If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Meth-For-Sex Arrest of Colorado VIP Highlights Power of Alternative Media

Criminal elite panics as alternative media expose their crimes and set the stage for mass executions

Just a few minutes ago, Denver's channel 3 broke the story: Former Arapaho Sheriff Patrick Sullivan - an extremely well-connected member of the Colorado political elite - has been arrested in a meth-for-sex scandal allegedly involving underage partners of both genders.

But there might have been no arrest - and therefore no mainstream story to break - if it hadn't been for Jonathan Elinoff and yours truly. Elinoff, a scourge of the New World Order and alternative media powerhouse, came on my radio show exactly two weeks ago to publicize the extremely credible allegations, naming Sullivan for the first time as the alleged perpetrator.

At that point, Elinoff was seemingly being ejected from his post at a mainstream Colorado radio station, despite his stellar investigative work, including his on-air arrangement of an accused criminal's surrender - an episode that busted the ratings meter. Some suspected that station management might be feeling political pressure from high-powered friends of Patrick Sullivan. Word on the street was that the lives of Jonathan, and the witnesses against Sullivan, were in danger.

By naming-and-shaming Sullivan and his friends on my radio show, Elinoff may have forced the issue, leaving local law enforcement little choice but to do its job. (If only the 9/11 truth community's naming-and-shaming of the 9/11 perps could get such quick results from national law enforcement!)

The Patrick Sullivan episode, which I will discuss with Jonathan today from 4 to 5 pm Central on Truth Jihad Radio (listen here) illustrates the growing power of alternative media. Two weeks ago, no mainstream outlet would have allowed Jonathan to name Sullivan as a credibly-accused drug-pushing pedophile - just as they won't publicize the equally credible allegations of Cheney's involvement in 9/11. At Truth Jihad Radio, and here at Veterans Today, we aren't afraid to air credible accusations against powerful people.

Recently Mike Adams of Natural News, another alternative media powerhouse, pointed out that the alternative media is scooping the mainstream on a much bigger story:

• JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank and other major banks are all insolvent. Their financial collapse is inevitable.

• Your monthly statements from these financial institutions are total fraud, as that money doesn't even exist in these banks. It's like Bernie Madoff, but several orders of magnitude worse...

• The Goldman Sachs criminal banksters are brazenly trying to economically conquer the world by destroying those national leaders who oppose their toxic debt schemes while placing their loyalist economic terrorists in key positions of political power. Refer to Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins for more details on how this actually works.

• The economic devastation now being experienced by countries like the USA is a deliberately planned scheme of economic destruction designed to allow the global banking elite to confiscate enormous resources from targeted nations. Some nations have been forced into giving up their oil fields, water supplies and even their financial sovereignty to be used as collateral for global bankster bailouts.

• There are already increasing calls for bankers to be executed for engaging in these crimes that are effectively stealing trillions of dollars (or equivalent in local currencies) from the people of our world. While calls for such drastic action may seem extreme at the moment, no doubt more people will join in such calls as they begin to lose their pensions and savings accounts when the financial collapse tidal wave reaches their personal bank accounts.
"Calls for bankers to be executed" ?!

Hell, yes.

Two weeks ago, calling for the arrest of Patrick Sullivan was too "extreme" for the mainstream. Today, he's in jail.

Virtually the entire US political and financial elite consists of psychopathic criminals - traitors and mass murderers, human scum guilty of the most heinous crimes against humanity. And the criminal banksters sit atop that terminally rancid power pyramid. As the people wake up to what has been done to them, calls for mass executions are going to make the French Revolution look like a DAR tea party.

No wonder they're trying to pre-emptively label people like Jonathan and me "terrorists." No wonder the Zionist traitor Lieberman, who should have been hanged long ago, is calling for shutting down "terrorist websites" like my own TruthJihad.com.

What makes a website "terrorist"? Let's face it: One man's terrorism is another man's justified use of force. Lieberman thinks the Israeli Defense Forces have every right to steal hundreds of billions from US taxpayers and use that money to slaughter Palestinian children, one by one, with sniper rifles, as they walk on sidewalks and play in schoolyards. I think that those of us who are struggling to stop the Palestinian genocide have every right to use equally lethal force against its perpetrators. Which one of us is the terrorist? If Lieberman takes away my Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech - the weapon I am now using to battle the likes of him - what recourse will I have but to turn to other weapons?

Lieberman, and 60 other US Senators, just voted to let the military disappear US citizens without charges for as long as it likes, anywhere in the world, including the US. They are obviously panicking, because they know that they are traitors who deserve to be executed, and they know the people are waking up and will soon be calling for, and working for, their executions.
"If the American people knew what we have done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us." George H.W. Bush

The irony is that by voting for such a grotesque act of treason against the Constitution, these 61 Senators have sealed their own fates. Their votes are clearly acts of treason. Any real Americans left out there - and there are more than a few - will have no choice but to work for the trial, conviction, and execution of these 61 treasonous Senators. Storm the Senate, and bring on the people's tribunals!

It won't happen today. It probably won't happen this week, or this month. But it will happen.

Two weeks ago, Patrick Sullivan was untouchable. Not any more.

One domino down. The rest of the criminal elite will follow.

That's the power of the alternative media.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Lynn Margulis, truth seeker, 1938-2011



One of the nice things about getting drummed out of academia for speaking the truth about 9/11 - the nicest thing, in fact - is the wonderful people you meet.

I just learned that one of the most wonderful, Lynn Margulis, passed away yesterday.

Lynn was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th and early 21st centuries. Her work in the life sciences, which she did not like to call "evolutionary biology," set the stage for a paradigm shift away from neo-Darwinian reductionism, and towards an appreciation of the irreducible complexity of the life processes, the importance of microbial life in those processes, and the power and ubiquity of gene-swapping and symbiosis as evolutionary forces.

Lynn was herself nearly drummed out of orthodox science as a heretic when she began propounding these views circa the early 1960s. Today, they are increasingly accepted by the scientific mainstream.

