Last week, I delivered the concluding presentation in our conference “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.” It should be posted today or tomorrow on FFF’s website. This week, we wrap up the conference with a Q&A session devoted to the political context of the assassination.
When we put this conference together, it was with one primary aim — to present an easy-to-understand case that the U.S. national-security establishment assassinated President Kennedy under the rationale of protecting “national security” from a president whose policies, they were convinced, were leading the United States to communist doom at the height of the Cold War.
Consider the 9/11 attack in Chile in 1973. The Chilean national-security branch of the government concluded that the nation’s democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, was implementing policies that would cause Chile to become another communist Cuba. It was the position of the Chilean national-security branch that it had a moral duty to oust him from power to save the country, even though the nation’s constitution did not provide for a national-security regime-change to do it.
Even today, many right-wingers both here and in Cuba, as well as even some conservative-oriented libertarians, cite that rationale as the justification for forcibly removing Allende from power. But for the coup, they argue, Chile would have ended up as another communist Cuba and, therefore, it was entirely proper for the Chilean national-security establishment to remove him from office to save the country.
The overall commander of the Chilean armed forces, Gen. Rene Schneider, refused to go along with the coup because the Chilean constitution didn’t provide for it. In a conspiracy based in Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., the CIA conspired to remove him as an obstacle by having him violently kidnapped. When the kidnapping took place, Schneider was shot and killed on the streets of Santiago. The CIA was later caught giving hush money to the kidnappers in the hope of keeping its role in the kidnapping and murder secret.
It goes without saying that the CIA was never brought to justice for that conspiracy because under our national-security state system of government, what the CIA did was entirely legal.
That same mindset pervaded the Pentagon and the CIA ten years before the Chilean regime-change operation — that the U.S. national-security branch of the government is the ultimate protector of the nation’s national security. Once it concludes that a president or prime minister or anyone else poses a threat to national security, that’s the end of the matter. Its determination is final.
When the children of Gen. Rene Schneider sued in federal district court for damages arising out of the state-sponsored murder of their father, the federal courts rejected their suit, holding that the federal courts lacked the expertise to second-guess the national-security branch of the government when it came to state-sponsored assassinations.
That’s why no one would have ever been brought to justice in the Kennedy assassination. Once it was determined that this was an official regime-change operation or assassination based on protecting national security, no different than the ones in Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1961), Cuba (1960 to date), Chile (1973), and others, the matter would have been over. Under our system of government, the national-security branch of the government — i.e., the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — are the final determiners of what constitutes a threat to national security and what needs to be done about it. If they choose assassination, as they did with Kennedy, that’s the end of the matter.
Half of our conference focused on the political context of the assassination — the why of the assassination. From the time he came into office, Kennedy was at war with the national-security establishment. The war became increasingly vicious. On June 10, 1963, at his Peace Speech at American University, Kennedy threw the gauntlet down and declared an end to the Cold War and the establishment of a peaceful and friendly relationship with the communist world. That sealed his fate, just as it would seal Allende’s fate 10 years later. JFK’s vision for the future of America was exactly opposite from that of the U.S. national-security establishment, not to mention the fact that Kennedy’s vision was a threat to the continued existence of the national-security establishment and its later decades of ever-increasing power and money.
The other half of the conference focused on the autopsy that the national-security establishment conducted on the president’s body. Anyone who takes the time to watch the video presentations by Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Michael Aguilar, Douglas Horne, and me will almost certainly conclude, based strictly on the evidence, that this was a fraudulent autopsy.
Why is that important? Because there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. None! Once a person concludes that this was a fraudulent autopsy, the case is closed. A fraudulent autopsy necessarily means a cover-up of the crime. Moreover, the fact that the plan to conduct a fraudulent autopsy was launched immediately after Kennedy died means that the fraudulent autopsy scheme was built into the assassination plot itself.
All of this is covered in more detail in our conference. Like I say, this conference was intended to be a “case closed” presentation that the Kennedy assassination was carried out by the U.S. national-security establishment. I believe we have fulfilled that aim.
Why should anyone care about the Kennedy assassination? Why should people be willing to overcome a fear of being labeled a conspiracy theorist for openly condemning Kennedy’s assassination? Because the rot at the center of the American national-security state empire that saw fit to assassinate Kennedy is sill with us today and will continue to grow until enough people decide to cleanse our nation of that rot. Understanding and acknowledging the assassination of President Kennedy is a critically important step in restoring a society of liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony.