I have come to realize that U.S. cannot abandon the Afghan government. We would lose all credibility if we did. On July 25, in the rapid damage control that followed Trump's faux pas about killing 10 million Afghans, Pompeo and Ghani issued a joint statement agreeing to accelerate peace talks, but it was eerie because Ghani isn't in the peace talks. How can he accelerate something that other people are doing?

The Taliban has made it crystal clear that they won't work with Ghani. They won't recognize the Afghan government; they won't join it; they won't start running in elections. They want all foreign troops out, and they want the current Afghan government to disband, to dissolve, to disintegrate.  

But apparently, we think we can convince them to do otherwise, to accept a coalition with the current government. But, why do we think that? - especially when they have been so adamant. 

It can only be one thing: money. We must have plans to offer them a gargantuan amount of it, where we not only only offer to pay them directly a massive sum, but offer to basically rebuild the whole country- if only they will work with the current government. 

But, it is terribly naive. They will never do it.  They are killing those people, day in and day out. 

 8 killed, 5 wounded as check post overrun in Ghor

14 killed and wounded, equipment seized as post overrun in Maiwand

 Check post assaulted in Qalat, 5 killed

Commander among 5 killed and wounded in Herat

6 killed and wounded in Bala Baluk operations

Over 15 killed and wounded, 2 APCs destroyed in Farah blasts
That's just a partial list of what they reported today. Tomorrow, it will be a new list. They are not going to reverse themselves. They are not going to work with the government. There is no way they could even explain it. Alas,  there is no basis to think that a peace deal is in the offing. 

    

I am very pleased to announce that My Stretch of Texas Ground has been selected to be a finalist at the CinemaFest Film Festival, to be held in Ellington, New York in mid-September, and it will be one of 4 feature films screened at the festival, along with a number of shorts. And they have given My Stretch of Texas Ground the top time-slot of Saturday evening. It will be the first public screening of the film since our Los Angeles premiere in late February.  Besides the screenings, the festival will present workshops for filmmakers, and the winning film is guaranteed a distribution offer. 

The US media has finally confirmed the killing of 2 U.S. servicemen in Afghanistan, which occurred last Wednesday. They were killed by an Afghan soldier who was supposedly on our side. 

 If the U.S.Military doesn't get it yet that they can't trust any Afghan government soldiers then they are brain-dead. The Taliban is flipping Afghan government personnel, including military and police, at the rate of about a thousand a month. And at that rate, it's fair to say that the Afghan government is collapsing. 

And the ones who  aren't being flipped are being killed at an alarming rate.  

The situation has become hopeless for us, and our desperation is showing. I found out that part of the carrot that we're waving at the Taliban is that once they sign a peace deal with us, we are forking over $25 million to them. And that's only the beginning. We are committing to rebuilding the country. 

But, how are the family and loved ones of these dead Americans supposed to feel, knowing that after 18 years of war, EIGHTEEN  YEARS, practically a generation, that it is going to go back to what it was before we started, which is the Taliban ruling the country. 
'
And don't tell me the Taliban has changed. They haven't. They are agreeing not to let terrorist groups operate within the country? Are you kidding me? They conduct attacks with suicide bombers almost daily. They refer to them as martyrs. They don't target civilians, and they condemn the targeting of civilians, but, if somebody works for the Afghan government and gets killed that way,  or by an IED, how much difference are we talking about? 

And how can they promise anything? As Trump said to Tucker Carlson: "it's a mountainous country with lot of places to hide." So, how can they monitor and control everything that is going on in Afghanistan? How can they possibly know everything that people in that country are talking about and planning to do? Did our officials know that some lunatics were going to start killing people at the Gilroy Garlic Festival?   We can't control terrorism in this country, so how are they supposed to control it over there? 

I am absolutely sure the Taliban has no interest in plotting attacks against  the U.S. or any other country. Their interest is Afghanistan. Period. But, do you really think it was any different in 2001? Based on what? Because they let Osama bin laden live there? But, Osama bin laden had fought with them against the Soviets. He was a Mujahid, a holy warrior.  They didn't invite him  there to plan attacks on the U.S. And he had nothing to do with 9/11. The only evidence we ever put forward, and it was after we attacked Afghanistan not before, is Fatty bin laden on the far right. 

