Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« December 2013 | Main | February 2014 »

46 U.S. Senators vote to destroy 2nd Amendment rights

Sir David Andrew relays:

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: OFC. OF STEVEN C. <>
Date: Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:38 PM
Subject: Fw: HOORAY - 53-46 vote~

From: Steven Castrechino
Subject: HOORAY - 53-46 vote~

HOORAY - 53-46 vote
The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION, DISARMAMENT ---”
HOORAY - 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution.
At least our Texas Senators are not on this list.  I am sorry to see so many other states have a sorry record of the 2nd amendment support.
This is that brief, glorious moment in history
when everyone stands around...reloading.
Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known !! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 “legis..traitors”… vote against them.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.  The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads:  "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."  The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.  The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented aninternational gun registry, now get this,on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)j
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL) *******
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.
46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
NO Rep. names here!!
Please send this to SOMEONE!


For more info. on this see:!

January 30, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

History Is Proving That LBJ Killed JFK

Posted on January 16, 2014

The evidence is there, the coincidences are so vast that I don’t think calling them coincidences is an accurate term anymore. In this video you will see how the Warren Commission (which was brought together and hand picked by LBJ himself) was created to cover up the greatest political scandal of LBJ’s career…the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. You will also hear the death bed confession of E. Howard Hunt about the role that LBJ played in the assassination as well as other key players who Johnson sought out personally for this grievous crime. The facts don’t lie. One day, maybe not in my lifetime, we will know the truth.




January 28, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink


Related update: 

Paul Andrew Mitchell has been bundled away by the US Government

Post main:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 8:01 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."  wrote:


"The U.S. Code - consisting of many thousands of arbitrary statutory laws - is an enemy of the people. These statutes are not laws they are mandates that are specifically adaptive to entrapment and control. One cannot get through a day without violating one or more of these so-called laws; they are all inclusive, intrusive, and invasive to every segment of day to day existence. They comprise a virtual web of controlling measures that enables containment of personal freedoms, and they were specifically drafted to that purpose. The U.S. Code as it exists separates the people from their inherent and God-given liberties."

Greetings Jim,

The paragraph above caught my eye, in large part because
our work has identified so many reasons that fully support
your conclusions.  

For example:

( 1 )  The U.S. Code is not an accurate rendition of the
Statutes at Large from which that Code was derived:

( a )  the liberal construction rule for the Federal RICO statutes
was never codified anywhere in the U.S. Code, even though
Title 18 was revised, codified and enacted into positive law
on June 25, 1948:

“(a) The provisions of this title [enacting this chapter and 
amending sections 15052516, and 2517 of this title] 
shall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.

( b ) another example is the amendment to the Federal Privacy Act
at P.L. 93-579:  one must already know about that amendment
in order to find it in the Legislative History of that Privacy Act:

( c )  another, even more serious example is the IRS Restructuring 
and Reform Act of 1998, which was likewise never codified 
anywhere in Title 26 of the U.S. Code: this is extremely serious
because that RRA98 gave legal force and effect to the IRS
Internal Revenue Manual:  IRS personnel can now be terminated
for violating any provision in that IRM:

( 2 ) some Titles of the U.S. Code were never enacted into positive
law by Act of Congress -- Title 26 being among the most notorious
of those Titles which have not been enacted -- and that by itself 
renders key sections of IRC subtitle F demonstrably void for vagueness
e.g. IRC 7851(a)(6)(A) where "this title" is simply not defined:  (a)(6)(A)

(6) Subtitle F 
(A) General rule 
The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment ofthis title 
and shall be applicable with respect to any tax imposed by this title.

( 3 )  another even more shocking discovery was the pair 
of back-to-back "abrogation clauses" in Titles 18 and 28:
we initially cracked that abomination in this pleading
to the U.S. Supreme Court, and 48 UNlicensed ATTORNeys
either fell totally silent, or formally waived their clients'
right to answer:
Then, a preferred client retained me to do the same
analysis with Title 18, and -- sure enough -- the exact same
"abrogation clause" was lurking in that Act of June 25, 1948,
but it was later replaced with an entirely different statute
having to do with victims' rights:

(4)  and, without a doubt, the Grandaddy of all these Frauds is
the failure by Congress clearly to distinguish Federal MUNICIPAL laws
from Federal NATIONAL laws:

( a ) we exposed that ruse in the Internal Revenue Code way back in 1992,
in "The Federal Zone":

( b ) that finding was a literal gold mine, because it helped us to develop
effective methods for determining when other Acts of Congress were
MUNICIPAL in scope, but written by Congress to make them appear
AS IF they were NATIONAL in scope:

( c )  a really good illustration of this distinction can be confirmed
by comparing 42 U.S.C. 1983 with 42 U.S.C. 1985:
1983 is Federal MUNICIPAL law:  see Wadleigh v. Newhall;
1985 is Federal NATIONAL law: see Gillespie v. Civiletti;

( d ) every once in a while, Congress opens Pandora's Box --
by openly admitting that "State" has a "special definition"
in several key statutes:  see the Omnibus Acts for the smoking guns:

( e ) these RE-definitions of "State" just happen to violate
the Eisner Prohibition, where the Supreme Court told Congress
that it could NOT re-define any terms that were already 
in the U.S. Constitution:  see Eisner v. Macomber;

( f )  and, quite happily, all of the latter helped to pinpoint the
correct legal meaning of "U.S. Individual" on IRS Form 1040:
it uses the exact same meaning of "individual" as the latter term
is expressly defined in the Federal Privacy Act:

(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or 
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

( 5 ) last but not least, the way Congress has fabricated a second class
of federal citizens was fully exposed by juxtaposing the 1866 Civil Rights Act
with correct key holdings in the Dred Scott decision issued only 10 years earlier:

( a ) the latter expose is so far-reaching, it has proven that 
Americans who are qualified to serve in the House, Senate and White House
are not eligible to vote or serve on juries of any kind;  and,
Americans who are eligible to vote and serve on juries
are not qualified to serve in the House, Senate or White House!

( b ) the Federal Jury Selection and Service Act is therefore
unconstitutional for expressly discriminating against
Citizens of ONE OF the States united i.e. the very same
class of Americans who are qualified to serve in the
House, Senate and White House!

Thanks for all you do, Jim.  Keep up the good work!

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Home Page) (Support Policy) (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

January 26, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Private Attorney General in USA responds to essay "MY TRIBUTE TO MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.," by Johnathan W. Emord (1/20/2014)

On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:35 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."  wrote:

Greetings Mr. Emord,

I really do believe that it is high time to put heart-warming sentiments
and widespread psychological propaganda in their proper places,
and to confront instead several fundamental issues which appeared to 
fly way over Dr. King's head, or enter his head on one side and
exit the other side without even being noticed.

The obvious persistence of political correctness has finally
gone far enough, in my humble opinion.
Of all people, you should already understand the well documented and
crucial differences that now exist between "civil rights", on the one hand,
and Fundamental Rights, on the other hand.  In this context, please see
Miranda v. Arizona (re: rights secured by the Constitution).
In our research, we found one horrific high Court precedent which tried to hold
that Congress could create Federal courts withOUT Article III guarantees
in 3 "limited" settings:

(1)  courts martial
(2)  territorial courts
(3)  courts deciding disputes involving public rights that Congress created.

See Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982).

There is plenty of authority for the proposition that "civil rights" are now
typically defined by Federal Courts as public rights that Congress created, and
as such those "public rights" are not deserving of any Article III protections
-- according to Marathon supra.
That is clearly one very dishonest way of saying that "civil rights",
as understood by the entire Federal Judiciary, are no longer mandates
upon the Federal Courts, but are now options to be enforced or not enforced
at the arbitrary whims of terribly biased judicial personnel, many of whom
have now either failed or refused to produce any of the credentials that are
required of all such personnel.  See 5 U.S.C. 3331, in this context.

