Jump to content
The Education Forum

"Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency"


Recommended Posts

Someone mentioned another book by this author on another thread, so I looked him up. He has also written a book on the corporate media and how it handled the Assassination. I don't think I have seen much mention of him on the forum until now.

Has anyone read this book? Do you know what specific macro economic policies the author focuses on? Do you recommend the book?

So far as macro-economic stuff mostly what I know is of Kennedy's desire to repeal the oil depletion allowance. I am very interested in knowing of other ways in which he may have challenged the Wall Street consensus re: tax policy and other questions concerning economic issues that might seriously effect the distrubution of wealth.

--------

Book Description

More than thirty years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the meaning and the legacy of his presidency are as much the subject of controversy as are the facts of his murder. Was JFK a tool of the Eastern Establishment - of the corporate and banking elites - or was he their bitterest enemy? Did his policies - domestic and international, implemented and unfulfilledserve to continue the domination of the powers-that-be, or did he attempt, and in many cases effect, a break with America's aristocracy? In this intriguing and penetrating analysis, Don Gibson does not simply replay the standard commentaries on the Kennedy presidency, many of which are ill-informed, even if well-meaning. Gibson looks at what JFK himself said, wrote, and did, contrasting that with the words and actions of his enemies-the Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, and the corporate and banking magnates themselves, who, as this book shows, truly despised the President. The current conventional wisdom depicts Kennedy as a cautious, even a conservative president, a Tory Democrat committed to the status quo and to the Establishment. But this book makes a compelling case to the contrary, suggesting that President Kennedy was always willing to do battle for his policies, even in the face of vicious attacks.

With its clear and lively style, this book is a revelation to the general reader and to the specialist. It also contains strikingly original insights into environmental elitism. It adds a new and important dimension to the ongoing debate over the Kennedy presidency. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far as macro-economic stuff mostly what I know is of Kennedy's desire to repeal the oil depletion allowance. I am very interested in knowing of other ways in which he may have challenged the Wall Street consensus re: tax policy and other questions concerning economic issues that might seriously effect the distrubution of wealth.

Nathaniel,

Not read the particular Gibson book you ask about, but I have got - and have read - another of Gibson's books, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up (NY: Kroshka Books, 2000), which I unreservedly recommend (and did so in a review on Amazon).

The first time I was provoked to question the conventional view of JFK's economic policies - you seem to me to characterise accurately the current mainstream consensus - was when I came across a brief Times (of London) piece on Kennedy's visit to Mexico. In the course of it, Kennedy was reported as accepting a significantly larger economic role for the state than is currently fashionable. If I can find it, I'll post in due course.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, that part that reviewed the book at the bottom of my post was not my writing, but was coppied from an Amazon review. However, I find it accurate in the sense that if you hear anything at all of Kennedy's economic policy, it is a brief reference to "the Kennedy tax cuts" without any mention of what kind of taxes were cut-- ie progressive or regressive taxes.

Because of the way tax policy is not mediated by the media in the US most readers would be left with the impression that this was a rightward movement, even if it wasn't.

Maybe ,it in fact was, I should know. Does anyone have any easy access to analysis of the Kennedy tax cuts. Perhaps Prof., Gibson is alluding to other economic policies, ones that kennedy was only trying to implement at the time of his death.

It is certaily very easy to quote Kennedy between 1958- and 61 and conclude that he was the ultimate Cold Warrior. For a long time Cockburn and Chomsky had pulled the wool over my eyes by ignoring the pivotal roles that the BOP and CMC had in played in changing Kennedy's thinking. (Then again there is considerable evidence of Kennedy's resisting the National Security Bureacracy in reguards to Laos in Spring 1961 also, as John Newman, Gareth Porter and that guy from the Naval War College (?) who I saw on a fascinating talk on C-SPAN pointed out)

Is there a similar selective quotation regarding Kennedy's economic policies, that is designed to minimize the threat he posed to Wall Street?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned another book by this author on another thread, so I looked him up. He has also written a book on the corporate media and how it handled the Assassination. I don't think I have seen much mention of him on the forum until now.

Has anyone read this book? Do you know what specific macro economic policies the author focuses on? Do you recommend the book?

So far as macro-economic stuff mostly what I know is of Kennedy's desire to repeal the oil depletion allowance. I am very interested in knowing of other ways in which he may have challenged the Wall Street consensus re: tax policy and other questions concerning economic issues that might seriously effect the distrubution of wealth.

--------

Book Description

More than thirty years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the meaning and the legacy of his presidency are as much the subject of controversy as are the facts of his murder. Was JFK a tool of the Eastern Establishment - of the corporate and banking elites - or was he their bitterest enemy? Did his policies - domestic and international, implemented and unfulfilledserve to continue the domination of the powers-that-be, or did he attempt, and in many cases effect, a break with America's aristocracy? In this intriguing and penetrating analysis, Don Gibson does not simply replay the standard commentaries on the Kennedy presidency, many of which are ill-informed, even if well-meaning. Gibson looks at what JFK himself said, wrote, and did, contrasting that with the words and actions of his enemies-the Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, and the corporate and banking magnates themselves, who, as this book shows, truly despised the President. The current conventional wisdom depicts Kennedy as a cautious, even a conservative president, a Tory Democrat committed to the status quo and to the Establishment. But this book makes a compelling case to the contrary, suggesting that President Kennedy was always willing to do battle for his policies, even in the face of vicious attacks.

