George Washington was a slave owner, and according to this article from the Smithonian, he resorted to tricky ways to bypass state laws that would have required him to free his slaves. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/george-washington-used-legal-loopholes-avoid-freeing-his-slaves-180954283/


There is a concerted effort by historians to try to depict Washington in a favorable light, but there is no doubt that it was Lee who recognized the wrongfulness of slavery-not Washington. Lee freed his one slave and got his wife to free all her slaves before the Civil War began. And that is an absolute, unquestioned and undeniable fact. Washington, supposedly, rewrote his will 6 months before he died in 1799 ordering that his slaves be freed upon his wife's death. But, it didn't happen, and the authenticity of that will is hardly sacrosanct. Here is an article from the Philadelphia Observer which states that the story that Washington's false teeth were made from wood is a lie! They were made from the teeth of black slaves! Washington had teeth yanked from the mouths of black slaves so that dentures could be made for him. 

https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/coard-george-washingtons-teeth-not-from-wood-but-slaves/article_f9f31911-bcdc-53ac-b86d-26aba781824d.html

Imagine the pain and agony and the misery that followed. Washington did that to them, but it was historians who concocted the story that his teeth were made from wood- anything to protect the image of George Washington, father of our country. 

There is absolutely no doubt that Robert  E. Lee expressed more awareness of the outrage that slavery was than Washington ever dreampt. He wrote this in 1856, so 5 years before the Civil War:

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." 

Did Lee become an avid, outspoken abolitionist? No, he did not. But, he did more and said more against slavery than Washington did, and by a long shot.

So, the current plan to trash Robert E. Lee, if they're going to do it, they need to follow it through to its logical conclusion, which means that Washington has to go. The state of Washington must change its name. So does the city of Washington. And the Washington Redskins have to change their name, and not just the Redskins part, but the Washington part, which is just as offensive.

Anything less than that would be gross hypocrisy. 

I know we're a long way from November, but when it rolls around, I won't be surprised if the networks and the cable stations don't say one word about the JFK assassination. They don't want to talk about it any more.They don't want to defend the official story any more than they have to. I'm sure they realize that, among people who are keenly interested in the JFK assassination, that the vast majority dispute the official story. And not just dispute but mock it. 
And practically all of them dispute it by defending Oswald. There are really very few who dispute but keep Oswald's guilt in the picture. 

And, it is a very ridiculous picture, that of there being an organized plot, a conspiracy to kill Kennedy but with Oswald as shooter. 

That's because whether you think the plot was organized by the CIA or the Mafia or both, no one in his right mind would choose Lee Harvey Oswald to be the shooter- at least not that guy who worked at the TSBD. He was not an assassin. He was not a killer. He wasn't even a marksman. He was no more a marksman than I am a marksman. I have done more shooting in the last 3 years than Oswald did in the 3 years preceding the JFK assassination. 

There was no reason to think that he had the skill, the proficiency, the temperament, and the reliability to do it. Not only was there no reason to think it, there wasn't even the slightest basis to think it. It's so  ridiculous, it's comical. Just imagine the conversation:

Mafia Kingpin 1: So, we're going to kill that rat-bastard Kennedy. The question is: Who do we get to do it?

Mafia Kingpin 2: There's this guy. I heard tings about him. His name is Lee Harvey Oswald. 

Mafia Kingpin 1:  Yeah?  What've you heard?

Mafia Kingpin 2: Ah, he knows his way around a rifle. 

Mafia Kingpin 1: Yeah? Who's he worked for?

Mafia Kingpin 2: The Russians.

Mafia Kingpin 1: Ah, the Russians. You heard tings, huh?

Mafia Kingpin 2: Oh, lots of tings. Like, first, for instance, he constructs the crime scene like he was building a device, say, a radio. 

Mafia Kingpin 1: Building a radio? 

Mafia Kingpin 2:  Yeah. Building a radio. What's wrong with that?

Mafia Kingpin 1: Nuttin', I guess.

Mafia Kingpin 2: Then, he moves through the scene, dances through it really, like it was a dance at a marina.

Mafia Kingpin 1:  Dancing. Marina. I see where you're going with this.

Mafia Kingpin 2: You bet your sweet calzones you do. 

Mafia Kingpin 1: But, what's he been doing lately?

Mafia Kingpin 2: I hear he's been working for some bookmaker. At least, it has something to do with books. And get this: they call him "The Order-Filler."

Mafia Kingpin 1: The Order-Filler? Momma Mia! Santo Cielo!