Lynn was the most eminent scientist to have spoken out for 9/11 truth. Several years ago, I sent her a snail-mail letter applauding her stance on 9/11 and inquiring about a possible radio interview. She phoned me up and we quickly discovered a lot of common ground, including mutual dissatisfaction with the mediocrity of mainstream academia and politics, a passion for truth, and (oddly) a shared predilection for visits to Oujda, Morocco - the last Moroccan city that foreigners would ordinarily visit, but one that is the home of both my in-laws and some of Lynn's most important colleagues in the study of Saharan fossils.

I spent quite a bit of time on the phone with Lynn over the past several years. Though we never got to meet in person, I felt uncannily close to her - there is really nobody I'd rather talk to - and am missing her terribly right now.

The last few times I spoke with her, she said that she didn't really want to keep harping on 9/11, that politics had become hopelessly stupid and increasingly dangerous, and that humanity was facing a very serious predicament as population and resource use overruns the planet's carrying capacity.

I had hoped to bring her to speak at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for a Sifting and Winnowing event.

Here is the email I just received:


Dear all,

It is with great sadness to pass along the news that a great American scientist has died. Lynn Margulis died on at 5:15 PM (17:15 EST) on November, 22, 2011; she was 73 years old. She suffered a massive hemorrhagic stroke last Thursday. She will be dearly missed by her devoted family, students, her many friends and colleagues around the world.

In lieu of flowers, contributions should be made to the Lynn Margulis Memorial Fund*. This fund will be used to support students that will continue her scientific research.

*Checks may be sent directly to "Lynn Margulis Memorial Fund" at Northampton Cooperative Bank, PO Box 550, Amherst, MA 01004


The Lynn Margulis Laboratory
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Department of Geosciences
611 North Pleasant Street
233 Morrill Science Center
Amherst MA 01003-9297

Military should "just say no" to Iran attack


Who's going to stop the Zionists from using the US military to attack Iran?

The President can't do it - not in an election year.

The Congress can't do it - not in an election year, or any year for that matter.

The Zionists have a down payment on the White House, and they own Congress free and clear. Zionist sources are said to provide roughly half of the bribe money euphemistically known as "campaign contributions." They've turned the entire US political class into a gang of treasonous whores who daily pledge undying allegiance to the Israeli flag.

So who can stop them? Who can prevent a ruinous war on Iran?

Only the US military.

US military leaders - the intelligent ones, not the "my God is bigger than your God" loonies like Gen. Boykin - need to schedule some visits to key political leaders. Some very, very brief visits. All they need to say is: "The answer is no." Then: "What part of 'no' don't you understand?" And finally: "Any Israeli planes that attempt to attack Iran will be shot out of the sky; and any American involvement in an Israeli-instigated war with Iran will be on the side of Iran."

The Zio-con traitors will whine: "What happened to civilian oversight of the military? Doesn't the military have to obey executive orders and congressional mandates" ?

Once again, the answer is no. If the executive orders a war crime, or congress mandates a war crime, those orders are null and void. The proper course for a military person ordered to participate in a war crime is to arrest, or in the worst-case scenario kill, the person or persons giving the illegal order.

An Israeli attack on Iran would not only be a war crime; it would be a clear example of the most terrible, most evil of all war crimes: the crime of aggression. 

Any US officer who participates in an attack on Iran would be committing the worst possible war crime - the worst possible crime against humanity.

If the White House and Congress ordered the US military to participate in the long-planned Zionist attack on Iran, it would be more honorable, and more legally and morally defensible, to bomb the White House and Congress to smithereens and kill all the traitors in those usurped buildings, than to fire even one bullet in anger against a people who have never attacked or threatened us.

But it shouldn't have to come to that. If our sane military leaders (assuming that isn't an oxymoron) make it clear that they will "just say no" if ordered to commit more war crimes - especially if the war crimes in question are part of a treasonous and suicidal attack on Iran for Israel - the bribe-sucking traitors dressed as politicians will presumably refrain from issuing any such illegal orders.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

"My Dad Helped the CIA Kill JFK!" Part 3

Below is the lightly-edited transcript of part three of my interview with Saint John Hunt, recipient and custodian of father E. Howard Hunt's confession to participating in the LBJ-approved, CIA-orchestrated murder of JFK. (Go to Part 1.)  (Go to Part 2.) (Listen to the interview.) (Listen to my interview with James Douglass, author of the best single JFK assassination book, JFK and the Unspeakable.)

[Don't miss James Fetzer's talk Who Killed JFK? TODAY, Tuesday, November 22nd at the University of Wisconsin-Madison! Details here.]

* * *

Kevin Barrett
Welcome back. This is Truth Jihad Radio. I'm Kevin Barrett, talking with Saint John Hunt. He's...well, he's done more to bring out the truth about the JFK assassination than just about anybody...in part because although the information has been brought out by others, it has never been brought out in the form of an actual full confession. And what the debunkers, the people who didn't want this information to be widely known, used to say, was: "If there were such a complex plot, wouldn't someone have confessed?" Well, actually, a lot of people have confessed. But the most important of all of these confessions is the confession of Howard Hunt, the CIA operative who helped kill President Kennedy as part of his work with the CIA. 

Saint John, we only have a few minutes left, so let's cover a few more of these points about who really did this. CIA assassin David Morales was also one of the people your father named, right?

Hunt
Yeah, that's right. David Morales was an interesting guy. He became involved in 1953 with the CIA's Executive Action plan, also known as Operation 40, which we were just discussing. He became one of their top assassins, and carried out a lot of their "wet work" as they say. In 1961, Bill Harvey, who was then Station Chief in Rome, whom my father called "a two-fisted gun-toting alcoholic psycho," who also hated Kennedy, brought David Morales to the secret  CIA station in Miami called JM WAVE. So this was the genesis of this plot (that killed JFK): You had David Morales there in Miami, you had Frank Sturgis, who was considered the mercenary - another guy who carried out wet work for the CIA, used to be a mob enforcer at the casinos for the American mafia, and a long-time friend of my father's. My father testified that he had only met Sturgis in the early 70's. But he told me, and gave me documentation, that he had known Sturgis for many, many years, going all the way back to the pre-Bay of Pigs invasion. And so here you have this cadre of very angry CIA contract agents, assassins, and bigwig personnel that formed this circle in order to eliminate Kennedy. The initial assassination attempt was to have been in Miami, Florida. I don't know the details of how and why that was switched, but it was moved over to Dallas, probably because...they had several "assassins" lined up from what I understand, but certainly Oswald was one of the "assassins,"or actually the patsies, you know, the fall guys, to take the blame for this. And he of course was located in Texas. 