 And there is a "Mick West" whose excuse for Fatty bin laden is: aspect ratio. Holy Virgin Mother of Almighty God. First, you can't play the aspect ratio card any time you want just because it's convenient. And second, it's not just breadth that we're talking about, which is all aspect ratio can change: height and breadth. Aspect ratio can't change age, and Fatty bin Laden is obviously younger. And it can't change health, and he's obviously healthier. In 2001, the dying OBL, whose kidneys were failing, looked very pale and sickly. To reduce differences between them to nothing but aspect ration is really stupid. 

But, I digress. What I am really trying to tell you is that after 18 years of war, we are trying desperately to put the Taliban back in power, and it is nothing but complete capitulation. But, if we forestall leaving for the sake of setting up a face-saving facade, and another American dies there, it will be an outrage.  The Taliban says it is going to be an Islamic government run by Sharia law. So, whatever we try to get them to do for the sake of appearances won't matter because it's all going back to Islamic fundamentalism as the government of Afghanistan, which is to say that it's all going back to what it was in 2001, with nothing but very superficial differences, if any. Sharia law is going to be the law of the land. 

So, what was the 18 years of war for? Are we supposed to believe that the fact that they are giving us assurances that they won't allow terrorists to operate from Afghanistan, even though they have no way of making such assurances, that that makes all the fighting and dying of 18 years worthwhile? Is that it? Think about the families of all the Americans who died in Afghanistan. When they see the Taliban restored to power, how are they going to feel about the sacrifice of their loved one? What did their loved one give his or her life for? 

What is going to be the talking point for this? That the Taliban promises not to let terrorists operate from Afghanistan?  They would have promised that in 2001. So, what was the war for? 

And what's going to come after that? The Afghan War Memorial? Speeches and tributes about how they died for freedom? How about a wall with all the names on it? Will that make the families feel better? The Taliban is coming back to power, and they are going to rule that country every bit as much as the Viet Cong rules Vietnam. What was the Vietnam War for? What was the Afghanistan War for? HOW COME THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES  ON THE PEOPLE WHO DO THESE THINGS? How come George W. Bush walks a free man? And how after those failed wars can there be people high in our government who are today, blustering, chomping at the bit, for yet another war, this time with Iran? I curse them. I loathe them. I revile them. I curse them a thousand times.    

They had a problem. You see, Ruby wore these high top shoes and black socks, whereas Bookhout low top shoes and light socks. Of course, they were claiming that Bookhout was Ruby. So, how were they going to rationalize that? The way they did was to claim that they changed Ruby's socks and shoes. Read on. This is hilarious. These were brazen people, the kind that could sell two suits to a widow for her dead husband.

https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2019/07/this-is-jack-rubys-property-invoice-at.html

This is Jack Ruby's property invoice at the DPD, even though at the top it says "Received of jail." His name should have gone there. Note the date in the upper right: 25 Nov 1963. But, Ruby was arrested on the 24th. And they definitely confiscated his stuff on the  24th. The record shows that the first thing they did was strip him down to his underwear. An if you look towards the bottom of the list, it even states that they took from him "1 set underwear".

Well, I don't believe that. Do you? Do you really think they took Ruby's dirty underwear to put in one of their "bins"? I hope it was the hamper.  But no, they didn't do that. They just put that down because Ruby's black socks didn't not match the socks worn by the Garage Shooter, James Bookhout. If you check the Beers photo, you'll see that the shooter's socks were light. 

So, to rationalize that discrepancy, they put down that Ruby's underwear was changed. 

This was a city jail; not a prison. So, why would they replace a man's socks? And for one night? The very next morning Ruby was transferred to the County Jail. It's just insane.  

But, getting back to the date, it shouldn't say November 25, as it does. It should say November 24. That's because they took the stuff from him on the 24th, and they certainly would have recorded it then. How do you wait a day? That's untenable. 

And then what's with the bins? Bins designated by letters and numbers? I don't know about you but when I see a bin named "N30" I presume there is an N29, N28, N27, etc. And so on for all the other letters. 

This was a city jail. They typically held prisoners until they were arraigned by a judge, and then they were set free because the charges were dismissed, or let out on bail, or remanded without bail release and sent to the County Jail. But, any which way, they weren't staying in the City Jail. And remember that your right to a speedy arraignment is guaranteed by the Constitution. So, how could the DPD be filling all those bins? 

Then we get to the pink copy.