I can give you another painful example that we discovered 
at 48 U.S.C. 1561, where Congress vainly attempted to extend a
subset of the Bill of Rights to the Virgin Islands.   Only problem was
that Congress had already extended the ENTIRE U.S. Constitution
into all Federal Territories, even future Federal Territories, in the
year 1873:  (Sec. 1891)

Maybe they just forgot?  What do you think?
This theme is so pregnant with far-reaching legal and historical significance,
I invite you to witness for yourself why the statute at 42 U.S.C. 1983
is decidedly Federal MUNICIPAL law, while the statute at 42 U.S.C. 1985 
is decidedly Federal NATIONAL law.  Compare Wadleigh v. Newhall
with Gillespie v. Civiletti.

Yep!  Sometimes the courts get it right, and sometimes they don't.
Now, if you are willing to take your shoes off and plant your
bare feet squarely on solid ground, the rubber meets the road
when we prove to all concerned that the term "U.S. Individual"
-- on IRS Forms 1040 -- applies ONLY to federal citizens and 
resident aliens.  It does NOT apply to Citizens of ONE OF 
the 50 States of the Union.   See, for example, 26 CFR 1.1-1
and the identical definition of "individual" at 5 U.S.C. 552a.

Yes, indeed, the courts which have ruled on this crucial distinction
have upheld the existence of two (2) classes of citizens in America
NOT one (1) class.  Here, please read these cases for yourself:

So, what is it with you ATTORNeys, anyhow?  You hype the ancient rhyme
that we've all had to hear repeated from first grade in grammar school onwards,
namely, that Abraham Lincoln knew what he was doing when he launched into
a political attack of the Supreme Court's long decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford,
and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was some kind of savior to all black Americans --
all the while King persisted in perpetuating their second-class status 
by fomenting a "civil rights" movement and persuading lots of blacks
to follow his "leadership" on this point?

What's wrong with this picture, I ask you?

Answer:  As a result of the high Court's correct holdings in Dred Scott v. Sandford,
Congress could not remove the obstacles identified in that decision solely by 
means of Federal legislation enacted by that Body
.  But, that's exactly what
Congress attempted to do when it enacted the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

However, "Congress ... cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and 
within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."

-- Eisner v. Macomber.  

If I had NOT just cited those proper Parties correctly,
would you have opposed that statement for any reason?

How's THAT for a good taste of Fundamental Law in America?

For the rest of that sordid story, please read on ...

When exactly may we expect any of this nonsense and horse manure 
to cease and desist, once and for all, I ask you?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Home Page) (Support Policy) (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

January 21, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Ayo H. Kimathi's OPM SF-61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS are COUNTERFEITS: no OMB control number, no paragraph citing 5 U.S.C. 2903


On Sunday, January 19, 2014 4:45 PM, "Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S."  wrote:

Attached to mail Returned To Sender ("RTS"):

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964 (Home Page) (Support Policy) (Client Guidelines) (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

January 19, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink


By Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall
January 19, 2014

January 12, 2014: Fox News Sunday is usually moderated by Chris Wallace. One week ago today, John Roberts sat in for Wallace and one of the primary topics covered was the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

A panel made up of George Will (Washington Post), Bob Woodward (Washington Post), Karl Rove (GOP political adviser) and Juan Williams (Fox News contributor) was on hand to discuss issues of the day. It was obvious that Sunday's news heads considered the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of importance.

Bob Woodward, along with his independent investigative journalist partner of the 1970s, Carl Bernstein (the two co-authored All the President's Men in 1974), is of course famous for his coverage of the destruction of Richard Nixon's presidency via his talks with an intelligence source called “Deep Throat” with whom he or Bernstein met regularly in a dark parking garage. Woodward and Bernstein created the term “Watergate,” and Americans have been calling politically corrupt acts “gate” ever since. We've had Billygate, Briefingate, Contragate, Debategate, Doublebillingsgate, Iraqgate, Koreagate, Nannygate, Travelgate, Troopergate and Whitewatergate. Most recently we have had Benghazi-gate, IRS-Tea Party Gate, Fast and Furious Gate, Voter Fraud Gate, et al, ad nauseum.

Woodward for the first time on a major media source made public on Fox News Sunday a Top Secret agreement signed by President Ronald Reagan... a “finding” that involved Defense Minister (at the time) Ariel Sharon (before Sharon became Prime Minister of Israel). Here's what the Washington Post'sBob Woodward of Watergate fame said:

“I think he was kind of a de Gaulle-like figure in Israel – somebody who defined the nation during certain periods... did a lot of strong things, made some mistakes. What I found interesting during the Reagan years when he was Defense Minister in Israel, he would come to the United States, meet with Bill Casey, the CIA Director, and he persuaded Casey and President Reagan to sign a Top Secret Finding to give $10 million to War Lords that he wanted to deal with in Lebanon. So his influence wasn't just in Israel. It was in this country.”

Woodward was correct that Reagan signed such an agreement. He was wrong as to the purpose of the agreement and the amount of money involved. It was $10 billion, not $10 million and it was to fund a Peace Accord between Israel and Palestine.

Secret Agent Leo Emil Wanta (who is documented as the man who, while serving as President Ronald Reagan's Personal Intelligence Coordinator, brought down the Soviet Union Ruble which led to the fall of the Iron Curtain) worked directly with Director of Central Intelligence, Bill Casey (“Uncle Bill,” as Wanta calls him). So far, Woodward has got the players right. But here's where he went off base: Leo Wanta was given the responsibility for implementing the protocol to which Reagan agreed: $5 billion was to go to Sharon's Israel and $5 billion was to go to Yasser Arafat's Palestinians as part of the Peace Accord.

The subject of the Reagan-Wanta Peace Accord was researched thoroughly and is fully explained in Wanta's biography, WANTA! Black Swan, White Hat(October 2013, Marilyn Barnewall, Kindle at in Chapter 7.

Because of the huge fortune Wanta had generated in the aftermath of his success in the Soviet Union, others – agent provocateurs – wanted the money and arranged for the Swiss Sûreté to arrest Wanta in Lausanne, Switzerland on the morning of July 7, 1993 while Wanta was having breakfast at the Hotel Au Lac. Secret Agent Leo Emil Wanta who had reported directly to President Ronald Reagan was put in what he describes as “a dungeon” and, with no charges filed against him, was kept there for 134 days.

Then he got a letter from Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. It arrived at du Bois Prison on November 16, 1993. On November 17, 1993, the Swiss quickly put Wanta on a Swiss Air flight to New York City where he appeared before Federal District Court Magistrate Allyne Ross. Her Honor immediately dismissed all of the phony charges against Wanta. Prime Minister Rabin's letter can be read here.

*NOTE the date the envelope was received by the Prison du Bois in Lausanne: 16 November 1993. Wanta was returned to New York the next day. Copies of his arrival documents via Customs are in my files. After the coded Rabin letter was received, the Swiss wanted no part of Leo Emil Wanta.

Aside from the official Wanta biography which I finished writing in August 2013 and published on Kindle at in October, the best source for a quick overview of what happened during the days of chaos in Wanta World is an article written for NewsWithViews by former Polish intelligence officer David Dastych. Dastych, a very good man, died 18 months after writing this two-part article.

Additional reference is made to Wanta's inability to fund the $10 billion Peace Accord between Israel and Palestine because of his unlawful arrest in Switzerland. On August 15, 2002, Wanta's lawyer, Thomas E. Henry, wrote to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The full letter can be viewed here. In short, Mr. Henry informed Prime Minister Sharon that if he reviewed pertinent material concerning the 1992 Peace Accord between Prime Minister Rabin and Yasser Arafat, it would be determined that Ambassador Leo Wanta was orchestrating the funding of Ten Billion United States Dollars to facilitate implementation of the referenced Peace Accord.