Mafia Kingpin 2: Yeah, he fills your order, all right.

Mafia Kingpin 1: That settles it. We've got to get this guy Oswald. 

And that, of course, is Government Story #2, that Oswald did it working (without pay) for the Mafia. If you don't like their first story, that he was browsing through the newspaper on his lunch break at work, and when he saw that JFK was going to be motorcading through Dealey Plaza, he decided instantly to kill him, then try their second story. They don't care which one you believe so long as you place Oswald in the 6th floor window kachewing.

So that is really ridiculous, and it explains why when the HSCA proposed it in January 1979 and called for a new federal investigation, that Jimmy Carter didn't tell his Attorney General to step on the gas and get his Justice Department to tackle it.

But, Government Story #1, that Oswald did it alone and just for himself, is just as ridiculous since he had no motive whatsoever to kill Kennedy; since there is no evidence that he disliked Kennedy, that at the time his mind was on anything but getting his family back under his roof; that the claim that he owned a rifle that was secretly stored in the Paine garage- a conspiracy, if you will, between him and Marina, and dressed up with Michael Paine moving it around the garage wondering whether it was tent poles for camping, a military shovel, or something else, and when first asked if Oswald owned a rifle, Marina referred to the one he owned back in Russia. Add to that the fact that there is a photograph of Oswald  standing in the doorway  during the shooting- a photo that was comically altered trying to hide the fact that he was there, and the fact that he passed a paraffin test, you're left with nothing plausible to think that he did it. And then the whole story of him ordering the rifle, in which he disappeared from work for a long time even though he had to chronicle every minute of his work-day, and after a long walk to the post office to get a money order, he walked an equally long distance to a remote mailbox to drop it into (did I mention he was already at  the post office?)  and then he had to walk back to work, where his absence went unnoticed.  That's the scenario they're forcing us to swallow.

What's it all become? It's become a circus of the absurd. What's holding up the official story is the power of the State, the Leviathan State, and its minion media. 

When someone insults your intelligence, as the Official JFK Story does, it's time to, rhetorically speaking, spit in their eye. At least, if you have any self-respect you will. They've been shoveling this shit at us for nearly 57 years. It's time to say: no mas.  

Wow. They're taking down statues now of Robert E. Lee. Before the war, he owned one slave, a black man who served as his butler, you might say. And Lee freed him before the war and gave him a hefty stipend. So, at the time the Civil War broke out, Robert E. Lee owned no slaves. But, his wife, Mary Anna Custis Lee, came from a wealthy family that was related through marriage to George Washington. And she inherited a plantation in Virginia that had hundreds of slaves. Robert E. Lee told her that she needed to free those slaves, that they should not be owning human beings. And she did.

So, why did Robert E. Lee fight for the South? First, you have to understand that they're lying to us. Lincoln was a racist. He offered to pass a Constitutional amendment that would have forever forbade the federal government from interfering with slavery in the South. And he had a plan to get all free blacks out of the United States, permanently, to either banish them back to Africa or send them to the Caribbean. And Lincoln never freed any slaves, not a one. If you read the Emancipation Proclamation, it only applied to the slaves in the states that were in rebellion. And even in those states, it didn't apply in areas that were already under Union control. The result was that not a single slave got freed. Robert E. Lee freed more slaves than Abraham Lincoln did.

And think about what happened after the war. There were many Confederates who wanted to keep it going by fighting an underground guerrilla war. But, they looked to Robert E. Lee for guidance. He was the most respected man in the South. And he told them, no, that the war was over, that we were one country again, and we needed to make peace with the North and unite again. He, Robert E. Lee, facilitated national healing and reconciliation more than any other person that you can name.

In contrast, Ulysses S. Grant owned 13 slaves, and he REFUSED to free them until he was forced to do so by the 13th Amendment- and he did so resentfully.

So, they want to remove statues of Robert E.Lee, do they? OK, fine. Then it's time to rename the Washington Monument. Or just knock the fucking thing down.

Author

My Stretch Of Texas Ground I'm going to reveal something. What the movie says is that, yes, Hassan and his men are terrorists, and we refer to them as terrorists. But, so was the U.S. Military when it crossed the ocean to attack 3rd world countries, based on lies. What we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq is terrorism too- as much so as the other, and with a much higher death toll. Now, that is a fact. and the number of innocents killed in Afghanistan and Iraq confirms it. They were atrocious wars. Illegal wars. And, it is high time Americans faced it.