So, we're supposed to assume that that was carbon copy? But, you know how sloppy and dirty and blurred carbon copies tend to look, and that's because they are carbon copies. It does have the same number. But notice that there is writing on this one that is not on the other. Is that because they went to different places? But, what would be the point of writing on one without writing on all of them? Wouldn't that create confusion? And let's not forget about the beige copy. 

Notice that this one, like the white one, has N-30 bin crossed out and replaced with N-15. But, the pink one doesn't. It just says N-30. But, if the carbon copies went different places, how is it that beige one got corrected but the pink one didn't? And what I really mean is  how did the beige one get corrected at all? And of course, you see that big stamp at the lower right of the beige one, which is not on either of the other two. I don't know how any of this happened because Ruby was transferred to the County Jail the very next day and permanently. That was his home for the rest of his life. And they knew that it would be. So why would they leave his property with the police department? 

Look: this is all just a bunch of fakery to whitewash the fact that Ruby wore black socks and work shoes whereas Bookhout wore light socks and a high top shoe, while Bookhout wore light socks and a low top shoe. 

You see, they had to reconcile that, and the only way they could do it was to claim that the DPD provided Ruby with other socks and other shoes. Of course, you know they had a shoe department there, right? Doesn't every police department? They couldn't have their prisoners walking around in their own shoes. They needed regulation shoes. Of course, I called the Dallas Police Department and talked to the jailer, who told me, in a rather irritated tone, that they do not provide any clothes to prisoners. Of course they don't. It's the city jail, not the State Pen. 

I was just informed that My Stretch of Texas Ground has won the Best Thriller award at the South Film and Arts Academy Festival, which is out of Chile. And I was given the award for Best Screenplay in a Feature Film.

And I am especially proud of the latter because they had other awards for other categories of films, but only one award for screenwriting, which went to me. I'm not bragging; just expressing my appreciation.

And if you haven't seen the film yet, I hope you will. It is groundbreaking. It is brazen and bold, like no film that has come before. You have never seen anything like it. And I thank my actors who brought my characters to life to the full extent of my vision.

As a postsript to what I wrote last night about what appears to be a staged scene of horror in Syria, that was blamed on Russia, I found this Russian video which describes the making of phony war images in Syria, and it even refers to the use of manikins. 

  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmsgpKWNELg

Here's a big find! You know how I've been saying that the operation of the TSBD's book business made no sense. To send those "order-fillers" out looking for titles among the floors of rows of stacks of amorphous boxes of books with no organization or cues whatsoever seems imponderble. But now, we have Oswald's clipboard. His clipboard! It's the one thing they gave him. Not a cart. Not a wagon. The books he had to carry by hand. There weren't even any ladders to access the high stacks. But, he did have a clipboard which presumably had the orders written on it. So, finally, we can see how the operation of the book business went down. Well, here it is: his clipboard. Hallelujah! Alas, it's gibberish. Big surprise.

I came across this horrific article about a Syrian family whose home was hit in an air strike, and you see the father anguishing over his two trapped children. But, why isn't he going to them? 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/harrowing-photo-shows-syrian-girl-s-attempt-save-infant-sister-n1034891?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3euTepjP_Z1bbABp_5e1uh9r7ngZL5Y5U3syZYW5RGNBSdkIeLT7mW1kg

I don't see him as being in motion. To me, it looks like his weight is stationary, like he is just perched there. 

It says that he is "scrambling over the rubble," but, is he? How could he be scrambling if his hand is pressed to his forehead? That's energy going the opposite direction. Plus, he'd be using his hands to facilitate his descent. He'd be holding on to things to brace himself; to stabilize; to find support. And I mean with both hands. Absolutely both hands. You use both hands to guide yourself down a treacherous, brittle, uneven slope like that. And you wouldn't waste time slapping your hand to your head. 

The article states that the family was on the 5th floor of the building, and they all fell to the 2nd floor. I quote:

"The family was on the fifth floor of the building but had fallen to the second floor after the airstrike." 

So, they all fell 3 stories? And he wasn't hurt at all? How is that possible? 

Now, let's take a look at the children.

So, above it is a 5 year old girl, and she is holding on to the t-shirt of her 7 month old sister? So, they fell 3 stories and wound up that close? And she's holding on to her t-shirt? But,  you know that fabric stretches- a lot. And, do you realize how hard it would be to hold on to the t-shirt, how easily it could slip out of your hand? Especially if you're 5 years old? 

