Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Who will join me? I am starting a new organization.  It's called:

Denouncers of Just War

There is a theory of "just war"; a political and military doctrine that it can be moral and justified to start a war- under certain conditions.   In 2003, President George W. Bush, sent his representatives to the Vatican to convince Pope John Paul II that attacking and invading Iraq would be a “just war.”

The result of that "just war" is that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and some respected American researchers say that the death toll is well over a million. 

And, it isn't over. There is still fighting in Iraq today, and more Iraqis are going to die from cancers resulting from depleted uranium and other war-related toxins strewn across the country. 

The truth is that there is no such thing as a "just war." NEVER is it legal, moral, or justified to start a war. If there is no war, and you start one by invading or attacking another country, you have done a monstrous evil for which there is no defense, no excuse, and no forgiveness. No matter what you accuse the other country or the other leader of doing, you have no right to start a war. Starting a war is never the right solution. It is never the proper recourse. And that's because war invariably kills innocent people, and since no one has the right to kill innocent people (not even one) no one has the right to start a war.  

The question of whether it would be "worth it" to kill some people in order to achieve whatever political objective or regime change that is being sought through war is one that no one has the right to answer- or even ask. 

Starting a war is NEVER OK. It is NEVER a legitimate option. Starting a war is always a crime against humanity. The whole concept of "just war" needs to be categorically and unconditionally rejected as a gross perversion of ethics and morality. 


We, the Denouncers of Just War, categorically reject the idea that starting a war is ever justified or defendable. It is an abomination to start a war and an abomination to even threaten to start a war. We declare to every leader and every government that you cannot, under any circumstances, start a war, and if you do, you have committed the gravest and most despicable crime against humanity. And we slam the door shut on ANY exceptions to this rule, knowing that allowing any would completely eviscerate the rule.   

A country that is attacked has the right to defend itself, but it is never OK to launch an attack, to start a war. 

And just to be clear, 9/11, whoever did it, whether you believe the official story or not, was a crime and an atrocity, but the "war" didn't start until the United States attacked and invaded Afghanistan. Not even an event like 9/11 can be used to justify starting a war because 3,000 died on 9/11, but 300,000 and probably more have died in the war in Afghanistan- and after 17+ years, it is still ongoing, and people are still dying. 

You can't start a war. Period. No exceptions. No excuses. No exemptions. 

Starting a war is unforgivable, un-condonable, and unpardonable. It is the worst of crimes; it is genocide.  


Ralph Christopher Cinque
Jeff Smith
Robert Jordan
Marin Kovcic
Richard McHugh
Gary Skene
Tony Longo
Craig Allender
Don Mitchell 
John Eleazer
Carlos Alberto Ramos Gomez
Linda Simpson
Aaron Paterson 
Thomas Clancy
Denise Tatum
J. Stephen Courts
Ralph Nordenhold 
Richard Morrison 


Monday, January 28, 2019

I have been asked to put the Altgens photo in its best quality.

Of course, this is cropped, but if I put the whole thing up, it would be too hard to see anyway. So, there is Oswald peering from the doorway, wearing his unbuttoned long-sleeved shirt over his white t-shirt. That is Billy Lovelady next to him visoring his eyes. The man in the Fedora hat next to the obelisk. is probably someone important. And I say that because they put the woman and boy in front of him to obscure. My best guess is that he is James Bookhout. On the other side of the photo, there is a man in the Secret Service with a huge head. It is impossibly huge. It is supposed to be SS Agent George Hickey, but he did NOT have a head like that. Some people foolishly believe that he shot Kennedy, but he didn't take his machine gun until after the fatal head shot. So, that's a phony image that was put in probably to cover Hickey up. Maybe he was doing something or had a look that just wasn't appropriate. On the left you can see Connally turned 90 degrees.  Has he been shot yet? Probably not. There certainly is no sign of it. There is an African-American woman on the far left with hair so large, it might be another obfuscation. This is a freaky photo. Why didn't they just destroy it when they saw Oswald in the doorway? I suspect it's because of the two Secret Service agents riding on the Secret Service followup car who seem to be peering back at the TSBD.  And they actually wrote a caption about it that was sent out with the photo. So, what were they actually looking at? Certainly not the source of the shots. Is it possible that they were looking at Oswald with the thought, "Holy Shit! What's he doing there?"   

