agenda; in many specific instances those policies meant that decision-making power was being taken over by the author of that agenda. Even where Kennedy's efforts only meant changes in the rules, these changes were intended to alter investment patterns and tax burdens in a way not in tune with upper-class interests.

Seen in this context, the rhetoric of the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Life and Newsweek makes sense. Also understandable is the unusual spectacle of a private establishment figure such as David Rockefeller going public to personally challenge the president. Rockefeller's Life magazine admonishment was polite; the polemics elsewhere were not. To label a popular president a cultist, a reactionary, a threat to freedom, was to engage in serious conflict with the democratically elected leader of the Republic. It suggested great anger, and it indicated a frustration produced by Kennedy's failure to heed the criticism.President Kennedy's refusal to surrender to the pressures from such powerful forces was a demonstration of courage. In discussing the meaning of courage Kennedy said:

"A man does what he must--in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures--and that is the basis of all human morality."

His repeated efforts on behalf of economic progress and justice demonstrated the highest form of morality."

I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

I would love to see those letters exchanged between Rockefeller and the President, and the Committee for Economic Development report. Anyone got a lead on them?

Myra, thanks for posting that.

The Kennedy assassination is a tangled mess of yarn. When you get to the very end, in my view, it leads to what you posted above and who, really, was behind the murder of John Kennedy.

Edited by Stan Wilbourne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rockefeller's concern for what he called "fiscal responsibility" was also expressed in a report issued around this time by another influential group with which Rockefeller was involved. This was the Committee for Economic Development, which was created in the early 1940s and largely made of of leaders from the major non-financial corporations in the U.S., including two of the directors of Time [magazine]. ***[Jeez, early Operation Mockingbird. My emphasis. TM]***

The commission wanted to make free trade and private initiative central to U.S. foreign policy.

When David Rockefeller ventured to publicly condemn Kennedy's policies he was adding his personal prestige to the campaign run by Morgan-Rockefeller related media. ***[Well, whadaya know, full tilt Operation Mockingbird, at the ready. My emphasis. TM]*** These interests were also represented within the Kennedy administration, and they attempted to steer Kennedy in certain directions, with little success.

As noted above, there was a clear split within the Kennedy administration over economic policy. The Kennedy group, which included Walter Heller and FDR Jr., opposed the Dillon-Federal Reserve group, which spoke for the major banks. Dillon was a close associate of David Rockefeller's and a director of the Chase Manhattan Bank. The Federal Reserve, particularly the New York regional bank, has always been tightly interconnected with Morgan and Rockefeller banking. William McChesney Martin, the Fed's chairman, would become supervisor of the Rockefeller family's trust fund.

In these conflicts, as well as those discussed earlier, Kennedy was coming up against those people variously referred to as the East Coast Establishment, Wall Street, finance capital, the higher circles, etc. The label is not important. In the end they all refer to Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the many other wealthy and influential families allied with them (including Harriman, Cabot, Lodge, Dillon, Bundy).

Kennedy's ideas about the responsibilities of the presidency, his attitude about economic progress and the role of the federal government in achieving that progress, his view of foreign aid and foreign policy, and his ***[JFK's. My emphasis. TM]*** recommendations and actions in a variety of specific areas disrupted or threatened to disrupt established order. In that established order, in place for most of the century, major government decisions were to serve or at least not disrupt the privately organized hierarchy. Many in the upper levels of this hierarchy, most emphatically those in and around Morgan interests, were--and still are--involved in a relationship with the British establishment. Their ideas about the world are similar to, if not direct imitations of, those of that older British elite rooted in inherited wealth and titles and organized in the modern world around control of finance and raw materials. ***[Like their favorite empirical ploy of Eminent Domain-ing foreign nations' natural resources. My emphasis. TM]***

In this world view, the Anglo-American upper class should maintain its global position by suppressing progress elsewhere and by preventing or containing disruptive changes within England and the United States. Important decision-making power should be kept in private hands, or, if necessary, in government agencies under their influence. ***[Yeah, like the xxxxing Federal Reserve, who created their own sphere of influence under a false pretense of gov. auspices. My emphasis. TM]*** From this perspective, Kennedy must have looked like a wild man. Economic growth, scientific and technological progress, expanding opportunity, development in the Third World, and social justice were the goals for Kennedy, not preservation of the class structure. Not only were the government policies he undertook intended to further this disruptive agenda; in many specific instances those policies meant that decision-making power was being taken over by the author of that agenda. Even where Kennedy's efforts only meant changes in the rules, these changes were intended to alter investment patterns and tax burdens in a way not in tune with upper-class interests."

