Thursday, November 2, 2017
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
From: Paul Craig Roberts
John Remington Graham
I have been asked many times why I have intervened in the federal prosecution of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the young man who was convicted and sentenced to death in the Boston Marathon bombing case where two brothers, on April 15, 2013, allegedly detonated pressure cooker bombs on Boylston Street in front of the Forum Restaurant that killed or maimed many people.
My active intervention in the case began when I assisted the Russian aunt, herself a lawyer, of Dzhokhar file pro se papers in the federal district court in Boston, asking that she be recognized as a friend of the court so she could present evidence conclusively showing, by FBI-gathered evidence, incorporated by reference into the indictment, that Dzhokhar could not have detonated the bomb he was supposed to have detonated. I proceeded in this way as instructed by the bar liaison officer of the federal district court and the clerk’s office. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts wrote up this legal adventure in his column of August 17, 2015, in a way which draws from the judicial record, and portrays the scenario clearly enough. The link is https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/08/17/fbi-evidence-proves-innocence-accused-boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev. Those unfamiliar with this case need to read that article.
The claim of the Russian aunt sounds fantastic only so long as one believes newspapers and does not pay attention to critical, undeniable facts gathered by the FBI, and the language of the indictment as returned on June 27, 2013, especially paragraphs 6, 7, and 24. A number of things have caused me to doubt Dzhokhar’s guilt.
What of the confessions attributed to Dzhokhar? The law has always known that, contrary to popular belief, confessions are highly unreliable, often contrived or staged by artifice, or otherwise false, which is why the law has long used safeguards to assure that alleged confessions are received only cautiously under proper circumstances. The alleged confession by Dzhokhar written in the dark on the side of a boat under which the boy injured from gunshot woulds was hiding is highly suspect. Moreover, if Dzhokhar was willing to confess, why was he hiding? The confession at sentencing was plainly enough scripted for him, and is not corroborated by what the law calls the “corpus delicti.”
But more troubling evidence exists. Dr. Lorraine Day was the chief of orthopedic surgery at San Francisco General Hospital for some twenty-five years. She treated many grave injuries, and is an impeccable medical expert. She prepared a decisive report, dated May 4, 2015, on the Boston bombing case, which she concluded was a hoax. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/34vs8r/lorraine_day_md_former_chief_of_orthopedic/ She observed, for example, that photos of the scene after the explosions revealed no blood when it should have been visible everywhere, and that, when blood did appear, it was of a bright orange red Hollywood color, not maroon as real blood appears in real life. The Boston marathon case appears to be at least contaminated by crisis actors if not entirely a false flag event. The video of the man showing no trauma whose leg is purported to be blown away being wheeled down the street sitting upright in a wheelchair is a dead giveaway as to the presence of crisis actors. Any such casualty mishandled in such a way would have quickly bled to death.
– John Remington Graham of the Minnesota Bar (#3664X), firstname.lastname@example.org, 418-888-5049.
Monday, October 30, 2017
In our era, a key progressive goal is to so distract decision-makers in the White House, Congress, and the pro-limited government movement, that we fail to seize this opportunity to focus on making permanent reforms, especially constitutional reforms, that will change the trajectory of government growth over the next generation.
There are some very smart progressives who realize that the most dangerous part of this Republican coalition, is NOT just Republican control of the White House or Republican majorities in Congress.
Democrats have dealt with those before and they know that the executive orders, budgets, tax policies and laws these majorities enact are only temporary, until the next Democratic super-majorities which come periodically, about once a generation.
What Democrats and progressives REALLY fear is the combination of Republican Congressional majorities, control of the White House AND majorities in the legislatures of 33, almost 2/3, of the states plus split, or near majority control in at least 5 more states and the power they offer for constitutional reform.
The emerging new technology of constitutional reform, refining the strategy of pressure from the states and the public that has resulted in the enactment of 12 of the 27 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, could give 2/3 of the states who agreed on the text of an Amendment that was also popular with voters, the power to force Congress to propose that Amendment or something very similar.
