Tomorrow, November 22, marks the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. national-security establishment’s assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Yes, I know, there are still Americans who buy into the official “conspiracy-theory” line and the official lone-nut theory of the assassination, but I most definitely am not one of them. For me, there is no doubt whatsoever that this was a regime-change operation based on protecting “national security” from a president whose policies, they were convinced, posed a grave threat to “national security.”
How do I reach this certainty? Not by the evidence relating to the assassination itself. That evidence is persuasive but for me it’s not dispositive. If I was serving on a jury in a criminal prosecution of the national-security establishment and if the burden of proof was one that is used in civil cases — one that the law calls a “preponderance of the evidence — which means “more likely than not” — then, yes, I would convict the U.S. national-security establishment—e.g., the Pentagon and the CIA — of the assassination. But if the burden of proof is the standard one in criminal cases — “beyond a reasonable doubt” — then based on all the evidence surrounding the assassination, I would vote to acquit. In my opinion, the evidence is simply not sufficiently persuasive to convict on that basis.
Thus, I can totally understand why many Americans still do not cross the line and conclude that the assassination was, in fact, a national-security-state regime-change operation. I’m with them there.
Given such, how then have I concluded that JFK was assassinated by the Pentagon and the CIA as part of a regime-change operation intended to protect “national security”? The answer lies in the Pentagon’s and CIA’s actions after the assassination. It is their post-assassination actions that unequivocally establish guilt on the part of the national-security establishment.
When I finished reading Douglas Horne’s 5-volume book Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, that was it for me. As a former lawyer, I realized that Horne, more than anyone else, had broken the case wide open. By establishing that the military had conducted a fraudulent autopsy on President Kennedy’s body just a few hours after the assassination, Horne had established that the military had participated in the assassination itself.
That’s because there is no innocent explanation whatsoever for a fraudulent autopsy. None! No one has ever come up with one, and no one ever will. A fraudulent autopsy necessarily means cover-up. Just a few hours after the assassination, the military establishment was carrying out a fraudulent-autopsy cover-up. That obviously could not be a sudden spur-of-the moment fraudulent autopsy. After all, why would any innocent entity come up with the idea of conducting a fraudulent autopsy on the body of a president of the United States who has just been assassinated? That makes no sense whatsoever. A fraudulent autopsy cover-up had to be built into the assassination itself. And the only entity the military would be covering up for was itself.
I won’t go into all the aspects of the fraudulent autopsy in this article. That’s what I do in my relatively short, easy-to-read book The Kennedy Autopsy, which is actually just a synopsis of Horne’s five-volume book. But anyone who takes the time to read and study Horne’s five-volume book will, I believe, inevitably arrive at the same conclusion that I did.
Or consider Horne’s recent masterful documentary establishing the three casket entries into the Bethesda military morgue on the evening of the autopsy. Those three casket entries cannot be innocent, especially given that the military knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally kept them secret. That’s why they ordered the Navy and Marine personnel who participated in the autopsy to keep their mouths shut on what they had witnessed and also threatened them with criminal prosecution if they ever revealed anything about this top-secret operation. Those three casket entries had to be part and parcel of the fraudulent autopsy itself. Once one comes to the realization that there were, in fact, three casket entries that evening, that realization inevitably leads one to conclude that a fraudulent autopsy was, in fact, conducted. There is no innocent explanation whatsoever for those three casket entries and the massive secrecy and deception surrounding two of them.
Or consider the two brain examinations that took place, notwithstanding the fact that the military pathologists steadfastly and falsely maintained that there was only one brain examination. Why would they lie about that? There was a big reason: the second brain examination didn’t involve the brain of President Kennedy. When there are two different brain exams, one of which involves a brain of someone other than the deceased, there is only one conclusion that one can reach: fraud. And fraud necessarily equates to guilt in the assassination itself.
Or consider the statements of the Dallas physicians, which established that the president had a massive exit-sized wound in the back of his head, which contradicted the official military photographs that show no such wound. Or consider the sworn testimony of Navy petty officer Saundra Spencer in the 1990s, who, when shown those official military photographs, stated unequivocally that they were not the autopsy photographs she developed on the weekend of the assassination; the ones she developed showed a big wound in the back of JFK’s head, which was what the Dallas treating physicians had stated 30 years before.
If one doesn’t wish to take the time to read Horne’s five-volume book, another option is to view his video presentations in the multimedia section of FFF’s website, not only as part of the various JFK conferences we have held but also Horne’s multipart series entitled “Altered History,” which continues to be the most downloaded FFF video since our founding in 1989.
So, for me, the JFK case is over. Because of the fraudulent autopsy, I have no doubts whatever that the JFK assassination was, in fact, a national-security-state regime-change operation.
What do I mean by that? The answer turns on the type of governmental system under which we have all be born and raised — a national-security state. In this type of governmental system, the military-intelligence establishment wields the omnipotent power to assassinate or otherwise remove threats to “national security.” That’s its job. It has the grave responsibility of keeping us “safe” from all threats to our “national security,” both foreign and domestic.