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

How much more plainer can we make that for you, Mr. Snidely Whiplash [Ron]? And, don't give me that old crap about "giving you concrete evidence for tying this in with The Federal Reserve's actual perpetrative involvement in what happened in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63." All the motives were in place, even if Old Joe Kennedy happened to strive to emulate the "above mentioned houses" as his "mentors." His son, JFK was not his ideal first choice from the very onset, for his dynastic aspirations. Joe, Jr. was the first-born with the aristocratic mindset Old Joe had his heart set on. That's common knowledge, same as the fact that Old Joe had a complete 180 degree opposite philosophical approach to life than his upstart son, JFK had towards the end of his life.

And, thank you, from the bottom of my heart, Myra. I sincerely mean that.

Ter

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much more plainer can we make that for you, Mr. Snidely Whiplash [Ron]? And, don't give me that old crap about "giving you concrete evidence for tying this in with The Federal Reserve's actual perpetrative involvement in what happened in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63." All the motives were in place,

It was well within the power of Rockefeller/Morgan to turn just one of Kennedy's

doctors -- and JFK could have died in his sleep, or been incapacitated and forced to

step down for health reasons.

Instead they had his brains blown out right into the face of Eastern Establishment

high society Queen Jackie Bouvier with flecks of skull and brain and blood and

cranial fluid all over.

Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly?

The manner of JFK's execution strongly suggests that ending his life was not

the primary motive, but rather as a means to the primary motive, which

eventually failed: establishing a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much more plainer can we make that for you, Mr. Snidely Whiplash [Ron]? And, don't give me that old crap about "giving you concrete evidence for tying this in with The Federal Reserve's actual perpetrative involvement in what happened in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63." All the motives were in place,

It was well within the power of Rockefeller/Morgan to turn just one of Kennedy's

doctors -- and JFK could have died in his sleep, or been incapacitated and forced to

step down for health reasons.

Instead they had his brains blown out right into the face of Eastern Establishment

high society Queen Jackie Bouvier with flecks of skull and brain and blood and

cranial fluid all over.

Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly?

  • Premeditate: To think of an act beforehand; to contrive and design; to plot or lay plans for the execution of a purpose.
    Premeditated design: In homicide cases, the mental purpose, the formed intent, to take human life. Premeditated murder is murder in the first degree.
    Premeditation: The act of meditating in advance; deliberation upon a contemplated act; plotting or contriving; a design formed to do something before it is done. Decision or plan to commit a crime, such as murder, before committing it.
    Act: Denotes external manifestation of actor's will. ...Expression of will or purpose; carries idea of performance; ...exercise of power, or effect of which power exerted is cause; an effect produced in the external world by an exercise of the power of a person objectively, prompted by intention, and proximately caused by a motion of the will. It may denote something done by an individual, as a private citizen, or as an officer; or by a body of men...including not merely physical acts, but also decrees, edicts, laws, judgments, resolves, awards, and determinations.
    Criminal act: External manifestation of one's will which is prerequisite to criminal responsibility. There can be no crime without some act, affirmative or negative. An omission or failure to act may constitute an act for purpose of criminal law.
    Malice: A condition of mind which prompts a person to do a wrongful act willfully, that is, on purpose, to the injury of another, or to do intentionally a wrongful act toward another without justification or excuse. ...A condition of the mind showing a heart regardless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief.
    Malitia precogitata: malice aforethought—an intent, at the time of a killing, willfully to take the life of a human being...but "malice aforethought" does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite, or hatred towards the individual killed.
    Malice in fact: Express or actual malice. It implies desire or intent to injure... .
    Malicious act: A wrongful act intentionally done without legal justification or excuse; an unlawful act done willfully or purposely to injure another.
    Malicious injury: An injury committed against a person at the prompting of malice or hatred towards him, or done spitefully or wantonly. ...Injury involving element of fraud, violence, wantonness and willfulness, or criminality.
    Actio non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea: An act does not make one guilty, unless the intention be bad.
    Acta extoria indicant interiora secreta: External acts indicate undisclosed thoughts.
    Malitilis hominum est obviandum: The wicked or malicious designs of men must be thwarted.