Barrett
They had another one in Chicago, supposedly. If Dallas didn't happen, they were going to do it in Chicago, right?*

Hunt
Yeah, I think there was the one on Miami, and if it didn't happen there they were going to hit him in Dallas, and if it didn't happen there they were going to hit him in Chicago. These guys were on a one-way track to getting this situation resolved: "We're going to neutralize JFK, get him out of the picture." Wherever and whenever. They had long-range plans, like you said. Chicago was the third attempt that was going to happen if the other two didn't, for some reason, come off. And they used different circles of assassins, and different patsies. So this is a multi-layered thing. But the conspiracy itself was very minimal. You have LBJ giving his nod of approval, and you have his cohort and long-term buddy and neighbor J. Edgar Hoover, who agreed to it - who was going to be forced into mandatory retirement within a year or so of 1963, and who headed the investigation, did all the investigating in the assassination. Of course we all know that most of that was horseshit, excuse my language. But after Kennedy died, Johnson gave Hoover the life term position of Head of the FBI, in exchange for his mounting this farce of an investigation (into JFK's death). They only investigated what they wanted to have turn out as having Oswald being the sole lone-nut gunman. They didn't investigate any of the other credible witnesses. In fact, the FBI apparently harassed and threatened many of the witnesses from Dealy Plaza who said they heard shots, saw smoke, and saw movement behind the Grassy Knoll on the fence. These people were told never to say (what they saw); they were browbeaten and harassed - much like some of the witnesses in the RFK assassination, when they saw a woman in a polka dot dress (shooting RFK). 

Barrett
Some of the same players were involved there, too. (Top CIA assassin) David Morales is actually on film fleeing the scene of the RFK assassination.

Hunt
I've heard that that was the case. It would not surprise me. He was a very handy guy to have around. (laughter)  And was not afraid to do the heavy work. 

Barrett
He (Morales) bragged about it, too. He bragged, "I was in Dallas when we got the son-of-a-bitch, and I was in LA when we got the little bastard." And it was after he started drinking and bragging like that he suffered an untimely death. There's a great article about his funeral, where the whole spook elite sort of just shows up out of nowhere.  [Note: This article was published in a national magazine sometime during the past decade. Feel free to find it and email me the url! kbarrett(at)merr(dot)com

Hunt
Is that right? Oh my God. That's very interesting. Yeah, he told his long-time friend Rueben Carbajal that he had helped take care of that SOB Kennedy in Dallas. 

So you have LBJ in the White House giving his approval. You have J. Edgar Hoover for doing all the legal work. 

People think, how could you get all of these hundreds of people involved? It was not (that elaborate). It was very simple and well thought-out. You had the crew that did the planning and the assassins that were part of the crew. And then you had the really top guys, Hoover and LBJ, that took care of both ends of the spectrum: The White House, and the Justice Department and FBI. And that was about it. A few other people here and there - the doctors at Parkland Hospital were prohibited from examining the head wound, they actually destroyed some of the tissue, and -

Barrett
How did they get the Secret Service on board? The Secret Service's job is supposed to be to protect the President.

Hunt
Right. There's a very interesting film, a short film, of the motorcade getting ready to drive from the airport to the motorcade route. And there's a call that comes in to the top Secret Service guy on that detail. And suddenly all of the Secret Service agents who should be running alongside the car start dropping off. Several of them are seen throwing their hands up in the air, like "What the hell's going on?" Of course, it's almost legendary now that they were all drinking heavily in a bar the night before. But yeah, there were a lot of things that just went AWOL that morning for JFK. And we now know why. 

Barrett
That event really did send a message to future presidents. Like today, Obama probably has to think about these things. He's just gotten a bunch of threats. There were people with a huge pile of ammunition down in Georgia, gunning for him, Eric Holder and Cynthia McKinney. And there's this guy with the word "Israel" tattooed on his neck who was arrested for shooting a couple of bullets into the White House.  All of this happens right at the moment when Netanyahu is all but ordering Obama to attack Iran for Israel. And Obama, he and his crew of military people, seem to be hesitating. 

So it seems like decision-makers now have to take into consideration the ease with which they could be killed if they don't do what the powers-that-be tell them to do.

Hunt
That's absolutely true. I feel badly for Obama, who really was the great hope of this generation to pull itself out of that ideology of greed and corporate power and military excess. He had wonderful promises. But once he got into the middle of all this stuff, it probably became very clear to him that he was going to have to downsiz...almost everything that he naively promised, with good intention and good heart. It just kind of altered and fell. And that's one of several strong reasons why.

Barrett
That could be. I tried to grant him every benefit of the doubt in my book Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters .   But he may have been somewhat of a "made man" even before he ran for the White House. On the other hand, I don't think he really wanted to keep Guantanamo open and keep torturing people and ordering people murdered. He's a Constitutional lawyer, after all. 

We've reached the end of the show. You have a terrific website: SaintJohnHunt.com

I hope to have you back. We've barely  scratched the surface of some of these things. 

Hunt
Let's do this next year, and on the 50th anniversary. Maybe we can have a little round-table of folks.

Barrett
Sounds like a plan. Maybe I'll bring on Jim Fetzer, who's speaking at the University of Wisconsin this Tuesday, November 22nd, 7 pm, 3650 Humanities: UWsw.blogspot.com .  

Thanks, Saint John Hunt, it's been great. Keep up the good work.

Hunt
Thank you so much for having me. It was a pleasure to be on your show.  And thank all your listeners.

* * *


*Commenters have corrected me, saying that actually the Chicago JFK assassination attempt was to have taken place before Dallas, but apparently was a no-go. See James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, chapter 5, "Saigon and Chicago."