Sunday, January 27, 2019

This is one of my favorite lyrics in all of music:
You go to my head
With a smile that makes my temperature rise
Like a summer with a thousand Julys
That was written by Haven Gillespie to a tune by J. Fred Coots, and the year was 1938. It's called: You Go To My Head.

Mark Landsbaum Ridiculous? Try this scenario: Ruby a low-level mobster who no doubt was much indebted to Marcello for his livelihood and more, is told by the mob that Oswald must be silenced and given an ultimatum: "You kill him or we kill you." It's entirely likely he was assured the mob would take care of him. Anyone remember how Mac Wallace walked free after a murder conviction? This was Texas in the '60s. Politicians and mobsters had corrupted courts and police, and Ruby was in a good position to know that. And, having no alternatives, he was in no position to tell the mob "No." He knew how they played. Note how his jail demeanor relaxed as soon as he got word that Oswald died from his wounds. And why do you think he was so worried and wanted the Warren Commission to take him to DC and out of Dallas? He feared for his life. He knew the m.o.: No loose ends. He had just tied up a loose end. He had to suspect despite whatever assurances he had been given that his time was short. It's entirely plausible to think any person, given the same circumstances, would have done what he did to save their own life. Far from ridiculous.
LikeShow more reactions
Ralph Cinque It is ridiculous, and everything you said is hogwash. First, Mac Wallace got off for murder because he had LBJ looking out for him. Remember, he did the killing for LBJ. And LBJ was a close friend of the judge in the case. So, that's different. The Mob had no such power. And, Ruby was NOT a low-level mobster. He was just a night club operator. You are buying into the fiction. And what the hell do you think you know about his jail demeanor? We never heard him say anything, not a word, on the day of the shooting. He was so strung out on drugs, he could barely speak. And you're right that he requested to be taken to Washington, but it's not because he knew anything about what really happened. It's because he read a book, "A Texan Looks At Lyndon" by J.Evetts Haley. You need to think more. If Ruby knew anything, they would have killed him immediately. They wouldn't have taken a chance. The only reason he lived three years is because he knew nothing. And the reason they killed him after 3 years is very simple: it's because he won a retrial, and they did not want to go through it all again. Jack Ruby was INNOCENT. He did NOT shoot Oswald. He was manipulated to go to that garage using Karen Carlin to make an urgent plea for money. And there's a reason why she disappeared afterwards, like she was in the Witness Protection Program. It's because she was culpable too. Ruby got to that garage at least an hour before they said he did. He was jumped and dragged away. There was no shot- by anybody. And I don't even know if Oswald was there. They kept Ruby up on the 5th floor in his boxer shorts- just to control him, knowing that he wasn't going to run away in his boxer shorts. And that's where he was when FBI Agent James Bookhout pretended to be him in the garage during the televised, theatrical spectacle. It was a dog and pony show. You need to stop being so fucking wrong.
So, the alternative story, that Ruby shot Oswald because the Mafia threatened to kill him or his sister, is ridiculous. You wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. Nobody would. But, the official story, that he shot Oswald to spare Jackie a trip to Dallas to testify at Oswald's trial, is just as ridiculous. 

First, why would she have to testify? What could Jackie say that had any bearing on Oswald's guilt or innocence? It's not as though she turned around and saw Oswald in the window. So, the very premise is false.

But, if Ruby had ANY motive for shooting Oswald, he would have showed up on time (10 AM). So, it's really quite impossible to assign any motive to him- even an irrational one, because no matter what it was, he would have showed up on time. Who shows up late for a planned murder?   

But, the idea that he did it for Jackie didn't come from Ruby. It came from his first attorney, whom he later fired, Tom Howard. There is a famous memo in which Ruby asked Melvin Belli, who took over Ruby's defense, whether he should stick to what Tom Howard told him to say, which is that he shot Oswald to spare Jackie. 

And look at the defense that Melvin Belli used, that Ruby shot Oswald in a state of "psychomotor epilepsy" in which he had no awareness of doing it and no memory of doing. 

