Featured Post



Friday, June 14, 2013


Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case (2nd ed.)
(New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 1992, 2012)
By James DiEugenio…
Rev. by Hugh Murray
            The JFK assassination has been of interest to me since I first heard the news while teaching 5th grade in my native New Orleans.  (When I informed my class that the President had been shot in Dallas, one pupil burst into tears, all the others into cheers.)  But my fascination with the case has been intermittent.  I read, even write about it; and then I burn out.  I am delighted that DiEugenio’s (hereafter, JDE) book has updated me about so much.
            Absent from all I have read, including this fine book, is an example of the role of the media in US-Cuban relations.  During the Bay of Pigs (BoP) invasion, the local CBS affiliate, WWL, the 50,000 watt, clear-channel station owned by the Jesuit university, Loyola U. of the South, reported the news as it was happening – the massive uprising on the island, reports that the anti-Castro rebels had killed Fidel’s brother Raul, the popularity of the rebel insurgency against Castro, etc.  Soon after, with the failure of the invasion, we learned that all the reported news was a lie.  The CIA-sponsored invasion induced the most reliable radio source in New Orleans to simply lie to its listeners.  I am unsure just when it began, but sometime after the BoP defeat, WWL suspended its regular programming at 9pm each night and instead broadcast in Spanish beaming its powerful signal toward Cuba.  All too transparent were the connections between the government, the CIA, and the best news networks and the major radio station in the largest city of the South (at least, until publication of the 1960 census, New Orleans was as it had been since before the Civil War, the largest city of the South, larger than Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, Memphis).
            Much of JDE’s book centers on New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and his investigation of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy – one which included David Ferrie and Clay Shaw.  What makes this book so valuable is that JDE includes newly declassified material demonstrating the collusion between the attorneys defending Shaw and the Federal Government – the FBI, the CIA, and their assets in the media.  At the time, one knew that Garrison had his critics in the local press, but not until I read this did I discover that the Feds pressured a local newspaper (both were owned by the Newhouse chain) into reassigning two reporters whose stories reinforced the Garrison position; thereafter, they were required to cover other events.
            JDE documents the role of NBC and its local affiliate, WDSU, in using “assets” and CIA friendly reporters to defend Shaw and smear Garrison.  Of course, it was on WDSU’s call-in program that the left-wing, pro-Castro, Lee Oswald appeared as a guest.  He was “ambushed” by the anti-Communist Ed Butler, who informed the listening audience that Oswald was not merely pro-Castro, but that he had resided in the USSR, in effect conflating pro-Castroism with Communism.  Do not misunderstand me: - in a radio debate, each side ought to use whatever arguments that can best make their case, so long as they are truthful.  The vehemently anti-Communist had every right to make the best case against his pro-Castro opponent.  The question is not so much about Butler the anti-Communist; but how much of a leftist was Oswald?  Or was he a guest on WDSU to establish the impression that he was a left-winger and Marxist?
            While I heartily recommend this book, I do wish to add some background that may shed light on why some in New Orleans may have been skeptical of Garrison’s investigation into Pres. Kennedy’s murder.
            It was probably late spring or summer of 1961 when I reported to the NO Customs House Building.  The draft was the law, and I was called.  We were given some forms to fill out, and a boxed chicken lunch, which we might eat on the way north to Ft. Chafee, Arkansas.  I had some uneasiness about the forms, for this included a list of subversive organizations, and we had to describe any type of association we might have had with any of the organizations listed.  I thought, should I, or not?  Then I remembered, photos of the event had been taken, and there was a heavy penalty for lying, so I mentioned it.  In 1960 at a Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) training institute in Miami, at which our teachers included baseball legend Jackie Robinson, and Martin Luther King – one weekend a dance was held for our integrated group.  The organization that allowed our mixed crowd to dance in their hall was the Jewish Culture Club (JCC).  The JCC was on the Attorney General’s list of subversive groups.  We had our dance there (where I first did the twist), and JCC members mostly sat at tables and watched us.  Most of the CORE people were in our 20s; the youngest of the JCC crew was about 60.  There was not much contact, though, of course, we were very happy to have a place to dance.  