Justice Integrity Project
The continuing importance of President Kennedy's assassination is the topic of an April 1 lecture at the National Press Club that will underscore also practical strategies for enlisting media coverage into civic reform efforts.
The McClendon News Group has invited this editor to speak on these topics at a dinner in the nation's capital that starts at 6:30 p.m. A lecture begins at 7 p.m. EDT followed by Q&A.
The press and other members of the public are welcome to the event, which includes an optional Dutch-treat dinner that guests may order from the Club's menu.
The topic is my column "Why Bill O'Reilly's Lie About JFK's Murder Might Matter To You" published here March 17 and my lecture "The JFK Murder Cover-up Still Matters" broadcast last fall by C-SPAN. The C-SPAN coverage was from the opening of a major conference on new evidence as of the 50th anniversary of the Warren Commission report on the 1963 assassination.
The purpose of this week's discussion is to use the recent revelation of Bill O'Reilly's lie in his best-selling book Killing Kennedy to expose a longstanding pattern of CIA-orchestrated media cover-up for a crime that has shaped American history to the present in ways largely unreported by the corporate media.
The key questions for discussion are:
What did the killers in 1963 want? What do their successors want today?
Regarding recent specifics: George de Mohrenschildt, a CIA-asset and key figure in JFK's killing, is back in the news following his mysterious shooting death in 1977. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has lied about being present at the death.
More important than O'Reilly's credibility on that narrow issue is that he and virtually all other significant mainstream commentators — including some of the most famous journalists from that era — continue to mislead the public with their news outlets' claims that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone to kill Kennedy by firing from behind.
The lecture will discuss emerging evidence and tips on how to assess false leads regarding the main perpetrators and their protectors.
As a previiew of the talk: Many of the specifics about the killing are trivial debates compared to the larger and more frightening conclusion that no president can feel safe so long as the news media protect the killers of a President, of Oswald, and of other witnesses.
That conclusion is drawn from our Project's so-far 24-part "Readers Guide" to the assassination, which is linked below.
Introduction: Hillary Clinton’s secret personal email system continued last week to prompt heavy news coverage but with scant scrutiny of the most sinister implications for the public. This is the second part of a three-part series examining issues that are almost entirely overlooked, except occasionally in the alternative media. The focus of today's column is in red:
- Arms Smuggling: The Obama-Clinton-Petraeus 'Iran-Contra' Scandal: Part I here
- Disloyalty by Gen. David Petraeus? A GOP Plot To Flip The 2012 Election: Part II here
- Conflict of Interest In Clinton Foundation/Hillary Clinton 2016 Funding
Before examining those findings, first let’s summarize recent general developments that have been covered. As the New York Times reported here, Clinton devised a private email system to communicate with government and personal contacts. This apparently violated federal policy requiring officials to use government systems for work-related emails.
We next review one of the areas being overlooked by the mainstream media's treatment of the situation:
The Obama administration forced the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus Nov. 9 just after the Nov. 6, 2012 election with a cover story. A sex scandal involving Petraeus was touted to obscure the administration's discovery of of CIA involvement in an effort to embarrass the administration severely over the Benghazi tragedy in a way that could have paved the way for the victory of Obama's GOP rival Mitt Romney, shown in a file photo.
As head of the CIA, Petraeus was responsible for actions of subordinates. Also, he had taken enough suspiciously self-promoting and arguably disloyal actions himself through the years as to raise the possibility of his direct involvement in the plot. One such action was his entertaining while an overseas field commander an invitation from a Fox News journalist on behalf of GOP leaders to run against Obama in 2012. Petraeus declined the invitation according to a 2012 report by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post but the circumstances inevitably raised questions about his motivations and those of his staff regarding the Benghazi deaths in September 2012 of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
It is, of course, difficult to document such charges in a blog post. Investigative reporter Wayne Madsen wrote a 127-page book on the topic published in late 2012, L’Affaire Petraeus: The Benghazi Stand-down and the Plot to "Carterize' Obama. My book the following year Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters devotes a full chapter to the matter, "A Petraeus Betrayal?"
Today's column is for a more current purpose. We show how the intrigues involved with Hillary Clinton's suppressed and supposedly private emails could if released hold embarrassing consequences for many players in the nation's capital, not just for her and other Democrats.
Yes, they are important. Here's why.
Hillary Clinton’s secret personal email system continued last week to prompt heavy news coverage but with scant scrutiny of the most sinister implications for the public. There are frightening national security intrigues and political backstabbing.