Excuse me, but how can a person have a motive for doing something he is not aware that he did? But, even more important, why would Belli use that defense? He could not have made it up. Remember that even the defense counsel is an officer of the court, and he could get disbarred for falsely making up a defense. So, in telling the jury that Ruby shot Oswald without being aware of it, he must have believed it. The idea didn't come from him; it's what Ruby told him. And, I'm sure it went something like this:

BELLI: Now, tell me everything you remember about shooting Oswald, Jack.
RUBY: I don't remember anything. I don't remember shooting him. I just remember going down there, then suddenly, the police pounced on me, pushing me down to the ground. Then, they dragged me upstairs. And that's when they told me that I shot Oswald.
BELLI: So, you don't have any memory of taking out your gun, and rushing Oswald, and shooting him at very close range?
RUBY: No, not at all. I have no memory of doing it, and I have no memory of thinking about doing it or wanting to do it. I never had any such thought. 
BELLI: Well, we know you did it because we can see you doing it in the films and photos. (RC: If Belli had looked closely at the films and photos, and with a critical mind, he would have realized that the shooter was shorter than Ruby, fatter than Ruby, had very different hair, had a stubbier neck, etc. etc.) But, I believe you, and that means that you must have blanked out. It's like you were sleepwalking or in a hypnotic trance. I am going to seek medical advice about what to call it. But, that is going to be our defense: that you did it without realizing it, without willing it, without being aware of it, without wanting to do it.

So, they must have had a conversation like that, and it is a pity that Belli couldn't get over his "Americana" sickness, that his mind was incapable to going to the mental space of considering that the Dallas Police were corrupt and lying. 

Ruby had a lot of lawyers, but none of them could get to the mental space of realizing that Ruby had no memory of shooting Oswald because he didn't shoot him. 

And look how Melvin Belli reacted when the guilty verdict and death sentence came down. He erupted. He made a scene. Defendants get convicted and sentenced to death all the time, don't they? And their lawyers don't go berserk. But, Belli did. Why? It's because he knew Ruby. Unlike the jury, he had close, personal conversations with him, and he knew that Ruby wasn't lying. 

And really, it is an outrage that Ruby should have been sentenced to death when the very same prosecutor, Henry Wade, had boasted and bragged about his intention and certainty of putting Oswald to death, himself. Presumably, Oswald was the worst person who ever lived, the most depraved assassin in the history of assassins. So, how do you put his killer to death? 

And Ruby's lack of a credible motive is not the only incredulity in the case. What is just as non-credible is the claim that Ruby got past Officer Roy Vaughn at the ramp. We are talking about an 8 foot wide ramp, and Roy Vaughn being a 29 year old, able-bodied policeman.   

I was at Wal-Mart the other day, and as I was leaving, a male employee who had to be in his late 80s, who was standing there leaning on some kind of walker, plus he was on oxygen. I could see the breathing tube in his nose. But, there he was, guarding that exit, inspecting your receipt, and scratching it with a yellow marker- just like they do at Costco. And I guarantee you that nobody was going to get past him unseen. And yet we're supposed to believe that Ruby got past Vaughn? 

No, no, no. Vaughn was set up. He was the other fall guy that day. They hustled Ruby upstairs, then right after that, they placed Vaughn in the ramp to guard it. They used him. They exploited him. They targeted him to be the fall guy; to take the blame. 

The depth and magnitude of the evil involved is breathtaking because the Dallas Police had to be the ones who killed Oswald and (and I don't mean in the garage), and what they did to Jack Ruby was worse than killing him. If they had killed him right away, it would have been merciful compared to what they did to him. 

I really mean it that this is the deepest, darkest secret of police corruption in the history of police, and it may be the deepest, darkest secret of the U.S. government because I have no doubt that the order to it had to come from newly sworn-in President Lyndon Baines Johnson, monster that he was. If there is a Hell, you can be God-damn sure that that rat-bastard LBJ is there.  