Mr. Henry went on to tell Sharon:

“It is further anticipated that a review of this matter would reflect that the funding never occurred. A bizarre range of circumstances resulted in failure to provide funding for the economic implementation portion of the mentioned Peace Accord. If Prime Minister Rabin's records are available in the archives of your government, I believe you will find correspondence to Ambassador Leo Wanta from Prime Minister Rabin via Swiss authorities. This communication would have been in November of 1993...”

The reference to a “bizarre range of circumstances” concerned infringement on internationally recognized treaties, laws, and human rights of Ambassador Wanta. Leo/Lee Wanta does not suggest that the injustice suffered by him over the past many years is directly attributable to his participation in the mentioned Peace Accord. On the other hand, any direct relationship either intentionally or indirectly associated with the Peace Accord funding failure should be of great interest to Israel's leadership – and that is precisely what Mr. Henry told Prime Minister Sharon in August of 2002.

It should also be of interest to Americans who have been at war in the Middle East for the past 13 years largely because the Reagan-Wanta Peace Accord was not funded. Why was it not funded? Because agent provocateurs wanted not just the $10 billion in Peace Accord funds, they wanted the entire fortune Wanta accumulated as a result of his successful operations in Moscow involving the Ruble… all $27.5 trillion of it. That is why Wanta was hidden in various U.S. prisons after Magistrate Ross dismissed all charges against him in New York… to give those agent provocateurs time to go to banks around the world and steal from the American people – that’s you and me – the funds Reagan intended to be used to stimulate the American economy when the time came. President Ronald Reagan knew what was coming.

Also on file is a copy of a FAX from Ariel Sharon's Personal Secretary Mrs. Marit Danon whose signature verifies receipt of the above letter from Thomas E. Henry and thanking him for it.

It's a long story and a complex story... but if you're interested, you can read it at no charge at Ambassador Wanta's Web page.

The $10 billion to which Bob Woodward mistakenly referred to as “$10 million” was, indeed, a Top Secret document. President Ronald Reagan put his Personal Intelligence Coordinator, Lee Emil Wanta, in charge of overseeing the funding of Reagan's Peace Accord.

Over the years, many people have wondered why I believe the Wanta story to be of such great significance that I have stuck to it like a bulldog holds onto a well-placed bite. This comment by Bob Woodward offers some insight into my answer to that question.

Would we have today's problems in the Middle East if the State of Wisconsin hadn't violated every civil right Wanta had and filed a phony and totally spurious tax evasion case against him, resulting in his unlawful imprisonment, making it possible for the funds designated for the Peace Accord to be stolen by agent provocateurs? That’s very unlikely. With the current crowd of progressive liberals running things anything could happen, but had the $10 billion set aside by President Reagan for the Peace Accord between Israel and Palestine been funded in the early 1990s, things would be very different today... but that Knight known for his honesty and integrity, Bill Clinton, came into office in January 1993 (Wanta was arrested July 7, 1993) and what happened is what it is.

Do you remember what Clinton’s answer was when asked why he had done some terrible thing in office (I can’t remember which terrible thing it was; there are many from which to choose)? “Because I could.”

Had Ambassador Lee Wanta been given access to his personal funds rather than imprisoned so CIA agents could travel the world telling the banks where Wanta’s funds were deposited that he was dead and collecting the money to pay for everything from bribes to black ops about which Congress knew nothing because they didn't fund them, things would be different. Financial crises would have been averted (as President Reagan intended). We would have never suffered through an economic crisis caused by Wall Street's joining of commercial banks and investment banks (which resulted in the creation of worthless derivatives responsible for huge numbers of unlawful foreclosures). The bottom wouldn’t have dropped out of the real estate market. We would never have had an unemployment problem because Wanta has since 1995 been begging for the opportunity to build a high-speed rail system he designed to create two million new jobs with good pay and full benefits.


That's why I believe the Wanta story is so important. That's why I wrote Ambassador Wanta's official biography and it's why the book is being made available at no cost to the American populace. It can be purchased at Kindle,, but it is a book that cannot be published in print. Why? Because there are hundreds of pages of documents linked to the text to prove what's being said is true. It would be impossible to reproduce those hundreds of pages in a print publication. Using a computer (or a Kindle), they can be linked… and have been. You can click here and read at no cost about a man who served his government honorably for many years and was thrown under a bus as a reward for his loyalty.


As for the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, I don't dig dark parking garages late at night for meeting investigative reporters, and I don't whisper well... but I will be glad to provide all the information any investigative reporter needs to determine the accuracy of what has been said above.


This “deep throat” is not hard to find. My email address is below… but, of course, there isn’t a Republican President in office and major media sources don’t have the stomach to publish truths about liberal progressive Democrats who hold elective office.


© 2014 Marilyn M. Barnewall - All Rights Reserved




January 19, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Adam Kokesh's sentence - 2 years probation

  1. Washington Post‎- 20 hours ago
    He had videotaped himself loading a shotgun in Freedom Plaza, near the White House.

Adam Kokesh gets Probation for Shotgun Message of Freedom

Political activist and Iraq War veteran Adam Kokesh was sentenced today inside a DC courthouse for his controversial shotgun-wielding message of freedom that was depicted in a July 4th Youtube video at Freedom Plaza in downtown Washington, DC.

Tags: 20AdamFreedomHeHouse.JudgeKokeshPlazaPostVirginiaMore…


January 19, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

"A Closer Look at LBJ" by Lyle Sardie (1998 rare documentary) now up on YouTube!

The 1998 documentary “A Closer Look at LBJ” by Lyle Sardie is now up on YouTube! Very valuable rare footage and interviews of people linking Lyndon Johnson to the JFK assassination: Madeleine Brown, Billie Sol Estes and Doug Caddy.


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 1/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 2/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 3/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 4/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 5/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 6/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 7/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 8/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 9/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 10/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 11/12


A Closer Look: President LBJ Movie 12/12


From Robert Morrow   512-306-1510

          Lyle Sardie has posted his documentary into 12 sections on YouTube:



Lyle Sardie's LBJ: A Closer Look

Started by John Simkin, Mar 24 2006 08:54 AM


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 John Simkin

Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,022 posts

Posted 24 March 2006 - 08:54 AM

Doug Caddy was kind enough to send me a copy of Lyle Sardie's documentary, LBJ: A Closer Look. Although technically very flawed, it includes a lot of useful information. Has anyone else seen these documentary? Is it still available? 

    #2 Dawn Meredith

    Super Member

    • Members
    • PipPipPipPip
    • 2,469 posts
    • Location:Austin, Tx.
    • Interests:political justice, conspiracy/truth, music, law, Bible prophecy

    Posted 24 March 2006 - 02:18 PM

    John Simkin, on Mar 24 2006, 09:54 AM, said:

    Doug Caddy was kind enough to send me a copy of Lyle Sardie's documentary, LBJ: A Closer Look. Although technically very flawed, it includes a lot of useful information. Has anyone else seen these documentary? Is it still available?


    I have this on VHS. It is one of the later versions tho still has problems.

    I had seen one of Sardie's earlier versions and it was a total mess.

    Don't know if it's available now. Mine was a gift from J Harrison many years 


      #3 Douglas Caddy

      Super Member

      • Members
      • PipPipPipPip
      • 2,788 posts
      • Gender:Male
      • Location:Houston, Texas

      Posted 25 March 2006 - 03:09 AM

      John Simkin, on Mar 24 2006, 09:54 AM, said:

      Doug Caddy was kind enough to send me a copy of Lyle Sardie's documentary, LBJ: A Closer Look. Although technically very flawed, it includes a lot of useful information. Has anyone else seen these documentary? Is it still available?

      By typing in "LBJ: A Closer Look" on google, one can find how to obtain copies of the video.