Today, we begin a series examining three such issues that are almost entirely overlooked, except occasionally in the alternative media that includes the Justice Integrity Project.
Some names like Benghazi, David Petraeus (shown below), and the Clinton Foundation are familiar to the public even if the hidden angles are not. Other topics have not yet reached their deserved prominence.
- Arms Smuggling: The Obama-Clinton-Petraeus 'Iran-Contra' Scandal: Part I here
- Disloyalty by Gen. David Petraeus? A Plot To Flip the 2012 Election (Part II in the series here)
- Conflict of Interest In Clinton Foundation/Hillary Clinton 2016 Funding
Before examining those findings, first let’s summarize recent general developments that have been covered by the mass media.
Clinton's attorney David Kendall told the House Select Committee on Benghazi March 27 that Clinton's server for the personal email account she used as secretary of state no longer contains any emails. The New York Times reported the story here.
Clinton had devised a private email system to communicate with government and personal contacts in apparent violation of federal policy that officials must use government systems for work-related emails.
Clinton has said her emails to fellow government employees have always been available via their “.gov” addresses for appropriate purposes. Furthermore, she said her staff has examined all of her messages, and delivered to authorities the 55,000 pages relevant to government work culled from about 30,000 emails before deleting the rest of a total of about 60,000 emails. At a press conference at the United Nation's headquarters in New York City March 10 to defuse the issue, she said, as reported by the Huffington Post, 'I Thought It Would Be Easier' To Use One Email Address."
Critics have charged that her process was legally improper, violated Obama’s promise of transparency, and probably hid embarrassing information, including regarding fund-raising from foreign sources representing an at least implied conflict with her government duties. Republicans such as Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC), chair of the House Benghazi committee, have been in the forefront of demanding records and accusing her of scandal.
Her critics claim she used her personal system to hide:
1) State Department’s laxity in the 2012 deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three support personnel in Benghazi;
2) Steps she and her team have taken to leverage her State Department post into support for the Clinton Foundation and her prospective 2016 presidential run; and
3) Suppression of other emails that might prove embarrassing to her or former President Bill Clinton.
George de Mohrenschildt, a friend of accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, is back in the news following his mysterious death in 1977.
His death marked the beginning of the end of official investigations of the JFK murder. The circumstances showed that neither Congress, most media, nor the justice system dared confront that historic tragedy even though important witnesses remain alive today.
As for the recent news, CNN reported this month that Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly lied about hearing the fatal shot killing de Mohrenschildt in Florida. JFK researcher and former Washington Post editor Jefferson Morley revealed the fabrication on his blog JFK Facts.org two years ago and repeated it March 1 under questioning by Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter in a CNN segment entitled Stelter: Audio tapes disprove O'Reilly's reporting.
Even more important than O’Reilly’s boast has been the timidity behind his bluster on the JFK issue, much like the stagecraft of many other journalists, authors, professors, and public officials.
O'Reilly's dubious claim in his best-selling book Killing Kennedy reminds us how the top-rated cable commentator evolved from a hard-charging young reporter seeking the facts about the JFK assassination to his current position: a bombastic pundit who disdains citations while parroting the misleading conventional wisdom that Oswald acted alone to kill Kennedy.
Hence the significance of de Mohrenschildt, shown in a file photo below.
Describing himself as "The Baron," he was a well-born oil engineer, professor and CIA asset whose friendships included members of the Oswald, Kennedy and Bush families. At the time of his death, he had just been invited by a congressional investigator to repeat his claim for the record that he was part of a "Dallas conspiracy" of oilmen and Cuban exiles planning on settling a "blood debt" — and that he instructed Oswald on how to act.
He was prepared to testify that Oswald did not kill the president, according to the Kennedy researcher Morley, who more than anyone else has highlighted O'Reilly's false statement about hearing the gunshot that killed the prospective witness.
At roughly the same time de Mohrenschildt was found dead of a shotgun blast that local authorities ruled self-inflicted, congress in effect sabotaged its own probe. It replaced its chief counsel, Richard Sprague, with a play-it-safe substitute, Robert Blakey. Blakey deferred to the CIA instead of investigating it, as he conceded last fall at a major Warren Commission 50th anniversary conference. I participated as a speaker and in coverage. I reported on Former U.S. House JFK Murder Prober Alleges CIA ‘Lied,’ Seeks Hidden Records and gave an address k carried on C-SPAN, The JFK Murder 'Cover-up' Still Matters -- As Does C-SPAN's Coverage.