With its clear and lively style, this book is a revelation to the general reader and to the specialist. It also contains strikingly original insights into environmental elitism. It adds a new and important dimension to the ongoing debate over the Kennedy presidency. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Nathaniel! You're talking about one of the best books there is on our subject. I put Battling Wall Street up there with Deep Politics and Prouty & Garrison; one of the best--if not the best--big picture books. In other words I recommend it. In other words I consider it essential. It's the best.

I've only read the first two thirds 'cause it was an interlibrary loan and it was overdue and they were charging me $153 as overdue fees. So I had to return it and get those fees removed. But I immediately ordered it again so I can finish the last sections.

Anyway I mentioned Battling Wall Street in a couple of threads. And I posted a long quote from it here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8052&st=15

I've pasted it below.

"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?"

Also, I took pages of notes. That's how great this book is. So even though I don't have the book right now, my notes show that the book's main focus is on the many clashes between the President and the Ruling Class/Rockefellers/Bankers. The book discusses:

Wages, Foreign Investments, Foreign Tax Credits, Economists such as Milton Friedman & Adam Smith, Latin American Economic Policy and Private interests in Latin America, Globalization, the fact that Kennedy wanted to bypass private banks for foreign aid (!), the attacks on Kennedy for not following policies of the World Bank, "Free Trade," how the IMF was forced on countries...

One thing I got from the book is that the takeover of the country by bankers was an ongoing process when Kennedy became president and he interrupted it, and the bankers were not pleased.

Another nugget--The director of the CFR was McGeorge Bundy's brother....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned another book by this author on another thread, so I looked him up. He has also written a book on the corporate media and how it handled the Assassination. I don't think I have seen much mention of him on the forum until now.

Has anyone read this book? Do you know what specific macro economic policies the author focuses on? Do you recommend the book?

So far as macro-economic stuff mostly what I know is of Kennedy's desire to repeal the oil depletion allowance. I am very interested in knowing of other ways in which he may have challenged the Wall Street consensus re: tax policy and other questions concerning economic issues that might seriously effect the distrubution of wealth.

--------

Book Description

More than thirty years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the meaning and the legacy of his presidency are as much the subject of controversy as are the facts of his murder. Was JFK a tool of the Eastern Establishment - of the corporate and banking elites - or was he their bitterest enemy? Did his policies - domestic and international, implemented and unfulfilledserve to continue the domination of the powers-that-be, or did he attempt, and in many cases effect, a break with America's aristocracy? In this intriguing and penetrating analysis, Don Gibson does not simply replay the standard commentaries on the Kennedy presidency, many of which are ill-informed, even if well-meaning. Gibson looks at what JFK himself said, wrote, and did, contrasting that with the words and actions of his enemies-the Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, and the corporate and banking magnates themselves, who, as this book shows, truly despised the President. The current conventional wisdom depicts Kennedy as a cautious, even a conservative president, a Tory Democrat committed to the status quo and to the Establishment. But this book makes a compelling case to the contrary, suggesting that President Kennedy was always willing to do battle for his policies, even in the face of vicious attacks.

With its clear and lively style, this book is a revelation to the general reader and to the specialist. It also contains strikingly original insights into environmental elitism. It adds a new and important dimension to the ongoing debate over the Kennedy presidency. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Nathaniel! You're talking about one of the best books there is on our subject. I put Battling Wall Street up there with Deep Politics and Prouty & Garrison; one of the best--if not the best--big picture books. In other words I recommend it. In other words I consider it essential. It's the best.

I've only read the first two thirds 'cause it was an interlibrary loan and it was overdue and they were charging me $153 as overdue fees. So I had to return it and get those fees removed. But I immediately ordered it again so I can finish the last sections.

Anyway I mentioned Battling Wall Street in a couple of threads. And I posted a long quote from it here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8052&st=15

I've pasted it below.

"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?"

Also, I took pages of notes. That's how great this book is. So even though I don't have the book right now, my notes show that the book's main focus is on the many clashes between the President and the Ruling Class/Rockefellers/Bankers. The book discusses:

Wages, Foreign Investments, Foreign Tax Credits, Economists such as Milton Friedman & Adam Smith, Latin American Economic Policy and Private interests in Latin America, Globalization, the fact that Kennedy wanted to bypass private banks for foreign aid (!), the attacks on Kennedy for not following policies of the World Bank, "Free Trade," how the IMF was forced on countries...

One thing I got from the book is that the takeover of the country by bankers was an ongoing process when Kennedy became president and he interrupted it, and the bankers were not pleased.

Another nugget--The director of the CFR was McGeorge Bundy's brother....

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

Let me reiterate here by bold-ing certain passages I find to be of utmost importance, as well. To make this crystal clear, so there'll be absolutely no doubt left in anyone's mind.

"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 up 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." DITTO!!!

Thank you again, Myra, for putting this up. Apparently, there are many folks out there who still haven't gotten the message. I know I've included mention Donald Gibson's book(s) in any list of books I've posted as recommended reading, on at least three other forums, including this one.

I guess we'll just have to keep shouting out the word until it's finally heard by everyone else concerned, or at least embedded in their collective consciousness. Because, not only should this be mandatory reading as a straight shot to understanding the driving force behind all of the assassination(s), it also leads directly to the sources by naming the actual names of the perps. Those, who stood to lose the most, had JFK lived and been allowed to exercise his presidential powers in the manner in which they were intended. But, also those, who had the collateral to contract the deed, as well as the unlimited funds with which to cover the trail that led right back to them, and their financial and media-driven enclaves.

Edited by Terry Mauro
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...