text:
Sensational Facts
Negative Connotation
FOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS FROM THE 12 INTERVIEWS IN AMERICAN CONSPIRACIES AND COVER-UPS:
EXCERPT #1, LBJ ATTORNEY BARR McCLELLAN ON KENNEDY ASSASSINATION
Did you know Lyndon Johnson personally?
As personal, I guess, as a lawyer could, one step removed. I'd shaken his hand several times, yes, and had talked with him briefly. I wasn't ever to his home. I was to his penthouse in Austin for lunch at a time when Johnson wasn't there. The last time I saw him was at the LBJ library when it was dedicated. He was standing out front with Ed Clark and I walked over and we visited for a minute
From the time he left the White House in January 1969 until his death in January 1973, it's been written that Johnson suffered from a deep, life threatening depression. Beginning in 1971, Johnson began consulting with a psychiatrist. The lawyers in your law firm became concerned that whatever Johnson told the psychiatrist had to be kept secret. At that time, your senior partners gave you the job of preparing a memo on how to legally keep the psychiatrist from disclosing what Johnson had told him. As outrageous as this question might sound to some people: Do you believe that Johnson confessed to the psychiatrist that he had engaged in conspiracies to murder?
I would really like to know. I can't say, but I know that he had some pretty in depth sessions with the psychiatrist. I don't know what came out of it, though, but I'm sure the notes are there. I would love to be able to get them.
It's pretty much accepted as historical fact that Johnson stole the 1948 Texas Senate race, isn't it?
I think it's just admitted by everybody now. He virtually admitted it, yes. So the people who have attacked me and criticized me for claiming that Johnson was a scoundrel who committed high crimes can look at that election. Johnson stole that election and that was a crime.
You claim you have an insider's knowledge about that election that's never been revealed before. You wrote that your senior partner and mentor, Don Thomas, told you that he was the one who traveled to Alice, Texas in Jim Wells County, paid off George Parr, the political boss there, and then falsified the votes for Lyndon Johnson in Box 13.
He told me that he was the only one that knew what really happened there. He laid it out for me.
Billy Sol Estes was a corrupt texas businessman who knew Lyndon Johnson. Did you ever meet Billy Sol Estes?
Yes. Billy Sol is still alive. We still talk.
What was going on between Estes and Johnson? Johnson was using his influence in the Department of Agriculture to allow Estes to get illegal cotton allotments and Estes was paying Johnson off?
I would say there's no doubt in my mind that that is true. Those things were always arranged so that they couldn't be traced. But Estes said it, and that's direct evidence as far as I'm concerned.
In a press conference held on May 17, 1962, the first question asked to President Kennedy was about the investigation into Billy Sol Estes. The Kennedys were very concerned that Johnson's relationship with Estes was going to be a real problem for JFK's administration, weren't they?
Yes they were. And Bobby Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson had a real enmity for each other. Bobby was pushing hard for an investigation into Johnson. Bobby wanted to nail Johnson.
When the Senate was investigating Billy Sol Estes's dealings and Henry Marshall's death in 1962, witnesses were testifying that Johnson had a direct relationship with Estes and that they had heard Johnson talking to Estes about cotton allotments. It didn't look good for Johnson, did it?
No, it didn't. Estes was going down. And Johnson was going with him . . . Those hearings got postponed, though, because Estes had been indicted by the feds and he had to attend that trial. By the time Estes was available to appear before the Senate again, President Kennedy had been assassinated. So, then, of course, Johnson was able to use the power of the presidency to block any investigation into his relationship with Estes. That's what the assassination did.
If President Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, was there a real chance that Johnson would have went to prison?
Oh, yea. Yes, there was. The politics could be overwhelming in a situation like that. Here's where you get up into high levels of politics. I don't want to say, necessarily, that the Kennedys would have buried it, but at that level, you know, I think Kennedy would have been thinking, "It's my running mate. The Vice President."
Did you know or ever meet LBJ's mistress, Madeline Brown?
Madeline Brown said that before JFK was killed LBJ made it clear to her that he knew President Kennedy was going to be assassinated. Would you say Madeline Brown was credible and reliable?
Well, that's the biggest question with Madeline. Some researchers feel strongly that Madeline couldn't be trusted. She wasn't reliable. I have a good friend, though, and a fellow researcher who was very demanding and he was convinced that she was reliable. But she's really kind of irrelevant to the heart of the story. It doesn't matter. The facts are strong as they are.
E. Howard Hunt was a Watergate figure, and worked for the CIA for twenty-five years. In the early '60s, Hunt was working with the CIA's brigade of Cuban exiles, and since 1963 many people have had strong suspicions that Hunt had something to do with the Kennedy assassination. Hunt died in 2002, but before he did he left a taped and written statement with his son detailing what he said he knew about the assassination. Hunt told his son very matter-of-factly that the Kennedy assassination was the "Big Event" of the CIA, and that three CIA agents, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips, and Frank Sturgis, organized the assassination. Hunt also said that Lyndon Johnson had the most to gain from the assassination and that Johnson had a foreknowledge of the plan and participated in the conspiracy. Rolling Stone magazine took this story to be credible and ran a story on it.
Well, Hunt's charges would require substantiation and corroboration—some kind of hard evidence from the scene or something that could be corroborated or stand the test of cross-examination. Hunt is interesting, though, because he points directly to Johnson and his allegations may dovetail with my own research. The men Hunt names warrant further investigation because they could have been working with Johnson's allies. Maybe. For now, though, my case is still the one with the most solid evidence.
You don't believe that Lyndon Johnson wanted to become a politician to be a public servant, do you?
No. All indications are is that Johnson wanted political power for a purpose that was traditional and very common in Texas: to use the government and politics to get rich.
Billy Sol Estes said that he made millions with the cotton allotment scheme. One could only speculate how much of that might have ended up in Johnson's pocket.
It wasn't only Estes. Bobby Baker was one of the most corrupt figures ever associated with Washington. Baker was the Secretary to the Majority Leader and used his insider's status to gain wealth in a number of industries. Lyndon Johnson was Baker's crony and mentor. Baker eventually went to prison for theft and conspiracy, and if President Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, then Johnson—because of his relationship with Baker—might have went with him . . . Johnson lived through a childhood of extreme poverty. By the time he left the White House in January, 1969 he had about ten million in cash and ten million in assets. Most of that was being handled by Brazos-Tenth St. Co., an illegal money laundering corporation run by our firm.
So was Kennedy the light and Johnson the darkness?
Like many, I was inspired to public service after hearing Kennedy's inaugural speech. Kennedy was basically a good man with good ideas who could bring highly qualified assistants to the demanding task of running the nation in very difficult times. I believe he was motivated by solid ideals and was not corrupted in the sense of political graft. Johnson was corrupt to the core but could take the political issues and—like no one else—power through solutions that kept his party together. But his corruption was the worst example of absolute power corrupting absolutely. Johnson had a streak in him that could make him one of the meanest men on the earth. He had his achievements such as the Civil Rights Act but his methods were far too often criminal—and evil.
EXCERPT # 2, MARTIN LUTHER KING ASSOCIATE DR. WILLIAM PEPPER ON KING ASSASSINATION
How well did you know Dr. King?
I knew him pretty well. I knew him only, though, in the last year of his life. And I knew him during the period of time when he was under a great deal of stress. I had come back from Viet Nam and he had read my stuff and was interested in it, and he had met with me and that had started the relationship. And then he decided finally to formally, explicitly oppose the war and he did that. And then the Coalition Group decided that—and Dr. King became convinced that this was the thing to do—to forge an independent political party in '68.
The National Conference For New Politics. You introduced Dr. King at that party's convention, didn't you?
He asked me to do that, yes. There were five thousand delegates, the largest people's convention in the history of the country. I introduced him, and he delivered the keynote address.
Where were you and what was your reaction when you heard Dr. King had been assassinated?
I was back in New York. And I was shocked. Just shocked. Broke down. In those days, I have to say, it wasn't expected. He had a premonition about it. But we were naïve enough to think that that wasn't going to happen.
You started believing that James Earl Ray was innocent when you first met Ray in 1978 with Dr. King's associate, the Reverend Ralph Abernathy. What kind of person was James Earl Ray?
He was very quiet. Passive. Even docile. I never saw James lose his temper. I spent hundreds of hours with him. And I never saw him get upset. For ten years before I decided to represent him I met with him regularly to get information from him because I was actively investigating the case for ten years before I decided to represent him. He kept asking me to represent him. I kept refusing until I was certain that he had no knowing role.
So he really didn't look and seem like an assassin to you?
Oh, no, no. I interrogated him for five hours the first time and we were all convinced—Abernathy, myself, I had a body language expert from Harvard there—we were all convinced that this guy was not the shooter. It was totally inconceivable. But we didn't know what knowing role he had played, and that's what took me ten years to sort out.
Isn't there evidence that back in the '60s and early '70s the government—the FBI—was involved with the assassinations of a number of Black Panther leaders?
There is strong evidence that there was a hit squad, and that the bureau was involved in—from what I understand—some of these hits. In my books I didn't go in depth into, for instance, the Fred Hampton killing. You see, the FBI would use local police or even Mob guys when they could. In '67-'68 there were military snipers who were placed across the country and they were involved in a number of selective take outs.
Of black leaders?
Yes. These were Army shooters. They went into the riot cities of Detroit, Los Angeles, Newark. They had assignments there.
But Dr. King was a reverend, a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, and the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. You don't think the government would have seen Dr. King as a different sort of leader—-one that wasn't militant or dangerous?
No. They saw him exactly the opposite. When they arrested people following the riots in Detroit, military intelligence questioned them and they were amazed that the most militant radical leaders of that group all named Dr. King as their idol. This was a real surprise to these guys, to the military . . . But that's not the main reason they killed him. In my view, there were two real reasons they killed him. Number one, he was a visible threat to the multi industrial war machine in America and all of the energy corporations that were profiting from that war in Viet Nam. So he was a major threat when he came out against the war to their bottom lines. That's number one. Number two, the second reason they killed him was because he was going to lead this massive march which was not going to be a march, but an actual tent in in Washington. And that was going to attract upwards of half a million people. Poor people. From all across the country. And they were going to go visit their congressmen and senators, and they were not going to get what they wanted. And military intelligence was convinced that King would lose control of that group. He, himself, was non-violent. Nevertheless, they felt that this force of protesters would see that this tent in was not working, and that force would have turned into a revolution that the military couldn't control.