Thursday, January 24, 2019

The idea that Jack Ruby shot Oswald is so deeply entrenched in the public mind that it is very difficult to shake it. Those who planned the killing of Oswald were so Machiavellian, they scared the shit out of Machiavelli. They actually wove the alternative story in advance, knowing there would be people bent on disputing the official one. They knew exactly how to get the Pavlovian dogs to salivate. 

To this day, researchers and buffs, who think they are enlightened, wax on about the real reasons why Jack Ruby shot Oswald, not realizing that they are just robots, spewing spiel written by someone else. 

But, there are things I can tell them that should shock them back to coherence. It's like when the heart is beating erratically due to atrial fibrillation, there is a treatment called "cardioversion" in which doctors administer an electrical shock to the heart, which stops it momentarily, and then, hopefully, when it starts again, it will revert to a normal sinus rhythm. 

So, let's get to shocking these people with the hope of snapping them out of their delusion. 

1. If Jack Ruby had planned to shoot Oswald, he would have "gotten his affairs in order." He would have known that he wasn't going back to his life; that he was NEVER going back to his life. Killing Oswald in a swarm of police meant instant capture and the loss of everything. It meant that the life that he knew was going to be permanently over, and he would have made arrangements. He would have gotten his affairs in order. He would have made provisions for his beloved dogs. (He didn't.) He would have made provisions for his beloved clubs, the Carousel and the Vegas. (He didn't.) And he would have anticipated things he would need, such as a lawyer, and he didn't even do that. Are you aware that he never asked for Tom Howard to be his attorney? Howard had done some work for Ruby years before, but he wasn't currently Ruby's attorney. The Dallas Police came up with Howard; not Ruby. Will Fritz was seen conferring with Howard the night before. Ruby did absolutely nothing to get ready. On the contrary, he was planning that very afternoon to start moving things into this swanky new apartment he had leased. And if he was going to shoot Oswald, why would he bring his beloved dog along and leave her in his car? 

2. If Ruby planned to shoot Oswald at the jail transfer, don't you think he would have showed up on time, which was 10:00? No other guidance was given but that. There isn't a speck of evidence that Ruby received any guidance from anyone that the jail transfer was going to be delayed. Nobody knew a thing. The Dallas Police were mum. When the jail transfer didn't happen at 10, they gave no further guidance. It would happen when it happened. But surely if Ruby intended to kill Oswald, he would have gotten there early, not late.

3. The whole idea that Ruby shot Oswald because the Mafia threatened to kill him if he didn't, is preposterous. It's insane. Being killed immediately would have been much better than what Ruby got. Nobody would take a deal like that. And the idea that he would kill Oswald because the Mafia threatened to kill his sister is equally ridiculous. Nobody would do that either. That's just something that happens in movies. I am asking YOU: would you kill someone because a Mafia guy told you that if you don't, he is going to kill your sister?  You know God-damn well you wouldn't. And nobody would. You would go to the police and report the threat. You would go to your sister and warn her and get her to safety somewhere. You would arm yourself. You would seek help from a lawyer. You might even report it to the press. But, the main thing is that threatening to kill someone is a crime, and you would go to the police. And Jack Ruby knew a lot of police. And think about it from the standpoint of the Mafia. Let's say Ruby didn't do it. Then what? Do they follow through and kill his sister? What for? What does that get them? The whole idea is ridiculous, and it is extremely immature to believe it. 

4. The Dallas Police were reportedly on high alert, like it was a red-colored terror threat. And yet, Oswald gets walked out a door and immediately gets shot? There are failures in life galore, but that one is beyond the pale. The idea that it just happened, that Jack Ruby just got the better of the Dallas Police - anyone who believes that is as dumb as a pile of rocks. Yet, they could not have been conspiring WITH Ruby either because that is not how conspiracies work. And look: we even have a photograph in which AFTER THE SHOT, that is, after the noise of the shot, police aren't reacting. 

In this picture, the shot has already gone off. This is a matter of the human nervous system and how it functions. If there is an unexpected gun blast, the human nervous system is going to react to it. In fact, even if it's expected, there is going to be a reaction; a jolt. We are talking about a loud gun going off in a confined space. It's an explosion. It would have been jarring as hell, and a guy wouldn't just stand there, relaxed, with his hands clasped, after hearing it. That is ridiculous. The above photo was staged, and there was no gunshot. This was done in advance. It's a publicity photo; a press photo; a propaganda photo. It is political propaganda that Joseph Stalin could only have dreamt of.   