      I am interviewed in Lyle Sardie’s video and my voice is played over in other scenes in the work. 

      Here is some background as to how this came about.

      Lyle had called me from his home in the Los Angeles area and had asked me to meet him at a hotel in Houston to discuss LBJ. When I arrived he immediately ushered me into another suite where his video camera was set up and started asking me questions with the camera rolling. Faced with this unexpected situation I decided to go ahead with the interview, although it would have gone better for both Lyle and myself had he informed me ahead of time that he planned to video-tape me. That way I could have given some prior thought as to exactly what I wanted to say.

      However, I was deeply impressed with Lyle’s sincerity and his keen desire to make a historical record of the LBJ-Estes-Wallace conspiracy. Afterwards I supplied him with additional materials as best I could, including an article from People Magazine on Madeline Brown that he had not seen, and a key article from the Texas Observer on the murder of Henry Marshall. 

      Lyle was quite excited about the prospects of his completed video being shown at film festivals and of its being marketed successfully.

      What he failed to realize was that Jack Valenti, LBJ’s former aide who was sitting in Hollywood as chief of the motion picture industry, would use all his power to make certain that Lyle’s video would go nowhere. If Estes is to be believed, Valenti has a personal reason to kill any expose of LBJ, a reason that goes beyond his faithful White House service.

      Valenti was successful in torpedoing Lyle’s video in 1998, just as he was successful subsequently in bringing pressure to bear on the History Channel to ban from its archives Nigel Turner’s work, “The Guilty Men.”

      However, by using Nazi methods to bury the truth, what Valenti has done is to pique the interest of historians and other persons who think maybe there may well be something here worth “a closer look.” 


      LBJ: A Closer Look. A Review

                            LBJ: A CLOSER LOOK: A REVIEW
                                John Delane Williams
         LBJ: A Closer Look is both a video and a book of research materials produced by Lyle Sardie [1,2]. While there is overlap on some material each presents information relating to LBJ's involvement with the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Conjectures of LBJ's involvement have recently intensified, notably due to the determination that a previously unidentified fingerprint on a box on the sixth floor which was determined to be that of Mac Wallace [3,4], a reputed hitman whose major employer was Lyndon Johnson [5].
                           The Research Materials
                               Billy Sol Estes
           LBJ: A Closer Look, the book is a spiral bound limited edition that surprisingly has no writing by its compiler, Lyle Sardie. Five separate sections are in the research materials, which in total are mainly a collection of newspaper articles. The first section contains material on Billy Sol Estes. Included are four perfunctory letters from Johnson to Estes, presumably to show a relationship between the two. The newspaper articles chronicle Estes schemes, including his selling non-existent anhydrous ammonia tanks, and his illegally securing cotton allotments. Estes relationship to LBJ aide Clifton Carter is described. An article from the March 23, 1984Dallas Morning News is included in its entirety [6], which implicates LBJ, Clifton Carter, Malcolm Wallace and Estes in plotting the murder of Henry Marshall, an Agricultural Department employee who was investigating Estes. A letter from Douglas Caddy [7], an attorney for Estes, to Stephen Trott, An Assitant Attorney General is included. The letter mentions 17 murders by Wallace, including JFK.     
                              Mac Wallace
           The second section contains materials on Malcolm (Mac) Wallace. The first group of articles concerns the murder of Doug Kinsler, a local golf pro who was rumored to have relationships
      with Wallace's wife and also with Josefa Johnson, LBJ's sister. (Wallace was also rumored to have been involved with Josefa.) Wallace was convicted of murder with malice, but received the rather astonishing sentence of 5 years probation. Several other documents are included; one such document is a 12 page interview of Bob Long, the prosecuting attorney in the Kinser case [8]. Long contended that a lawyer for Wallace, who sat in on the first three days of the ten day trial, was a cousin of one of the jurors: "They let this guy on the jury know that he was a friend of Wallace's. That's all there was to it. Of course, he hung the jury" [9, p. 3 of 12].
                             Henry Marshall
           Several documents relate to the death of Agricultural Department Investigator, Henry Marshall. Marshall was investigating the schemes of Billy Sol Estes at the time of Marshall's death. The autopsy report stated that Wallace suffered five gunshot wounds
      to the abdomen and chest, with three of the wounds being rapidly incapacitating. He also had bruises on the left side of his head and had carbon monoxide in his lungs, also an incapacitating situation [10]. Despite the implausibility of any finding but homicide, Marshall's death was officially termed a suicide, and a year later a grand jury did not overturn the earlier decision [11]. A letter by Homer Garrison, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, went through the evidence and showed how unlikely it was that a person with a near fatal dose of carbon monoxide would then dispose of the materials used in the poisoning, sustain a serious brain injury that caused his eye to protrude, and then shoot himself five times with a bolt action .22 rifle, using only his left hand, with at least three of the shots to be quickly incapacitating [12]. Only in 1984, with the testimony of Billy Sol Estes that Marshall was killed on the orders of then Vice President Lyndon Johnson, by  Malcolm Wallace, to hide LBJ-Estes connections, was the cause of death changed to homicide [13]. A 14 page article [14] detailed the death of Marshall and the political furor surrounding his death. Also described is the way in which Wallace got away with the murder of Doug Kinser-threats were made against the families of jurors.
                           Lyndon Baines Johnson
           The section on Lyndon Johnson contains cordial correspondence between LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover. Newspaper articles include material on the infamous box #13, which through apparent irregularities helped steal the 1948 Democrat nomination for Senator for LBJ from Coke Stevenson [15, 16]. The memorandum that some claim [17, 18 for example] changed the impetus of the Vietnam war from an early withdrawal to an extended war effort, National Security Action Memorandum #273 is included [19]. Other newspaper articles include potential areas of scandal for LBJ; Bobby Baker and the TFX [20]; the Estes case [21]; and the Walter Jenkins revelations [22, 23]. Compared to the other four sections, the LBJ section is thinnest in material and substance related to the JFK assassination.
                        Miscellaneous Materials   
           The most important document in the last section is 23 pages regarding an application to submit new evidence to the Assassinations Record Review Board by Barr McClellan, a Texas attorney who gave counsel to Edward Clark, who in turn was LBJ's personal attorney. McClellan played a role in getting "Big Oil" to pay off Clark in the form of an oil well. According to McClellan's letter, Clark planned the assassination for LBJ. Clark in turn enlisted Mac Wallace to do the assassination. The application  contained six exhibits 1) the fingerprint match between  Mac Wallace and the unidentified fingerprint on  Box "A" on the sixth floor of The Texas Schoolbook Depository; 2) The 1984 Grand Jury decision to change Henry Marshall's cause of death to homicide, said to indict LBJ, Mac Wallace and Cliff Carter (all then deceased); 3) Affidavit of Clark's complicity in the assassination; 4) Clark's application for his well for his payoff; 5) the Caddy letter detailing the murders by Mac Wallace; 6) a memo reviewing Wallace's security clearances [24]. Even for someone who has pinpointed LBJ as a being a principal in the assassination [25], the material in the application by McClellan is breathtaking. The research documents taken in toto seem to help make a compelling case for complicity in JFK's assassination by Johnson.
                             The Video
           Whereas the written documents require the reader to cognitively relate them, as Sardie adds no material on his own, the video deliberately builds a case against Johnson. First, a review is made of Johnson's rise to power with prominent mention of ballot box #13. Then Loy Factor tells his story through Glenn Sample and Mark Collom [26]. Factor is interviewed on film in a hospital shortly before his death in 1993. Factor claimed that Mac Wallace hired him for his markmanship for an unspecified job that turned out to be the shooting of JFK. Wallace was said to be shooting from the position on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository which has been called by the Warren Commission and others as Oswald's "assassin’s lair".
          Madeleine Brown [see 27, 28], who claims to have been LBJ's mistress and the mother of his son, whom LBJ supported until LBJ died in 1973, was an associate producer of the film and she related some of her story in the video. She stated that an attorney who did work for Johnson, John Cofer, also represented Wallace in the Kinser trial and Estes when he was tried for the cotton allotment fraud. Estes reputedly wanted to take the stand and tell the whole story, but was prevented by Cofer. Madeleine Brown saw LBJ, Estes, Wallace and Cliff Carter in conference at the Driskoll Hotel just months before the assassination.
           Doug Caddy related that Estes told him that Bobby Kennedy offered him immunity if he would testify against LBJ, which offer Estes refused. Estes pointed out that Eddie Rinehart, Foreman of the jury that ruled George Marshall died from suicide, was appointed as a postmaster on the recommendation of Johnson one year after the Grand Jury deliberations. Audiotapes were made of Johnson's involvement in the various nefarious activities that usually involved Estes, LBJ, Wallace and Cliff Carter. While in prison, these tapes were in the possession of Lyle Brown, who listened to them. Estes, Carter and Lyle Brown met on September 20, 1971. Carter feared for his life; he was found dead the next day. It was reported that Carter died of natural causes.  The inference made on the video was that this was another of those strange deaths related to the assassination. 
          A press conference held in Dallas on May 27, 1998 is also featured. Walt Brown [see 29, 30] featured the fingerprint evidence identified as being from Mac Wallace. Some researchers are not convinced that the fingerprint is from Wallace, despite a 14 point match. A surprising non-acceptor of the fingerprint evidence is Glen Sample. The finding of Wallace's fingerprint at the precise point that Sample said Wallace was at which would hence strongly enhance Sample's version of events. Sample [31] claims not be convinced by the evidence so far.
           While individual reactions vary, I find the book to be somewhat more useful than the video, which some might see as showing a degree of anti-Johnson bias. If the conjectures regarding the Wallace-LBJ connection with the assassination of Kennedy hold under further scrutiny, does this end the search for JFK's killers?
      My sense is that it would give light on one of the arms of the octopus, but there would be much more to learn. It also leads to the clamor for Billy Sol's story and audiotapes as well as wishing to view McClellan's manuscript and his other evidence.
      1.  Sardie, L. (1998a). LBJ: A Closer Look-Research Materials.
      2.  Sardie, L. (1998b). LBJ: A Closer Look-Video. Trans World News      Network.
      3.  Brown, W. (1998a). TSBD Evidence Places LBJ "Hit Man" in           "Sniper's Nest". JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly3, No. 3, Extra.
      4.  The Fingerprint Affidavit of A. Nathan Darby, 9 March, 1998,        reprinted in JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly3, No. 3, 29-31.
      5.  Caddy, D. (1984). Letter to Stephen S. Trott. Reproduced in        Sardie (1998a). 
      6.  Hanners, D. (1984). Billie Sol Links LBJ to Murder.Dallas         Morning News, March 23, p. 1+. Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      7.  Caddy (1984).
      8.  Joe B. Frantz Interview with Bob Long. (1972, April 19).            Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      9.  Ibid.
      10. Jachimczyk, J.A. (1962). Autopsy Report of Henry Harvey            Marshall. Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      11. Grand Jury Disagreed Marshall was Murdered. (1962). The Dallas      Norning News. May 30, 1962. Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      12. Garrison, H. (1962). Letter to Judge Barron. Reproduced in         Sardie (1998a).
      13. Graves, D. (1985). Investigator's Death in Case Ruled Homicide.      Houston Chronicle. August 14, 1985. Reproduced in Sardie           (1998a).
      14. Adler, B. (1986). The Killing of Henry Marshall. The Texas         Observer, Nov. 7. Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      15. Wantland, C. (1962). The Story of George Parr's Ballot Box No.      13. The Texas Argus, 35, 2, 1-4. Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      16. Below is the Complete Story of Box 13, Jim Wells County, Texas.      (1962). Abilene Reporter-News, October 29, 1962. Reproduced in      Sardie (1998a).
      17. Prouty, L.F. (1992). JFK: The CIA Vietnam, and the Plot to         Assassinate John F. Kennedy. New York: Birch Lane Press.
      18. Scott, P.D. (1993). Deep Politics and the Death of JFK:            Berkley: The University of California Press.
      19. National Security Action Memorandum No. 273. (1963). November      26. Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      20. Lewis, T. (1963). LBJ Problems: Bobby Baker and the TFX. The       Dallas Morning News, December 21. Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      21. Blair, W.M. (1964). House Unit Clears Johnson and Others in        Estes Case. New York Times, October 12. Reproduced in Sardie       (1998a).
      22. Johnson Says He'll Get the Facts on Jenkins. (1964). The           Spartainburg Herald. October 20. Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      23. The Strange Case of Walter Jenkins. (1964). Exclusive. October      21. Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      24. McClellan, B. (1998). Petition Submitting New Evidence and         Suggesting Further Investigation. Petition to the Assassination      Records Review Board, May 28. Reproduced in Sardie (1998a).
      25. Williams, J.D. (1999). LBJ and the Assassination Conspiracies.
          JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly3, No. 3, 29-31.
      26.  Sample, G. & Collom, M. (1995). The Men on the Sixth Floor.:       The Story of Loy Factor, an Insider/Participant in the JFK         Killing. Garden Grove, CA: Sample Graphics.
      27. Brown, M.D. (1997). Texas in the Morning: The Love Story of        Madeleine Duncan Brown and President Lyndon Baines Johnson.        Baltimore: The Conservatory Press.
      28. Brown, M.D. & Kritzberg, C. (1996). Dallas Did It. Tulsa, OK:      Under Cover Press.
      29. Brown, W. (1995). Treachery in Dallas. New York: Carroll &         Graff.
      30. Brown, W. (1996). The Warren Ommission: A Micro-Study in the       Methods and Failures of the Warren Commission. Wilmington, DE:      Delmax.
      31. Sample, G. (1999). Men on the Sixth Floor Website.
      From The Fourth Decade: A Journal of Research on the John F. Kennedy Assassination. (1999). 6, 4, 3-6.