And why is the 5 year old not looking at her sister? It seems like she would have her eyes on her. How could she grab the t-shirt without looking at her? So if she was looking at her to do that, why would she stop looking at her? And notice that she looks like a manikin. Look how dry her hair is. A doll's hair is dry because it doesn't have sebaceous glands to keep it oiled. And you have to admit that it does look like it could be a wig, and a lousy one at that. Does it look like the hair of a 5 year old girl to you? 

And how come she isn't wearing any clothes? Do you see anything but skin? Because I don't. And what's going on with her eyes?

And what is that big bulge in her arm? It isn't anatomical. It shouldn't be there. A 5 year old with an arm shaped like that? 

The article states that the two girls fell to the ground shortly after the photo was taken. "The girls fell to the ground along with debris from the building shortly after the photo was taken." 
The 5 year old died, but the 7 month old is in intensive care. "Riham  (the 5 year old) and her mother Naqouh died of their wounds shortly after the photo was taken, the report said, while Tuka (the 7 month old) and another sibling are in intensive care."

So, a 7 month old fell a total of 5 stories to the ground and lived? A 7 month old? 

Then, there's this:

Idlib, in northwest Syria, is the last pocket of resistance to Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad after eight years of civil war, and has come under renewed bombardment by RUSSIAN AND SYRIAN warplanes in recent months, rights groups say.

Oh, so they are blaming this on Assad and Putin, like the chemical weapon attacks. I see. So, I did a little fishing.

‘No sorties in the area’: Moscow says reports on deadly Idlib airstrike are ‘fake’

Published time: 22 Jul, 2019 15:01Edited time: 23 Jul, 2019 07:24

Get short URL

FILE PHOTO © REUTERS/Vadim Savitsky

• 85
• 1

Follow RT on

No Russian jet has flown a combat sortie over the Idlib district in Syria, Moscow has said. The defense ministry was responding to allegations by “UK- and US-funded White Helmets” that civilians were killed in a Russian airstrike.

The alleged attack targeted the town of Maaret al-Numan, it’s been claimed. Dubbing the information “fake,” the ministry said “the Russian Air Force hadn’t carried out any missions in this part of Syria.”

I must finish by saying that I am not making any definitive claims here. I'm telling you what it looks like to me. When I first saw this, I felt aghast. But, when I looked at it more closely, starting with his hand slapped to his head, which seemed so inappropriate, that's what caused me to start searching for answers. Again, I am not making any definitive statements except that I hope that what the Russians are saying is true, that this did not really happen to those two little girls. I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope, so help me God, I hope. 

China is still buying Iranian oil. I found several reports about it. Here's one:

https://www.ft.com/content/6b944786-9809-11e9-8cfb-30c211dcd229

So, why isn't this big news? I showed you how someone from Bloomberg called the Taliban office in Doha after Trump committed his big gaffe, and since it sounded good, they viralized it. So, why not this? Imagine how big a story it would have been on the NBC Nightly News:

"Our top story tonight: China has been secretly continuing to buy crude oil from Iran in defiance of the U.S. ban, and today, President Trump called an emergency meeting of his National Security Council to discuss U.S. options. Also, an ultimatum has been issued to China ordering them to cease and desist buying from Iran immediately or else suffer severe economic consequences."

So, how come nothing like that? For one, we can't put severe economic consequences on China without putting them on us. We would hurt ourselves more than we would hurt them. But two, there is always an implied threat of military action in U.S. threats, but in the case of China, we're powerless. We can't fight China. We couldn't fight a ground war against Iran. Seriously, we don't have the manpower for it. Shock and awe from the air is the only thing we could do to Iran, and once that got played out, there would be nothing else we could do. But, we can't even do that against China. 

Look: when Putin went into Crimea, why didn't we respond with military force? Why didn't we threaten to? We responded militarily when Saddam Hussein took over Kuwait, so why not when Putin took over Crimea? Of course, there was a big difference. The Kuwaitis didn't want to be taken over by Iraq, but the Crimeans, who are mostly Russians, and who speak Russian, and have always spoken Russian, and I know that because I was there in 2005, and Russian was all they spoke. I threw away my English/Ukrainian dictionary. And I literally mean that I threw in the trash my English/Ukrainian dictionary.  Eez-venee-tee-yeh, no-yen-ee-shoot-show. 