Consider the dozens of people who the military has recently killed in the Caribbean. Those are state-sponsored assassinations. The military is killing those people because it is convinced that they pose a grave threat to U.S. “national security.” In the minds of the military people who are carrying out those killings, they aren’t doing anything evil or immoral. On the contrary, in their minds they are doing what they are supposed to be doing — keeping America “safe” by extinguishing grave threats to “national security.”
There is no difference in principle between those state-sponsored assassinations in the Caribbean and the national-security establishment’s assassination of President Kennedy. Human life is human life. Nobody’s life is any more valuable than any other person’s life. Kennedy might have been a president of a big country and those boat people who are now dead might be just plain ordinary fisherman trying to eke out a living by transporting some illicit drugs, but all their lives are equally sacred.
What makes their deaths similar is that they were all deemed to be threats to U.S. “national security” and, therefore, had to be extinguished. In fact, given that Kennedy was president, in the minds of the U.S. national-security establishment he posed a much graver threat to national security than those boat people or anyone else they have assassinated or tried to assassinate, including Cuban leader Fidel Castro or that Iranian general, Qasem Soleimani.
Kennedy’s war with the national-security establishment involved a conflict of visions. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a “breakthrough” that enabled him to see that the national-security establishment’s Cold War was nothing more than a deadly and destructive racket, one that was quite possibly going to lead to all-out, earth-destroying nuclear war. He was determined to move America in an entirely different direction than the Cold War direction that the national-security establishment had moved America and was determined to continue moving America (such as with an expanded war in Vietnam to stop the Reds).
Kennedy set forth his vision at his famous Peace Speech at American University in June 1963. That speech, more than anything, launched his open war against the U.S. national-security establishment, a war that ended in Kennedy’s defeat and death on November 22, 1963. For people wishing to study the nature of this war, I recommend FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who, by the way, served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board.
And then there is the CIA. Once I came to the realization that the CIA had produced an altered copy of the famous Zapruder film on the very weekend of the assassination, I knew that no one could ever come up with an innocent explanation for doing that. By altering pertinent parts of the film at its top-secret state-of-the-art film facility in Rochester, New York, the CIA could have the film dovetail perfectly with the fraudulent autopsy that its counterparts in the military were conducting on that same weekend. The entire sordid tale is detained in my book An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story.
Over the years, it has been gratifying for me to see ever-growing numbers of people studying Horne’s work and reaching the same conclusion I have reached.
One of the fascinating things for me is why there are still Americans who buy into the national-security state’s lone-nut theory of the assassination or who steadfastly do not want to delve into or study the fraudulent autopsy. Why is that?
Over the years, I’ve come up with a few explanations:
1. For many Americans, the national-security establishment is their god. It’s their everything. For them, it keeps them “safe” from all the dangerous creatures in the world — the Reds, Muslims, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, drug dealers, narco-terrorists, regular terrorists, illegal immigrants, and all the rest of the scary creatures who are clearly coming to get us. These Americans simply cannot bring themselves to question or challenge their god, much less advocate the dismantling of their god and restoring our founding system of a limited-government republic to our land. To do so is just too frightening and disconcerting.
2. For many Americans, it is simply inconceivable that the national-security establishment would take out a U.S. president. Boat people? Yes. Foreign presidents? Yes. Iranian generals? Yes. Accused terrorists? Yes. Accused drug dealers? Yes. Accused communists? Yes. But not a U.S. president. The Pentagon and the CIA would simply never do anything so evil. It’s our friend, not our enemy. What these Americans won’t let themselves see, however, is that the national-security establishment, from its perspective, was acting as their friend when it assassinated Kennedy. They “knew” that Kennedy had become a grave threat to “national security.” If he was permitted to get his way, America, they were convinced, would have fallen to the Reds during the Cold War, just like Cuba did. If it was okay for the national-security establishment to try to remove by force Cuban president Fidel Castro, Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz, or, later, Chilean president Salvador Allende as threats to “national security,” it was even more appropriate to remove Kennedy on the same basis. ‘
3. Even though they would be loathe to admit it, even to themselves, my hunch is that there are a number of Americans who, deep down, believe that the U.S. national-security state did the right thing by removing Kennedy from office. They are convinced that the assassination did, in fact, keep us “safe” and that we should not be questioning the judgment of the branch of government that has been charged with protecting “national security.”
In any event, as I have long maintained, there is no way that people who live under a national-security-state form of governmental structure can possibly be considered to be living in a genuinely free society. A government that wields the power to assassinate anyone it wants for whatever reason it wants cannot possibly be reconciled with the principles of freedom. A necessary prerequisite for restoring freedom to America is the dismantling of the national-security-state form of governmental structure and the restoration of our nation’s founding system of a limited-government republic.
Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.