States could force Congress to act without resorting to a convention that is still a very divisive issue in American politics.
It was pressure from the states and the public that forced Congress to propose the Bill of Rights and more recently Presidential term limits. It could be done again.
If there were active Presidential, Congressional, business community, or widespread grassroots leadership for such an effort to mobilize states to force Congress to propose an Amendment, it could well succeed.
And success for almost any Amendment would transform the balance of state and federal power, taking power away from Washington and giving it back to states and the people, where most voters believe it belongs.
Creating a viable path to taking power out of Washington would totally frustrate progressives' long term plan to create an even more powerful higher tax, higher regulation, higher spending federal government over the next generation.
Especially dangerous for advocates of bigger government is the possibility that pro-limited government forces will find a way to permanently curb the power of the so-called "deep state", often referred to as the administrative state.
The power of the "administrative state" now allows a President to, in many ways, "rule by decree" reinterpreting laws passed years ago, to essentially create new laws without the consent of Congress. Using that power is a key part of progressive strategy for imposing their economic and cultural agenda on the country the next time they elect a President, without the need for approval by Congress.
Free from the fear of arbitrary federal regulation, the value of assets in energy, agriculture, natural resources, manufacturing, financial markets, technology, and small business could skyrocket, and our rate of economic growth and job creation could double.
But the current power of federal regulators and the near-certainty of a future progressive president who will exploit that power threaten our hopes for high economic growth, our resulting ability to responsibly fund both our defense needs and a safety net for the poor and elderly, our 2nd Amendment rights, our religious freedom, and the very checks and balances on the abuse on federal power that were intended by the authors of our Constitution,
That is the reason that the effort, now unanimously backed by the RNC with the approval of the White House, and by Resolutions in 26 state legislative chambers, to mobilize states to persuade Congress to propose the "Regulation Freedom Amendment" to require that Congress approve major new federal regulations is so important.
With just a little more support and momentum, this effort could become one of the major issues of 2018, uniting libertarians, conservatives of all kinds, and a majority of the public around the idea that the people and their elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats in Washington should make the rules that govern us.
That issue and the fact that most Democrats in Washington want send more power to Washington, and give more power to un-elected bureaucrats, things most voters oppose. could totally change the dynamics of the 2018 election.
And that is why the Regulation Freedom Amendment and the effort to "end regulation without representation" deserve your active support, including your time, your resources, and the contacts you have built up over your years of work and living.
We need people at all levels to contact elected officials urging support for the Amendment, to attend and speak at conferences and political meetings around the nation, and to help us raise the money we need to grow this effort.
If some of your passion and energy were directed towards finding others who would like to be actively involved in this effort to "drain the swamp", you could have a decisive impact at a decisive moment in the effort to reverse the trend towards a more powerful, centralized and abusive federal government.
The historic "triple 'White House/Congressional/State Legislative majorities and the unique opportunity they presents may not come again for a generation, or ever. We must take advantage of it now or we will look back with regret on the opportunity that we missed!
If you want to discuss, call or email me.
The Madison Coalition
202 255 5000
Saturday, October 28, 2017
by Andrew Kreig
In a chaotic chapter of government efforts to suppress research into the evidence regarding President Kennedy's 1963 assassination, President Trump on Oct. 26 suddenly backed away from his promises this week to comply with a 1992 Congressional law and release all remaining documents related to the assassination.
The president released in full via the National Archives website at about 7:30 p.m. some 2,891 remaining documents after a conference call with news reporters beginning at 5:46 p.m. This followed a day in which many in the public long focused on the document release were left wondering until after normal business hours what was happening.
Update: One expert suggested privately to fellow researchers that his preliminary review of the documents and the initial media coverage indicates vast confusion in the news coverage, as follows:
Most journalists who mentioned the numbers of documents in their initial reporting implied that the released documents, 2,891, came from the trove of some 3,100 that had been expected to be released in full on Oct. 26. Instead, the expert said, at least 98 percent of the released documents appeared to be from the larger universe of some 30,000 documents that had been previously released with partial redactions.