Of course, we didn't care about that, what the Crimeans wanted. The reason we didn't intervene or threaten to intervene is because it was Russia. When the Georgians, with urging from the CIA, went into South Ossetia during the Bejing Olympics, look what happened. Russia moved them out of there like a tsunami.  The U.S. knows its limitations. It's not going to take on the Russians militarily. We prefer to fight Third World countries, where we can prevail. Unless it's Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires. 
    

It has occurred to me that Trump could not have been talking about nuking Afghanistan. How could he nuke it when there are 14,000 American troops there, and according to this report, over 2 and 1/2 times as many private military contractors.

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-how-many-private-contractors-and-us-troops-are-in-afghanistan-2017-8

 Then, there are the troops of other NATO countries who are still there, and there are the Afghans who are working with us. The radiation from nuclear bombs would affect everybody. 

There are the so-called tactical nuclear weapons to be used in battle, but Trump spoke of killing 10 million Afghans in a week. So, what was he referring to? Was it the "mother of all bombs" which has been used once in Afghanistan? That must be what he meant.

But, it's interesting that damage control has set in since Trump made his incendiary remarks. That was on Monday, and on Thursday, Bloomberg published an article which has gone viral. It's been picked up by everybody. It claims the Taliban says that a peace deal with the U.S. is now near.  It's based entirely on a phone call with Mohammad Suhail Shaheen who works at the Taliban office on Doha, Qatar. But, there is nothing about it on the Taliban website. There, it's all about the ongoing fighting and the number of people they have killed in various battles and engagements. 

It's just incredible to me how homogenized and in lock-step the US and Western media are. Somebody from Bloomberg calls the Taliban office in Quatar and gets some guy to make a positive statement,  and then it disseminates everywhere. It was just a guy on the phone speaking extemporaneously. 

https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/taliban-says-deal-on-us-troop-pullout-from-afghanistan-is/article_74e5192f-e30d-5471-8891-3ddd45933d71.html

The point is that they went fishing for that. They wanted to reassure the world that Trump's highly bombastic and terribly ill-advised remarks haven't torpedoed the peace process. So, they got this guy to say something hopeful over the phone. 

 But, the point is that the Taliban's response to Trump on their website and on Twitter has been defiant, and they continue to report fierce fighting, and there really isn't anything behind this. It's just a little lip-flapping by one guy. It's nothing bankable. 

Then, Pompeo and Afghan President Ghani made a joint statement that "now is the time to accelerate efforts to reach a negotiated settlement to the war." But, the Taliban doesn't negotiate with Ghani. So, what's the point of the statement? The point is: damage control because the Idiot in the White House is a blabbermouth. He can't control his utterances. I really think Trump has got some dementia going on, and it is only going to get worse. 



                                                                                                                       

The Taliban has put up a spokesperson to issue a response to President Trump's incendiary statement about being able to win the Afghanistan War in a week if he was willing to kill 10 million Afghans, and that spokesperson is she:

She spoke in slightly broken and heavily accented English, but it wasn't bad, and I think it's amazing that she could speak it so well. And, it certainly sounded like she understood what she was saying. This is what she said:

"Mr. Trump: don't mess with us. You better know that Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires. It is good that you are (caught in) lies.  You are not fighting with a group, but with a nation, a nation which is not defeated throughout the history." 

And this is what she did when she said "the history."

Donald, you're not going to kill her, are you? You've already killed a lot of little girls like her, and so did both your predecessors, Obama and Bush. You've all got a river of the blood of children on your hands, the three of you.  But, you're not going to kill her now, are you? It's not going to make America safe. It's not going to make America great again. It's not going to stop terrorists. If you want to stop terrorists, stop being one.  You've admitted that the Iraq  War was a "mistake," and it 's an odd way to describe the killing of a million Iraqis. But now, you need to admit that that the Afghanistan War was equally a mistake. Both wars were crimes against humanity. You need to get out of there. And stop thinking you are going to leave behind a large intelligence force. This little girl is telling you no.  

You can watch and hear her here:

https://twitter.com/khalidzadran15

This is a letter that Jack Ruby wrote to someone that refers to the book he read and which got him all riled up about LBJ: A Texan Looks At Lyndon by J. Evetts Haley.