Partly as a result of the probe's late 1970s breakdown in Washington, the late congressional investigator Gaeton Fonzi recalled in his memoir The Last Investigation that federal authorities failed to confirm the circumstances of de Mohrenschildt's death. He saw also first-hand that authorities failed to move after the death to nail down the investigative leads the dead man could have provided.
Today's column, Part 24 of the Justice Integrity Project's "Readers Guide" to the JFK assassination, explores why the corporate-owned mainstream media self-censor so much evidence of CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination and similar news items that extend to the present. Be advised that this column is unusually long at five thousand words. But that length is necessary to document the tale sufficiently, especially for new readers. The topic of media manipulations from the JFK era to the present has huge impact but is carefully hidden.
As an overview, the shortcomings of O’Reilly and Fox News exemplify a pattern that pervades all of the major media, including liberal and alternative outlets.
This Readers Guide series began in 2013 to make sense of the varied JFK assassination evidence and theories, much of it suppressed. As indicated in an appendix below, our first Readers Guide columns listed all important books, videos, and events in comprehensive fashion with minimal commentary. Later columns based on additional research analyzed evidence and expert opinion.
Our most recent commentaries build on that foundation to show that the Warren Commission's key findings could not have been true. The presidentially appointed commission chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren claimed in 1964 that Oswald acted alone in firing three shots from the rear, killing Kennedy. The commission also claimed that nightclub owner Jack Ruby had no mob ties. Ruby killed Oswald, as portrayed below, at the Dallas police station on Nov. 24, 1963, two days after the president's assassination.
The Warren Commission, whose members included former CIA Director Allen Dulles, could not have been correct since evidence now indicates that Kennedy was shot at least once from the front. Furthermore, Oswald had covert colleagues, and Ruby was indisputably a longtime figure in organized crime. The latter fact helps contradict the notion that he was such a good citizen that he stalked Oswald to kill him.
So, we must conclude (as does the majority of the American public according to many years of polling) that the Warren Commission misled the public.
Further evidence shows that the CIA, FBI and their powerful allies Wall Street, the media and elsewhere have enforced massive self-censorship and other evidence suppression that has continued to the present on issues on the assassination and its more current consequences. Just last fall, former Cuban exile assassination group leader Antonio Veciana described publicly for the first time that he saw his CIA handler David Atlee Phillips meet with Oswald in Dallas six weeks before the assassination.
Today's series segment begins with a summary of the recent controversy over O'Reilly's claim in his best-selling book Killing Kennedy and elsewhere that he traveled from Texas to interview de Mohrenschildt and was present at his death in Florida.
We next show that the dispute is part of a massive, ongoing propaganda campaign involving all major media to sell the public immediately after the 1963 presidential assassination on the theory that Oswald acted alone.
Such major institutions as Time-Life Inc., then controlled by Publisher Charles Douglas "CD" Jackson, a longtime CIA asset, played a vital role in shaping news coverage of the story, as did then-emerging network stars such as Dan Rather and White House communications director Bill Moyers.
The successful sales job has continued. O'Reilly's book was a well-reviewed best-seller even though it has scanty sourcing for its rehash of the discredited Warren Commission conclusions. Furthermore, his book spawned a widely watched television special and was republished in a children's version that serves to propagandize the next generation.
Finally, we show the enormous career benefits for those journalists, other researchers and government officials who adhere to official claims on matters like the major assassinations in the 1960s and subsequent events extending to the present. Their cowardly actions fostered what has become the well-grounded fear of prospective whistleblowers like de Mohrenschildt that their attempts to speak up will go unheard.
Such fears extend to those at the top of our system. As reported in my book Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters, President Obama has feared taking on the CIA, explained also in such news reports as Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crimes.
A former State Department foreign service officer’s new book provides a shocking, timely, and credible circumstantial case that ties the U.S. training of Islamic radicals to our nation’s major foreign policy disasters in the Mideast during the past quarter century.
The book is Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World — An Insider's View. Author J. Michael Springmann (shown at right) is the former chief of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. He launched the book last week with his first lecture and book-signing, which admirers organized at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
“It’s past time to expose murder, war crimes and human rights violations by the United States of American and its ‘intelligence’ services,” Springmann says. He continues:
Using the dubious claim of "national security," the United States, though the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency (NSA), has engaged in and/or organized coups and destabilization efforts around the world, most notably in the Middle East.