      January 18, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

      Re: Federal law says you CAN opt out of Obamacare and CAN NOT be penalized if you do

      In re:

      Juan V says:
      January 13, 2014 at 12:01 pm


      January 16, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink

      Transcript of 'The Enemy Within' Norman Dodd interview by Dr. Stan Monteith circa 1980s on Radio Liberty






      CIRCA 1980s on Radio Liberty

      Typed/edited by Juan @ Teknosis


      Part 1


      Dr. Stan Monteith on TAX EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS


      This is Dr. Stan here on Radio Liberty.. coming at you from the hills of beautiful and picturesque Monterey Bay. I’m bringing you the story behind the story, the news behind the news.. hoping to convince you that reality is usually scoffed at and illusion is usually king.. but in the battle for the survival of western civilization it’s going to be reality and not illusion or delusion that’s going to determine just what the future will bring.


      And so without further ado I want to get into a little background on a very interesting subject which I think is vitally important that every American understands about and that is the subject of America’s great tax exempt foundations.

      Now it was back in 1950 when America had just completed the Second World War. We’d lost 100s of thousands of men, killed, and 100s of thousands of men crippled but America had won the war. We’d won the war to make the world free and to bring the Four Freedoms to the peoples of the world. But suddenly by 1950 people began to look around. Eastern Europe had gone communist, China had fallen to communism and the terrible trials and liquidation had already begun at that point in China and it was obvious that something was seriously wrong. How did this happen? Hadn’t we fought the war to bring freedom to the peoples of the world?