It reads: "you must believe me that I know what is taking place, so please with all my heart, you must believe me, because I am counting on you to save this country a lot of blood-shed. As soon as you get out you must read Texan looks at Lyndon (A Texan Looks at Lyndon by J. Evetts Haley) , and it may open your eyes to a lot of things. This man is a Nazi in the worst order."

That was the entirety of the connection between Ruby and LBJ, which is to say: there was no connection. Ruby just read that book. And I have read it myself, and what it claims is that the official story of a lone gunman (Oswald) is true, but Johnson put Oswald up to it. And that's ridiculous.

Further on in the letter Ruby writes: " ... isn't it strange that Oswald who hasn't worked a lick most of his life, should be fortunate enough to get a job at the Book Building two weeks before the president himself didn't know as to when he was to visit Dallas, now where would a jerk like Oswald get the information that the president was coming to Dallas?"

To me, that just shows how mentally incompetent Ruby was. Was one really fortunate to get a $1.11/hr job as an order-filler at the TSBD? A real stroke of luck. And the idea that Oswald had advance knowledge that Kennedy was coming is comical. Oswald didn't even know on November 22 that Kennedy was coming. He asked James Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk because he didn't know. And Jarman told him. That was about 9:30 on Friday morning.

That Ruby could have thought that Oswald had advance knowledge of the assassination plot because he was working with Lyndon Johnson is screaming out loud funny. And he went on:

"Only one person could have had that information, and that man was Johnson who knew weeks in advance as to what was going to happen, because he is the one who was going to arrange the trip for the president, this had been planned long before the president himself knew about, so you can figure that one out. The only one who gained by the shooting of the president was Johnson, and he was in a car in the rear and safe when the shooting took place. What would the Russians, Castro or anyone else have to gain by eliminating the president? If Johnson was so heartbroken over Kennedy, why didn't he do something for Robert Kennedy? All he did was snub him."

He's actually got some decent points in there. And I fully accept that Johnson was a top player in the assassination. But, the idea that Johnson gave the information to Oswald so that Oswald could shoot Kennedy with his defective Carcano rifle is absurd. It's absurd that Johnson would have sought Oswald to do it, who practically flunked his last shooting test in the Marines, and whose Russian friends said that he couldn't hit a rabbit with a shotgun, and it is ridiculous that he wouldn't have gotten his assassin a better rifle.

Oswald had nothing to do with it. I repeat what I wrote above: Oswald didn't even know that Kennedy was going to be passing the building. So, how could he have had anything to do with the assassination? He had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. No one told him anything about it.

But, the idea that Jack Ruby had any connection with LBJ is disproven by the very fact that Ruby lived for 3 years. They would have had to kill him immediately if he was holding on to a secret such as that. Dead men tell no tales; live men do; and they knew that.

There is something else that should convince you that Ruby really didn't do it. It was reported by Ruby and the cops who subdued him that when the melee broke out, Ruby spoke. He said: "What are you doing? I'm Jack Ruby, not some criminal. You know me." That 's how Ruby put it, but the cops said something similar. 

But, how could Ruby say that if he had just shot Oswald? Wouldn't he know what they're doing it and why they're doing it? Didn't he know that cops don't like it when you shoot a prisoner that they are escorting? 

That statement proves that Ruby was not aware of having done anything. So, what are you going to believe? That he did it unconsciously, and quickly came to? That it was a 3 second sleep-walk? But, what reason is there to believe that? What would be the medical basis for believing it? 

No. Occam would tell you that if he was unaware of doing it, the most likely thing is that he didn't do it.

But, there's more. Reporters who were in the garage were asked if the shooter said anything, and they said  that he didn't say a word. Furthermore, we can watch the films, which come with sound, and we can see for ourselves that the shooter never spoke. That is, we don't hear him say anything, and we never see him in the act of speaking. We never see him talking. 

So, the shooter at the televised spectacle did not speak, but Ruby reportedly did, and that means that they were two separate events. Ruby got there early. And it makes sense that he did because he said he got up early, and all he did was get dressed and eat breakfast before going to Western Union. Are you aware that he only lived 2  1/2  miles away? It was probably a 5 minute drive back then. So, it makes sense that he would have been there an hour earlier at 10:15.

Then, there is the fact that Ruby described a different situation at the top of the ramp when he arrived there than existed at 11:15. Ruby only saw Lt. Pierce and no one else in the squad car. But, at 11:15, Pierce had two other cops with him in the car: Sergeant Maxie and Officer Putnam.  