Rational people of good faith have no obligation to explain, or even attempt to explain, in rational terms the wicked, malicious, vicious, and fundamentally mad acts that some men are capable of.

No invasion of Cuba occurred.

A wicked, malicious, vicious, and fundamentally mad public murder did occur.

What was planned, premeditated, with malice aforethought, was carried out. That is inarguable. It is on film.

That is one very good and very rational reason why this is not the "Phantom Invasion of Cuba that Did Not Happen Debate" forum.

This is the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip grandstand play to the obvious]

No invasion of Cuba occurred.
All plans of mice and men...
What was planned, premeditated, with malice aforethought, was carried out. That is inarguable. It is on film.

That is one very good and very rational reason why this is not the "Phantom Invasion of Cuba that Did Not Happen Debate" forum.

Really? Because JFK's murder was filmed...that fact precludes a reasonable

conclusion that top CIA coup-masters killed Kennedy in order to establish a

pretext to invade Cuba?

I can't begin to see a shred of logic in that formulation, Ashton.

Wanna try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there was any ONE reason why JFK was murdered. Each person in the conspiracy had their own reason reflecting their own interests and lack of morality. The bankers, yes, were upset he was trying to have the real government in control of the money; the Mafia wanted their casinos back in Cuba, RFK et al to get off their backs and their pal JEH to give them the free-ride they always had, were angry about BOP and some other things; the oil men for the Oil Depreciation Allowance; those on the right for JFK being perceived as far left and not under control; the right racists for JFK being perceived as pro Civil Rights; the militarists for JFK being perceived as a wimp on heavy handed preemptive attacks on all 'enemies', BOP, Vietnam, concessions to Khrushchev etc., the anti-Castro Cubans for BOP and other operations having the brakes put on them; the JCS for JFK not allowing them to preemptively attack USSR, build-up in SEA, and do other things; some for their jealousy over his popularity with the American People; the Veep for being thought a bumpkin and for his will to power, the intelligence community because JFK was on to them and about to break them in power greatly and put them under control, The military industrial complex for not having enough not wars and profits, and one could go on.....they all shared one thing. They wanted him out because they felt he didn't serve their OWN interests and was too populist, democratic, independent, moral and constitutional. [although he was no flaming progressive!]. They all wanted him 'gone' and a smaller group found a way and made it come to being. The power of all the groups hid the real facts to this day, did the cover-up, spun the legend, made the propaganda and false trails, controlled the media, etc. End result we can see today. The same general configuration did many other assassinations and destabilizations of persons and nations, etc. We got what they wanted and schemed to acheive, and lost our country, for all intents and purposes. If we want it back it will take more than analysis to do so...though the analysis is a starting point.