Sunday, November 20, 2011

"My Dad Helped the CIA Kill JFK!" Part 2


 
Below is the lightly-edited transcript of part two of my interview with Saint John Hunt, recipient and custodian of father E. Howard Hunt's confession to participating in the LBJ-approved, CIA-orchestrated murder of JFK. (Go to Part 1.)  (Listen to the interview.) (Listen to my interview with James Douglass, author of the best single JFK assassination book, JFK and the Unspeakable.)

* * *

Kevin Barrett
Welcome back. This is Truth Jihad Radio. I'm your host Kevin Barrett, talking today with Saint John Hunt. He's the son of Howard Hunt, the Watergate burglar and confessed CIA conspirator in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, who did us quite a service by leaving that confession. And his son Saint John Hunt, a very brave man, has done us an equally big service by helping get the truth out about history. Unfortunately, it seems the truth is out there, but the truth is still being kept "out there," away from most of the people.  You know, I recently had Vincent Bugliosi on my show, Saint John, and he's a very smart guy. 

Hunt
Yeah.

Barrett
But he thinks that his magnum opus is his book supposedly proving that Oswald acted alone. How do smart people like Bugliosi look at your material, which is backed up by so much evidence, and somehow not get it?

Hunt
Yeah, Vincent is, like you said, a very intelligent guy. He's done tremendous work in the justice system. When his book, which is probably about the size of two telephone directories on top of each other - it's a good six inches thick, probably weighs fifteen pounds - and of course the entire book is pointing in the direction that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. When that book was hitting the stands, I did a couple of talk shows. And Bugliosi was asked about my book, and my purported evidence and stuff. He dismissed the entire thing by saying that I, Saint John Hunt, was not to be trusted. 

Barrett
So he thinks you're making it all up?!

Hunt
Well, he just said I was not to be trusted because I had a history of substance issues in the past, and that it was all just the ravings of a senile old man, and the greed of his son to try to make a fast buck. 

Barrett
Oh boy. "Kill the messenger." It's the same story everywhere.

Hunt
I respected Mr. Bugliosi up until that time. But that was really a courtroom tactic that's well-known. You smear - I mean, if a prostitute gets raped, you bring out the fact that she's a prostitute, and everybody goes, "Oh, well it's okay, then, because that's her line of work." You smear, you kill the messenger. But really the message isn't my message, it's my father's message. So it has nothing to do with what I've done in my life. 

Barrett
There are hand-written notes. There's a tape recording. 

Hunt
And my father told me it isn't the first time it's been suggested that our own American government was the lead provocateur in this assassination attempt. So there have been several books that have made bigger splashes in the media but have been kind of discounted and thrown to the side. Certainly Madeleine Brown's book detailing her long-term affair, even having a child, from LBJ, and that LBJ confided in her many times, after much drinking, that he was involved in the killing, the assassination, of JFK. And everyone knows that Johnson had a very dark, dark history, where there were several killings, and Johnson was just mad with power. He had a lust for power. And he realized, of course, this according to my father, that if JFK were re-elected, that would put Johnson as the vice-president for another four years, making it probably impossible for him to run for the presidency.

Barrett
And they were thinking of dropping him from the (1964 Democratic) ticket too, I understand.

Hunt
Yes they were, that's correct. And Johnson barely got on the ticket as VP the first time around.

Barrett
And they didn't like him, apparently.

Hunt
Not at all.

Barrett
The Kennedies took him (Johnson) on as a necessary evil to win Texas and to win the presidency. But they couldn't stand him, and Johnson couldn't stand them. And he got wind that they were going to drop him from the ticket. And he was a born power-craving kind of leader...

Hunt
Yeah, well, he had a lot of people backing him. He did have a lot of power. In some ways, it's that lust for power that this really is all about. And of course this is a tried-and-true scenario here. You can go back to Julius Ceasar. 

Barrett
Right.

Hunt
This kind of stuff has been going on for such a long time. But the United States of America holds itself up as a place where this could never happen. And so you've got 200 years of this kind of fairy tale. And people just don't want to believe (the truth). It's got to be somebody else doing it. That's why the truth is out there, but I don't think it will ever be admitted to by this government, the Obama government, or any future government. Because to admit that the assassination of JFK and possibly RFK were coups d'├ętat constructed by our own government is just gonna be too much to tell the world at large.

Barrett
Well part of the problem, Saint John, I think, is that the same forces are still in power, maybe even more ensconced in power now, and that's why they work so hard at keeping the truth covered up. If this (the CIA's killing of JFK) were just an aberration, and we didn't have these deep state actors and these secret governments running around behind the scenes, then nobody would really have that strong of an interest in keeping it covered up. Sure, there would be an emotional interest, but not a really compelling one. But the problem is, these same types of people blew up the World Trade Center. And God knows what they'll do next year. 

Hunt
You're absolutely right. And it goes beyond the individuals, because a lot of the key players in this - almost all of them - are dead and gone. But it's not the individual, it's the ideology that they serve. And the ideology, as you're saying, is very much in control today. It's that same ideology that allowed for the 9/11 attacks, and the continuing wars, if you want to call them that, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The people aren't still alive, but the ideology is stronger than ever. It's really bringing down this country. 

And now, because corporations are viewed by the Supreme Court as people, you have this huge ability for corporations to donate tens of millions of dollars to political campaigns, which further entrenches that same ideology. So we've really got a lot of work to do. A strong battle's ahead of us, to even this out a little bit.

Barrett
It's really a terminal case of corruption. And it seems to me that the more you deny it, the more you buy into this myth that "such things could never possibly happen in the pristine, antiseptic United States of America," the more cover these corrupt forces have to get away with bigger and bigger forms of murder. And it really seems to me that November 22nd, 1963 was the turning point. If they can get away with that, if they can murder the President in broad daylight - and then murder the patsy, the fake assassin, on live TV - and have this (second murder) done by Jack Ruby, a mobster, a mob hit man from the Chicago mob, moved down to Texas - I mean, if they can get away with that, they can get away with anything.

Hunt
That's right.

Barrett
And they have. And they still are. 