      Well the Senate of the United States commissioned a Congressional Committee to look into the background of what had actually transpired at that time. What they found was basically this: that the Chinese Communists under Chiang Kai Sheck had essentially won the war in China. The Communists were in retreat into northern China and it was only going to be a matter of time before the nationalist Chinese government was victorious. Chiang Kai Sheck had already committed to forming a democratic form of government and now there was going to be an opportunity to bring freedom to China for the first time in 20 years. They’ve been in war for 20 years.

      When the American State Department decided that that wasn’t what we wanted, basically the American State Department demanded that Chaing Kai Sheck form a coalition government with the Chinese Communists. Well Chiang Kai Sheck had actually been trained as a Communist in Moscow. He understood communism and he understood you couldn’t trust them and the last thing in the world he wanted was to have Communists in his government. And so he refused. At that point the American State Department put an arms embargo on China and basically Chiang Kai Sheck who had bought weapons and actually paid for them (they were in Okinawa of the Pacific Islands), the American State Department saw [to it] that he was unable to get the weapons he had already bought and purchased. His efforts to buy and purchase weapons anywhere else in the world were effectively blocked by the American State Department. The Congress of the United States voted 125 million dollars in weapons to be sent to Chiang Kai Sheck and the ships were kept in the harbor in San Francisco for a matter of many months, and actually when the weapons finally arrived in China and the rifles got to northern China, the rifles didn’t have any bolts in them and they were useless. Now many of the Chinese divisions were equipped with American weapons and once the supply of guns and ammunition were cut off they had nothing to fight with. Chiang Kai Sheck had a massive army but without weapons it was defeated by a small well-armed Chinese Communist force which simply ran south as the Chinese were in retreat because they had absolutely nothing to fight with. How would you like be a soldier on the battlefield without any ammunition, without any hand grenades, without any replacement if you lost your rifle?

      And that’s exactly what happened. Well, of course, it really didn’t make sense. Basically it was pointed out and in the McCarron Committee Report, the Senate Committee headed by Senator Pat McCarren pointed out that the Chinese Communists were well-equipped, they had equipment that we had given them, given to the Russians, that American equipment given to the Russians the Russians turned over to the Chinese Communists and of course the massive amounts of armaments that the Japanese had surrendered to the Russians when the Russians moved into Manchuria. All of this was given to the Chinese Communists. They had no problems with military supplies. We actually, de facto, disarmed the Chinese Communist forces and as a result of that China fell to Communism. As a direct result of that, between 60 and 80 million human beings were systematically liquidated in China. Now when you use a figure like that it just isn’t real. We speak with horror of what happened in the extermination camps of Europe where 6 million Jews were executed but when was the last time you heard about the 60 to 80 million helpless Chinese civilians who were just liquidated to create a state of terror to allow the consolidation of power by the Chinese Communist government that America brought to be?

      Well anyway after the Senate Committee Reports, and incidentally, for those of you who are out there who are skeptical and would like to see a copy of the summary of this report, you send a self-addressed stamped envelope to Post Office Box 13 in Santa Cruz 95063, we’ll Xerox off a copy of the two pages of the summary of the McCarron Committee Report, which incidentally nobody ever read because this material was effectively suppressed by the controlled media, even back in 1950 and 1951 in America. So if you’d like to get a copy to document, to find out if this is really true, why send us a self-addressed stamped envelope to Post Office Box 13 in Santa Cruz 95063. And so it was after the McCarron Committee Report was submitted people began to read it and they found out that there was an organization in the United States which had been specifically designed to be used as a propaganda tool for the Communists, it had a thrust and basically it talked about the corruption within the Chinese Communists and then it talked about Mao and Zhou Enlai as if they were somehow the Abraham Lincoln, the George Washington of China. They weren’t really communist, they were simply agrarian reformers and by a carefully coordinated propaganda campaign they were able to convince many people in the United States that Chinese Communists were not really communist at all, just as a decade later they were able to convince the American people that Fidel Castro wasn’t really a communist, he was the Abraham Lincoln of the Sierra Maestra.

      Well basically the interesting thing about The Institute of Pacific Relations was that as they began to look into its background, it had been financed by, of all things, the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation actually financing a subversive organization? Well, when this information came out the members of the Congress and the Senate demanded another investigation that was to investigate the great tax-exempt foundations to determine what their real agenda was, did they have some hidden or some subversive agenda? Well of course the 82nd Congress appointed a committee that came to be known as the Cox Committee. It was headed by Congressman E. E. Cox of Georgia and its purpose was to investigate the great tax-exempt foundations.

      Now on that committee was a Republican, his name was B. Carrol Reece, Congressman Reece of Tennessee. Well of course, as so often happens, the media immediately began attacking this committee, and then, maybe it had just been a coincidence but Congressman Cox suddenly died, and that of course was the end of the committee. Well in 1953 the 83rd Congress convened, this was a Republican congress, and they then called for the introduction, for the authorization of another Congressional Committee. This came to be known as the Reece Committee, headed by Congressman B. Carrol Reece, and its specific purpose was to investigate the great tax-exempt foundations. Well in the foreword to a book written about this committee, Congressman Reece said this: “But it was the function of our investigation to find out to what extent if any are the funds of the large foundations aiding and abetting Marxist tendencies in the United States and weakening the love which every American should have for his way of life.” And then he goes on to say: “So we set out to find the answers. We wanted to explore the problems of foundations by examining their actions, not their statements for the public. We felt that there are involved in the concepts under which foundations operate and grew in the United States, certain inherent dangers to the public welfare. We were not blind to the undoubted merits of the contributions of the numerous tax-exempt foundations to worthwhile causes but it was our intention to find out the factual basis for preserving their constructive function and at the same time for supplying guidance for future legislation and administrative action against the use of foundation power for political ends. The story of that adventure of what we found, and of the harassment to which we were subjected, is included in this book by Rene Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence.”

      Well let me tell you what happened to this committee. First of all, tremendous pressure was brought to bear on individual members of Congress who were on the committee to force them to stop the investigation. Pressure was brought to bear on other members of Congress to cut off appropriations for this investigation. The committee was routinely attacked by the New York Times and the Washington Post Tribune and by all the major conservative and liberal media in America. Amazingly a Congressman named Wayne Hayes was appointed. Wayne Hayes came from Indiana and his specific function on the committee was to disrupt its hearings. In fact, the story is told in the book, and everything I’m telling you can be found, almost, in this book entitled Foundations: Their Power and Influence, which I strongly recommend to you. But Congressman Wayne Hayes during one 185 minute period, interrupted the hearings 235 times. Why? Because he wanted to disrupt the hearings. They did not want the hearings to take place.

      Basically, of course, as the committee proceeded with its investigation under the direction of Congressman B. Carrol Reece, under the direction of the chief counsel, Rene Wormser, and under the guidance of the director of research, a man by the name Norman Dodd, who you are going to hear from later in this tape, they began to uncover incredible things, and of course one of the first things was that the great foundations were being used to change America. They were being used to change us from a free society into a socialist society, and to a fascist society. They were being used to change America from a sovereign nation into simply one more state in a new world order, a new world government. They talk on page 204 of the book about the investigations into what the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace had done.

      Basically the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace had been endowed specifically to bring about world peace. How do you bring about world peace? Well they decided they had a great idea, they’d bring about war, and on page 204 of the book they tell about how Nicholas Murray Butler, who was the longtime president of Columbia University, Republican candidate for the Presidency at one time, he was well rewarded for his loyalty to the people who worked behind the scenes, manipulating the great foundations, but Nicholas Murray Butler was the President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

      And here is what the book tells you: When Andrew Carnegie established the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he gave the management of this fund a difficult task—how were they to go about promoting peace? They seemed to have not a great theory or idea until Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, into whose hands Mr. Carnegie put the initial direction of the fund, got excited about the perils of the allies in World War I and decided that the best way to establish peace was to help get the United States into the war. Let me repeat that. He decided that the best way to establish peace was to help to get the United States into the war, and to this end he began to use the endowment funds. And that’s what they did. They used the endowment funds to propagandize the American people to get involved in a war that wasn’t our business at all.