Also, on the form I had to complete, was a question of had we ever been arrested.  I had, and had been convicted of a felony.  I had been arrested in the very first lunch-counter sit-in in New Orleans, charged with criminal mischief, and convicted for this felony.  By this time, I had already learned that with a felony I could not volunteer for the service, but the Navy had told me I could be drafted.  Now, however, when I returned my form to the army officer, he was surprised.  “But you’re not even Jewish!”  He then related that I would have to speak with an agent of the FBI, and that would be a few minutes because he was then interviewing a Black Muslim.  When the FBI man got to me, he did not even mention the dance or the JCC.  But he did state that I could not be drafted because of the felony.  He would speak to the District Attorney, and request that the sit-in charge be dropped, and then I could be inducted.  Meanwhile, he would get back to me.  Richard Dowling, the NO DA who had personally come to our sit-in at Woolworths to literally read us the law and then have us arrested, apparently refused to drop the charges.  But in March 1962 Garrison defeated Dowling in the Democratic primary for district attorney (which then meant election).  Garrison, like Dowling, did NOT drop the felony sit-in charges.  Not until 1963 did the US Supreme Court rule on the New Orleans sit-in cases, and some resolution was made.  My point is that JDE seems to be making Garrison into a civil rights/libertarian on various issues, and I dispute that interpretation.
            JDE notes that when police arrested a book seller for peddling obscene material, James Baldwin’s Another Country, Garrison refused to prosecute.   But I do not recall Garrison as a civil libertarian.  In the French Quarter, outside the strip clubs, there were photos of the women wearing g-stings and pasties.  Suddenly, with Garrison’s anti-vice crusade, the pictures had to be covered.  The French Quarter came up with an ingenious method of doing so.  The pictures would remain, however parts of the women’s bodies would be covered by a curtain of beads, and with a flick of the hand, a passerby could readily ogle the forbidden picture.  Of course, if you walked by the door, the bouncer would open it so you could see the women live as they performed.  Indeed, one stripper would sit on a swing that would go from inside the club through a window to the sidewalk (though I am unsure if that was pre-Garrison or not).
            As I was a graduate student at Tulane in the early 1960s, I was acquainted with many others in various fields of study.  Years later, probably in the 1980s on a visit to my home city, I saw one of these acquaintances, and we chatted in the Tulane cafeteria.  Only then did I learn of why he had come to Tulane.  In 1960 he left San Francisco for New Orleans because he was gay, and he believed at the time that NO was a freer place for gay people that SF.  It seems incredible to hear that today, and yet… I remember one Mardi Gras, of the early 1960s, going to the Quarter with a married couple from North Dakota.  The streets were packed.  On Bourbon, there was a stage, and a beauty contest.  We were watching in the tightly massed crowd.  Then Ramona said to me, “Look at the legs on that one.”  Those were the legs of a football player I thought.  And then I realized, these beauties were not women.  There were no arrests.  Hundreds were watching a beauty contest of transvestites, on a public street.  I do not know, but could that have occurred in 1961 in SF?  Or NY?  Perhaps NO in 1960 was more tolerant to gays than other tolerant cities.
            The grad student from SF told me in the 1980s about his experience with Garrison’s  anti-vice efforts.  This grad student was gay, and he was walking alone in the Quarter, when he said the police arrested him and all other single males they could find.  I cannot attest to how accurate this was – for surely many tourists, and locals, entering the strip clubs might be single, or without their wives.  I doubt if they were arrested.  But perhaps Garrison did try to arrest single men in other parts of the quarter, simply because they were there and single.  And there was the case of the Quorum Club, a place on Esplanade Ave., officially across the street from the Quarter proper.  It was probably in 1963, when Garrison was DA that there was a raid on the club, and the 35 or so arrested had their names and addresses published on page one of the Picayune and States-Item.  The newspaper informed the public that the Quorum was a center of drug use, integration, and homosexuality.  I remember because someone I knew from Tulane as an undergrad was among those listed.  Next weekend, I purposely went to the Quorum Club for my first time.