Have there been any openings for you in the mainstream media, besides Rolling Stone, which broke your story and did a pretty creditable job of it. I was surprised; they're not always that good. But that seemed to be the end of it. I was expecting that after that Rolling Stone piece, your story would at least be making into, you know, page two of the New York Times, and they'd start trying to verify it or disprove it. But it seems like they all just kind of turned away from it. 

Hunt
Well, there were a couple of points where it could have gone mainstream. The Los Angeles Times did a story on it. But much to my dismay, the headline of the story was "No Credible Evidence in Son's Allegations of His Father..." And more recently, I would have to say...well, Alex Jones certainly isn't mainstream, but he's one of the bigger off-mainstream-media icons. And of course Jesse Ventura, doing his Conspiracy TV show on TruTV, had me on and did part of a segment for his show. He showed the documentation and stuff. Jesse Ventura is a very serious guy, a wonderful man. He's got great morals, great courage. 

Barrett
He's one of my heroes. He actually endorsed my campaign for Congress in 2008.

Hunt
That's excellent, yeah. 

And that's about as far (into the mainstream) as it's gotten. Because really, the way the mainstream media, the powers that be, the corporate controlling interests - they've realized now that the best way to deal with something like this is to not deal with it at all, and just let the "conspiracy kooks" talk all they want, and let them have all their little publications, their little TV shows and radio shows, and just not even give them enough credibility to deny (the allegations). The slimiest way to avoid dealing with something like this is to just avoid dealing with it at all. And that's a very powerful weapon. 

Barrett
Indeed. And with the 9/11 case, I had some direct experience there. Because I got into that at the beginning of 2004 - the obvious controlled demolition of WTC Building 7, which should have been front page headlines on September 12th, 2001 -

Hunt
Yeah.

Barrett
-but was just completely buried, they had orders from the top not to ever show it or talk about it in the media. But by the summer of 2006, things were building up to the point that they apparently decided to switch tactics and bring us into the spotlight for awhile and throw rotten fruit at us. So I was selected as one of these people to be dragged on Fox news and have rotten fruit thrown at me. But it didn't work well, the rotten fruit bounced back in their faces. So after a couple of months of this, they slunk back into their holes and won't talk about it any more. 

But with the JFK thing, it's far enough behind us, that you would think there would be the potential for more honest coverage. 

Let's talk a little bit about the specifics of your information. You mentioned that Johnson was a key player in this, according to your father. And Cord Meyer of Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's media-control outfit, was another. 

Hunt
Yeah, well, some of the characters that my father mentioned as having been involved were: Cord Meyer, he was a chief of station in Great Britain, a CIA officer. And of course Cord had a much deeper resolve for hating Kennedy.  His ex-wife was one of Kennedy's many, many mistresses. Mary Meyer.

Barrett
That's an interesting story in itself, isn't it?

Hunt
She was later killed quickly and very cleanly while she was walking her dog or jogging or something in Georgetown, in the tow path alongside the canal.

Barrett
She was hanging out with Timothy Leary -

Hunt
She was.

Barrett
And taking LSD, and taking it with Kennedy at the time that he suddenly turned towards peace, and started talking about complete disarmament.

Hunt
So Cord was (involved). And Lyndon Johnson was in agreement, all he had to do was nod and say yes, let's get rid of this guy, and he can become president. That was his end. He was not involved in the day-to-day planning that my father said he attended sat the safe houses in Miami, Florida.

Bill Harvey was a CIA boss, and he was head of the Rome office, and he brought in - now it's been uncovered that he sent messages to his superiors suggesting the use of Corsicans for hit men rather than American mafiosi, which would be much easier to trace in a trail leading back to the CIA. So he suggested the use of Corsicans. And of course the Corsican that my father told me, his name was "Sarkay," and he didn't know anything more about that gentleman. But that's the name that he recalled from some of those meetings. Antono Veciana was an anti-Castro in Alpha 66, one of the most dangerous, bloodiest anti-Castro ex-Cuban military brigade 2506. This all ties in and goes back to the Bay of Pigs, for one thing. And then in later years, some of these same characters surfaced in Watergate.

Barrett
And the interesting thing about that is, that in Watergate, I think it was either Erlichman or Haldeman that Nixon sent over to Helms to threaten Helms with exposure of "The Bay of Pigs thing." And Helms reacted by screaming, "This Watergate thing has nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs thing!" And, I think it's Haldeman who said in his book that "the Bay of Pigs thing" was code for the JFK assassination. 

Hunt
That's correct, you hit it on the head. Yep, that is absolutely correct. And Nixon, of course, knew my father, and knew my father as a very serious and potentially dangerous person. Under Eisenhower, Nixon had been White House liason to this very, very secret and illegal crew under the name Operation 40, I believe. It was a ring of assassins that were on call to assassinate any foreign leaders, dignitaries, embassy employees, or anybody else that was unfriendly to the United States. And Nixon knew about that. 

Barrett
Wow. And Nixon was of course also part of the Bay of Pigs operation, the CIA's secret invasion of Cuba that was planned under Eisenhower, launched under Kennedy, but then Kennedy refused to send in the Marines and the bombers, and everyone (in the CIA) hated him after that. 

We'll be back in a moment. This is Kevin Barrett, talking with Saint John Hunt.

* * *

(Stay tuned for Part 3 tomorrow.)







 

Saturday, November 19, 2011

"My Dad Helped the CIA Kill JFK!"

Saint John Hunt, recipient and custodian of father E. Howard Hunt's confession to participating in the LBJ-approved, CIA-orchestrated murder of JFK

[Don't miss James Fetzer's talk Who Killed JFK? this Tuesday, November 22nd at the University of Wisconsin-Madison! Details here.]


Of all the big lies told about the JFK assassination, perhaps the biggest is: "I guess we'll never really know what happened."

Bullshit! We do know.

Some of us know because we have studied the issue. Others, like Saint John Hunt, son of CIA executive and covert action agent E. Howard Hunt, know because they got it straight from the horse's mouth.