Lloyd Jowers never claimed, and you don't believe, that Jowers shot and killed Dr. King from the bushes behind Jim's Grill. Jowers said Liberto gave him the job of taking the rifle from the assassin and then hiding it in Jim's Grill until it was picked up the next day.
At the time of the assassination, did any witnesses claim to see anyone behind those bushes?
A lot of witnesses claimed to see somebody back there. The government claimed that Ray shot Dr. King from a window in a boarding house, but there was no credible evidence that a shot came from anywhere but from behind the bushes. Earl Caldwell, the reporter and columnist for The New York Times, said he saw someone back there. So did Solomon Jones, Dr, King's chauffeur. There were others.
So do you know who fired the fatal shot from the bushes?
I believe I do.
Do you want to say?
That will come out in the epilogue of the paperback edition of An Act Of State. In many ways the paperback is going to be almost another book because so much more new evidence has come out since the hardcover An Act Of State was written. It all substantiates and supports and makes stronger the case.
Didn't the police have those bushes cut down the morning after the assassination?
Wasn't that a criminal act? They were altering the crime scene.
They actually destroyed the crime scene. They were obviously trying to make it appear that no one could have taken a shot from that area because there would have been no bushes there to conceal a shooter.
And the police tried to deny that the bushes were cut down?
Initially, they did try to deny it. But, they can't deny it now because I put the guy on the stand who ordered it. The head of the public works department, Maynard Stiles, testified under oath that he got a call from Sam Evans the morning after. Evans was a police inspector who was in charge of the tactical units that were supposedly in charge of protecting Dr. King in Memphis. Stiles said he got a call and Evans said to get a team over there as early as possible and work with the police and clean that area up and cut down the bushes. The bushes were cut down early in the morning the day after the assassination.
Do you have a special pride that you were the one who inspired Martin Luther King to protest against the Vietnam War?
No, I don't. I really don't. Because it was one of the reasons he got killed. He broke down in tears, you know, I had him in tears when I showed him the photographs of the Vietnamese kids. I don't have any special pride. You know, look, what happened? Martin came out against the war in April '67. That war didn't end until, what, another six or seven years after that. And, you know, we lost him. I'm not happy at all. I felt guilty, very sad that I contributed to pushing him further, closer to his death. They were going to struggle on with that war and bleed it for every dollar they could. Lyndon Johnson's advisors would plead with him, would give him a million reasons why America should have pulled out. But Lyndon Johnson had friends and acquaintances who were making a lot of money off the Vietnam War.
What was it like to work with Martin Luther King?
Kind of awesome. He was really a very regular person, you know, when you got him off of the pulpit and you worked with him. He was always consistent in terms of values, in terms of tactics. He was always gentle. He was soft spoken . . . Except when he got angry at people like Jesse Jackson. I've had some major disagreements with Jesse myself . . . But Martin was a magnificent human being.
EXCERPT # 3, AUTHOR AND WORLD WAR II VETERAN ROBERT STINNETT ON PEARL HARBOR
What led you to write a book about Pearl Harbor?
Well, I was in the Navy in World War II. I was on an aircraft carrier. With George Bush, believe it or not.
You wrote a book about that.
Yes, that's right. So, we were always told that the Japanese targets, the warships, were sighted by United States submarines. We were never told about breaking the Japanese codes.
Historians and government officials who claim that Washington didn't have a foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack have always contended that America wasn't intercepting and hadn't cracked Japan's important military codes in the months and days preceding the attack. The crux of your book is that your research proves that is absolutely untrue. We were reading most all of Japan's radio messages. Correct?
That is correct. And I believed that, too. You know, because, Life magazine in September 1945, right after Japan surrendered, suggested that this was the case, that Roosevelt engineered Pearl Harbor. But that was discarded as an anti-Roosevelt tract, and I believed it, also.
Another claim at the heart of the Pearl Harbor surprise-attack lore is that Japan's ships kept radio silence as they approached Hawaii. That's absolutely untrue, also.
That is correct. And this was all withheld from Congress, so nobody knew about all this.
Until the Freedom of Information Act?
Your book claims that in 1941 Japan had a spy residing in the Japanese consulate in Honolulu.
Japan secreted this spy—he was a Japanese naval officer—in Honolulu. He arrived there in March 1941 under an assumed name, and he was attached to the Japanese consulate there. But when the FBI checked on him they found out he was not listed in the Japanese foreign registry, so they were suspicious immediately. They put a tail on him. And then the spy started filing messages to Japan that we were intercepting. This was in a diplomatic code now. And so the FBI continued to tail him, and so did Naval intelligence.
Naval intelligence, the FBI, and Roosevelt knew this man was spying on the fleet in Pearl Harbor and they let the espionage go on. The policy of FDR's government then was to look the other way and let Japan prepare itself for attacking us?
That's right. That is correct. He was providing a timetable for the attack.
The spy was even sending bomb plots of Pearl Harbor?
Yes. From March to August he was giving a census of the US Pacific fleet. Then starting in August he starting preparing bomb plots of Pearl Harbor, where our ships were anchored and so forth.
And Roosevelt even saw those bomb plots, right?
Yes, that is correct.
You claim that twice during the week of December 1 to 6 the spy indicated that Pearl Harbor would be attacked. According to a Japanese commander, the message on December 2 was: "No changes observed by afternoon of 2 December. So far they do not seem to have been alerted." And on the morning of December 6 the message was: "There are no barrage balloons up and there is an opportunity left for a surprise attack against these places." These messages were intercepted by the Navy, right? Did Roosevelt know about these messages?
They were intercepted. That is correct. They were sent by RCA communications. And Roosevelt had sent David Sarnoff, who was head of RCA, to Honolulu so that this would facilitate getting these messages even faster. Though we were intercepting them off the airways anyway. And on December 2 and on December 6 the spy indicated that Pearl was going to be the target. And the December 2 message was intercepted, decoded, and translated prior to December 5. The December 6 message . . . there's really no proof that it was . . . it was intercepted, but there's all sorts of cover stories on whether or not that reached the President. But he received other information that it was going to happen the next day anyway.
You saw the records of those intercepts yourself?
Yes, I have those.
On page 203 of the hardcover edition of your book it reads, "Seven Japanese naval broadcasts intercepted between November 28 and December 6 confirmed that Japan intended to start the war and that it would begin in Pearl Harbor." Did you see the records of those intercepts yourself?
Yes. And also we have new information about other intercepts in the current edition that's coming out in May 2001 . . . There's no question about it.
You claim that Admiral Kimmel and General Short—who headed up the Army in Hawaii—were denied by Washington of the information that would have let them know the attack was coming. In what ways were Kimmel and Short denied intelligence?
Well, they were just cut off . . . They were not told that the spy was there, and they were not given these crucial documents, the radio direction finder information. All this information was going to everybody but Kimmel and Short. That's very clear . . . At one point Kimmel specifically requested that Washington let him know immediately about any important developments, but they did not do that.
Kimmel was given some information, because two weeks before the attack he sent the Pacific fleet north of Hawaii on a reconnaissance exercise to look for Japanese carriers. When White House military officials learned of this what was their reaction?
Admiral Kimmel tried on a number of occasions to do something to defend Pearl Harbor. And, right, two weeks before the attack, on November 23, Kimmel sent nearly one hundred warships of the Pacific fleet to the exact site where Japan planned to launch the attack. Kimmel meant business. He was looking for the Japanese. His actions indicated that he wanted to be thoroughly prepared for action if he encountered a Japanese carrier force. When White House officials learned this, they directed to Kimmel that he was "complicating the situation" . . . You see, the White House wanted a clean cut overt act of war by Japan. Isolationists would have charged FDR was precipitating Japanese action by allowing the Pacific fleet in the North Pacific . . . So, minutes after Kimmel got the White House directive he canceled the exercise and returned the fleet to its anchorage in Pearl Harbor . . . That's where the Japanese found it on December 7, 1941.
The White House was handcuffing Kimmel? They wanted him to be completely passive?
That is right.
How much in your book has never been revealed to the public before?
The breaking of radio silence. The fact that the Japanese ships did not keep silent as they approached Hawaii . . . The breaking of Japanese codes—I mean the full proof of it. Military codes, I want to emphasize that . . . And, also, McCollum's eight action memo—that's the whole heart of my book. If I didn't have that it wouldn't be as important. That is the smoking gun of Pearl Harbor. It really is.
Your research seems to prove that government conspiracies can exist. In your view, how many people would you say ultimately knew that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor, and kept quiet about it and covered it up before and after the event?
I cite about thirty-five people there in the book that most certainly knew about it. And it's probably more than that.
A lot of people probably don't want to believe that a president would let something like Pearl Harbor happen. Have you gotten any criticism for contending that FDR had a foreknowledge of the attack?
Yes. I get about a seventy percent approval rating. From, you know, comments, news media, radio, and all that. And there's about thirty percent just don't accept this . . . But the nitty gritty questions are fine to me. You know, the people who are attacking me, what they are really quoting from is 1950 information. They don't have the 1999 or 2000 information . . .
EXCERPT # 5, PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY ON CORPORATE MEDIA
Do the same corporate interests that own the media also lobby and control the politicians and government?
Well, they're certainly related. My co-author of Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman, is a specialist on corporations. He wrote one of the standard books on corporate power, corporate control. He put in the book a study of the interlocking of the media—how the media corporations are a part of bigger corporations, megacorporations. They interlock. It's very much an interlocking system of a small number of major megacorporations.
Which are connected to the government.
The relationship between the corporate system and the government is extremely intimate in all sorts of ways.
Is it possible that the CIA controls or manipulates the media? In his book, Derailing Democracy, author Dave McGowan quotes former CIA Director William Colby saying: "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
That sounds like a bit of an exaggeration . . . The CIA can undoubtedly influence the media. They provide the information. If you want to be a successful journalist you want to have information from the inside, from anonymous sources. I think that journalists—if they want to be manipulated they can be manipulated
Back in 1975, the Senate, the Church Committee, investigated the CIA's connections to the media. Famed Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein wrote an article about that for Rolling Stone magazine in 1977. Bernstein's article revealed that the CIA owned or financed dozens of newspapers and news organizations, had close relations with some of the most powerful people in the media and with four hundred or more journalists. A media analyst who reviewed the hearings said that the Church Committee investigations showed that "the CIA can spread propaganda and disinformation just about anywhere and anytime it wants to."