From Libya to Iran, governments have been overthrown, politicians assassinated, and everyday citizens murdered — all with the knowledge of not only the president of the United States and the executive branch but with the legislative and judicial ones, as well.
The essence of his first-hand experience is that he was required as chief visa officer in Saudi Arabia to issue what he regarded as illegal visas to large numbers of U.S.-backed Islamic fundamentalists transiting through Jeddah from multiple Islamic nations so they could visit the United States for secret purposes.
Those purposes, Springmann later concluded, involved covert training at such locales as "The Farm," a CIA training facility in Williamsburg, Virginia. The trainees, he alleges, were vagabond Islamic mercenaries, revolutionists and jihadists — an "Arab-Afghan Legion" — who could be unleashed on America’s enemies.
All of this, he argues in Visas for Al Qaeda, was without adequate consideration of the “blowback” to the United States from uncontrollable jihadists sometimes recruited from prisons and with the help of ultra-radical clerics.
Spymasters made the recruitment process so complex, he says, that most of the radical clerics and U.S. government workers involved would not have known the funding and evolving goals of the process. But at the top, he shows, NATO-allied Gulf oil monarchies and their charities often served as intermediaries for the West in joint operations that cannot withstand public exposure.
In his view, the State Department, the CIA, and higher-ups have created an ongoing disaster for the United States, our allies, and the rest of the world.
It began with President Carter's decision via his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski to fight Soviet power in Afghanistan by supporting radical Islmamists on the borders of the Soviet Union.
Brzezinski, shown in a file photo, later held the national security advisor post for 2008 Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, thus illustrating a long continuum of policy and personal connections seldom explored by the mainstream media, which includes the advisor's daughter, Mika Brzezinski, co-host of the MSNBC "Morning Joe" show.
Springmann shows U.S. complicity in arming the Mujahideen, Taliban, Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan during the 1980s when both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were United States operatives.
His story draws on his first-hand experience in fighting State Department and CIA higher-ups who enabled this rootless, radical fighting force to evolve into the modern-day Al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State.
His book could not be more timely.
Right now, the U.S. Congress is likely to authorize war against ISIS/ISIL (the Islamic State of Syria/Islamic State of Levant).
Few in government or the major media dare voice the hidden history of the nation’s previous wars in those regions, much less discuss current covert operations. These have led to up to six trillion of dollars in U.S. taxpayer expense for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars so far since 2001, according to some estimates. A half million to a million are dead and millions more have become refugees in those broken nations, according to other widely reported estimates.
Without that debate and history, neither Congress nor the public can create logical limits on presidential war-making in terms of an enemy, geography, or a time-frame.
The NoVa (Northern Virginia) Writers Group hosted me Feb. 28 for a lively public discussion of Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters at the Lorton Library near Washington, DC.
The hour-long discussion in cooperation with the Washington Authors Meet-up process addressed the mysteries unraveled by the research, their relevance to top news stories today -- and how authors in the audience can beat the odds to bring their own books to public attention.
The events followed my hour-long interview on the Phil Mikan Show in Connecticut Feb. 26 in which we revealed and analyzed a new set of outrages imposed on the public by puppets on behalf of what I describe as "puppet masters."
Others have different names for such entities, such as the title of a chart below at left published by the Brookings Institution, which is itself tightly aligned with the power structure and thus more knowledgeable than most regarding specifics.
On March 7, President Obama is scheduled to speak in Selma, Alabama for the 50th anniversary of the historic "Bloody Sunday" civil rights march of 1965. Local authorities so brutally beat civil rights marchers that the nation responded by passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, thereby helping enable blacks to register and vote in significant numbers for the first time in the region's modern history.
News coverage this year will be especially strong because of the 50th anniversary and the Oprah Winfrey movie Selma, winner of an Oscar for best theme song and nominated for the best picture award.
Present also will be many civil rights advocates who have long advocated for the Obama administration to undertake far more serious reforms to the justice system than it has.
As in the past, a heavy focus will be on the plight of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (1999-2003), who remains imprisoned for 1999 actions many experts regard as non-criminal, especially because of the gross prosecutorial and judicial misconduct during his trial on corruption charges.
We attended last year's march and related events in Selma for nearly a week, and have often reported on Selma, Siegelman and other Alabama legal controversies.
They include especially dramatic cases that are replicated across the nation and even internationally.
Our recent column on Attorney Gen. Eric Holder, was reprinted in Indonesia Feb. 27 by the Fifth Estate blog, which goes to ex-patriates and others in the Far East who follow the effectiveness of democracy in the United States.