There is also the fact that Ruby said he didn't know the uniformed officer who was talking to Pierce from the driver side as Ruby approached from the passenger side.  But, Ruby did know Roy Vaughan. They had met several times, and once, Vaughan forgave a traffic violation that Ruby committed for which Vaughan pulled him over. He forgave him "because he was a friend of the Department."  Do you think Ruby could have forgotten Vaughan after he did that for him?  No way. They were two different situations and at two different times. 

Jack Ruby was innocent. He got to the garage early, where he immediately got jumped and was hustled up to the 5th floor; and that is where he was when the televised spectacle took place, which was pure theater, with FBI Agent James Bookhout starring as Jack Ruby.  And to make sure Ruby didn't go anywhere, they stripped him down to his underwear and kept him like that on the 5th floor until it was time for him to go down to the 3rd floor to be interviewed by Will Fritz who had returned from Parkland Hospital after Oswald died. And it was there on the 3rd floor, around 3 pm, that Ruby got woven into the story for the first time. That's where they did the switch in the bait and switch. But, his eyes were still glassy and dilated and with a transfixed stare from the drugs he was given that morning. It's a pretty freaky look for him to have at a time like that. 

  

Authorities were in a fix. Oswald had them by the balls. He denied that he owned or ordered a rifle. He denied that he posed for a photo with one, and he said the photo was fake. He denied going to Mexico City. He said he was out with Bill Shelley in front during the shooting. He never even admitted that he rented a P.O. Box. What, were they were afraid to ask him? 

At trial, he and his lawyer would have demolished them. Never could they let it go to trial. But, the case against Oswald was so weak, so bad, and so obviously corrupt that they couldn't even let him speak to a lawyer, not even once. 

Do you realize what would have come of that?

Lawyer: Did you shoot the President? 
Oswald: No.
Lawyer: Where were you at the time?
Oswald: I was standing in front watching the motorcade with Bill Shelley and others, at the entrance. 
Lawyer: Did you shoot Tippit?
Oswald: No. I was never at 10th and Patton, or anywhere near it. What for?
Lawyer: Is it your rifle that they're talking about?
Oswald: No. I don't own a rifle, and I never ordered one. 
Lawyer: They've got paperwork, and they claim it's your writing.
Oswald: It's not. I'm telling you; it's phony: I never ordered a rifle.
Lawyer; So, I take it you never posed with one either?
Oswald: Of course not. That is a phony photo; it is phony evidence. This whole case against me is phony. I am being framed. I had no reason to kill the President-and no desire to. 

What would have come from it is the lawyer realizing, not only, that Oswald was innocent, that he was being wrongly accused and charged, but that it was no mistake; that a planned systematic framing of Oswald was underway and that it went to the top.  

He would have known all that from one meeting with Oswald, and then, there was nothing barring him from rattling it off to the press, which is to say, the whole world. 

Do you see now why they could not let Oswald have an attorney?

And remember: Oswald NEVER met with H. Louis Nichols. That was an Oswald double. And they did it to neutralize all the appeals that Oswald had made- to the world- for legal representation. It was damage control. 

It is very clear that just 17 hours before, Oswald had made a very impassioned request for A lawyer, and that was after having made similar appeals all afternoon.  It is preposterous to think that he would have turned it down. And note that although we have a lot of statements by Oswald, there is none pertaining to why he turned down legal help when it was offered. 

But, regardless of that, authorities couldn't hold off getting him a lawyer much longer. He had already been through two arraignments without one, and usually a public defender or private counsel is present at an arraignment. 

And again, one meeting with a lawyer was all it would have taken to blow the case wide open, and that lawyer could have gone to the press. 

So, then what happened? Did the State just get lucky the Jack Ruby came along and saved their asses? Luck had nothing to do with it. The killing of Oswald was just as planned and orchestrated as the killing of Kennedy. 

Authorities knew on Saturday that Oswald was going to die on Sunday, and here's the evidence: they took his wife into custody on Saturday without telling him. When has that ever happened before or since? Stop and think about how incensed he would have been had he known. RECALL HOW HE REACTED WHEN HE FOUND OUT THE FBI WENT TO TALK TO HIS WIFE WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT. IF THAT INCENSED HIM, IMAGINE HOW HE WOULD HAVE REACTED UPON LEARNING THAT THEY CONFISCATED HER. 