The Church Committee was a break from the norm. It did some very significant investigations . . . The CIA has influence to the extent that the media is eager for the experience. When a journalist goes to somebody in intelligence, or somebody in the executive, for that matter, and gets secret information from an anonymous source, they should understand that the person need not be telling them the truth. They're telling them what they want the public to believe and that's the way every anonymous source should be treated. So in that sense, yea, sure, the CIA will choose information, or disinformation. And the media, eager for the experience, will pick it up and repeat it.
But it seems that the CIA might have arrangements with the media so they can regularly and routinely spread disinformation. Because during the investigation the Senate committee was asking William Colby to talk about the CIA's connections to reporters, and Colby said, "Let's not pick on some reporters, for God's sake. Let's go to the management. They were witting." And, William Bader, a former CIA officer, told the Committee, "There is quite an incredible spread of relationships (in the media). You don't need to manipulate Time magazine, for instance, because there are CIA people at the management level." . . . While the investigation was going on, George Bush replaced William Colby as the Director of the CIA. The Church Committee wanted Bush to give the committee the names of the journalists connected to the CIA and what their functions were. Bush stonewalled the investigation. He said the CIA had a right to secrecy. Bush gave the committee some superficial descriptions of what some anonymous journalists did for the CIA, but the issue of how the CIA manipulates the media basically got swept under the carpet and forgotten about, right?
The Church Committee was a very significant investigation. It uncovered all these intrusive, unconstitutional things that the CIA and FBI were up to. If something like that happened with Bush, it wouldn't be hard to believe.
What the media reform movement probably sees as the principal problem with the media is that fewer and fewer media conglomerates—right now it's down to about six media conglomerates—control about 95 percent of the TV, newspaper and magazine, and radio outlets. So, theoretically, six men—the six CEOs of those media conglomerates—could be sitting in a room and those would be the six men who are determining what the news is and what the public is going to see and hear and believe.
It's not only theoretically possible, I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. They don't sit around in a room. You know, they meet somewhere for dinner. They're friends. They go to conferences together, they discuss and talk, and they probably come up with plans. How could it be otherwise?
And if there wasn't such media consolidation, if six corporations didn't own 95 percent of the media outlets, then the possibility of that happening wouldn't even exist.
Could the issue of corporate media have any relevance to possible conspiracies? Let's speculate here about some conspiracy theories. Let's even go back to the Kennedy assassination. Say the Pentagon, the CIA, and some big defense contractors wanted a war in Viet Nam, but then found out that JFK was planning to pull out of Viet Nam. Say some people in this military-industrial complex then conspired and assassinated JFK. If, as former CIA Director William Colby said, the CIA manipulates the media, could the CIA have then contacted their media connections and told them, "The CIA has determined that Oswald acted alone. For the good of the country, don't promote any conspiracy theories." Or if the FBI said Oswald acted alone, would the media have just repeated that? Or if big defense contractors were a part of Kennedy's assassination, could these corporate heads then have used their connections to the corporations that own the media to block any real investigation into the Kennedy assassination? Any real investigation into who really killed JFK?
To me, the only aspect of the Kennedy assassination of any importance is whether it was a high level conspiracy that had policy implications. I've gone through the documentation, and my conclusion is that it was not a high level conspiracy with policy implications. That leaves open the question of who killed him. But if it wasn't a high level political assassination then that question doesn't seem any more significant than who carried out the last murder in downtown Boston. It could have been the husband of one of Kennedy's liaisons.
But it seems it was the government's contention that Oswald acted alone and the mainstream media just went along with that. The media never even entertained the possibility that there might have been more to the assassination.
There's been a lot of writing about the assassination.
Not from the New York Times. Or CBS. No mainstream media outlet ever did a serious expose on the evidence that points to a conspiracy . . . Any journalist with half a brain could have gone down to Dallas, Texas the day after Kennedy was assassinated and could have interviewed the many people who said they were sure they heard and saw shots coming from the grassy knoll. They could have interviewed all the nurses and doctors in the civilian hospital who were certain that Kennedy was shot from the front, and then there could have been a real investigation into JFK's murder. But that never happened. Why didn't that happen?
As I said, I don't think the major issue is "who killed Kennedy?" The major question is "was it a high level conspiracy with policy implications?" And, to me, it was not. So then the question of "who did it?" isn't significant.
Well, there's evidence that it was a high level government conspiracy, and that it very well could have had policy implications. Many people are convinced Kennedy was going to pull out of Viet Nam. Kennedy was preaching peace and peace isn't good for the profits of the state-corporate nexus.
What he was going to do in Viet Nam is the issue and the question. My research led me to the conclusion that Kennedy wasn't going to pull out of Viet Nam. He was at the hawkish end of his administration. Kennedy's position was "yea, we should get out if we can, but only after victory".
Many researchers and historians would strongly disagree with that and say he was going to pull out of Viet Nam.
I don't see that.
So maybe all the so called "conspiracy theories" are actually accurate. And the only reason the public doesn't realize that is because we have an inept, negligent, controlled media . . . In the early 1920s, the New York Times posthumously quoted former president Theodore Roosevelt saying, "These International Bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers (in America) . . . " In response to that, in 1922, John Hylan, the mayor of New York City, said, " . . . the real menace of our republic is this invisible government . . . These International Bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country." Do you think these quotes have relevance to the present time?
Theodore Roosevelt was a very mixed person. But he was a trust buster. He did want to break up the major trusts. And, sure, it has relevance. It doesn't have to be those corporations, specifically. The kind of material that Herman and I reviewed in Manufacturing Consent lays out and just describes the facts about corporate control of media. All the main media outlets are major corporations.
In 1917, Texas Congressman Oscar Callaway reported in the Congressional Record that in 1915 J. P. Morgan—the most powerful man on Wall Street—had gathered twelve of the most experienced newspapermen to talk about how to control the national media. According to Callaway, Morgan and that group decided that the media could be controlled by owning twenty-five well known newspapers, and, so, Morgan bought those twenty-five newspapers and placed an editor at each one of them. From that point on, according to Callaway, the media was controlled by Morgan for Wall Street's banking, corporate interests. Other writers and historians have claimed that Morgan had a lot of editors on his payroll.
I don't know if it's true. But it would be easy to find out. But whether it's true or not, is it a surprise? Adam Smith described things like this. The wealthy will seize control of the media.
But could Morgan's and Wall Street's control over the media have continued through the formation of the Council On Foreign Relations? One of the founders of the CFR was J. P. Morgan's lawyer and the others founders were representatives of the Rockefellers. Since 1921, members of the Council On Foreign Relations have held the most important positions in the media. Even today, the heads of the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, and ABC, the UP and the AP, and most all the major magazines are members of the CFR. So is the CFR running the media?
The Council on Foreign Relations is almost completely open. It's just that rich, influential people belong to the Council on Foreign Relations.
But why should another think tank that was started by Rockefeller—started by Wall Street—have so much dominant influence over our society? Shouldn't somebody in the media be saying that influence should be coming from other places, too? Why shouldn't a think tank that was started by, say, Ralph Nadar—a think tank that believes that the government should work for the people instead of the corporate, banking power—why shouldn't a think tank like that be running the government and media?
Sure, I think we ought to have a democratic society. We don't. And it's perfectly well known that we don't. There's a high concentration of power. People with power stick together. But the CFR is quite open.
Most people in the public don't know about the CFR.
See, that's not the fault of the media, particularly. That's the fault of scholarship, the educational system, and so on.
Former Lyndon Johnson White House Press Secretary, and well known journalist, Bill Moyers, has said, "The Founders didn't count on the rise of megamedia. They didn't count on huge private corporations that would own not only the means of journalism but also vast swaths of the territory that journalism should be covering." . . . So, we really can't trust the media, can we?
I read the New York Times everyday. I think you get a lot of information from them. Do I trust them? Well, you know, I—just like everyone does I'm sure—you evaluate what you read. Try to determine its credibility, ask where it's coming from. But the Times can be a marvelous source of information.
If you read your book, Manufacturing Consent, Professor Chomsky, one gets the feeling that the government is constantly propagandizing and lying to get us into unjust conflicts and wars and that the media is complicit in that. One also gets the feeling that the media is constantly turning a blind eye to the malfeasance and corruption of big business. But here, in this interview, your criticism seems far less harsh and severe.
I'm criticizing in exactly the same way. But, in fact, most of my writing is a critical analysis of scholarship and of general intellectual culture. Which is not very different. The media is infused by the general intellectual culture.
EXCERPT # 6, PROFESSOR DAVID RAY GRIFFIN ON 9/11
Will it eventually be the majority opinion in America that the government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?
I can only hope so . . . I, and many others, feel strongly that the official explanation for 9/11 is a big lie. Unfortunately, this big lie has had many negative—and disastrous—effects on America and the world.
Is it already the majority opinion?
Not yet, I think. But it's hard to say. I don't think there have been any recent polls. There have been polls in the past where thirty to forty percent of the respondents have answered that they believe it was an inside job.
What would you say to people who say that it's immoral or unpatriotic or wrong to believe that the government let 9/11 happen or caused 9/11 to happen?
I would say that is silly. It is now accepted and been proven that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and, so, no real justification for going to war in Iraq. So is it unpatriotic to say that the Bush-Cheney administration was lying about Iraq?
This is one of the main points of your new book Bush And Cheney: How They Ruined America And The World. After 9/11—and because of 9/11—America went to war in a number of places in the Middle East, and all those wars were based on lies and untruths.
They not only lied about weapons of mass destruction, but they lied and said that Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda. But Saddam had no connections to al-Qaeda. And they knew that. Bush was told that by US Intelligence about a week or two after 9/11.
The hijacked planes were not intercepted on 9/11. Is that proof right there that 9/11 was a government conspiracy? Whenever a plane goes off course in America, it's immediately intercepted, isn't it?
It is. It's an extremely routine matter. And it happened dozens of times before 9/11. A plane goes off course, or loses radio contact, or the transponder is turned off—it's intercepted by military planes within ten, fifteen minutes. It's happened dozens—maybe hundreds—of times . . But it didn't happen on 9/11. That's extremely unusual. And strong evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
The military has a very efficient system for intercepting planes that are having problems, doesn't it?