      And working along with the JP Morgan banking interests, and Thomas Lamont and others working behind the scenes, they created a propaganda campaign in America designed for one and only one purpose and that was to bring America into World War I where we suffered 126,000 American boys killed, 237,000 injured, many of them carrying the pain of their wounds to their very graves. And what did we accomplish? Why we were going to get the League of Nations. We were going to get world government. We were going to bring about world peace.

      And of course the League of Nations failed, and so once it had failed they had to begin working for another war because wars are a means by which societies change. Now if that sounds like a ridiculous statement I want you to listen to this tape very carefully because you’re going to hear in the second half of the tape and interview with Norman Dodd, the Director of Research for this Congressional committee, who had the unique opportunity of being allowed to send one of his employees to go through the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, and of course he found what the employee, her name was Katherine Casey as I remember, what she found when going through the minutes of the [board] was that in 1908, the members of the board of the Carnegie Endowment were sitting around saying how can we change the world? Is there any better way to change the world than to war? But how will we get a war going? And they spent many, many many months deciding how to get a war going. And then of course after the war was going and America was involved in a war and our boys were dying, they sat around in the minutes, and this is all recorded in the minutes, congratulating one another, and saying gee we did a great job, because we’re already beginning to change society.

      Incredible, well this is the sort of thing you’re not going to hear elsewhere but you’re going to hear a taped interview which I did with Mr. Norman Dodd in 1980 before he died. I did it because I knew this story was so vitally important, and someday the time would come when the American people had to learn the truth. We have working within our society a cancer, a cancer that has an objective and goal, and that objective and goal is to destroy America as we’ve known it. Well, let me tell you what the great foundations have done with their money. They decided that they were going to change the educational system. They began to finance John Dewey and progressive education. And of course that was simply a process of beginning to take away phonics out of the schools to dumb down our children so that they would be quite willing to go along with the new, wonderful, socialist society that was planned. They went to the great universities, they bribed the universities to put their people into key positions, the chairs of history, political science and economics, always pushing the socialist or collectivist agenda. They financed the writing of textbooks, always slanted to the left. They financed the publication of research books, always slanted to the left. They financed such things as the Encyclopedia of Social Studies. The whole story is in Foundations: Their Power and Influence which is probably one of the three or four most important books ever written, actively suppressed and censored in America for many years and available only through Radio Liberty.

      So basically what transpired was that when they financed the writing of the Encyclopedia of Social Studies, they had a socialist write the section on socialism. Well you would think that it would be printed as if he would glorify socialism wouldn’t you? And then they had a communist write the section on communism. Well of course he would be very prejudice towards making it very apparent that communism was the best sort. But when it came to writing the section on capitalism and free enterprise they also had a communist write that. And little wonder then that the successive generations in our universities have been slanted to the left. They set out to reward those professors who would prostitute themselves and teach the liberal line, would write articles professing the liberal line. They actually bribed the academics, many of whom were underpaid. They felt that the ruling elite should really control what was going on. And so it wasn’t very hard to appeal to the ego of many college professors and to get them to go along with a line of preaching collectivism.

      Now you must understand that these ideas of centralization of power with government have never been aimed at really helping the underclass, although that’s how you sell it to the people. It has really been aimed at enslaving the underclass and bringing them under government control. Now basically what socialism is really all about, stripped of all of its idealism—a sincere, benevolent, idealistic theory—socialism is force. I think de Tocqueville said it best speaking to the French assembly many years ago, he said that democracy and socialism have only one thing in common, that is a word and that word is equality. But democracy creates equality by freedom and by liberty whereas socialism creates equality by regulation and regimentation and so forth. So that’s what’s it’s really all about.

      Socialism is basically a means by which a massive bureaucracy controls everything and those who control the bureaucracy control the population. Socialism is the antithesis to freedom and that is what the great tax-exempt foundations have been financing for almost a century in America. And the fact that you’ve not heard this before shows the degree of control that today exists over what the American people think. Who do you think it is today who’s financing the environmental movement in America, why the great tax-exempt foundations, who is it do you think who is financing the gay and lesbian movement, that money that’s not of course wrung out of the gays and lesbians, appealing to their fears and telling them the Christians and heterosexuals hate them. Why, if you have any question about that, you can send us a self-addressed stamped envelope and we’ll send you a copy of an article that came out in the New York Times pointing out that on our college campuses across America you have all these crazy courses which don’t prepare people for life, they prepare them for a life of perversion, the gay and lesbian studies, the women’s studies, which are basically lesbian studies, the transgender studies, who do you think is financing that, why the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation. Who do you think it is funding the abortion movement, the money that doesn’t come out of the public coffers, why it’s in large part America’s great tax-exempt foundations. In fact who do you think is funding much of the New Age activity, the occultic, spiritual movement which is sweeping America? Well Barbara Marks Hubbard’s latest book going into the rewriting of the bible was financed by the Lawrence Rockefeller Foundation.

      So you must understand what these great tax-exempt foundations are doing, they have an objective and goal. Now, there is interlock between the great foundations and America’s State Department. Let’s take you back to the period immediately after the Second World War, that period between 1945 and about 1949, January of 1949 when China was lost to freedom. Who was working in the State Department? Well there’s a man, his name is Dean Rusk and he was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation, a member the Institute of Pacific Relations and the Undersecretary of State in charge of substantive affairs when we were betraying China to the Communists. And then about 1949, 1950 he became the Undersecretary of State in charge of Far Eastern Affairs, where he could then betray the American boys we sent to Korea to fight in a no-win United Nations directed war, a war we never should have been in if we didn’t intend to win.

      In fact we could talk sometime about how statements made by the American Secretary of State actually invited the North Vietnamese to attack South Vietnam, assuring them that if they did attack we would not come to South Vietnam’s aid, and of course North Koreans did what we wanted and now we had a war going. Well, Dean Rusk was the Undersecretary of State in charge of Far Eastern Affairs at the time when we were betraying our forces and the South Koreans. Well then in 1952 Dwight D Eisenhower was elected to the presidency, and what happened to Dean Rusk? Why he went to work fulltime for the Rockefeller Foundation as President of the Rockefeller Foundation. And from 1952 until 1960 Dean Rusk remained President of the Rockefeller Foundation. Then in 1960 Dean Rusk returned to the American State Department, now as the American Secretary of State under John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a position he held until 1968 when Richard Nixon was elected, when we supposedly changed direction in Washington, D.C. because now the Republicans were in.

      And of course it was during that time when we fought a no-win war. Exactly the same people, forces, were in power in Washington, D.C., between 1960 and 1968, [that] had been there between 1949 and 1953, 1954, the no-win war in Korea. Well, Dean Rusk then of course was instrumental in laying out the policies which prevented our boys from winning in South Vietnam. We were never allowed to hit any of the major targets, we literally betrayed South Vietnam to communism, we executed their leaders, we undermined the fabric of their society. We actually had a program of assassination known as the Phoenix Program where the American government paid for ears. You brought in an ear of somebody who was supposedly an enemy of the society, an enemy of the state, an enemy of America, you got well paid for an ear. I think we collected about 60,000 ears. You ever hear of the Phoenix Program? I bet you won’t either. That’s another story and we can talk about that some evening when we talk about the background of Vietnam. Well, anyway in 1968 Dean Rusk left the State Department and where do you think he went. Why he went back to the Rockefeller Foundation to become its president once again. You see, those people who do the service and work for the great foundations are well-rewarded, whether they’re actually working for the foundations or whether they are in the American State Department.