So, how could they do that on Saturday when he was alive? The only way they could do it was if they knew he'd be dead by Sunday. 

So, does it mean that Jack Ruby was working with the Dallas Police? No, that's impossible. They arrested him. They charged him. They testified against him. They were part of a prosecution team that was trying to put him to death.  

So, there could have been no collaboration between Ruby and the Dallas Police. And they didn't just get lucky that he came along. Luck has nothing to do with anything in the JFK assassination.  

Ruby was just another patsy, and because he was not of right mind, they could convince him that he shot Oswald. It wasn't him in the garage. That was pure theater, a spectacle for television, with FBI Agent James Bookhout filling in for Jack Ruby, who was already squirreled away up on the 5th floor, having reached the garage much earlier than reported.  

Cui bono? Who benefited from Oswald's sudden murder while in police custody? Kennedy's real killers did, and they are the ones who killed Oswald. They are the ones who needed him dead, and they are the ones who got him dead. Jack Ruby was just putty in their hands. He was MK-ULTRA. He was as innocent as Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, Mark David Chapman, etc. Ruby never reached for his gun. He wasn't even in the garage at 11:20. He was just so mentally disabled from the drugs and the mind control he was subjected to that he had no power to stand up for himself.  He  accepted that he shot Oswald solely because Dallas Police told him that he did, even though he had no memory of doing it, no intention of doing it, no will to do it, and no perception or understanding of himself as being a person capable of doing it. So submissive to authority was he that he accepted being a killer solely on the basis of being told so. It's sad; very sad; and Jack Ruby is no doubt one of the most abused persons who ever lived. Oswald could fight back, but not Jack Ruby. He was helpless. 

But, this is 2019, and the facts are known. Please: become a defender of Jack Ruby. Deny his guilt. Take a stand. And be bold about it. You have grounds to be.      
  



  

On the lighter side, the Fred Astaire people really liked the last song Paul and I did, Dancing in the Dark. 

And here is Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse dancing to Dancing in the Dark. What class.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FoBdwjh__s

Trump is demented, and this is Dr. Cinque telling you that. 

How smart do you have to be to know that remarks you make to world media are going to reach the Taliban? They, the Taliban, published this image of Trump when he made his incredibly stupid remark about being able to win the war in Afghanistan if only he were to kill 10 million Afghans. 

  
And they wrote this:

Let it be known to the idol of this age and to the so called super power America and its President that this proud people will resist and fight till the last Afghan. Afghans are determined to fight the American invaders and their local and foreign allies till they are expelled from Afghanistan, even if it takes another 18 years because Afghans can never compromise on Islam or their sovereignty.

Afghans as a nation have never bowed down to the bullying of foreigners nor will they bow to the bullying of a mad President like Donald Trump. The American President should read the history of the Presidents before him who failed to succeed in Afghanistan. From Bill Clinton, George Bush to Barack Obama, every American President failed to succeed in their nefarious and evil plans in Afghanistan.

Let it be known to the American President who thinks he can wipe out Afghanistan that the Afghans haven’t forgotten their forefathers and leaders who gave them guidance and freedom by blessing them with the light of Islam. The voice of the leader of the believers Mullah Muhammad Umar Mujahid (may Allah have his mercy on him) still resonates in the ears of every Mujahid of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan when he said:

“I am ready to sacrifice everything in completing the unfinished agenda of our noble Jihad – until there is no bloodshed in Afghanistan and Islam becomes a way of life for our people”.

What was said 19 years ago by the great leader of Afghanistan is the policy and the way forward for all the people in Afghanistan, each standing shoulder to shoulder with the Mujahideen holding firmly onto their Islamic beliefs in front of the American invaders and their slaves.

To summarize, the Americans must understand that the escalation of war will solely result in more losses and no particular successful end in the foreseeable future. The American occupation will remain ineffective and costly for the Americans and will remain an open wound that will ultimately result in their complete collapse and withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The longest war in the history of America will end as a defeat for the Americans and the 21st century which is known as the century of American domination shall forever be remembered as the century in which America as a super power was laid to rest in the Graveyard of Empires.

Any small progress that may have been made over months of negotiations have now vanished. And now, I expect damage control will set in, and I'm sure that "special envoy" Khalilzad will apologize profusely to the Taliban. Hey, Zalmay: Just tell them that your boss lives on Big Macs.