Yes. And it occurs very quickly. If there's any sign that a plane is off course or having problems then within a minute the FAA controller notifies NORAD and the Pentagon. Then within another minute NORAD will order jets to be scrambled—sent up—from the nearest airport. These jets can fly at about 1800 MPH, so given the number of airport bases we have in the country, just about any plane will be intercepted within about ten to fifteen minutes.
But the planes on 9/11 were in the air for thirty–five, forty–five minutes and never intercepted.
What is the government's story on this? How does the government explain that the planes weren't intercepted?
That's complex. I spent the latter part of my book The 9/11 Commission Report dealing with the various flights . . . The government kept changing its story regarding why the planes were never intercepted. One government office would say one thing, but when it found out what it said contradicted what another government office said it would then change its story. But then when it was found out that its new story didn't jibe with the facts it would change its story again….The bottom line is that the government did have enough time to intercept the planes but the planes were not intercepted.
There were so many firsts on 9/11, weren't there? All these "firsts" are suspicious. In history, a skyscraper has never collapsed from a fire, right? But the government says the WTC collapsed from the fire—not from interior bombs.
That's right. It has never happened. It doesn't happen. In the early 2000's, the Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain burned for 24 hours but didn't collapse. Just recently, the Grenfeld Tower in London burned for more than 12 hours and didn't collapse. There are many more examples—buildings that had much worse fires and burned for much longer but didn't collapse. Skyscrapers don't collapse from fires. Skyscrapers collapse from controlled demolition.
But it is true, though, that skyscrapers have never been hit with jets as big as the jets that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Well—first of all—Building 7 was never hit by a plane. A plane never hit Building 7 and it still collapsed in free fall. And regarding WTC 1 and WTC 2—both the architect who designed the buildings and the engineer who built the buildings have said that the buildings were designed and built to survive a plane crash. Both the architect and the engineer have said the planes crashing into the World Trade Center could not have caused the collapse of the buildings.
9/11 was the first time that the black boxes from the pilots' cockpit weren't found. Black boxes can't burn and are indestructible. Never in history has there been a jet plane crash where the black boxes weren't found. But according to the government, the black boxes from the hijacked planes on 9/11 were never found.
That's what they say, yes.
What would the black boxes show? If the government is covering up here—if the government is hiding the black boxes—then why would they be doing that?
They would show if the planes that hit the buildings were the assigned flights. The black boxes might also have shown whether the plane had been put on automatic—if they were being flown and directed by remote control. Obviously, no American pilot would have volunteered to crash into buildings. And the consensus amongst professional pilots is that al-Qaeda hijackers wouldn't have had the piloting ability or expertise to crash the planes into buildings.
Many people who were at the WTC on 9/11 testified that they heard bombs going off, correct? How many people said that?
A lot of people said they heard explosions. On the day of and the day after 9/11, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, The Los Angeles Times—they all reported there were explosions in the buildings. Some of the reporters and journalists who were at the site said that they, themselves, heard explosions. The official government story was that there were no bombs, though, and, so, by about September 13, there were no more reports of explosions being reported by the media.
Somebody collected the eyewitness accounts from about four hundred New York City firemen who were the first responders at the WTC. About a hundred of those firemen testified that they heard bombs going off, correct?
That's right. It was actually a little more than a hundred firemen who testified that bombs were going off in the buildings. You can watch some of that on You Tube—there's these videos of firemen running away from the World Trade Center saying, "There were bombs going off," "I heard bombs."
You and others believe that if bombs went off in the basement of the buildings before the planes hit that's because the bases of the columns holding up the buildings had to be destroyed so the buildings would later collapse. Then later—when the buildings fell—people heard other bombs in the middle of the building that were apparently destroying the columns there. And the buildings collapsed.
Yes, this is standard controlled demolition procedure for large steel-framed buildings. This is how it's done. The base of the columns are destroyed and blasted first. Then the middle and the top of the columns are blasted.
Jet planes are fueled by kerosene gas. And kerosene gas can't possibly burn hot enough to melt or destroy steel. So, it's your contention—and the contention of 9/11 Truth Movement—that the fires from the planes on 9/11 couldn't have possibly caused the buildings to collapse.
That's right. The highest a fire based on jet-kerosene fuel can rise to is about 1700 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel doesn't even begin to melt until it reaches about 2770 degrees. So a fire from jet fuel can't possibly cause a steel framed building to collapse. It defies the laws of physics.
You compare this to putting a pot of water on a stove. The fire from a stove has never and couldn't ever burn so hot as to make an iron pot melt.
That's a good analogy. It would take a high degree of heat to cause an iron pot to melt and collapse on a stove. But the fires from stoves can't burn nearly hot enough to melt a pot. So has a pot ever melted and collapsed on a stove? Could a pot ever melt and collapse on a stove? No. In the same way, has a fire from jet fuel and the materials in an office building ever caused a skyscraper to collapse? Will a fire like that ever cause a skyscraper to collapse? No. It's scientifically impossible.
The NIST report was also controlled by the Bush White House, wasn't it? NIST was the organization responsible for giving a scientific explanation as to how the WTC buildings collapsed. But the most important investigators of the NIST group were reporting to and being told what to do by Bush White House officials, right?
NIST was not neutral and independent. NIST is an agency of the Department of Commerce, so it was an agency of the Bush administration when it did its report on 9/11. All of NIST's directors were Bush appointees. Many of the staffers of the NIST report said the report was being controlled by higher-ups in the White House. So it was being written and controlled by the Bush White House.
Then after the NIST report came out, didn't a group of thousands of scientists release a paper challenging the NIST report, claiming that its science was wrong and inaccurate?
In 2007, a letter stating that the NIST report was full of fraudulent science, and charging the Bush administration of engaging in "distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends" was signed by twelve thousand scientists, including fifty-two Nobel Laureates and sixty-three recipients of the National Medal of Science.
Fifty-two Nobel Laureates and sixty-three recipients of the National Medal of Science have said that the government's official explanation of how the World Trade Centers collapsed is scientifically invalid and wrong.
What more of a conclusive indictment of the government's official explanation of 9/11 could there be?
But the media doesn't report that!
Many people would say that anybody who believes that 9/11 was an inside job is being irrational and kooky. But some of the most reputable, distinguished people who held or hold the highest positions in the government and military don't believe the official version of 9/11 and believe 9/11 was an inside job.
If you go to the website patriotsquestion9/11.com you can see that there are dozens of former and current high ranking military personnel who don't believe the government's version of 9/11. There are also plenty of former intelligence officials and government officials who believe that 9/11 could have very well been an inside job. Surely, these former military and government officials are better qualified to tell us what really happened on 9/11 than some snide journalist who hasn't even looked at the evidence and considers anything other than the government version of 9/11 to be an irrational conspiracy theory.
Steve Pieczniak was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State—the Secretary of State's right hand man—under Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Bush. Pieczniak has said: "I taught stand down and false-flag operations at the national war college. I've taught it with all my operatives so I know exactly what was done to the American public . . . 9/11 was a stand down, a false flag operation in order to mobilize the American public under false pretenses . . . it was told to me even by the general on the staff of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. I will go in front of a federal committee and swear on perjury who the name was of the individual so that we can break it wide open."
Yes, this is coming from the former Assistant Secretary of State. I would say that's very credible testimony. Very credible.
EXCERPT # 8, BLACK BOX VOTING AUTHOR BEV HARRIS ON STOLEN ELECTIONS
In your opinion, how did that minus 16,022 vote total appear for Al Gore on the Volusia County, Florida voting machine during the 2000 presidential election?
Fraud. In my opinion. I mean it's so very, very, very easy. It's not even hacking. It's actually just editing. Whoever has access to the computer, can just put a different number in.
It was Fox News that immediately called the election for Bush after the Volusia County machine reported those numbers. All the other networks then followed Fox's lead and declared Bush the winner. The Fox News analyst who called the election for Bush was a man named John Ellis. John Ellis is George Bush's cousin, correct?
It was Bush's cousin. Ah ha.
The information is that this John Ellis had been talking on the telephone with Jeb Bush on the night of the election. That negative 16,000 vote total came up, so Jeb Bush told him, "We won." John Ellis got off the phone and started saying, "Jebby says we won!" Then Ellis called the election for his cousin and then all the other networks immediately followed his lead and called it for Bush.
What happened with Gore was that the 16,000 was exactly the amount that was needed to call the race. So, you know, it wasn't a random number that just popped out of anywhere. And it actually happened on two machines in two counties in Florida. It also happened in Broward County to the tune of four thousand votes. So, there was a total of twenty thousand votes that got bogusly dumped in there. And the networks knew for a number of hours that those numbers were bogus because they had been alerted by the 60 Minutes journalist Ed Bradley. And, so, they ended up, you know, just continuing it—they just kept calling the election for Bush—until they could not anymore . . . We were literally within minutes of having the concession of the presidential candidate.
Based on bogus numbers.
Do you know if there were any instances in Florida or anywhere in 2000 when the computer voting machines changed a vote for Gore to a vote for Bush? Because during the 2004 election there were hundreds of voters in Ohio and other states who reported that they pushed a vote for Kerry but the light on the computer lit up as a vote for Bush.
Probably. It happened in 2004, certainly. But . . . You know, in Volusia County in 2000 actually they flipped votes from Bush to Gore. And the Democrats badly wanted that to be shut up. I don't see the problem with elections as being a Republican or Democratic conspiracy. I think both parties partake. Absolutely. I live in a state, Washington, that's controlled by Democratic forces and they are amazing with the stuff they do.
In Washington, there's corruption?
Yea. Oh, yea. I think it serves no purpose to look at one or two elections and say "the Republicans stole it", or "the Democrats stole it". One of the things that I think is actually hurting election reform and harming the effort to restore public control is the fact that so many people refuse to look at it as anything other than partisan. And they want it to be "just the Republicans", or "just the Democrats", and it isn't. I can tell you. I've been out on the front lines for ten years and it is both parties.