But, here's what the evil bastards did, and I don't mean the Mafia. I mean the U.S. intelligence agencies. They needed Oswald dead pronto, and they were going to pin it on Ruby. They knew Ruby's mind was gone, and that Dallas Police could convince him that he shot Oswald. But, what about the incredulous public? J. Edgar Hoover knew that there would be plenty of doubters, but these doubters would need something to believe. So, they wove a story for them; one that would satisfy their need to uncover; to reveal; to expose. So, the story became that Ruby was a Mafioso, a hit man, a pimp, and someone who habitually threw people down the stairs. And they didn't stop there. They turned him into a gun runner; a bag man for Al Capone; and more. They created this whole other life, this whole other past, this whole other identity for Ruby that was totally fictitious but would satisfy the need for some to challenge the official story. Really, it was genius. Evil, Satanic genius, but still genius. And it is working like a charm to this day. People are being herded like sheep to believe that Ruby shot Oswald. And you can be certain of this: They don't care WHY you should think Ruby shot Oswald. They only care THAT you think Ruby shot Oswald. As long as you accept and vouch that Ruby did it, you are serving them; you are supporting them; and you are working for them. You are doing their bidding. Write any script you want. "Ruby shot Oswald because xxx." They don't give a shit what you say the xxx is. You can say anything you want. And they'll do all they can to help you. They'll get the entire mainstream media to report that Ruby watched the motorcade with a petty criminal and told him to get ready for the fireworks. That ought to fan the flames, and it did. Don't you understand that they are just treating you like a Pavlovian dog? Getting you to salivate on cue? 

Jack Ruby was innocent. He was out of his mind. He was strung out on drugs. He was manipulated to go to that garage. And when he got there, he was jumped upon. He didn't know why. He hadn't done anything. That's why he said, "What are you doing? I'm Jack Ruby. You know me."  

They quickly hustled him upstairs, and that's when they told him that he shot Oswald. This all happened before the televised spectacle. Jack Ruby was up on the 5th floor, stripped to his boxer shorts, when the televised spectacle occurred. He was not in the garage. The guy in the garage, who was posing as Jack Ruby, was FBI Agent James W. Bookhout.  

I am telling you: it is the truth. I would bet my life on it, and hey: I am risking my life on it. Don't you get it that Jack Ruby's innocence is the deepest, darkest secret that the United States government has? They have killed for a lot less than that. 


Tuesday, January 22, 2019

We fight to defend Lee Harvey Oswald, but why? There have been plenty of other people who have been wrongly accused and horribly killed. But, we don't fight just for him. We fight to expose the truth, that there was a coup d'etat in 1963. Ultra-right wing cold warriors plus LBJ wanted to overthrow Kennedy, and they were willing to kill him; and they were willing to risk killing others, including his wife; and they did, in fact, deliberately kill two other people that weekend: Officer JD Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald. And they might as well have killed Jack Ruby since what they did to him was worse than death. And that was just the beginning. They went on to kill many more people to silence the truth about what happened that weekend. The magnitude of the evil involved is almost beyond comparison. 

And think about this: it was November 1963, and there was going to be a Presidential election in just one year; exactly one year. So, instead of killing Kennedy, why didn't they just try to beat him at the ballot box? If his plans and his policies were so egregious and so dangerous to the country, then why not tell the American people about it, and let them vote him out of office? I think it's plainly obvious that they didn't think they could beat Kennedy the next November. I think they expected him to win big.  

But, what about democracy? Isn't that what we're fighting all these wars for? It's crystal clear that the men who killed Kennedy didn't give a rat's ass about democracy. And there is substantial evidence that Allen Dulles and J.Edgar Hoover despised democracy.  And the only thing LBJ gave a damn about was LBJ. 