In other words, the new information may be far less than implied by initial news reports, even those from major news organizations. A further implication is that staff disorganization in the White House must have been at a monumental level for a 25-year project regarding the murder of a president in broad daylight in what's been called "The Crime of the Century" to crash into such confusion and secrecy on its long-anticipated deadline day.
The White House issued a statement saying that it was giving federal agencies until March 12 to register objections to remaining documents.The White House scheduling a decision on the those objections by April 26, with some documents to be released on a rolling basis in the meantime.
Earlier in the week, Trump had promised compliance and transparency on the documents. They were supposed to have been released by Oct. 26 as part of a process begun after the U.S. Senate and House each passed by unanimous votes in 1992 the so-called "JFK Act" to release all documents absent compelling national security reasons.
This editor has been monitoring these developments closely for years via the Justice Integrity Project and Citizens Against Political Assassinations (CAPA). Along with more than 200 other reporters and interested parties, I joined a White House conference call that began at 5:46 p.m. (EST) whereby officials described how and why they were only partially complying with their own and congressional timetables. Also, I undertook a number of interviews this week with U.S. and international outlets to describe the importance of developments.
The news is summarized in an appendix to this column. It contains a number of news stories and commentaries arranged in reverse chronological order. Another appendix includes our so-far 43-part "Readers Guide to the JFK Assassination," which helps show how virtually all major U.S. media continue to support the controversial 1964 Warren Report claiming that former U.S. Marine Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone to kill Kennedy in Dallas.
Virtually all major media also couch their coverage in terms of smearing researchers with the term "conspiracy theorists," a term popularized by the CIA in the 1960s to discredit critics of the Warren Report, previously declassified CIA documents show.
Especially notable among the columns this week are those by JFK research experts John M. Newman, Dan Hardway, and Jacob Hornberger. Important also is a news story by the Pittsburgh-Post Gazette in which noted forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, chairman of CAPA, described medical evidence proving that the accused JFK assassin Oswald could not alone have killed Kennedy, as alleged by the 1964 Warren Commission.
Wecht has been a leader in arranging with CAPA and the South Texas College of Law / Houston a unique mock trial, State of Texas vs. Lee Harvey Oswald, that will showcase at the school top medical experts discussing evidence. Proponents from CAPA believe the evidence will show conclusively on the basis of scientific facts that Oswald could not alone have killed Kennedy, in contrast to claims by government authorities and the vast majority of news reporters..Details of the mock trial are here. Many researchers believe also that Oswald did not fire any shots, but such a conclusion is not necessary to raise doubts about the professed certitude of authorities that he acted alone.
Newman, a historian and national intelligence expert, argues that Oswald was an undercover intelligence operative and that agencies have tried through the years to hide embarrassing information. Hardway, an attorney and former staff investigator for Congress into Oswald's alleged activities, argues in his column that intelligence agencies and the news media have concocted the smear "conspiracy theory" to deter honest investigations into the Kennedy death.
Hornberger, leader of the Libertarian think tank Future of Freedom Foundation and also an attorney and a book publisher, predicted early this week that Trump would back away from his promise to release all documents. Hornberger alleged days ago that Trump, as deal-maker, likely promised transparency in order to frighten secrets-keepers at the FBI and CIA to make a secret deal to help protect his own secrets and viability despite ongoing federal probes into his 2016 presidential campaign and subsequent actions.
Trump's White House statement contradicting his earlier statements said in part:
The American public expects -- and deserves -- its Government to provide as much access as possible to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records (records) so that the people may finally be fully informed about all aspects of this pivotal event. Therefore, I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted.
At the same time, executive departments and agencies (agencies) have proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns. I have no choice --today -- but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our Nation's security.
To further address these concerns, I am also ordering agencies to re-review each and every one of those redactions over the next 180 days. At the end of that period, I will order the public disclosure of any information that the agencies cannot demonstrate meets the statutory standard for continued postponement of disclosure under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note) (the "Act").