            Only about 5 years ago did I meet Kenneth Owen, a librarian at Tulane, one who had retired from the University of NO.  Owen told me he had gone in 1962 or 1963 to a club on Rampart St., one that was the predecessor of the Quorum Club.  There he spoke with Oswald.  From that conversation, he believed Oswald was gay.  Yet, Ruth Ann Kloepfer, who went with her mom and sister to visit the Oswalds at their Magazine St. apartment at the request of fellow Quakeress from Texas, Ruth Paine.  Ruth Ann Kloepfer told me in a phone interview in the 1990s how angry she was with Lee Oswald.  They had gone there to help Marina and children, and while her mother and sister were helping the Russian woman in one room, Ruth Ann was convinced that Lee was coming on to her in the other.  Ruth Ann was a beauty.  Her anger resonated after 30 years.  The point here is that Garrison may not have been the greatest defender of civil liberties.  (Moreover, I have no idea if Oswald was totally hetero or not.  I do  not think it crucial to the assassination.  Michael Snyder, in a fascinating piece analyzing the writings of Clay Shaw, claims that Gove Vidal stated that the young Oswald was hustling as a teen and Shaw had seen him in the bars.  Snyder includes some interesting paragraphs on the subject of Oswald’s sexuality.  Interesting, but speculation none the less.  Some may stress the influence of David Ferrie on Oswald.  Ferrie was clearly queer.  Yet, I had a very hetero room mate who was greatly influenced by David Ferrie.  Ferrie’s homosexuality did not rub off on him.)
            One more incident, but I cannot affirm that this occurred under Garrison or before.  But it was on the first page of either the first of 2nd sections of the local paper – a detective was so determined to get proof of a man having sex with another, he pushed some device through the man’s apartment keyhole.  Because the bed was located beyond the range of the device’s sightline, the detective was unable to prove the perversion of the apartment’s inhabitants.  That was major reading in the newspaper of that era.
            When Garrison raided the home of Clay Shaw, taking many personal items, and when these items were listed on the pages of the newspapers, Shaw’s whips, his ropes, his veil, etc., some naturally assumed that Garrison was simply indulging in another anti-gay crusade.  Because Garrison had a history of antagonism, even persecution , of gays, his pronouncement of a homosexual plot to kill Pres. Kennedy roused skepticism, and anger and fear, among gays.  And it roused skepticism among open-minded straights who decried gay oppression.  Was Garrison conducting an anti-gay witch hunt?
            As Garrison got his prosecution of Shaw underway, and began to allege Shaw was somehow connected with the CIA, Garrison’s charges seemed even more preposterous.  Everyone knew what Western operatives were like.  007 was a macho man who drank the finest wines and bedded the most beautiful women.  Sean Connery was no limp-wristed queer.  As a friend told me at the time, “Shaw could not possibly be involved in an assassination plot; he’s a homosexual.”  (There were queers who were spies, but those were the spies for the Communists, like the Cambridge crew who served the Soviets).  Those in HM Secret Service or the CIA were men who loved women.  Shaw could not possibly be CIA.  The entire project – government agents involved in a plot to kill the President, a funny looking man like Ferrie involved, plus a “respectable” queer who knew Tennessee Williams and Gore Vidal involved with a 25-year-old defector who had brought his wife back from the USSR – just too bizarre.  And the Federal Government covering up such a crime!  Absurd.
            And yet?...
            Garrison’s interest had begun in November 1963 when he had David Ferrie arrested in connection with the case.  (See “My New Orleans Story” on my blog, esp. part 3 re Ferrie).  After his arrest, Ferrie was handed over to the FBI for questioning, and the FBI then released him.  That seemed to end the matter in 1963.
            Then there were questions about Oswald’s stay in New Orleans after his return from Minsk.  When arrested by NO police during a scuffle where he was distributing Fair Play for Cuba leaflets, Oswald asked to speak with the FBI.  That interview from one to three hours, and though notes were taken, they were later destroyed.  Would a Communist, or a leftist, when arrested, ask to speak to the FBI?  The others who were distributing the leaflets with Oswald were allegedly paid to do so.  Who paid them?  Oswald also said he was paid to hand them out.  Was he lying?  Or was he paid, and by whom?  JDE has various people saying that Oswald was working on this project for Guy Banister.  (Might the others leafleting have been some of the gay “Mexicanos” Dean Andrews said accompanied Oswald when they came to his office?)  Finally, the address on some of the FPCC leaflets was indeed that of the same building that housed Guy Banister Associates and his anti-Castro organization.  JDE writes of several witnesses who saw Oswald working in Banister’s offices.  David Ferrie also did work for Banister.  There is a photo of the young Oswald at a barbeque when he was in Ferrie’s Civil Air Patrol.  And Oswald’s landlady said that after the assassination, Ferrie had come to Oswald’s old apartment looking for his, Ferrie’s, library card.  Ferrie, Oswald, Banister.  And Shaw?
