It once again raises the levels, screens, filters and veneers of so many things I was taught and told. The fact that the Israeli angle is rarely covered by a Zionist-controlled media raises even more blue (for Israel) flags to me, especially when you consider the subservience of the American political system to Zionist Israel ever since (the U.S.S. Liberty incident a stark example).
Once again I am forced to reevalute everything I've ever believed in. That's not to say the CIA/Vietnam angle wasn't important (like the oil angle today); however, when one examines WHO MOST BENEFITS from U.S. foreign policy, it is clear who is pulling the strings of this government.
Anyhow....
"Why Was JFK Murdered?
by William Hughes
President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, TX, as the result of a conspiracy. Why did the Shadow Government decide to eliminate him? We now know he wanted to get U.S. troops out of South Vietnam. JFK had also been taking on Wall St. and The Fed. He threatened to disband the CIA and close tax loopholes beneficial to “Big Oil” and the multinationals. JFK made a lot of powerful enemies--one too many!
“Which forces are in control, the public or shadow powers?”
-- Peter Dale Scott, author, essayist and poet.
What made John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) such a threat to the “Shadow Government” that he had to be murdered? To begin with, he was an “American” in the finest sense of that word; a student of history and of the classics; and a lover of the Republic. JFK represented the best of the post-WWII generation. He put the U.S. first in all things, particularly in the area of foreign policy. JFK, unlike that insufferable blockhead currently occupying the White House, was a man of vision, too. He said that we can “put a man on the moon,” and we did. But, there is much more.
JFK had within his reach the financial resources to get elected, and more than enough money and influence to build a solid political machine to assure himself two terms in office, if he had lived. In comparison, look at “Bubba Bill” Clinton. He had little or no money of his own when the Wire Pullers “anointed” him to be the presidential standard bearer for the Democratic Party, in the 1992 election. This meant he was totally “dependent” on others to get himself elected. And, after he won, it also meant that the former Arkansas governor “owed” the people who put him in office. Whereas, JFK wasn’t beholding to the cunning Wire Pullers. He was a free agent. JFK could stand aloof from those contrivers. He didn’t need them.
JFK was a free agent. Here’s why: His dad, Joe Kennedy, Sr., had fairly deep pockets, and plenty of rich cronies, too, who could pitch in to help get his son elected, in 1960. In addition, JFK had a natural built in electoral constituency--a voting block--who favored his candidacy. He was an intellectual, of Irish descent, Roman Catholic, young and a WWII Veteran, to boot, possessing a hero-like image. And, for the most part, large segments of the African-American community felt a special kinship with him. The women loved him also. He was charming and better looking than most Hollywood stars of that era. Many, too, in the rank and file of the then feisty Labor Movement were attracted to and inspired by his candidacy for the Oval Office. The bosses of the Union Movement, with some notable exceptions, like Jimmy Hoffa, were inclined to give JFK the benefit of the doubt.
For all of the above reasons, JFK was a threat to the Shadow Government. [1] After he was elected, he alarmed them further by showing a strong streak of independent thinking! He consistently put America’s interests first. This is what gave the members of the sinister cabal the idea to kill him and to make sure that the official inquiry about the “Crime of the Century” was subjected to a first class cover-up, which is officially labeled, “The Warren Commission.” [2]
This takes me to Jim Marrs. He is one of our country’s finest crime and investigative reporters. He is also a top-notch author. [3] In his latest book: “The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies That Threaten to Take Over America,” he sets out his speculations about why JFK was eliminated. Marrs writes, at p. 221: “By mid-1963, Kennedy was beginning to exert his autonomous influence over the most powerful--and violent--groups in U.S. society. He was threatening to disband the CIA...withdraw U.S. troops from South Vietnam, close the tax breaks of the oil-depletion allowances; tighten control over the tax-free foreign assets of U.S. multinational corporations...and decrease the power of both Wall Street and the Federal Reserve System. In June, 1963, Kennedy ordered the printing and release of $4.2 billion in United States notes, paper money issued through the Treasury Department ‘without paying interest’ to the Federal Reserve System, which is composed of twelve regional banks all controlled by ‘private banks’ whose owners often are ‘non-Americans.’”
Marrs added: “Obviously persons affected by these moves [of JFK] felt something had to be done.” Marrs also reports, when speaking of the slaying of JFK, that one conspiracy expert said: “It had to happen. The man was ‘too independent’ for his own good.”
To top all of that off, JFK also opposed Israel’s nuclear weapons scheme. Author Stephen Green tells us that not long after that Texas politico, Lyndon B. Johnson, succeeded to the presidency, JFK’s policy towards that controversial Nuke-producing project was reversed. Green put it this way in his book, LBJ “saw no Dimona [Israel’s Los Alamos], heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona when the reactor went critical in 1964.” [4]
Peter Dale Scott in his tome, “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK,” insisted that JFK clearly wanted a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam, whether military conditions on the ground allowed it or not. On Oct. 11, 1963, JFK issued “NSAM 263” to that effect. LBJ reversed that directive, too, with “NSAM 273.” Of all people, Noam Chomsky, attempted to disparage JFK’s intention with respect to getting out of Vietnam. Why? In the process, Chomsky ended up supporting the position of Leslie Gelb, who earlier was a Pentagon bureaucrat. What happened to Gelb? Oh, he later became President of the Council on Foreign Relations. Like the hawkish Neocons, he promoted a preemptive attack on Iraq, in March, 2003. [5] Author Scott took Chomsky to task for his flawed analysis by saying that his theory on JFK’s intentions “assumes the continuity of a mind-set that he is trying to prove.”
To further support his position, Scott, re: JFK and withdrawing from Vietnam, offers the fact that Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers fame, a courageous truth teller, had heard from his then Pentagon boss, John McNaughton, in 1964, that Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, and JFK, had an agreement that they would close out Vietnam by 1965, “whether it was in good shape or bad.” It’s also important to consider, with respect to this dispute, the views of James K. Galbraith. His scholarly and insightful interpretation of JFK’s actions, and “NSAM 263,” which backs up author Scott, are found in the “Boston Review,” entitled, “Exit Strategy.” [6]
As you can see, JFK made plenty of powerful enemies during his presidency of 1,000 days over a whole array of issues. One can only ponder why he was “really” killed. The Shadow Government, I suspect, ordered his death and then made sure that its tracks were covered-up. Who is in this secret cabal and exactly why it decided to mark JFK for death, remains a deep mystery. It is going to be for the next generation of American patriots to solve the case of JFK’s murder. Hopefully, they can bring out the full truth about that loathsome crime, and if possible, punish all the vicious evil doers involved.
I leave the last words to the author Scott: “Slowly, we have watched the emergence [in the U.S.] of a new community, still small but undeniably growing, that will not be satisfied with ‘the old false answers.’ How far this new community can reform the deep politics of the old society remains unclear. But in the long perspective of historical time, we see that the communities dedicated to truth, and justice, and decency, tend to outlast those of their vilifiers.”
--MORE--"