Maybe the strongest evidence for election tampering in Florida in 2000 is the BBC reporter Greg Palast's report. As Palast's report showed, Katherine Harris's office hired Choice Point to come up with a purge list of mostly Democrats and this lead to probably about eighty thousand legal, eligible, registered Democrats being unjustly denied their right to vote. Do you believe Katherine Harris's statement that all this was some sort of an unintentional error? Or do you think it's more sensible and logical to assume that Harris and Jeb Bush deliberately did this knowing that it would prevent thousands of eligible Democrats from voting, and knowing that this would steal the election for Jeb Bush's brother?
What happened with Bush in Florida with his brother being the governor was over the top. Just ridiculous tampering. With that purge list—it ended being about ninety thousand purged after it was all said and done. I think she totally knew what was going on, yea. Somebody did it on purpose . . . .Now whoever it is that actually planned that purge list . . . I will say this—the secretary of state's office in Florida—not just under Katherine Harris—like the last five of them have been unbelievably dirty. It's not just that. The Florida legislature just keeps changing laws to make these—what I call—corruption protection laws. They make laws that say that citizens can't see and check their own ballots. What reason could there possibly be for that other than to cover up corruption?
There seems to be a lot of evidence that Florida is a corrupt state.
Yes. And the current Secretary of State in Florida, Kurt Browning, he's a piece of work, too. The lady after Katherine Harris, she got run out. And then the legislature puts these things through that are just unconscionable. It's certainly a system where the good old boys are running the game. And in Florida, the good old boys are Republicans.
Way back in the 1970s, two election reform advocates, Jim and Ken Collier, found clear, strong evidence of election fraud in Florida. The Colliers were even able to videotape election workers forging ballots. They wrote a well-known book about that called VoteScam. If Richard Daley ran a corrupt, election-tampering political machine in Chicago for years, it seems that Florida has been the same way.
The Sunshine State has corruption. And it's probably been that way for years.
Professional political people consider exit polls to be very reliable. Some experts conclude that the exit polls data from the 2004 presidential election prove that the election was stolen. At around 8:00 p.m. EST on the evening of the election, exit pollsters were telling the TV networks that Kerry had an insurmountable lead and would win in a rout. Statisticians say that according to the figures that the exit pollsters were giving then that George Bush had only a one in four hundred-fifty thousand chance to win the election. But when the computer voting machines started printing the official count, the tallies were far off from what the exit polls said, favored Bush, and gave Bush the election. Experts say that it's virtually impossible that the exit polls could have been that far off, and that there had to be vote fraud.
Exit polls can be formative. Informative. But you can't prove fraud with statistics. As an election reform activist, you have to get in there and get access to the ballots and see if the ballots were counted correctly. That's proof.
But professional political people take exit polls to be very accurate. There have been foreign elections where the exit polls were so off that citizen groups—and even the US government—called for a recount and the recount proved that the winner of the election won through fraud and the election was reversed. Dick Morris, for instance, is one of the people who ran Bill Clinton's successful presidential campaigns. Since then, Morris has also worked for Republicans.Regarding the 2004 presidential election, Morris said, "The exit polls were way, way off. Exit polls are usually never wrong. I suspect fraud."
They can be formative. Exit polls still poll a very tiny number of people, though. They're based on a lot of assumptions and so forth. I don't think exit polls prove things. I want the proof.
But, again, professional political people take them to be accurate. Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, a man who probably knows more about elections that anybody, has said, "Ohio (in 2004) was as dirty an election as America has ever seen." And the election polls data would seem to show that. A team of mathematicians from the National Election Data Archive, a nonpartisan watchdog group, compared the state's exit polls against the certified vote count in forty-nine precincts in Ohio. The team found that in twenty-two precincts the exit polls differed widely—unexplainably—from the official, certified tallies. All the discrepancies favored Bush. Ron Baiman, the vice president of the archive, and a professor at Loyola University, said the study provides "virtual irrefutable evidence of vote fraud" and the final results are "completely consistent with election fraud—specifically vote shifting."
The exit polls can provide good indications and information. But, to me—to repeat myself again—they are not proof of fraud. We can get the proof of fraud when the public has access to the ballots.
Well, then, is Richard Hayes Phillips' book Witness To A Crime proof of fraud in Ohio? Phillips and his investigators photographed thousands of ballots, poll books, and election records. The photographs showed that thousands of ballots were altered to change a vote for Kerry to a vote for Bush, and thousands were pre-punched for a candidate other than Kerry.
He and Paddy Schaffer, who is an Ohio citizen—yes—they actually went and pulled all the ballots and looked at the ballots. The ballots were altered. And destroyed. They destroyed so many ballots. But then what happened there—this new secretary of state came in, Jennifer Brunner, and Brunner was a Democrat. They were destroying ballots left and right in Ohio. Richard and Paddy—they wanted to take a look at the rest of the ballots and Brunner would not enforce their right to see them. Brunner let them destroy the ballots with no consequences. And Brunner was a Democrat so it seems there was something going on there.
You're saying that Brunner was covering something up for the Democrats? Richard Hayes Phillips' book doesn't present evidence that the Democrats engaged in tampering in Ohio. It presents evidence of overwhelming, massive, election turning tampering on the part of Republican interests. That's the conclusion of the book.
Okay. But Brunner was a Democrat. And she wouldn't let them look at the rest of the ballots. The ones that they did look at proved tampering.
Have you heard of Stephen Spoonamore and Mike Connell? Spoonamore is a conservative Republican who is also a computer security expert who has set up safe computer systems for large banks and corporations, and for some government departments. Spoonamore claims that computerized elections are set up in America in a way that allows any election to be easily hacked and rigged. He believes that the only reason that elections are set up this way is so that corrupt influences can rig them. Spoonamore was friends with a man named Mike Connell. Mike Connell was Karl Rove's computer expert. Connell set up the computerized election systems for Florida in 2000, for Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio in 2004, and for other elections that some people think may have been rigged. Spoonamore has basically said Mike Connell confessed to him that he had been rigging elections for powerful Republicans.
Spoonamore is a fraud. But the Mike Connell story is very disturbing. But he's dead so . . .
You think Spoonamore is a fraud?
But Spoonamore is basically saying the same things that you're saying. He's saying that computer voting machines can easily lead to hacking and fraud.
He basically took my chapters out of my book and resaid them in his own words using the files that I put on my website. Which I don't think he actually looked at because he got that wrong too.
Election attorney Cliff Arnebeck takes Spoonamore to be reliable. But you think what? You think Spoonamore's trying to become some sort of famous whistleblower for election reform or something but he's exaggerating about some things?
I think that he's . . . I don't know. I don't even want to say. To me, he's not reliable.
Author and NYU professor Mark Miller takes Spoonamore to be credible. Iinvestigative reporter Dick Russell believes he's credible. But what about Mike Connell? You think that story's intriguing?
The Connell story is very disturbing.
Connell was Karl Rove's computer expert. Congressman Conyer's committee was going to take testimony from Mike Connell. And, then, in October 2008, Cliff Arnebeck brought a lawsuit against Kenneth Blackwell and other officials in Ohio charging them with election fraud. Mike Connell testified at that trial. Connell didn't spill the beans or anything, but some people say that he was getting ready to confess that he'd helped to rig elections. He was scheduled to testify again in Ohio, but in December 2008 he was killed in a single passenger plane crash near Akron, Ohio. Arnebeck and others believe Mike Connell was murdered.
I have no idea. How would I know? It's obviously not closed if a witness in something highly political goes down in a small plane crash. If you look at the statistical chance of that happening it's pretty remote.
Was Connell getting ready to confess?
I don't know. I have no idea.
But maybe?
Maybe. I don't know.
Author Mark Miller and others claim that Mike Connell told and confessed to Stephen Spoonamore and others that he had helped to rig elections. Spoonamore says that Connell was a very religious man and in a way he may have justified what he was doing because he was helping to take elections from the political party that allows "babies to be killed". He was helping to steal elections from the Democrats who want to keep abortion legal. And Spoonamore and others say that the Republicans that Connell was working for were also fanatically religious theocrats . . . To you, the whole story is, at least, intriguing?
Anytime someone dies in a small plane crash . . . There was another guy who also died in a small plane crash in Ohio who was also in a key position. He was the troubleshooter guy for Diebold. And he was, by all accounts, a straight arrow. And he was getting reports of what was going on in 2003. And he up and died in a small plane crash as well. If you look at the total number of small plane crashes that are fatalities every year and divide it by the total number of flights the chances that it would happen at an opportune time to a person are kind of remote.
EXCERPT # 9, FORMER IRS AGENT JOE BANNISTER ON INCOME TAX
You had the reputation of being a hardworking, outstanding IRS employee and asset. When you approached IRS officials with these questions—with the tax protester arguments—did they give you any answer at all? Did they talk to you at all?
The IRS wouldn't talk to me for one second. They "encouraged" me to resign. To this day, the IRS won't talk and has never given me any answers.
Some people claim that people in the Tax Honesty movement are being irresponsible and trying to get out of "paying their fair share". Is that why the Tax Honesty movement believes the income tax should be abolished, or is already unconstitutional? Or is it something else?
The Tax Honesty movement believes that the income tax is unfair. We believe that the government should be primarily financed in the way that the constitution mandates: through indirect taxes. The Tax Honesty movement defines fair as what the law requires and what it doesn't. The lawyers, CPA's, and other tax honesty people that I "hang with" pay very close attention to what the law does require.
And you believe that, in fact, there is no law that specifically requires Americans to pay an income tax.
In most cases. Certainly not for the average American. There are some provisions that apply to some people. But the vast majority of Americans who are working here, and living here—that's where you come up short when you look for statutes and regulations.
The senator who wrote the Sixteenth Amendment—the income tax amendment—and who was most influential in getting the income tax and Federal Reserve created was Senator Nelson Aldrich. Senator Aldrich's daughter was married to John Rockefeller Jr., and it was no secret that Aldrich represented the interests of the Rockefellers and the banking industry. It was Rockefeller and these other bankers who developed a controlling interest in and whose descendants now have a controlling interest in the various Federal Reserve Banks.
Yes. The twelve banks of the Federal Reserve are owned by other banks and these banks are owned by private investors. The Rockefellers and others.
Do you believe Senator Aldrich and the other senators aligned with him started the income tax so that his son-in-law and his son-in-law's banker associates could start receiving millions and then billions of dollars of interest for lending America fiat money?
I definitely believe that the income tax system and the Federal Reserve are joined at the hip. That they both serve a common purpose, shall we say
Which is what? To pay interest to the Federal Reserve? To supply the banks with money?