            One possible link was the “jive-talking” attorney dean Andrews, who had defended the gay Latins when Oswald came with them.  The man who often paid for these cases was Clem Bertrand.  JDE stresses and incident that the judge would not permit to go before the jury of the Shaw trial.  When being booked, Shaw was asked if he had used any alias, and, according to the policeman booking him, he declared he used Clem Bertrand.  He also signed a card to that effect.  Moreover others, like the receptionist at the airport VIP lounge asserted that Shaw signed in as Bertrand.  JDE relates that even more have also maintained that Shaw was Bertrand.
            Andrews had stated and given testimony for the Warren Commission that he had received a telephone call in November 1963 asking him to defend the newly arrested Oswald in Dallas.  The person calling was Clem Bertrand.  But as time went on, Andrews backtracked, and became ever more evasive.  About the time Garrison was placing him on the stand under oath, Andrews was interviewed by local TV.  The reporters kept pressing him.  Finally, I recall this over the decades, Andrews replied, “If they can kill the President, they can squash me like a roach.”
            Even in the 1960s there were some strange news items about the Garrison case.  Shortly after Garrison included Clay Shaw among his conspirators, Pres. Lyndon Johnson’s Attorney General Ramsey Clark in March 1967 interceded in the process.  Clark announced on television that the government had investigated Shaw in 1963 and there had been nothing to connect him to the events in Dallas.  This comment by the highest law enforcer in the US led to other questions – just WHY was the Federal Government investigating Shaw at all in 1963 concerning the Kennedy killing?
            What JDE adds in this edition of his book is proof from newly released documents of how the Federal Government actively engaged in the defense of Shaw and obstructed the Garrison prosecution.  JDE shows how Shaw’s attorneys asked for and received help in their defense from the FBI (p. 265).  He details how the CIA obstructed the Garrisons case, infiltrating the prosecution team, gaining access to the prosecutions list of possible witnesses, their names and addresses, so that the pro-Fed, pro-Shaw attorneys or “journalists” might reach them first and suggest the “proper” story line. Or threaten them if they did not recant.  Sometimes the Fed infiltrators might spy, sometimes simply steal files accumulated by Garrison’s team.  JDE shows how, as everyone at the time could see, important witnesses might be encouraged to flee Louisiana, and in other states, governors, like Ronald Reagan refused to extradite the material witnesses.
            What is news to me is how JDE discovered that the Feds put pressure on the editors of the local newspapers in New Orleans.  From the first, the local papers ran some stories supportive of Garrison; others critical. Such even-handed reporting was not what the Feds desired.  The CIA pressured the States-Item, and suddenly two pro-Garrison reporters were reassigned.(p. 278)  They were to write no more about the Garrison case.
            Finally, the national media would be used to smear and mock Garrison’s efforts.  This time NBC and its local affiliate WDSU would be the main defenders of Shaw and the Warren Report’s official line.  They maintained that Garrison was persecuting Shaw.  Along with journalists who had ties to the CIA, and one who had attempted to join the CIA, Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, and others were able to place hostile stories about Garrison in prominent national magazines, and NBC devoted a whole hour of prime time to Garrison bashing.
            I disagree when JDE describes the trial of Clay Shaw as anti-climatic.  This trial afforded most Americans their first opportunity to view the Zapruder film.  Whereas CBS reporter Dan Rather, who viewed it in November 1963, reported how the film showed Kennedy being thrust forward by the bullet coming from behind, the film shows Kennedy being knocked backward by the force of the bullet.  The short film was shown many times at the trial, so many could see that the killing shot may well have come from the front, which would have meant more than one assassin, which would have meant conspiracy.
            I was teaching at a university and tried to attend as much of the trial as possible.  I recall listening to a New Yorker describe listening to plotters planning to kill the President.  He met David Ferrie in a bar, and accompanied him to what was probably Shaw’s home, and Shaw and Ferrie then discussed the assassination of Kennedy.  The prosecution’s witness, Mr. Spiesel, was articulate and to the point.  Then he was cross examined by Shaw’s defense.  Spiesel spoke of how he might walk into a room, and someone across the room might look at him, almost immediately hypnotize him, and make him impotent.  He admitted that when his daughter returned from LSU to her home in New York, he had her fingerprinted to insure that she was truly his daughter!  The more he spoke, the harder it was for me and most spectators in the courtroom to stifle our laughter.  Garrison’s prosecution suffered a heavy blow by placing what seemed to by a lunatic on the stand.