So, the next time somebody tells you to support a war for the sake of democracy, you think about the killing of JFK. That will snap you out of it. You'll quickly  realize that "democracy" is just a platitude. It's a Pavlovian ploy. And it's a scam. Democracy just means that you get to vote and there's more than one candidate on the ballot. So, your whole life  you've had the choice of voting for Democrats or Republicans. But, what's it gotten you? All it's gotten you are: more wars, more taxes, more inflation, more debt, more growth of government, more government intrusions into your life, more violations of your liberty, and more lies. Democracy (i.e., voting) has done you no good at all. 

For all practical purposes, there is no one left to prosecute for the JFK assassination. But, the institutions that were involved in killing him and protecting his killers and lying to the American people about it are still here. And there is plenty of fresh lying and recent subterfuge. We know, for instance, that there has been photographic chicanery in the JFK assassination in the 21st century. It was in 2009 that new phony imagery of Billy Lovelady appeared in the History Channel documentary, Three Shots That Changed America. It was in 2013 that the Newseum produced a shirt which they claimed was Lee Harvey Oswald's that was clearly not his. The lies and the manipulation of evidence has never stopped. Has the killing even stopped? After killing so many people, would they kill again to silence the truth about the JFK assassination? I don't doubt that they would.

And it's because of the unassailable fact that if Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then the State did.  The Leviathan State did it. All this talk about the Mafia having done it is just noise. It's stupid. It is worthless blather. The Mafia could not change the motorcade route. The Mafia could not control the press. The Mafia could not get everyone in government, the corporate world, the educational system, and more, to support the official story. Only the Leviathan State could do that. And the Leviathan State did it. 

There will be a reckoning. And those who were or are "accessories after the fact" in the murder of John F. Kennedy will be exposed. And there are a lot of them. 


Monday, January 21, 2019

I was completely wrong about something. I thought that Trump was being less murderous than his predecessor Obama. But, apparently, that's not true. There is a program called The Empire Files which is narrated by Abby Martin. You should watch these videos of hers:

She reports that Trump has ramped up drone strikes and other bombing strikes in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere, and that he is killing more people, not less. 

Were you aware that the U.S. has a military presence in 70% of the world's nations? I knew it was over 50%, but I didn't realize it was as high as 70%. 

Then, she has a video of Trump referring to ISIS, saying, "You have to take out their families." Families? So, that means deliberately killing women and children, right?

Trump has doubled the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 9000. And did you know that since he took office, 37 more U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq? 

Trump has been even more militarily aggressive than Obama, and the risk of all-out war, with Iran or Russia, has grown. Trump has been very bit as maniacal as his predecessors, and that's saying a lot because they have all been mad-dog killers: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Of course, Trump has a long way to go before he overtakes George W. Bush, who killed over a million people. 

How did it ever get this insane? And anyone who thinks that Trump has been good for this country - or the world - is completely deluded.  


Sunday, January 20, 2019

Friend Richard McHugh sent me a sad article about a young American Navy woman who was killed by a suicide bomber in Syria on January 16, Shannon Kent. What a waste. What was she even doing there? What is the United States doing there except inflaming the situation and making it worse? And when it's all over, what will this woman have died for? Freedom? Democracy? If you believe that, it's only because you are a product of government schools.  

I am long time reader of the Taliban website, and that's because I like to stay informed about what is happening there, and there is very little reporting about the war in Afghanistan in the U.S. press.  You see, I think they learned a lesson from the Vietnam War, that the daily reports about the fighting and the deaths is what incited the American public to demand an end to the war.  Night after night, Walter Cronkite could be heard saying things like, "Seven Americans were killed today in fierce fighting on the Mekong Delta." But, most Americans today are hardly aware that we are at war.  They refer to this as "peacetime." 

But, a strange thing has happened. About 10 days ago, the Taliban website went down. It disappeared. This is all you get now:

I have to suspect the U.S. government is blocking access to their site in the U.S. And I am asking for someone in Europe or Australia or elsewhere to go to this website and see what you get:

We know that Red China blocks access to unapproved websites all the time in China. It's a daily occurrence. So, if they can do it in China, then our government must certainly have the ability to do it here. 