Basically, yes. To have a mechanism in place where people's labor, their blood, sweat, and tears can be harvested through the monetary system.
In 1989, Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye sent a letter to Tax Honesty movement member Fred Ortiz that said, " . . . there is no provision of the Internal Revenue Code that specifically and unequivocally requires an individual to pay an income tax . . . " So, again, you believe there is no statute or law anywhere that specifically says that Americans are required to pay an income tax? It's not the law?
As I said earlier, I think there are provisions—for instance, for an American who goes and works abroad, and yet retains their US citizenship, there are provisions that would tax that kind of income. And there are other provisions. But when you look at the provisions that would tax the average Americans' labor, they are just not there. There are certainly laws, but the question is who do they apply to.
And you feel they don't apply to the vast majority of Americans.
The IRS has claimed that the requirement to file an income tax form is clearly set forth in Internal Revenue Code 6011(a), 6012(a), and 6072(a).
Those codes—and all the codes that the IRS always cites—they just insinuate that an American worker is liable to pay. They don't make it clear who's liable. It doesn't come right out and say it. But a law has to be clear otherwise it's not a law. The tax code is hundreds and hundreds of pages. There's plenty of room there for the IRS to be clear. They could say, you know: "If you're an American and you work and you have a pulse then you are liable to pay a tax on your salary." But as a CPA and a former IRS agent, I know the tax code extensively and I don't see anywhere where it states anything like that.
Many people contend that super wealthy people like the Rockefellers can use tax free foundations, and other loopholes to hide their wealth or avoid paying income taxes or the same percentage of taxes that the average working man pays. When Nelson Rockefeller was being considered for Vice President in 1974, it was revealed that his accountants had set up his finances in a way that Rockefeller wasn't paying any income tax, right?
Yes. That's true.
A multi-billionaire like Nelson Rockefeller can use his political influence to alter the tax code so he doesn't have to pay any income taxes, but armed IRS agents will barge into the home of a waitress, or auto mechanic, or teacher and seize their possessions and demand that they empty their pockets because the IRS claims they might owe the federal government a few thousand dollars? It's not just, is it?
I don't think it is. Not at all.
Could the federal government be financed without an income tax?
I personally believe it could. Absolutely. It was financed that way from the beginning of the country until the early 1900's. And then even beyond that, because the income tax really didn't come into full fling until after World War II. So you're talking about a long period of time. Certainly over a hundred and fifty years.
Author G. Edward Griffin has pointed out—as many people probably have— that if the federal government didn't spend money unnecessarily, then we could easily abolish the income tax. He said if we cut out the waste—if we cut out, for instance, certain subsidies, foreign giveaways, interest on the national debt, transfers into the International Monetary Fund, support of the World Bank, and the cost of running the IRS itself then the government could operate as it was intended to on the indirect taxes that it now collects.
I'd agree with that. Especially about the cost of running the IRS. There are a hundred thousand IRS bureaucrats that are administering this system, so if got rid of that we'd be getting rid of a lot of dead weight right there.
And Tax Honesty movement leader Bob Schulz claims that the building of roads and bridges is financed through a gasoline tax. The revenue for schools and education is provided for by state and local taxes. The weapons and arms needed to have the military is paid for by a corporate tax which is legal and constitutional. So what do we need an income tax for?
That's right. The income tax doesn't even pay for what people expect it pays for. It doesn't pay for government services. That's what that President Reagan commission said. The Grace Commission.
Catherine Fitts is the former Assistant Secretary of Housing who is now a tax protester. Fitts feels it's not right that Americans have to account to the IRS for every nickel they make and spend, but the government doesn't give an equal accounting. Fitts has pointed out that in 1999 the Department of Defense reported $1.1 trillion dollars of "undocumentable adjustments". "Undocumentable adjustments" means the money is missing. Then, in 2000 the Department of Defense—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield himself—reported $2.3 trillion dollars in "undocumentable adjustments". Is that possible? Could the Department of Defense really have lost a trillion dollars one year and then two trillion another year?
I'm not sure about the numbers. But I think it's entirely possible. I've read enough government audit documents, and even just reports about what the IRS does with the money it gets from the budget. Government officials are notorious for not being able to document what they did with the money. If you go to the Government Accountabilty Office's website you can get hundreds of reports of IRS mismanagement of funds. I'm sure that the military inspector generals' offices have websites and Fitts's statements are probably provable there.
If the American taxpayer is going to give the government about a trillion dollars a year and then the government is going to tell us that it doesn't know where the money went then that's probably another reason why we should eliminate the income tax, isn't it?
Right. If you keep giving your brother money that he spends on gambling and drinking you have to stop giving him the money.
As somebody once said, a trillion lost here and a trillion wasted there and eventually you're talking about real money.
That does sound like real money, doesn't it?
On May 30, 1985, President Ronald Reagan said, "Thirty and forty years ago, you didn't hear people brag at social get-togethers about how they got their tax bill down by exploiting a loophole. But now you do. And it's not considered bad behavior. After all, goes this thinking, what's immoral about cheating a system that is itself a cheat? That isn't a sin, it's a duty . . . Our federal tax system is, in short, utterly impossible, utterly unjust, and completely counter-productive. It's earned a rebellion, and it's time we rebelled." . . . This seems like a cause that wouldn't be hard to get a lot of people to support. This isn't some eccentric notion. Many people would probably agree that the IRS is too abusive, and the great majority of people would probably agree that we'd be better off without the IRS and an income tax.
Right, but as soon as people begin to speak up about it then they come and get hammered. The government comes after them. It's happened to me, it's happened to Tom Cryer, to Sherry Jackson. People who have tried to speak up—especially people with extra credibility like people who used to work for the IRS—there's a mechanism in place to hunt those people down and to either destroy them economically, or discredit them, or imprison them. Whatever it takes to silence the message.
EXCERPT # 10, CANCER RESEARCHER DR. RALPH MOSS ON ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS FOR CANCER
You know as much about cancer as anyone, don't you?
Well, I study cancer. I study the phenomenon of cancer. I'm sure people who treat cancer know about it from one angle which is the most important angle—which is how you treat it. I study the statements these people make about cancer and I think I know a lot about it, sure.
Dr. Linus Pauling, the only person to ever win two unshared Nobel Prizes, believed that vitamin C could provide much better cure rates than chemotherapy. Dr Pauling said that he believed that if cancer patients were treated with megadoses of intravenous vitamin C that that would cut cancer deaths by seventy-five percent.
Dr. Pauling was a great man. A brilliant man. An honest man . . . Unfortunately, we don't have the clinical data to proof that statement.
A few years ago, though, the Canadian Medical Association reported that a number of cancer patients had their tumors destroyed by intravenous vitamin C. And, recently, Dr. Mark Levine of the National Institutes of Health did a lab study and reported that high doses of vitamin C clearly eliminates cancerous tumors in laboratory animals. Dr. Levine feels vitamin C could do the same for humans and feels strongly that there should be clinical tests on humans.
That's true. Yes. And that's what should be done . . . Dr. Pauling was a great man. But in medical science, one person's say so just doesn't carry very much weight. What carries weight are rigorous clinical trials and that actually still needs to be done. The clinical trial that was done at the Mayo Clinic wasn't good. It was done to replicate Dr. Pauling's protocol with the vitamin C treatment but it didn't follow the protocol that Pauling had used.
There are a few organizations that are trying to spread the word that intravenous, high doses of vitamin C can help and/or cure cancer patients. There's an organization that advocates intravenous vitamin C whose website is ivcinfusions.com. There are a number of people on that website who testify that they were diagnosed with cancer but are now cancer free after taking high doses of vitamin C.
Okay, I could believe that.
The positive effects that vitamin C can have on cancer patients has been reported by a number of news stations. There was a television newscast by the NBC affiliate in Philadelphia, NBC10, that did an interview with a Pennsylvania doctor, Dr. Scott Greenberg, who works with a Dr. Magaziner.
I know Dr. Magaziner.
Dr. Magaziner and Dr. Greenberg are using vitamin C on their cancer patients. Dr. Greenberg said the treatment won't work for all cancer patients, but he had a number of patients who no longer have fatal cancerous tumors thanks to intravenous vitamin C. The NBC newscast confirmed this by interviewing people who were diagnosed with terminal cancer but who are now cancer free.
Well, good. Very good. I'm happy they did that . . . But it doesn't settle the issue. I mean if you try to go before a medical audience—and sometimes I do go before medical audiences—and you try to argue that case people would very understandably say that's one doctor's impression. Until you've reproduced something in a clinical trial you can't really say that something works or doesn't work. Clinical proof is something different than one doctor's impression. Because as we just established people can be taking a lot of other treatments and sometimes people who report on this forget that they were also getting some other treatment.
But there certainly seems to be some good evidence that high doses of intravenous vitamin C can help cancer patients . . . You believe that, in general, chemotherapy is a failed cancer treatment?
In general. But there are certain cancers that chemotherapy is clearly effective for.
So if you have a type of cancer that chemotherapy can't do anything for then you should certainly have the right to look into and try all these other viable alternative treatments for cancer . . . Lawrence Burton's treatment—the cancer clinic that operates out of Freeport, Bahamas—is a very viable cancer treatment, isn't it? You knew Burton, didn't you? Dr. Burton's treatment has put many cancer patients into remission, hasn't it?
I did know Burton . . . They can't prove, though, how many people he put into remission. Their case files are in rather poor shape. There was, though, an investigation by a branch of the US government some years ago that showed that patients treated there were in remission and it was, you know, impossible to say that anything else but Burton's treatment had caused the remission. So I think that there's good reason to think that he did have successes.
Dr. Burton made it clear that his treatment won't cure everyone. But could you estimate what percentage of cancer patients who get the ITA treatment in Freeport, Dr. Burton's treatment, are cured of cancer?
There is no way to analyze their own data to see what percentage of patients actually are benefitted there. Their records are just not in a sufficiently well organized form in order to do that. And they don't have the staff or the money to be able to do that.
You really want the proof and stats.
That's all I want. All I want is to see the proof.
There's a website that's been set up by some of Dr. Burton's patients. It's inspiring and exciting to see the videos of all these patients who testify that they had these horrendous, fatal cancerous tumors and were told they only had a few weeks or a few months to live but now it's ten or twenty years later and they're healthy and cancer free thanks to Dr. Burton's treatment. These people certainly don't seem to be lying.