            But I was also in court when the Garrison staff placed one of the doctors from the Kennedy autopsy in Bethesda, Maryland on the stand.  Dr. Pierre Finck also began matter-of-factly about examining Pres. Kennedy’s body.  One area of dispute between the upholders of the official Warren Report story and its critics centers around the wound in the President’s neck.  Those who saw it as an entry wound, inevitably must conclude that a shot came from the front, which means conspiracy.  To avoid that, the official line is that the shot by Oswald from the 6th floor of the School depository Building entered the upper back/neck area and exited the front of the neck, and then went on to wound Texas Gov. Connelly in several areas.  Finck was asked under oath if he had probed the path of the throat wound to make sure that it was the same path as the bullet that entered the back/neck.  No, Dr. Finck did not probe it.  Why not?  He was ordered not to do so.  Who ordered him not to do so?  Well, there were many generals and admirals in the room, and they all outranked him.  So he did not probe the wound.  With this testimony, Finck was admitting that the doctors were not in charge of the autopsy – the military was calling the shots.  JDE speculates that the man in charge was Curtis Le May, who in 1968 would run for VP on the American Independent Party ticket headed by Gov. George Wallace of Alabama.  I do not know which officer or officers were in charge.  What Garrison revealed in this trial was this – the doctors were NOT in charge of the autopsy of Pres. Kennedy.  And consequently, Kennedy did not receive a proper examination.
            I was also in the courtroom for the summary by Jim Garrison himself.  He spoke of the CIA and an Alice-Through-The-Looking-Glass government.  I concluded years later that Kevin Costner did a much better job at summarizing the case in the film “JFK” than did Garrison in the New Orleans courtroom.
            I did not attend all of the trial, but had I been on the jury, I would have voted Shaw not guilty because I believe insufficient evidence had been presented by the prosecution to demonstrate that Shaw was a conspirator.  The jury also voted not guilty.  When interviewed by TV reporters after the verdict, most believed there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, but Garrison failed to prove his case against Shaw.  JDE reports that two alternate jurors left their votes.  Both of them voted Shaw guilty, but their votes did not count.
            I have written several articles about the New Orleans scene, contrasting it with that portrayed by the Warren Commission volumes (see the Third Decade and the Fourth Decade).  I also posted “My New Orleans Story” on my blog, and that includes additional material related to Guy Banister and David Ferrie, which I shall not repeat here.
            Reading JDE’s book, I found some chapters, like the one on Mexico, muddled and not well integrated into the rest of the work.  On the other hand, I found the author’s use of declassified material convincing in demonstrating that the Federal government exerted major pressure to silence witnesses, prevent extradition, sabotage the Garrison prosecution, and bolster the defense of accused Clay Shaw.  I may have suspected some of this when it was happening, but the extent of it is new to me.  To read how “journalists” would interview witnesses with the purpose of turning them against Garrison, sometimes even threatening them.  And JDE provides even more witnesses who linked Shaw, Banister, Ferrie, and Oswald.
            The other major contribution by the author is his discussion of foreign policy.  True, most other books on the assassination discuss Cuba; some discuss Vietnam, but JDE places great emphasis on conversations the young John Kennedy had in 1951 in Vietnam with American diplomat, Edmund Gullion.  Gullion insisted that there were differences between popular national and anti-colonial uprisings, and Communist revolutions.  He urged that the US should not oppose all such uprisings.  He told this to Kennedy while the French were in the midst of their war against Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh.  In 1954, the French lost.
            Whereas I had always viewed Jack Kennedy as a staunch anti-Communist, a Cold Warrior, a Catholic whose dad, while serving as US Ambassador to the UK, rejected FDR’s interventionist policies prior to WWII.  And as Senator, John Kennedy not vote to censure Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and his brother, Robert, worked for the McCarthy’s Senate committee.  JDE assembles items which challenge my earlier impression.  Thus, though the new Pres. Kennedy went along with the BoP invasion of Cuba, he refused to order air strikes or additional support, thereby dooming the anti-Castro raiders.  This decision alone made him powerful enemies.  Later in 1961 Kennedy fired Allen Dulles when he learned more about how the CIA had misled and lied to him.  The Cuban exiles had wanted Kennedy to invade and overthrow Castro with the BoP.  They were sorely disappointed.  