Are you aware that the U.S. government has been pursuing peace with the Taliban? We initiated peace talks with them. It is our desire to end the war, but only on our terms. There have been several meetings between us and the Taliban in Qatar. However, the Taliban cancelled the recent one. The reason they cancelled it is the lack of progress. You see, the U.S. proposes that the Taliban essentially join the existing government, to blend in with it, where Taliban members will be allowed to seek elected office, etc.. But, the Taliban won't hear of it because they consider the existing government to be a puppet government, like the Vichy government in Nazi-occupied France during WW2.  So, they want the existing government to go away; to dissolve. And they want the United States, and all foreign occupiers, to get completely out of Afghanistan.  

Both sides are adamant, and there has been no progress and no resolution in sight.

But, at this point in time, after 17 years of war, what exactly are we fighting for in Afghanistan? If we are willing to integrate the Taliban into the government, then it means we recognize them as a legitimate element of Afghan society, in which case, what did we attack them for? The answer, of course, is that we accused them of harboring Osama bin laden, whom we said planned the 9/11 attacks, and accepting terror training camps in their country. But, if those things are true, then how can we negotiate with them now? Isn't it hypocritical? 

Of course, it's hypocritical, but we don't care about that because we assume most Americans won't think about it, and the U.S. media certainly isn't going to tell them. At this point in time, SAVING FACE is all we care about. We just want to get out of there without having to admit that we lost. But, the very fact that after 17 years of war, the Taliban is still going strong and occupying as much of the country as they did in 2001, tells you that we lost. But, it's all about perceptions, and that's why we have been pursuing our peace deal.

But, the Taliban is never going to go for it. They want us completely and totally out of Afghanistan, and that includes American private mercenary groups. And they want the current government to dissolve. Hey, they're not insisting on killing them.  They're offering them amnesty if they walk away peacefully. It's better than Vichy officials got, which was immediate death as soon as the Nazis fell. The same thing happened to Quisling in Norway, and the Taliban has referred to the Kabul officials working with us as quislings.  

So where does it leave the situation? At a complete and total stalemate. 

The latest salvo was the Taliban cancelling the latest round of scheduled peace talks in Qatar. And it was right after that that the Taliban website went down in the U.S. 

One thing the Taliban did repeatedly on their website is deny ever targeting civilians. They described vicious attacks on government forces and occasionally on U.S. or other "coalition" forces. But, they denied ever attacking civilians and denounced it as unIslamic. On the contrary, they claim it is the U.S. who has wantonly killed civilians in Afghanistan, and it's pretty hard to argue with that, considering that we have killed hundreds of thousands of Afghans, including bombing wedding parties. How smart do you have to be to know that women and children attend weddings? So, when you bomb a wedding party, aren't you deliberately killing women and children? 

The bottom line is that, unfortunately, there is NO prospect for peace in Afghanistan. America's longest war, which was based on lies, has no end in sight. Will it ultimately end like the Vietnam War where we declared victory and left? In that case, it took the North Vietnamese two years to completely overrun South Vietnam and reunite the country. I don't think the current Afghan government would endure nearly that long. I suspect it would collapse pretty much as soon as we got out. But, how much longer are we going to stay just to save face? If we stay 10 more years, it will just mean 10 more years of fighting and killing and dying before the inevitable outcome of Afghanistan returning to self-rule. So, what would be the point of it? Wasn't it John Kerry who asked what is the point of being the last man to die for a lost cause? Although, it's more like going to be a woman or child dying in Afghanistan. 

So, with regret and disdain, I predict that the U.S. is going to keep the Afghanistan War going- just to save face; until deteriorating economic conditions here at home force our leaders to get us out of there. How long will that be? I don't claim to know, but a lot of people seem to think that it's coming soon. 



Monday, January 14, 2019

Look at this image of the Oswald shooting. Look at the size of that guy in the middle. Actually, all three of those men. Then on the left, you see normal size men, one of whom is circled. Note that Jim Leavelle was a pretty big guy, probably 6 feet, 200 pounds, and look how small he looks compared to those giants. But, the guy circled is just humongous. He's freakily big. And we know he wasn't. We know who that guy is. He's Detective Tom McMillon.
You see, he actually was human and of human size. He wasn't a freak. In addition to being freakily big, that guy on the right is hypocephalic. Look how tiny his head is compared to his immense body. IT IS MANIPULATED IMAGE. And they did it to completely hide the shooter. Why? BECAUSE HE WASN'T JACK RUBY. 