In 1979, as a 20-year-old undergraduate, I wrote an article for the Madison, WI Daily Cardinal compiling evidence that the CIA killed JFK. Shortly after the article was submitted to a dozen or so publications, but before it was published,  a woman appeared at my house and very politely announced she was a CIA-operated mind-control slave, brain wired with electrodes, whose job was to target enemies of the CIA for elimination. The next day, I asked my politically-savvy journalism professor, John T. McNelly, what was THAT about. He said, "They're just f**ing with you, kid. They're trying to intimidate you."

Saint John Hunt knows how badly "they" can f** with you.  He helped his CIA-agent father Howard conceal money and documents during the Watergate scandal, and suffered the pain of having his mother, Dorothy Hunt, blown out of the sky under circumstances that are far beyond suspicious.

So Saint John Hunt gets my vote as one America's greatest living heroes, for having the guts to stand up and tell the truth about his father's confession to participating in the LBJ-approved, CIA-orchestrated assassination of John F. Kennedy. His family didn't want him to do it, the lawyers didn't want him to do it, and of course the CIA didn't want him to do it. But Saint John Hunt chose to live up to his arrangement with his dying father, who apparently felt some ambivalent remorse about his participation in "The Big Event" and, at the end of his life, asked his son to help expose the truth. By doing so, Saint John Hunt is not only keeping faith with his father, but also keeping faith with his country and its tortured, slowly dying Constitution. And if you believe, as I do, that one of God's highest names is al-Haqq (truth/reality), Saint John Hunt is keeping faith on that level as well.

11/18/2011 Interview with Saint John Hunt, lightly edited, Part 1 (Listen to the full interview here)

Saint John Hunt
(The JFK assassination) happened 49 years ago this November 22nd. That's basically a generation. And the old generation has published, I don't know, 500 books on the subject, noting all manner of conspiracies from every conceivable source - everything from the CIA to space aliens.

We were well warned by Eisenhower, when he passed the torch to JFK, that we've got a very dangerous situation here with the miltary-industrial-congressional complex - that's what was left out of his speech, the word "congressional." Those were (Eisenhower's) words, and he was correct in that appraisal.

Kevin Barrett
You've laid it on the line in a way that few have. I mean, this is your father that we're talking about! It must be really, really tough, (dealing with) the feeling of betrayal that we all have when we look into issues like this, when (we find) our own government has betrayed us, our own government has slaughtered 3000 people in the World Trade Center and blamed it on their enemies. People in our own government, the people really in charge, kill the President, kill his brother, and so on. We all feel a horrible sense of betrayal. But having it in the family must be worse. It must be like betrayal squared.

Hunt
Yeah, it was a pretty big shock when he called me down to his, we'll say his death bed side in Florida. And of course I had heard and seen...I had even attended a lecture in the mid-1970s by a comedian-turned-activist named Dick Gregory at San Francisco State. He was one of the first, along with Mark Lane and Silvia Meagher. And of course they accused my father of being one of the agents involved. So I was well aware that there were a lot of accusations flying around, and I just wanted to sort of figure things out for myself. But I kind of dropped the issue for ten or twenty years, until I got this phone call from my father. And lo and behold, there was some truth to the accusations and the alleged evil deeds. So that was quite a shock. And the arrangement that I had with him...originally we were going to bring it out together, before he passed away. But there was so much pressure from the inner family circle, and from various lawyers, and of course the CIA itself, that he backed down.

Barrett
What year was this happening?

Hunt
This was in 2005. And so he decided that he couldn't really come out with this information himself, while he was alive, because there would be too many repercussions. First of all, he was extremely worried that any up-and-coming hotshot lawyer would have him arrested for complicity in the death of the President, which there is no statute of limitations on. So he backed down. And of course his family was deeply distressed over the overwhelming repercussions this would have in their lives. His second family, which we're talking about, were relatively untainted by the things he had done when I, and my sisters and brothers and his first wife, were his main family. So he was a gentle man, toward the end there. But his wish for me was for me to bring this out after he had passed away. And of course that weighed very heavily on my shoulders. He passed away in 2007. After two years I just said "I'll do this." Against all pleas from my family, I decided to go ahead.

Barrett
Wow. That must be tough.
I know there's a tape and a handwritten letter (confession to participation in CIA execution of JFK). Did he give you those in 2005?

Hunt
He gave me the handwritten notes in 2005, I believe. That's when we were both working on how to bring this out to the mainstream media. He sent me the tape after I left. I just found it in the mail one day. I opened up the mail, and it was in an envelope. I put the cassette in and it was my father saying, on this audio cassette, how he was part of this "Big Event" (CIA code for its JFK asassination plot), naming the key players that he spoke with, that were arranging this. He ended the tape by saying that this information was for me and me alone.

We had had a very dynamic relationship. He was a staunch conservative Republican, while by that age, I was 17 in 1969 and very much part of the antiwar movement. So we had our differences, but we had always been very truthful with each other. And we had a bond of secrecy that really developed on the night of June 17th (1972) when he came home from Watergate. I was part of those crazy shennanigans, and I helped him dispose and disseminate lots of information, cash, money, you know. He trusted me with those. I never came forward and told anybody about it.

Barrett
Was he set up on Watergate? What's your take on that?

Hunt
Yeah, I believe Watergate was a set-up job. I think my father - I know my father was part of that set-up.
The interesting thing is that although my father claimed to have retired from the CIA in 1970. And then in early 1971 he was asked by Charles Colson, one of Nixon's advisors, to work under Mr. Colson in the White House in a special projects team that later became known as the Plumbers. But the truth of the matter is, and my father told me this years later, was that he never resigned from the CIA. Now he had had left the CIA twice before, and they were both false exits. They were so that he could have a new cover, yet still tapped into all the necessary CIA drop sources and do his job as an agent. So even in 1970, when he officially retired from the CIA, that was a third false exit from the CIA. He was still with the CIA, still on their books, still having meetings with Dick Helms and other top people at the CIA about Watergate and what Nixon was doing. So the CIA had my father there (in Nixon's Plumbers) as what they call a "mole," a deep agent, a double agent. So whatever was going on, the CIA was very well aware of it, because my father was reporting back to them on everything that was going down, all these crazy plots: kidnapping people, renting houseboats with prostitutes in them during the Democratic Convention in Miami, Florida, breaking into the George Wallace shooter, Arthur Bremer's apartment - Colson sent (Hunt) up to Milwaukee to break into Bremer's apartment and plant pro-McGovern literature so that Bremer would look like a leftist.