Peter is right. That is why this case is not likely to ever be solved. Not to say we should just give up. When we give up they truly win.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there was any ONE reason why JFK was murdered. Each person in the conspiracy had their own reason reflecting their own interests and lack of morality. The bankers, yes, were upset he was trying to have the real government in control of the money; the Mafia wanted their casinos back in Cuba, RFK et al to get off their backs and their pal JEH to give them the free-ride they always had, were angry about BOP and some other things; the oil men for the Oil Depreciation Allowance; those on the right for JFK being perceived as far left and not under control; the right racists for JFK being perceived as pro Civil Rights; the militarists for JFK being perceived as a wimp on heavy handed preemptive attacks on all 'enemies', BOP, Vietnam, concessions to Khrushchev etc., the anti-Castro Cubans for BOP and other operations having the brakes put on them; the JCS for JFK not allowing them to preemptively attack USSR, build-up in SEA, and do other things; some for their jealousy over his popularity with the American People; the Veep for being thought a bumpkin and for his will to power, the intelligence community because JFK was on to them and about to break them in power greatly and put them under control, The military industrial complex for not having enough not wars and profits, and one could go on.....they all shared one thing. They wanted him out because they felt he didn't serve their OWN interests and was too populist, democratic, independent, moral and constitutional. [although he was no flaming progressive!]. They all wanted him 'gone' and a smaller group found a way and made it come to being. The power of all the groups hid the real facts to this day, did the cover-up, spun the legend, made the propaganda and false trails, controlled the media, etc. End result we can see today. The same general configuration did many other assassinations and destabilizations of persons and nations, etc. We got what they wanted and schemed to acheive, and lost our country, for all intents and purposes. If we want it back it will take more than analysis to do so...though the analysis is a starting point.

Peter,

Good post. Obviously the assassination was fully supported by a group which could influence public perception.

While JFK's possible changes to the Federal Reserve Act may have caused consternation within its ranks, I doubt his tenure would have resulted in financial disaster for them. I think this scenario is overplayed.

Global financiers can outlast antagonistic national leaders. Kennedy's changes weren't going to send them broke. The assassination was a much more desperate act, IMO.

LBJ, the Joint Chiefs and Israeli military interests were far more desperate than the Federal Reserve. Also, the owners of the American media weren't too troubled by his death, judging by their enthusiastic support for the WC. There's a unity of purpose involved, IMO.

These four parties have legitimate links to the assassination and its consequences.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much more plainer can we make that for you, Mr. Snidely Whiplash [Ron]? And, don't give me that old crap about "giving you concrete evidence for tying this in with The Federal Reserve's actual perpetrative involvement in what happened in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63." All the motives were in place,

It was well within the power of Rockefeller/Morgan to turn just one of Kennedy's

doctors -- and JFK could have died in his sleep, or been incapacitated and forced to

step down for health reasons.

Instead they had his brains blown out right into the face of Eastern Establishment

high society Queen Jackie Bouvier with flecks of skull and brain and blood and

cranial fluid all over.

Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly?

The manner of JFK's execution strongly suggests that ending his life was not

the primary motive, but rather as a means to the primary motive, which

eventually failed: establishing a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba.

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

"Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly?

The manner of JFK's execution strongly suggests that ending his life was not

the primary motive, but rather as a means to the primary motive, which

eventually failed: establishing a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba."

It was a massive psy-ops ploy at bringing the citizenry to their knees, psychologically, and in the most traumatic, audio/visual way possible, for MAXIMUM EFFECT. Thus, guaranteeing to render the U.S. totally impotent, and completely subjective to anything the power structure

[referred to in the above information, so painstakingly detailed and submitted by Myra, Bernice, Stan, and myself] figured they'd be able to convince the electorate to follow through the gates of hell, known as Laos, VietNam, and Cambodia, for which they had long-range plans in just ONE of their new money-making ventures. Cuba? An afterthought, maybe? A scapegoat, maybe? But, nothing more than another incendiary financial investment they'd eventually have to resign themselves to, as a tax write-off. Plus, their United Fruit, and Freeport Sulphur ventures would eventually take care of subjecting Cuba to the status of another Third World backwater, incapable of ever attaining the high times it had once experienced under the puppet dictatorships they'd installed down there, prior to Castro.

Every single skirmish or incident the U.S. has broken The Geneva Accords and involved itself in following any world war, has had to do with the aforementioned power structure's financial ventures in MAKING MONEY for THEMSELVES and for THEIR institutions via the use of OUR [the plebes'] tax dollars being wittingly pilfered into THEIR [protectorate] Federal Reserve Banking System. The U.S.'s diminishing middle class is being squeezed [like blood from a stone], to finance these "robber barons'" empirical "whims."