Then during the Missile Crisis of 1962, many Kennedy advisors wanted to go beyond “quarantine” (blockade).  They wanted air strikes and possible military invasion.  Again, Kennedy disappointed them.  Kennedy used diplomacy, normal channels and secret, back-door maneuvers to avoid escalation.  According to JDE, Kennedy sought to protect Patrice Lumumba in the newly independent Congo, and he tried to foil the Belgian and British attempts to establish the break-away province of Katanga.  Kennedy pushed for the Peace Corps to spread American values to 3rd world nations in a non-violent manner.  He and Khrushchev installed the red phones in their offices to prevent an accidental nuclear war.  And in his American U. speech of June 10, 1963 Kennedy pressed for a nuclear test ban treaty and suspended American atmospheric nuclear testing.  The address was titled, “A Strategy for Peace,”  enunciating a new era in American policy.  No longer the Cold War, but rapprochement with the Soviets, people to people bridges with the 3rd world through the Peace Corps, and, and here is where JDE adds new material, through the use of back-door diplomacy, the possibility of again recognizing Fidel Castro’s Cuba.  Such a change in direction would have been anathema not only to the Cuban exiles, but to Dulles, and to many others who saw this not merely as weakness, but treason.
            The author also maintains that Kennedy had decided that 15,000 American military advisors would be the maximum in Vietnam, and that they were all to be removed by 1965.  I had read this “only if” scenario before.  Kennedy was just about to withdraw from Vietnam, when he was killed, and so we had the tragedy of Vietnam.  I have never accepted this.
            It was probably in 1962 when I visited New York City for the first time.  All my New York friends at Tulane had bragged about the wonderful newspaper, the New York Times.  Now, I could buy it at a news-stand.  In NY I also went to a lecture by an historian, and Communist, Herbert Aptheker.  His topic: he was going to analyze that day’s Bible of journalism, the New York Times.  I do not recall all of the hour’s talk, but I do remember when he pointed to a small item toward the bottom of page 1.  He read the headline of the story, but declared that that was not the real news of the story.  Indeed, he was dismissive of the headline and most of the story.  Aptheker said the real news in the article was that the number of American advisors in Vietnam was revealed to be 11,000.  He then stated that the previous acknowledged number of Americans involved was a mere 9,500.  He stressed that the real story was American escalation of the war in Vietnam.  The real story was hidden by the New York Times in the New York Times.  (I cannot attest to the specific numbers, Aptheker presented, but I certainly remembered his point, that Kennedy was escalating the war.)  But in this book JDE presents material that Kennedy was preparing to withdraw from Vietnam.  JDE presents declassified material that Kennedy was seeking better relations with Castro.  JDE makes a persuasive case.
            Yet, by omitting a major incident, he weakens that case.  On November 2, 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated.  Why?  To promote a peace agreement with North Vietnam?  Or  to insure there would be no peace with the North.  Leaders of the coup had talks with the CIA prior to their putsch, to ask what the reaction of the US might be.  How does that assassination in Saigon relate to the one a few weeks later in Dallas?  Or is there no connection?  JDE should have discussed this as it clearly is relevant to his contention about the upcoming withdrawal of troops by Kennedy.
            It is evident from this book that the US government sought to suppress the truth about events in Dallas.  DA Garrison on New Orleans pressed to find answers.  The Feds applied the power of the national government to smear Garrison, infiltrate his team, intimidate witnesses, help others flee to different states, use national magazines, NBC, major “journalists,” to discredit Garrison.  The Feds won with the acquittal of Clay Shaw.  They won again when Garrison was defeated for re-election by Harry Connick, Sr.  Yet, Garrison showed great strength and courage.  His crusade led to further exposure of the weaknesses of the official story created in the Warren Report.  Garrison won in that he pulled more evidence from a government accustomed to projecting lies propped by power.  And the American people won also; we learned more about the Kennedy assassination; we learned more about government cover-ups; and we learned that there are heroes in America.  Some heroes can take on, not only City Hall, but they can take on the entire Washington Establishment when it lies to the American people.           
          So even before Obama shoved the US toward an oppressive totalitarian state, there were other examples of repression in the US.  Garrison fought for freedom and truth against the Establishment then.  One hopes we can do the same in the struggle against Obamoppression today.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Ann Coulter on the IRS Scandal