No. And I'm not saying that they're lying. I believe that there are cases of people who had remissions of cancer after taking the ITA treatment. I do believe that. And I base that not just on my own examination of the records but also by an examination that was done for the US government a few years ago. I think that's very compelling. But it's impossible to say what percentage of people had that positive effect. How do we quantify that? . . . So at the end of the day the only thing that would satisfy scientific curiosity would be a randomized trial and this never was able to be arranged. When Burton was alive there were so many personality conflicts between Burton and people at the National Cancer Institute that it repeatedly fell apart. The level of mistrust on both sides was very high so they couldn't ever arrange the clinical trials. Now Burton's treatment has kind of gotten off the radar.
If anybody has a conflict of interest and can't be trusted it seems like it's the politicians and FDA officials. Burton seemed like a doctor who just wanted to help his patients. Politicians are taking donations from pharmaceutical lobbyists and FDA officials are being promised well paying jobs in the pharmaceutical industry.
The FDA is very, very closely aligned with the pharmaceutical industry. How it all happens, who gets what from whom, I don't know. And it doesn't matter. It's just quite clear and easy to see that the FDA is the loyal enforcer for Big Pharma.
Isn't it true that many times when Sloan Kettering, or the Mayo Clinic, or any cancer center connected to the FDA or NCI is testing an alternative, nonpatentable, natural treatment for cancer that they intentionally flub and mess up the tests so that the alternative treatment will look like it doesn't work?
Yea, there are certainly instances of that. I don't think it happens all the time. But, look, it happened with laetrile, so, I certainly will be the last person on earth to say that it never happens.
This happened when the NCI was going to test antineoplastons for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski. They weren't following Dr. Burzynski's instructions and protocol. It also happened when the Mayo Clinic was testing vitamin C for Dr. Linus Pauling. The Mayo Clinic was apparently ignoring Dr. Pauling's instructions and there were errors made during the trials. Dr. Pauling thought the errors were deliberate.
Well, he did. He did. And that was a shocking thing. And he had never made a charge like that before in his life, to my knowledge. I spoke to Dr. Pauling at the time this happened. And he was truly shocked by it . . . I don't know . . . I was not inside Charles Mortell's head—he was the scientist running the trials—when he did this, the trial. But I know Martell was a true devoted enemy of alternative treatments.
Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, the most prestigious medical journal in the world, once said: "Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time." . . . And in that interview on the breast cancer test, you said, "This kind of corruption and fakery and abuse of the public has been going on as long as the War on Cancer has been going on. The fact is that all of the studies that have been supervised by the National Cancer Institute should now be reexamined by congressional committees to see whether or not there is real corruption in all of them."
Well . . . I probably did say that.
But so much dishonesty seems to go on in the cancer industry that it makes some people conclude that there is a conspiracy to suppress natural, non-patentable treatments and cures for cancer. And there have been so many instances when the FDA has harassed and stopped so many doctors from using promising natural treatments for cancer . . . Isn't it possible that some sort of blatant conspiracy to control the business of cancer started when the Rockefellers took over Sloan Kettering and the American Cancer Society? The Rockefellers were monopolists. Since the late 1800s they had monopolized the oil industry. Didn't they probably decide to do the same thing with cancer? Isn't it likely that the Rockefellers got together with other bankers and pharmaceutical CEOs and said, "We will control the boards of Sloan Kettering and the ACS. Everyone there will promote chemotherapy and ignore any treatment that can't be patented by us. Wall Street and Big Pharma will dominate and provide all research funds. Everyone receiving money will understand that chemotherapy will be promoted. Wall Street and Big Pharma will control the government health agencies. In this way, we can monopolize the cancer industry, sell chemotherapy, and make billions." Isn't that probably exactly what happened?
Well, you know the Rockefellers funded the department of alternative and complementary medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering.
They probably did that because they've received so much criticism for having so much to do with a failing cancer establishment—and to make it appear that they're really looking for a natural treatment for cancer. The office of alternative and complementary medicine at Sloan Kettering doesn't accomplish anything, does it?
That's true. It doesn't accomplish anything. That's very true . . . I got to know Lucy Rockefeller—Laurence Rockefeller's daughter, David Rockefeller's niece—about ten years ago when we were on a couple of boards together. And I would say based on my knowledge of her and familiarity with her I couldn't imagine that she was involved in anything intending to suppress alternative medicine.
When people say "the Rockefellers control the cancer industry" they're not referring to all the sons and daughters and cousins of the Rockefeller family. They're referring to the institutions that arose from the Rockefellers' enormous wealth. JP Morgan Chase. Citibank. IG Farben. Pharmaceutical companies. The inner circle of the Council On Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission. And, yes, some patriarchs of the Rockefeller family and the executives that work for them, but not Lucy Rockefeller and all her brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews . . . The point is that the American Cancer Society and Sloan Kettering only advocate and approve patented drugs for cancer, and never advocate and promote natural treatments.
That's for sure.
And that's because Rockefeller and other pharmaceutical representatives control the boards of the ACS and Sloan Kettering.
I don't know if the board is any longer controlled by the Rockefellers. But I think there is a very strong pharmaceutical bias within medicine as a whole.
EXCERT # 11, FORMER OKLAHOMA STATE LEGISLATURE REPUBLICAN WHIP CHARLES KEY ON THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING
Why was the Oklahoma City Bombing committee formed?
We formed the committee to look into the inconsistencies and problems with the federal government's investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing that were observed beginning with the date of the bombing.
How many hours of work went into investigating the bombing before you published your final report?
The only way I can try to answer that is in terms of years. From 1995 through 2001. A good six years.
Your Final Report is very critical of the FBI. According to your report, the FBI—among other things—intimidated and harassed witnesses, falsified reports, lied to the court, and failed to investigate dozens of solid leads. Of course, right before McVeigh was scheduled to be executed it was revealed that the FBI had withheld from the defense team three thousand pages of documents related to the bombing. You make no bones about it that in your opinion the FBI is the culprit in a massive cover-up.
Absolutely. In our Final Report we list forty-two instances of government improprieties. Forty-two examples of when we feel the government engaged in misconduct. And something like twenty of those instances are related to FBI misconduct.
There were a couple of surveillance cameras right outside the Murrah Building that would have caught everything on tape that morning—they would have shown who pulled the Ryder truck up to the building, and how the building came down. The FBI confiscated the film from those cameras and they're not releasing it. If the FBI would just release those tapes, then we could see exactly what happened, couldn't we? The film would show who drove the Ryder truck up to the building.
Yes, they could prove real easily with those tapes and with some others across the street that they also will not release whether or not people like me are a bunch of conspiracy theorists or not, you know. They could prove finally whether or not McVeigh really was alone, and whether there really was another car, other vehicles across the street, that were working in conjunction with his activities.
They won't release those?
They will not release them. Recently, we had a Freedom of Information Act trial here in an attempt to get the government to release the tapes. They stonewalled it. They won't release them.
Do you have any personal opinions about who was behind the bombing?
Well, in my mind I feel it was cooked up, it was thought up and financed by Iraq and other Middle Eastern terrorists. Strong evidence indicates that. But one of the big questions is how did they get McVeigh and Nichols, how is it that a couple of Americans, or more than one, would join in in an effort with some Middle Eastern terrorists to do something like this. That's the big question, because we've never had that happen before.
So you don't believe that this was the government. Because some people have claimed—falsely—that the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee is saying that some people in the government had something to do with it.
Well, after I've seen the way the government's operated, and everything I've learned in this case, I wouldn't exclude other possible scenarios offhand. I would not exclude them offhand. And the reason I say that is because I've seen people do that in this case. They couldn't somehow conceptualize multiple bombs so they wanted to just exclude all the information about multiple explosions. Some people in the early days, they just couldn't understand how Middle Eastern terrorists could be a part of this, and work with white Americans to do something like this. They excluded all the information about Middle Eastern terrorism.
And you've learned that you shouldn't exclude other possible scenarios?
Right, and that's where I'm coming from with this . . . Could there be somebody in the government that . . . For example, I'll tell you this . . . I've been told by a source that the genesis of the Oklahoma City bombing began right after Waco, and that some ATF officials and that other government officials—these were the words that were used by the source—began to put together a publicity sting operation to make the ATF look good, because the ATF looked so bad because of Waco. So they started planning a publicity sting operation. And this source told me that "after that I don't know what happened, how it further developed, but I know it started off as a publicity sting operation".
Yes, some people in Oklahoma believe that the bombing was all about a failed sting operation. That ATF and other government agents knew McVeigh and accomplices were planning to bomb a building. And the government agents were following McVeigh, or undercover agents were working with him, and the plan was to catch him at the last moment, and arrest as many co-conspirators as possible. And your source is saying that this was also a publicity thing for the ATF…But then what happened? The sting operation went a little too far and 168 people were killed?
Well, this person made it very clear that he had that information that that's the way it began. This would be in 1993, after Waco. Late '93, early '94. What he was trying to say to me was that, "what else happened, how this developed further, I don't know. But I know there were officials that were starting to come up with ideas about how could we do a publicity sting operation".
Can you say if that source was an ATF, or government employee? How reliable do you consider him to be?
The source was and is an employee in the legislative branch of the federal government. The person is a very reliable source.
Some conspiracy theorists claim there is government complicity here. Some people believe that elements in the US Government want our Civil Rights destroyed and want America to become a part of a New World Order. An undemocratic, globalized world. The conspiracy theorists believe that government agents planted bombs, or let bombs be planted in the Murrah Building as a way to justify anti-terrorism legislation that would destroy our Civil Rights, and bring America closer to the condition of a police state. In April, 1996, as a result of the bombing, President Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism Act. A month prior to that FBI Director Louis Freeh had informed the Congress of his plans for expanded wiretapping. These actions are a real threat to our civil liberties. Do you believe these conspiracy theorists are crazy and irrational? Or could they be onto something?
This is the way I would respond to that, and how I've always tried to respond to that. In the way I just did—that there's indications that this may have been a failed sting operation. And I would further say that whatever the case may be it has produced a situation where public officials have taken away, or they're trying to take away, our civil liberties. And that's wrong. I'm not going to go as far to say I believe that there's government officials that wanted to do this because I don't know that as a fact. But I know what the results are, and the results are we're losing our civil liberties unnecessarily.Unjustifiably. I don't think it's necessary. It's not necessary at all.