A CIA spokesperson added:
We welcome the President’s directive to conduct further review of the records in the JFK Assassination Records Collection to identify any additional information that can be released, while still protecting our officers, partners, sources, and methods.CIA has been working diligently to release to the public as much CIA information as possible from the collection.
Pursuant to the JFK Assassination Records Act of 1992, more than 87,000 CIA records were identified as falling within the scope of the collection.
Of those, CIA has already released more than 69,000 records to the public in full, without redaction. Every single one of the approximately 18,000 remaining CIA records in the collection will ultimately be released, with no document withheld in full.
While some of these 18,000 records currently contain targeted redactions, the information redacted represents less than one percent of the total CIA information in the collection.
CIA’s current redactions were undertaken with the intent to protect information in the collection whose disclosure would harm national security -- including the names of CIA assets and current and former CIA officers, as well as specific intelligence methods and partnerships that remain viable to protecting the nation today.
The news coverage from mainstream media focused heavily on reporters' claim that "conspiracy theorists" dominate the debate and steer the public away from what the reporters consistently claim is Oswald's guilt. The news organizations bring forward for the most part the same few supposed experts who with near-unanimity allege that Oswald in fact killed Kennedy, acting alone.
CNN -- whose parent company Time-Life played a key role in suppressing the Zapruder film that provided contrary evidence to the mainstream narrative that Oswald killed Kennedy with three shots from the rear -- exemplified the questionable news coverage the evening of Oct. 26. CNN's commentators repeatedly mocked critics of the official narrative. The anchors and experts (clearly cherry-picked to reiterate the death's official narrative) framed their discussion around whether delays in providing evidence would fuel "conspiracy" thinking. That stressed the commentators' theme that the most important documents in the case were those involving Oswald's purported Communist sympathies.
Our immediate goal with this column is to report the evening's breaking news ASAP.
Future reports here will follow up in more depth with analysis of why the U.S. mainstream news media remain so committed to reiterating a narrative that the American public reject by large majorities, according to public opinion polls showing that between 60 and about 75 percent of Americans reject the Warren Report's main conclusion -- and thus the standard news accounts by media elites.
As a further preview, we note that we now know conclusively that the CIA led the way in a secret propaganda campaign against the American public and in violation of the CIA's charter to manipulate the nation's news media to popularize the smear "conspiracy theorist." This is shown by a previously declassified 1967 CIA document, known as "CIA Dispatch 1035-960."
The 50-page CIA memo instructed its agents to contact their media contacts and disparage as "conspiracy theorists" those who were criticizing the Warren Commission findings that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and acted alone. The 1967 document is here in the original, and here in reformatted text of its summary. Minutes of CIA meeting that same year indicated fear that New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison would win a conviction in his murder conspiracy case naming International Trade Mart executive Clay Shaw as being at the center of a plot to murder the president.
Shaw, the only person ever indicted in connection with the JFK murder, was acquitted after he denied that he was involved with the CIA and after many key prosecution witnesses died in untimely fashion.
Garrison outlined his theory of the case in video that NBC broadcast in 1967 (under rules then requiring a right of reply) in response to NBC's attacks on Garrison to thwart his prosecution. In a 27-minute address to the nation, Garrison argued in favor of a rational evaluation of evidence and against what he called a dangerous "fairy tale" being spread by the Warren Commission and powerful media about the Kennedy murder case in order to confuse the public. At the eight-minute mark or so, Garrison talks specifically about the importance of his documentary evidence -- even though he possessed only some of the four million pages of evidence declassified primarily in recent years about the assassination.
The 1991 film JFK by Oliver Stone portrayed Garrison as a truth-seeker, and led to popular pressure on Congress to order release of suppressed JFK assassination documents. Some four million pages have been released so far. These provide informed researchers fairly clear ideas of what had caused Kennedy's murder and why it still matters.
To be continued.