Barrett
That's pretty weird, isn't it?

Hunt
That's just so crazy to me.

Barrett
I don't know if you've seen Gore Vidal's essay on (Howard Hunt's connection to Bremer and the Wallace shooting, etc.). He's kind of hard on your father. And he points out that Bremer, who had something like a 65 IQ and was marginally literate, left an "assassin's diary" that reminds one of the prose style of the spy novels of Howard Hunt.

Hunt
Yeah, that was alleged to have been written by my father, and it really wouldn't surprise me, because my father was a ghost writer for, let me give you an example, Allan Dulles, one of the Dulles brothers. The two Dulles brothers, Allan Dulles and John Foster Dulles...Allan Dulles was head of the CIA before Dick Helms, I believe, and his brother John Foster Dulles was head of United Fruit Company, as well as many other corporations that had interests in Latin American businesses. And when Allan Dulles was planning his retirement from the CIA, he wanted to publish a novel, you know, his autobiography, which was actually written by my father, along with Allan Dulles. That's a little-known fact.

Barrett
I remember reading that, back in the day, and noticing that the passages about JFK just dripped with venom.

Hunt
Well, JFK was one of the most hated presidents, politically speaking, of all of our presidents, with possibly the exception of Abraham Lincoln. He was much-loved by almost all of the public. But...

Barrett
But not in the intelligence community.
(music) We'll be back in a moment. I'm talking with Saint John Hunt.

(To be continued tomorrow)

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Zionist bullets: Shots across Obama's bow?

Is the state of Israel threatening the life of the President of the United States?

To those brainwashed by America's Zionist corporate media, the question sounds like paranoid fantasy. But the truth is that powerful geopolitical actors do sometimes attempt to intimidate each other through "plausibly deniable" threats. And the Zionists, masters of hardball realpolitik, are said to do such things with some regularity, not to mention chutzpah.


Item: Obama leaves his microphone on to tell the world that Netanyahu is a liar. Zionist flack Dennis Ross is ejected from the White House. It looks like Obama isn't going to obey Netanyahu's orders to attack Iran.

Item: A bullet slams into a White House window. A "lone nut," branded like a steer by the word Israel tattooed on his neck, is arrested and charged with the crime.

Item: The FBI arrests some anti-Obama "good ole boys" armed with "52 weapons, including assault rifles, and 30,000 rounds of ammunition, including special sniper rounds." The crackers were targeting Obama, Eric Holder, and Cynthia McKinney. The ostensible message: "Us crackers gonna get you uppity communistic niggaz." Translated from cracker-speak, the real message might be: "Us Zionists gonna get you uppity pro-Palestinian schwartzes unless you attack Iran when we tell you to." 

Any way you parse it, Netanyahu is obviously out of control, and he and his doomed, illegitimate settler colony are trying to drag the world down with them. Maybe it's time for the US to retaliate in kind, and send out some bullets with Netanyahu's name on them.

# # #


Listen to my interviews with Cynthia McKinney and Gordon Duff, in which we discuss Obama's dissing Netanyahu, and Netanyahu's possible response.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Adrian Salbuchi: Zionist banksters on the verge of unleashing World War Three

Tuesday, November 9th, 11 a.m. to noon Central (9-10 Pacific) on NoLiesRadio.org (archived here a few hours after broadcast).

Guest: Adrian Salbuchi, international consultant and author, anti-New World Order activist-pundit, founder of Argentina's Second Republic Movement, 9/11 truth supporter and critic of Zionism. Adrian recently appeared on Russia Today, arguing that Netanyahu's current push for war with Iran may not be a bluff, and that it could set off World War III.



Listen to today's show for the full story!

Monday, November 7, 2011

Hannity and me: A case of neuro-linguistic programming?

Tom Valentine thinks this video should go viral, and asks whether I am holding it back. The answer is no, I'm not holding anything back!



I like this video, but I think it exaggerates the efficacy of Hannity's attempt to neuro-linguistically program the audience. The important segment of the audience - people who watched this interview without strong preconceptions - probably thought Hannity was coming on too strong, and enjoyed my talking back to him. The local polls, at least, suggested that the Fox-led witch-hunt against me didn't really succeed in swaying public opinion.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Unmasking Media Lies: Why BBC's V-for-Vendetta Mask Piece is Fawked Up

Remember, Remember the Fifth of November!

V for Vendetta may be the most revolutionary film ever made, but don't expect the BBC to tell you that

Madison, WI
November 5th, 2011

"V for Vendetta masks: Who's behind them?" the BBC recently asked.


They published a couple of vague, misleading answers.

The BBC quotes David Lloyd: "'My feeling is the Anonymous group needed an all-purpose image to hide their identity and also symbolise that they stand for individualism - V for Vendetta is a story about one person against the system...' "

"...It is that image of collective identification and simultaneous anonymity that is appealing to Anonymous and other groups, says Rich Johnston, a commentator on the world of comics."

Blathering about individual vs. collective, the lure of anonymity, etc., without grounding the interpretation in specifics from the film is the worst possible way to answer the question. As a literature teacher - I have four advanced degrees in literature and have taught everything from Chaucer to Hausa Literature to Philip K. Dick - I would award a D at best to any student who offered such a lame interpretation of a story's central symbol.

So let's get specific. The film V for Vendetta is about a masked superhero named V who takes violent revenge on a fascist government that came to power through a huge false-flag terror attack. Two of the bloodiest scenes involve revenge against a big media network - an amalgamation of Fox and BBC - that has been lying to the people, covering up the truth about the false-flag attack, and supporting the fascist regime.