I took this from frontpage.com.  An excellent article.  Hugh Murray

Tips for Right-Wingers on the IRS Scandal

Instead of showing endless loops of IRS employees wasting taxpayer dollars line-dancing — Breaking news: Government employees waste millions of your dollars every single day! — I think it would be more useful for the public to hear a few crucial facts about the exploding scandal at the Internal Revenue Service.
At Tuesday’s congressional hearings on the IRS, witnesses provided shocking details about the agency’s abuse of conservative groups.
The IRS leaked the donor list of The National Organization for Marriage to their political opponents, the pro-gay-marriage Human Rights Campaign. This is not idle speculation: The documents had an internal IRS stamp on them. The list of names was then published on a number of liberal websites and NOM’s donors were harassed.
The IRS demanded that all members of the Coalition for Life of Iowa swear under penalty of perjury that they wouldn’t pray, picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood. They were also asked to provide details of their prayer meetings.
Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. — who was ordered by the D.C. Circuit Court to pay more than $1 million to John Boehner in 2008 for the sleazy maneuver of publishing an illegally taped private conversation — blamed the conservative groups themselves. “Each of your groups was highly political,” he lectured them, noting that they wouldn’t have been asked any questions if they hadn’t requested tax-exempt status.
Even a fair-minded person — not to be confused with Jim McDermott — might hear about the IRS’ harassment of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “liberty” in their names and think: “How do we know the IRS wasn’t equally hard on left-wing groups?”
What might be more helpful than clips of IRS staff line-dancing would be for reporters, say at Fox News, to mention a few examples of the wildly partisan left-wing groups that the IRS has certified as tax-exempt.
Among the many left-wing groups with tax-exempt status are:
– ACORN (now renamed as other organizations, but all still tax-exempt), “community organizers” who engage in profanity-laced protests at private homes, dump garbage in front of public buildings and disrupt bankers’ dinners in order to get more people on welfare in order to destroy the capitalist system and incite revolution;
– Occupy Wall Street, which — in its first month alone — was responsible for more than a dozen sexual assaults; at least half a dozen deaths by overdose, suicide or murder; and millions of dollars in property damage;
– Media Matters for America, a media “watchdog” group that has never noticed one iota of pro-Obama bias in the media;
– Moveon.org, which ran ads comparing Bush to Hitler under its 501(c)(4) arm;
– The Center for American Progress, an auxiliary of the Democratic National Committee funded by George Soros and staffed by former Clinton and Obama aides to promote the Democratic agenda;
– The Tides Foundation, which funnels money to communist and terrorist-supporting organizations;
– The Ford Foundation, which has never found a criminal law that isn’t “racist.”
These groups are regarded by the IRS as nonpartisan community groups, merely educational, while dozens of patriotic, constitutional, Christian or tea party groups are still waiting for their tax exemptions.
That’s to say nothing of Planned Parenthood, PBS and innumerable other Democratic front-groups that not only have tax exemptions, but get direct funding from the government.
By contrast, the conservative groups being raked over the coals by the IRS actually were nonpartisan. The tea party forced sitting Republican senators off the ticket in Alaska and Indiana, and toppled “establishment” Republicans in Utah, Delaware, Nevada, Florida and Texas. Far from being a secretly pro-Republican group, the tea party has been a nightmare for Republicans.
Show me one instance where the Center for American Progress was more of a problem for Democrats than Republicans.
It is obviously in the interest of the left to show us liberal groups also harassed by the IRS, so it’s striking that they haven’t been able to produce one yet.
Instead, they hearken back to the Bush years to claim that the IRS once audited the NAACP, which is treated as ipso facto political harassment.
First of all, the NAACP doesn’t exactly have a sterling record of rectitude when it comes to organization funds. In the 1990s, the NAACP used tax-exempt contributions to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of hush money to the mistress of then-executive director Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. — as detailed in enraged columns by Carl Rowan at the time.
Find a tea party organization that’s done that, and we’ll understand the IRS conducting a three-year proctology exam on the group.
Second, the Bush-era audit of the NAACP was prompted by a blindingly partisan speech given by NAACP chairman Julian Bond at an organization meeting in Philadelphia in July 2004. Bond attacked a slew of elected Republicans by name, denouncing the entire party as one whose “idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.”
That’s what we call “black-letter law” on improper activity for a tax-exempt organization. As a 501(c)(3) group, the NAACP is prohibited from supporting or opposing any candidate for elective office.
The NAACP responded to the IRS’ letter by screaming from the rooftops that it was political payback. Consequently, Bush’s IRS commissioner requested that Treasury’s inspector general investigate the IRS’ tax-exempt unit for political bias. The IG’s report found no politics in the NAACP audit and — to the contrary — that more “pro-Republican” groups (18) than “pro-Democratic” groups (12) had been audited.
Nonetheless, the NAACP simply refused to cooperate with the IRS. There was nothing the Bush administration could do. No Republican was going to allow the NAACP’s tax-exempt status to be revoked on its watch. Two years later, the IRS simply issued a letter clearing the group.
Today, the NAACP openly engages in partisan activity, such as a current weeks-long protest of Republican legislators in North Carolina.
Finally, a tip to the Democrats trying to defend the IRS: As a devoted true-crime TV viewer, I can tell you that when you’re caught red-handed, it’s never a good defense to say, “Why would I be so stupid to kill my wife right after taking out a huge life insurance policy on her?”
You were that stupid and you got caught.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

IMMIGRATION REFORM - Affirmative Action Preferences for Millions of Illegal Invaders by Hugh Murray