Here is why 9/11 Truth is so important: because, to this day, the official 9/11 story is used to justify war. In this article from TIME magazine, the author says that the war on Afghanistan was "not a war of choice." That's enough to make me vomit. We crossed an ocean and two seas to start that war. The author David French glibly said that the Taliban was "intimately involved" in the 9/11 attacks. What a pile of horse shit. The Taliban had nothing to do with it. They have had nothing to do with any operations outside Afghanistan. Their entire focus is on Afghanistan, and they are not stupid enough to think that killing 3000 Americans would serve their interests.

https://time.com/5794643/trumps-disgraceful-peace-deal-taliban/

French is right that what Trump did represents a full retreat-- but no more so than what Nixon did in 1973 in withdrawing Vietnam. And the only regret we should have about that is that he didn't do it sooner. I guess some people would be content if we were still fighting in Vietnam to this day.

Fight for 9/11 truth because it is the only way to expose what the bastards did, which is: kill thousands so that they could then go on and kill millions.

With everything going on with Covid and Trump and him commuting Roger Stone's sentence, no one is looking at Afghanistan, but it continues to be hell over there with people dying violent deaths from war every day. 

The peace deal that Trump signed with the Taliban called for Intra-Afghan talks in March, and here it is July, and they haven't begun. And they're not close to starting. 

Trump is committed to removing all US troops in Afghanistan by April, and he actually agreed to the removal of all foreign troops. But, he can't speak for NATO, and NATO has said that they are not going to be obliged by the deal the U.S.signed. 

So, this may turn into a unilateral U.S.withdrawal from the country. But then again, maybe not, because the new President will be sworn in on January 21, which is several months before April. And what if that new President is Biden? Biden didn't sign any peace deal with the Taliban. And he supported Obama's war in Afghanistan during the 8 years of his Vice-Presidency. And there are plenty of people in the government, in the Military, and in the Democratic Party who hate Trump's peace deal and may be able to sway Biden- if he needs swaying. And the irony is that the legal basis on which he can disavow Trump's peace deal is that: Trump did it. Trump disavowed Obama's peace deal with Iran. And therefore, Biden could disavow Trump's peace deal with the Taliban. And, the Taliban isn't even a government. So, why should Biden be obliged to them? He may just say that promises made to a terrorist group don't have to be met.

So, at this point in time, all bets are off on whether the U.S.is really going to get out of Afghanistan in April. 

This is Sirhan Sirhan. At this hearing, he was asked what he remembers about shooting Robert Kennedy. And if you listen to him, you will hear him say: nothing. He said that he was there, but he has no memory of ever pointing a gun at anybody and no thought of ever wanting to shoot Robert Kennedy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCU2MCxjAJ0  

You should listen to him, and he should sound familiar to you. He should remind you of someone else; someone with many of the same characteristics. Someone who said the same things that he said before he said them.  I am talking about Jack Ruby. What Sirhan said is exactly what Ruby said when he was asked to recall exactly what happened in the Dallas Police Garage: that he did not recall shooting Oswald, that he remembered going there and then being pounced upon by police but not knowing why. 

Probably many of you who are reading this realize that Sirhan Sirhan was innocent, that he was framed, that he was drugged, that he was made to think that he shot Robert Kennedy. Well, the same is  true of Jack Ruby. He no more shot Oswald than Sirhan Sirhan shot Robert Kennedy. And like Sirhan Sirhan, Ruby was in a drugged, mentally impaired, and mentally manipulated state. 

It is POPULAR to believe in Sirhan Sirhan's innocence. He has many supporters, including big names like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  But, it is not popular to believe in Jack Ruby's innocence, even though there is as much reason to believe in it as there is to believe in Sirhan's innocence. 

Don't you get it? They learned a lesson from Oswald, which is: don't use mentally sound patsies. They fight back too hard. Oswald fought back, and he did so much damage to the State's case, they could not only not let him be tried; they couldn't even let him talk to a lawyer. If they did that, they would have had to kill the lawyer. 

So, Oswald was the last lucid lone nut patsy. Following him were James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Mark David Chapman, John Hinckley, etc. But, let's not forget the very first one: Jack Ruby. 

The killing of Oswald was done by the same people who killed JFK. It was an operation of the leviathan State. They had to kill Oswald: because he had a brain and a mouth.  They didn't just get lucky that Jack Ruby came along. They manipulated Jack Ruby to go there for the purpose of making it look like he shot Oswald. And the highly impaired Jack Ruby was incapable of realizing what was happening to him. 

Join the cause to exonerate Jack Ruby. It is as worthy a cause as the exoneration of Sirhan Sirhan.