EXCERPT # 12, AUTHOR DR. ALAN CANTWELL ON VACCINE HAZARDS AND ORIGIN OF AIDS
To you, what is the strongest evidence that AIDS came from the hepatitis B vaccine in the US and from the small pox vaccine in Africa?
Well, I think in any kind of investigation as to when an epidemic starts you have to go back and see where the earliest cases are, where they came from. And I think it's pretty much accepted that AIDS came from Africa. But when you trace the first cases, AIDS doesn't come from Africa at all. The first cases came out of Manhattan. The first cases started being reported to the CDC in 1979. My research traces it very clearly back to the hepatitis B vaccine experiment which started in 1978.
Dr. Robert Strecker was the first medical doctor to claim that AIDS was a man–made disease. Anyone who downloads The Strecker Memorandum can see that Dr. Strecker is a very knowledgeable doctor and scientist who makes a convincing case that AIDS was made in a laboratory and was in all likelihood spread by the contaminated vaccines. You know Strecker well, don't you?
Strecker was the first one to clue me in to the evidence that AIDS is man–made. I've been associated with him since the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic.
Strecker and his brother, Theodore Strecker, were pushing hard to make the government realize that AIDS was a biological attack that was man–made. But, then in August 1988, Theodore Strecker was found dead of a gunshot wound. It was ruled a suicide. Robert Strecker doesn't believe that his brother committed suicide, does he?
Well, I don't know. I think you would have to ask Strecker.
Strecker has said that his brother's death is suspicious.
Yes. But my feeling is if I the government was going to kill somebody they would have killed Bob Strecker.
But Theodore Strecker was just as active as Robert Strecker, making Freedom of Information requests, getting all these documents and evidence that suggested AIDS came from the the government's biowarfare program.
Well, yes, that is true.
Illinois State Representative Douglas Huff of Chicago was perhaps the only politician in America who supported Strecker, and was doing everything he could to make people aware of Dr. Strecker's work. Huff was found dead of a drug overdose in September 1988.
Yes, and as I understand it some of Huff's associates feel the death is suspicious and wasn't an accident.
The World Health Organization's (WHO) own literature proves that the WHO was working with viruses that destroy the immune system. In a 1972 issue of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, it was written that "An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be impaired . . . " That shows that the WHO was working on developing and studying viruses that destroy the T-cell system of man. That's exactly what AIDS is, right?
Yes, it's clear they were working with an immuno suppressive virus. An AIDS–type virus. They are connections between the WHO and the CDC. And between the WHO and the pharmaceutical and vaccine industries, the moneyed industries.
In another 1972 issue of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, WHO officials are talking about how to study how immune destroying viruses would effect human beings. It's written that one way "would be to study the relationship . . . of the immune response . . . to bacterial and viral antigens during preventative vaccinations . . . " WHO officials emphasize that "human controls should be carefully chosen . . . " So the WHO was talking about studying how immune destroying viruses would affect humans by putting the virus into vaccines?
Yes, I honestly think this was the plan.
How could the WHO get away with writing that? How could the WHO say that it wants to study immune destroying viruses by putting them into a vaccine?
How many people read the bulletins of the WHO? Hardly anybody. I am sure that ninety-nine percent of the doctors who treat AIDS patients don't read it. And certainly not in the 1970s when these papers were published. So those doctors would have no idea that that's where AIDS could have come from. I'm sure that that bulletin is an "insider" thing. Bascially, government sponsored scientists can do exactly what they want to do. Who is going to question them? There are no controls on crazy science. Are there any controls on biowarfare research? I think not.
Robert Strecker said that the WHO eventually published a map of Africa showing the places where the WHO was going to administer its small pox vaccine, and after the inoculations AIDS broke out in those places in Africa.
Strecker and his late brother Ted brought these WHO documents to my attention in the mid 1980s. So, yes, there's strong evidence of a correlation between the small pox vaccine and the outbreak of African AIDS.
On May 11, 1987, The London Times printed an article—Smallpox Vaccine Triggered AIDS Virus—suggesting that the WHO administered vaccine caused the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Apparently, an employee of the WHO was asked to write a report on where AIDS in Africa had come from, and the employee ended up concluding that African AIDS came from the WHO vaccine. The WHO buried the report, never released the report, but the employee ended up bringing the report to the London Times? He wanted the story to get out?
Yes. But that story was not picked up by any other major newspaper or media outlet. I believe it was the power and influence of the vaccine makers' industry—the pharmaceutical corporations—that kept the story out of the rest of the media. The WHO employee who brought the story to the London Times editor remained anonymous.
After that London Times article came out even Dr. Robert Gallo---the discoverer of the HIV virus---said that AIDS in Africa might have come from the small pox vaccine, correct?
Yes, he did.
There's a growing movement of more and more people who are concerned that vaccines are dangerous and are causing serious health problems. Barbara Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, claims vaccines are responsible for the increasing number of children and adults who suffer from immune system and neurological disorders, and many other There are many other examplesailments. Vaccine investigator Neil Z. Miller insists that before mass vaccination programs began fifty years ago we didn't have cancer in epidemic numbers, that autoimmune ailments were barely known, and childhood autism did not exist. You've written that vaccines can be dangerous and might cause more problems than they solve. Why do you say that?
Well, because they can be contaminated. And, certainly, it's not rare to have vaccines contaminated. A couple of years ago, as I recall, the flu vaccines that came from England—half the country's supply was contaminated. Recently—I believe it was in France—some people were suing the makers of a hepatitis B vaccine because they felt that vaccine had injured their health. There are many other examples.
So there have been instances in the past when the WHO and other health agencies have knowingly used unproven and dangerous vaccines on people and this has led to deaths and illnesses?
Well, you could certainly find evidence for that. Yes. A few years ago, they were using a vaccine on some minorities in the inner cities that caused problems. Certainly, the polio vaccines of the 1950s are a prime example of how an inoculation can be contaminated. There's a book called The Virus And The Vaccine and the gist of that was that with the polio vaccine half the American population was injected with a cancer causing monkey virus. The manufacturers didn't have a clue that it was in the vaccine. People think that vaccines are sterile. But, of course, vaccines can't be sterilized because then they don't work. And people think, well, a vaccine must be tested for viruses, but vaccines are not tested directly for viruses.
It's been well documented that there was—as you just said—a cancer causing monkey virus in the polio vaccine. The government—the National Cancer Institute—has admitted and acknowledged that. There have been a number of investigations and studies to determine if that virus led to many people getting cancer. The investigations sponsored by the government concluded that the polio vaccine virus didn't lead to any outbreak of cancer. The investigations done by reporters and scientists who had no connection to the government concluded that that virus could have led to millions of people getting cancer.
So the polio vaccine has probably caused cancer in some people?
Yes. Maybe in a lot of people.
Even Jonas Salk admitted that something in his polio vaccine could have caused cancer?
Yes. He was talking about that monkey virus. He said that and admitted that at a scientific convention.
In a book called Vaccine A, journalist Gary Matsumoto has made a convincing case that the Gulf War Syndrome from the first Gulf War came from an anthrax vaccine. The US military knew that the vaccine was dangerous, and they gave it to soldiers anyway. Now all these soldiers are ailing, and the government is ignoring the problem and denying any possibility that Gulf War Syndrome came from the vaccine, which, in all likelihood, it did.
Yes, there's certainly some strong evidence pointing to that. But, of course, the government denies it. I think whenever the government says that something can't be, we have to realize that that is a cliché and not a satisfactory explanation.
There may be a couple of smoking guns that prove that AIDS is a man–made disease created by scientists. Dr. Maurice Hilleman was considered the world's leading vaccine developer. In the 1970s, Hilleman was working as the chief vaccinologist for the pharmaceutical corporation Merck, which was connected to the Litton corporation. Merck and Litton had long been two of the companies that made biological weapons for the US Government's biowarfare program. A medical historian interviewed Hilleman in 1986, and in that interview Hilleman stated that back in the '70s Litton sent a bunch of green monkeys from their labs in Africa to Merck in America. Merck was the company that made the hepatitis B vaccine given to gay men in 1979 and it was these green monkeys that Hilleman used to create that vaccine. In the interview, Hilleman then said, "I didn't know we were importing AIDS virus at the time." . . . .The way that vaccinologists make vaccines is they deliberately put a virus or disease into lab monkeys, the monkeys develop the antibodies to destroy the virus or disease, and then the vaccinologists create the vaccine from that blood. Apparently, though, according to Hilleman's own words, Litton had also deliberately put the AIDS virus into these monkeys because Litton was one of the companies developing immune destroying viruses for the US military. So, right there, Hilleman was admitting that AIDS came from the hepatitis B vaccine?
Yes. And we have Len Horowitz to thank for that. Horowitz found that during his research. The first time I heard that I found it to be mind blowing. That's more strong evidence that AIDS came from scientists..
How could Hilleman get away with saying something like that? Was it a slip of the tongue? Or do scientists working for powerful corporations on contract from the US Government know that they can say anything they want and get away with whatever they want?
Anyone who has carefully studied the history of US involvement in biological warfare should understand that scientists can get away with anything. Including murder. All that is needed is government support.
Is it possible that Hilleman was saying that these monkeys had developed the AIDS virus naturally in the jungle?
These were lab monkeys. These were monkeys that Litton and Merck were injecting with all sorts of immuno suppressive viruses because Litton and merck were connected to and worked with the Special Virus Cancer Program and the military's biowarfare program. Merck was the company that made he hepatitis B vaccine that was given to thousands of gay men.
In that interview, Hilleman also mentions that he believes the polio vaccine caused cancer and another vaccine that Merck manufactured for Russian health officials was going to give some Russian athletes cancer.
Yes, he did. Something, ha? What a world.
Click here to order a copy of
American Conspiracies And Cover-ups
The publisher of American Conspiracies And Cover-ups, is one of the biggest independent publishers in the world. Skyhorse Publishing has published 48 New York Times bestsellers and 4 Nobel Prize winners.
Literary/Publicity Contact
Marissa DeCuir
JKS Communications Email: marissa@jkscommunications.com | www.jkscommunications.com
© 2023 by DouglasCirignano | All rights reserved | Sitemap
Powered By: Missio™