In the first, V mounts a violent attack on the network in order to seize control and deliver the following speech:

http://youtu.be/UXgt6HuGS5k

In the second, V executes a big media executive and talking head named Lewis Prothero - an amalgamation of Hannity/O'Reilly and Rupert Murdoch - who was complicit in the big false-flag attack (read: 9/11 and 7/7) and the subsequent media cover-up. Here is Prothero's TV rant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flBpsyFbEOs

Interestingly, I can't find youtube clips of either of V's two violent assaults on the lamestream media. Is youtube censoring these scenes - in the same way that the BBC is censoring the real meaning of the V mask?

If so, I don't blame them.

V for Vendetta may be the most revolutionary film ever made. Its obvious message is: Let's get out there and visit some rough justice on the treasonous bastards who created the 9/11 and 7/7 media spectaculars, and destroyed the freedoms for which we've been fighting for centuries.

Watch V for 9/11 Vendetta: Past, Present and Future

It is also possible to read the film from an interior, psychological perspective: Rather than just a call to action, it's about the psychological process of coming to terms with the 9/11 and 7/7 inside jobs,  by allowing oneself to feel the overwhelming anger that is the natural response. Once one has faced the facts, overcome fear, and come to terms with ones own righteous anger, THEN it's time for revolution.

The real message of the V mask is simple: We know you bastards blew up the Trade Center. We know you're blowing up the economy. We know you're lying to us 24/7/365. We know you're trying to keep us poor and weak and fearful and impotent. Well, guess what? We're not afraid of you. We're not afraid to die. And we're coming to get you.

No wonder the BBC is afraid to admit what the V mask really means.



Thursday, November 3, 2011

Cheney's 1% Doctrine Revisited, or: Why Pat Buchanan Should Choose His Friends More Carefully


According to Ron Suskind, Dick Cheney launched the Global War on Terror via "the one percent doctrine":

"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

Slapping an arbitrary 1% probability on a nonexistent but scary-sounding threat - why not space aliens, hare krishna terrorists, or giant mutant insects - and spending the rest of our lifetimes throwing trillions of dollars at it, is not a wise use of the dwindling American treasury. If Cheney meant what he said, he is obviously insane.

Or maybe not. Translated from the BS, what Cheney apparently really meant was:

"If 1% of the hardline Zionists, who are 1% of the Jewish population, who are 1% of the general population, can convince the looniest 1% of America's strategic planners that there is a 1% chance that the competent 1% of the violent 1% of the radical 1% of the world's Muslims might some day successfully execute a big terrorist attack on the USA, we must treat it as a certainty - and blow up the World Trade Center to convince Americans that the threat is real."

So according to my esoteric reading of Cheney's 1% doctrine, the man is not insane. He's just stark, raving, bat-shit bonkers.

Pat Buchanan, a smart man who is right about many things, thinks I'm the one who's bonkers. He tells me his good friend Dick Cheney would never do such a thing.




Pat, how well do you really know Dick Cheney? Well enough to go hunting with him? Or maybe too well?

Do you really think Cheney, if he decided to go to war and plan on losing, say, 10,000 Americans, wouldn't sacrifice 3,000 to get the war off on the right foot? After all, you told me you're aware that FDR sacrificed nearly that many American lives at Pearl Harbor, to launch a war and gain a huge strategic advantage.

And if Cheney made that decision, and carried it out, do you really think he'd tell you? You're moral man, Pat - a practicing, believing Catholic. You've made a career of insisting that morality has a role in politics. The same cannot be said of Dick Cheney.

If you really, honestly think Cheney wouldn't do something like that, maybe you're just as batshit bonkers as he is.

That would explain why such a smart guy as you, who understands the banksters' controlled demolition of the US economy, the futility of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, the crucial role of demographics and religion in history, the impending collapse of the US empire, and so many other things, can actually believe that the Global War on Terror is real.

Listen up, Pat: Even if you haven't done your homework on 9/11, even if you still believe it was done by 19 drunken, whoring, pork-chop-loving cokehead gambling fiends led by a radical Muslim on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan, even if you think the Trade Center blew itself to kingdom come due to a couple of relatively modest fires, even if you think the US military weaponized anthrax false-flag follow-up was unconnected to the main event, you still must admit, if you have even one sane brain cell in your head, that the massive success of such a "19 hijackers" plot would be a one-in-a-million freak occurrence, and that the average American is more likely to be hit by lightning than to be killed by terrorists. Therefore the War on Terror is an Orwellian hoax. It really is that simple.

Still don't get it? Let me put it another way, Pat. When our forefathers fought the American Revolution to give us the Bill of Rights, the average life expectancy was, at best, 45 years. Today, it is 78.1 years.
Our ancestors were not cowardly, fear-obsessed people. When they chose to fight the British, they were willing to reduce their modest life expectancies by considerably more than 1%.

If "radical Islamic terrorism" threatened to reduce our 78.1 year life expectancy to something significantly below the 45 years of those who risked their lives to give us the Bill of Rights, a sane, patriotic person might be willing to temporarily suspend some of those rights - perhaps even to let the President order the extrajudicial murder of an American citizen.

But today, the inarguable reality is that "radical Islamic terrorism," including both the real and far more dangerous Zionist false-flag varieties, does not threaten to reduce our 78.1 year life expectancy by even one percent. In reality, it cannot shave one percent of one percent of one percent off our life expectancy. It is a non-issue. If we restrict our freedoms even one iota in response to such a palpably obvious non-threat, we are a nation of worthless, cowardly scum.

So Pat, please come on board with the Second American Revolution - the Freedom Revolution. It is our shared commitment to the freedoms embodied in the Bill of Rights, and not "our" whiteness or Christianity or imperial control of the planet, that holds our society together. By allowing our leaders to burn the Bill of Rights, we are committing collective suicide.

This is the real suicide of the American superpower, Pat. And by supporting the bogus War on Terror, you're right out there with the crowd of worthless, cowardly scum chanting "Jump! Jump! Jump!"

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Endarkenment



Endarkenment

Crepescular embers
Swim so sinkingly
Into a sea of blackness.

Liberated from light,
They embrace the void
With the foul audacity
Of De Sade embracing his pen.

What men do in the dark:
A tale not to be told
Under pain of excommunication
From the bleak brotherhood
Of unreason.