Do you have any constructive suggestions to offer, or to quote a line from the movie, BLAZING SADDLES, "Or, are we just jerking off?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much more plainer can we make that for you, Mr. Snidely Whiplash [Ron]? And, don't give me that old crap about "giving you concrete evidence for tying this in with The Federal Reserve's actual perpetrative involvement in what happened in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63." All the motives were in place,

It was well within the power of Rockefeller/Morgan to turn just one of Kennedy's

doctors -- and JFK could have died in his sleep, or been incapacitated and forced to

step down for health reasons.

Instead they had his brains blown out right into the face of Eastern Establishment

high society Queen Jackie Bouvier with flecks of skull and brain and blood and

cranial fluid all over.

Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly?

The manner of JFK's execution strongly suggests that ending his life was not

the primary motive, but rather as a means to the primary motive, which

eventually failed: establishing a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba.

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

"Do you really think they'd put her -- and the nation! -- through that needlessly?

The manner of JFK's execution strongly suggests that ending his life was not

the primary motive, but rather as a means to the primary motive, which

eventually failed: establishing a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba."

It was a massive psy-ops ploy at bringing the citizenry to their knees, psychologically, and in the most traumatic, audio/visual way possible, for MAXIMUM EFFECT.

That's funny, the film of the assassination was suppresed for almost 12 years.

I guess Rockefeller/Morgan wanted to bring the nation to its knees in the

MID-SEVENTIES...?

Well, Rocky was VP by that time, so maybe these guys *are* that prescient...

And what audio of the assassination are you refering to?

Were you alive on 11/22/63, Terry? (Your photo indicates you were not).

The only visual this 8 year old in Petaluma CA saw was a picture of Kennedy

on the cover of the local newspaper. As I recall vividly, the one aspect of

that weekend following the assassination that most sticks in my mind, is

that there was nothing on television and I spent that weekend bored

out of my mind.

Oswald getting shot by Ruby -- maybe "they" thought that would traumatize

the nation. Otherwise, that has to be the weakest psy-op ever attempted.

Taking people's regularly scheduled entertainment away for a weekend led

to the war in Vietnam?....not so much.

Thus, guaranteeing to render the U.S. totally impotent, and completely subjective to anything the power structure

[referred to in the above information, so painstakingly detailed and submitted by Myra, Bernice, Stan, and myself] figured they'd be able to convince the electorate to follow through the gates of hell, known as Laos, VietNam, and Cambodia, for which they had long-range plans in just ONE of their new money-making ventures. Cuba? An afterthought, maybe? A scapegoat, maybe?

The historical record indicates otherwise.

From James Bamford's BODY OF SECRETS, pg 90:

Lemnitzer was a dangerous-perhaps even unbalanced-right-wing extremist in an extraordinarily sensitive position during a critical period. But Operation Northwoods also had the support of every single member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and even senior Pentagon official Paul Nitze argued in favor of provoking a phony war with Cuba. The fact that the most senior members of all the services and the Pentagon could be so out of touch with reality and the meaning of democracy would be hidden for four decades.

In retrospect, the documents offer new insight into the thinking of the military's star-studded leadership. Although they never succeeded in launching America into a phony war with Cuba, they may have done so with Vietnam. More than 50,000 Americans and more than 2 million Vietnamese were eventually killed in that war.

It has long been suspected that the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident-the spark that led to America's long war in Vietnam-was largely staged or provoked by U.S. officials in order to build up congressional and public support for American involvement. Over the years, serious questions have been raised about the alleged attack by North Vietnamese patrol boats on two American destroyers in the Gulf But defenders of the Pentagon have always denied such charges, arguing that senior officials would never engage in such deceit.

Terry, the events of this decade. coupled with this-decade's groundbreaking

research by James Bamford, Larry Hancock, Gerald McKnight and Rex Bradford,

(added to the prior writings and investigations of Gaeton Fonzi and Vincent Salandria)

have lead me to conclude that the following is obvious:

There's a straight line from Dealey Plaza to the Baghdad Green Zone,

by way of the Gulf of Tonkin and Ground Zero.

It's called "false flag."

Staple of American foreign policy since the USS Maine blew its last bubble.

East-based bankers aren't the only ones to play this game, hate to tell you.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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...