I've been saying for years now that Jack Ruby was NOT the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald, that Ruby was not in the garage at the time, that Ruby got to the garage much earlier than 11:17; he was pounced upon and hustled up to the fifth floor, where he was told that he shot Oswald. 

Ruby had no memory of doing it. Why do you think his lawyers tried to defend him by saying that he had "psychomotor epilepsy" in which he shot Oswald without knowing it? It's because Ruby told them that he didn't know that he shot Oswald until Dallas Police told him that he did.   

Do you get it that the bad guys in this were the Dallas Police and the FBI? And it means two things: it means that they framed the drugged and mentally deranged Jack Ruby, AND it means they must have killed Oswald. They didn't kill him in the garage. That was just an act for television. It was pure theater. Oswald was shot elsewhere. 

It is time for the JFK truth movement to recognize the fact that, like Lee Oswald, Jack Ruby was innocent. Jack Ruby was MK-ULTRA. He was just a prop. And unlike Sirhan Sirhan, Jack Ruby wasn't even there. He didn't shoot Oswald, and he didn't see Oswald get shot. Jack Ruby was off his rocker. He was mentally incompetent. He was mentally gone. 

That Jack Ruby was innocent is the most important element of the JFK assassination case that is still largely unknown to most researchers and students of the case. Please do all you can to rectify that. There will be grasping of the JFK assassination reality without realizing what was done to Jack Ruby that weekend and beyond.  

Thursday, January 10, 2019

One of the many problems with the "Oswald was innocent" theory is why would he take out his revolver and try to start a gun battle with the Dallas Police when they showed up to the Texas theater? And then outside in the parking lot during the arrest he said to onlookers "I'm not resisting..." Think about it, if you were innocent would you draw your weapon on police? Come on, that's not what innocent people do...

Ralph Cinque
Where you are misleading people is in accepting the official account of what happened in that theater. Indeed, why would a man who drew his gun on police say "I am not resisting"? That's not what guilty people do. So, why not question whether Oswald really drew his gun? And why not question why Oswald even had a gun on him? And why not question why Oswald went to the theater at all? It's not like he had hankering for a war movie. SOMEONE MUST HAVE TOLD HIM TO GO THERE. It's clear from his movements within the theater that he expected to meet someone there. And it could not have been a rendezvous that he arranged, that he set up. The whole official account of what happened in that theater is fraught with lies. The first account was that Oswald tried to fire his pistol, but the gun misfired. But, the FBI's own expert said that the firing pin never struck the primer of any cartridge in the revolver. His name was Cortland Cunningham. So then, Officer Nick McDonald CHANGED HIS STORY and made it that the reason he wasn't shot was because he jammed the web of his hand into the firing space between the firing pin and the primer as Oswald was pulling the trigger? You believe that, do you? So, the firing pin struck that very thin tissue of his hand? Do you have any idea how painful that would be? He would have screamed out loud, and he would have had something to show us in the way of trauma. So, that was a lie, another lie. If he had really done that, he would have said it from the beginning. And how come there is no account of this in the reports of Oswald's police interrogations? We know Oswald professed his innocence vigorously from the start and all along. So, why wouldn't police ask him, "Well, if you are innocent, then why did you try to shoot a cop in the theater?" But, there is nothing about it in any of the reports by Fritz, Hosty, Bookhout, or anyone else. And why isn't there one word in any of the police reports about Oswald's alibi for the Tippit shooting? Why isn't there a single word about what Oswald said about how he got from his room to the theater? Why such huge holes? They told us what he said about how he got from Dealey Plaza to his boarding room, but then it is a complete blank. How come? It must be because whatever he told them was extremely exonerating. So, the only thing that you said that we have any ability to confirm is that Oswald said he was not resisting arrest. A lot of people heard that. And no one doubted that he said it with conviction. He must have meant it. So, STOP ASSUMING THAT THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE THE THEATER IS TRUE when it is already proven to be a lie. Oh, and by the way, I am making you famous.