Amnesty Will Lead to More Affirmative Action

John T. Bennett, American Thinker, June 3, 2013
Of all the consequences that would result from amnesty, one that hasn’t been discussed enough is the expansion of affirmative action.
Affirmative action takes existing racial grievances, institutionalizes them, and then magnifies them.  As Shelby Steele noted, affirmative action encourages “a victim-focused identity in minorities” and fosters “a parasitic diversity industry” [1].
Affirmative action policies will benefit minority immigrants, and minority immigrants will naturally support affirmative action policies.  How do we know?  Because Hispanics are telling pollsters so....
My comments:
Hugh Murray
Republican Pres. Nixon made affirmative action a national policy. Result - up to 96% of Blacks vote Democrat. Republican Pres. Reagan signed the bill of the 1980s that gave amnesty to about 5 million illegal aliens. Result, fewer Hispanics voted Republican in the following election. If the GOP endorses the new amnesty bill (comp. immigration reform), of the 11 million invaders, probably 10 million will vote Democrat.
Meanwhile, about 10 million Hispanics, illegal invaders, will jump to the head of the line for univ. admission, for scholarships, for jobs, for promotion. All because of affirmative action. The US will be granting preferences and privileges to illegal invaders, and discriminating against law-abiding, native born white citizens.
The Democrats have long ago given up on the white working class and white middle class. They favor the discrimination against us. But if the GOP votes for this new outrage, it will gain almost no new Hispanic votes. Meanwhile, it will lose many more white voters - and with good reason.
It is time to deport the invaders, and end the discrimination against whites called affirmative action.

                     7 Major Immigration Myths Debunked: Forbes...

The Huffington Post  |  By Posted:   |  Updated: 06/02/2013 3:49 pm EDT
02:14 PM on 06/01/2013
Unmentioned in this pro-invader article - when 11 million illegal aliens receive their amnesty, they will jump to the head of the univ. admission line, to the head of the scholarship line, to the head of the employment line, to the head of the promotion line, etc. About 10 million of the illegals will become eligible for AFFIRMATIVE ACTION preferences, privileges over native-born, law-abiding, American citizens. Liberals want to give preferences to illegal invaders over the law-abiding citizens! Deport the invaders - that is the only fair and moral thing to do. No amnesty; no road to citizenship for the invaders.

02:48 PM on 06/01/2013
that is both true, and absurd. no sane population would ever allow itself to be subordinated like that, by invaders  

Schumer: Immigration bill to pass Senate by July 4

Hugh Murray  •  1 day 12 hrs ago Report Abuse
Republican Pres. Nixon made affirmative action US national policy. Did that win the Black vote for the Republicans? Black usually vote 90-97% against the GOP.
Republican Pres. Reagan allowed the amnesty of perhaps 5 million illegal aliens in the 1980s. Did that win the Hispanic vote for Republicans. In the following election, the GOP % of the Hispanic vote DECLINED after the 1980s amnesty.
If Republicans vote for amnesty for the illegal invaders in 2013, they will win few Hispanic voters. They will lose more white voters, like me.
Because of affirmative action, 11 million more will get in line before me and my kind, given privileges in univ. admission, in scholarships, in employment, in promotions, just because of their ethnic heritage. Why give preferences to illegal invaders over native-born, law-abiding American citizens? It is an outrage! The elite give a-a preferences to its pets, and discriminates against the white working class. One expects this from the elite, from the Democrats, Hollywood, Bill Gates, George Soros, et al.
If the GOP votes for amnesty, and preferences, for illegal invaders over American citizens, the GOP will deserve to lose the future.

Supporters of U.S. immigration bill unsettled by Rubio message...

 Hugh Murray  •  5 days ago Report Abuse
Immigration Reform to the media means allowing 11 million illegal invaders of this country to receive affirmative action preferences and privileges over native-born American citizens who broke no laws and invaded no other countries. Why should an illegal have a better chance at univ. admission than a citizen born in Texas? A better chance of a scholarship than a citizen born in Minnesota? A better chance at a job than a citizen born in Vermont?
Real immigration reform means deporting all the illegals found by the census takers. Closing the borders to invasion. Any other "reform" amounts to discrimination against American citizens. The Gang of 8 reform is anti-American! 
One of my comments I cannot find, but I dismissed the importance of an article that stressed how large majorities of Blacks and Hispanics favor affirmative action.  The authoress's point was that when polls state the majority of Americans opposed a-a, that is only because of whites, who do oppose it.  However, she stressed that Blacks and minorities favor it.  My point was, so what?  A majority of criminals in jail might strongly favor halving the time to be served.  So what?  The majority of people deem serving the full sentences better for the good of society.  A majority working at McDonalds might want a minimum salary of $100 an hour.  So what?  McD's would go out of business, and all would then be unemployed.
My point is that a-a is unjust.  Even if every CEO in the nation were a white male, that is no reason to discriminate against a poor white guy trying to get a scholarship, or even admission into college.  Worse, a-a by definition means not hiring the best qualified, but only a basically qualified (if that) applicant.  Standards inevitably decline.
 I am happy to see someone else write about immigration and affirmative action and how unjust the talk of immigration reform is.--------Hugh Murray