      Another case in point, probably the other major figure in our involvement in South Vietnam was a man named McGeorge Bundy, and of course his brother was married to Dean Acheson’s daughter. Dean Acheson had been Secretary of State at the time we betrayed China and South Korea. McGeorge Bundy was the Chairman of the National Security Council between 1960 and about 1966, I think that’s when he left the government. And where do you think he went to work? He became President of the Ford Foundation. So you see there’s continuing interlock between the great foundations and America’s foreign policy at the American State Department. It really doesn’t matter whether you have the Democrats in power, whether you have the Republicans in power, the foundations and their interlock with the Council on Foreign Relations always persists.

      Now, if you doubt very much that there is such an interlock, I’d like to suggest that you go not to a right-winger like Barry Goldwater, who will tell you that in his book No Apologies, but go to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., certainly no one that will ever accuse Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. of being a patriot, or being a conservative, but in his book called A Thousand Days, the story of JFK in the Whitehouse, he will tell you quite clearly, you can index this on the Council of Foreign Relations in the book, he will tell you that there is an Establishment in America, it’s made up of people of great wealth and it ties in to the financial and legal establishment in New York. It is known as the American Establishment. It’s vehicles are the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations and it’s media outlets are the New York Times and Foreign Affairs magazine. I’m quoting almost verbatim from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. from A Thousand Days, you can get it at the library, it’s a classic book.

      There really is a secret Establishment out there. It does have an agenda, and if you’ll read the book Foundations: Their Power and Influence, you’ll find out how they have undermined every aspect of life, how it was the Rockefeller Foundation that financed the Kinsey Report, a terribly flawed pseudo-scientific study aimed at changing the sexual mores of our society, and basically, of course, the Kinsey Report then acted as the impetus for Hugh Heffner and others to say, well look, 10% of the population is homosexual, everybody is being promiscuous, why not just go ahead and do it, look at what you’re missing out on, bestiality is really just simply a deviation of normal [?], and pedophilia, well, you know, there’s nothing really wrong with it; as far as child molestation, the only real problem is the parents get so upset about it, but think of the wonderful experience it is for the child as he begins to realize his sexuality. And these were the ideas that were being put forward with your tax-exempt dollars in the Kinsey Report, financed by the Rockefeller Foundation. Well you need to get ahold of the book Foundations: Their Power and Influence, but then in just a couple of minutes you’re going to hear this wonderful interview that comes from the past.

      Now Norman Dodd was a fascinating gentleman, he was kind enough, without ever having met me, to come to Greenville, South Carolina, where we did a filmed interview with him in 1980 and I spent several evenings with him, I subsequently went to his home in Virginia and we talked for many hours. Norman Dodd was an old-line patriot, he loved America, he loved everything America stood for, he loved our freedom, and he had had that unique opportunity in 1953 and 1954 to be the Director of Research for the Reece Committee, and in that position he had an opportunity to meet Rowan Gaither, the head of the Ford Foundation, and the head of the Ford Foundation at one point said Mr. Dodd why are you investigating the Ford Foundation, why does Congress want to investigate the Ford Foundation? And before Mr. Dodd could answer that question Rowan Gaither said well let me tell you what our real purpose is. We are operating under Presidential Directives, and we’re using our grant-making power to so alter the life in the United States that one day we can be peacefully merged with the Soviet Union.

      Incredible? Not incredible at all. I want you to hear the story from Norman Dodd’s own lips. Now, he told the story many times across America but it never was recorded, it never was filmed, and we did the first filmed interview ever done with him, subsequently our good friend Ed Griffin who’s written that wonderful book The Creature from Jekyll Island, went and actually did another filmed interview which he’s been selling for a number of years and hopefully one day we’ll have our video presentation ready. But it’s vitally important that you hear what Mr. Dodd said.

      Now, Norman Dodd died in the mid-1980s, he had copies of the Reece Committee Report which were all systematically bought up, and most of them have been destroyed. We have been trying to get copies of that report. You know, you can’t find one in California, you can’t find one in the Western United States, in fact at East Tennessee State University where the papers of Congressman B. Carroll Reece are kept, there’s no copy of the Reece Committee Report (his most important work). What happened? Why the copies of the Reece Committee Report were simply bought up and destroyed.

      We have a taped interview with a Mr. Robert Goldsborough, who worked for a different congressional committee, but he was fascinated by this subject. He was also a friend Norman Dodd’s, and in a taped interview which we have, which incidentally is available from Radio Liberty, Mr. Goldsborough tells how he had a copy of both the Cox and Reece Committee Reports and back in 1958 or so, somebody came to a complete stranger and said I understand you have copies of those reports, I want to buy them, I’ll give you $2,000, well back in those days $2,000 was a lot of money, but Goldsborough said they’re not for sale, and the stranger said I want those reports, you name your price. And that’s what really happened across America. Most of the copies of those reports were simply bought up and are no longer available anywhere in America. Mr. Goldsborough tells me he knows of only three copies of those reports in existence in America today. There is one back at the Library of Congress, I’ve been unable to access it. But, almost as good as the Reece Committee Report itself is the book Foundations: Their Power and Influence. And so it is that this evening we are going to give you that unique opportunity to listen to Mr. Normal Dodd as he gives you the background of his wealth of information actually working as the Chief Investigator for the Reece Committee. And so, in just a moment, Mr. Norman Dodd…


      Part 2


      Dr. Monteith (DM): Mr. Dodd, what did you find out was the stated objective and goals of the great American foundations?


      Norman Dodd (ND): We found out, Dr., that these foundations had as their objective the orientation of the people of this country to the idea of collectivism, and thereby nullifying for good and all of the commitment of the country to individualism which was the feature of the country at the beginning.


      DM: Now how did they go about doing this?


      ND: Well primarily they did it, Dr., by securing control of what is known as the money supply and the people of this country.


      DM: You’re speaking of the money supply that was going into education.


      ND: Well it’s the money supply of the people of the country as-a-whole.


      DM: And how did they do this?


      ND: They did this by working out a system of banking which was foreign in its concept but it enabled debt to be what we call monetized, transformed into bank deposits.


      DM: Now how did they specifically set out to influence education in America?


      ND: By having at their disposal unlimited quantities of this newly created money and being able to reward the personalities who are active in the world of education, administratively as well as academically.


      DM: Were they able to influence the textbooks or the teachers?


      ND: Yes, they were. They were able to see that textbooks were almost produced by an order, and assuring the publishers of textbooks of the funds necessary to make publications of those books profitable.


      DM: Now, have you personally had contact with some of the directors of these great foundations.


      ND: Yes I have.


      DM: Could you tell us about it.


      ND: Well one instance I’ll use. I’ll use a couple of instances as illustrations. One instance had to do with my responding to an invitation from the President of the Ford Foundation who asked me if when I was next in New York would I stop in their office and have a visit, which I did and on arrival, after amenities, Mr. Gaither who was the then president said: Mr. Dodd we invited you to come and see us this morning hoping that you would, off the record, tell us why the congress was interested in operations of foundations such as ours. And before I could think of how I could reply to him he volunteered the following. He said Mr. Dodd, those of us here at the policy-making level have all had experience either with the OSS or the European Economic Administration in operating under directives, the origin of which was the White House. We today operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is? And I said, Yes, Mr. Gaither, I’d like very much to know, whereupon he said to me, the substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union. Well, figuratively I nearly fell off the chair, but I did remark to him, Mr. Gaither in the light of what you’ve just told me many of your grants make sense, I can understand them, but I do not think that you’re entitled to withhold this information from the people of this country to whom you are beholden for your tax exemption, so why don’t you tell them what you’ve told me? And his answer was Mr. Dodd we wouldn’t think of doing that. So I said well Mr. Gaither I’ll answer your first question, you forced the Congress of the United States to spend 150,000 dollars to find out what you’ve just told me.


      DM: And so they’ve been pushing socialism in America ever since.


      ND: Well, then, in the light of that, of course, you see conditions develop and of course you can then ? [transciber's note: word is indiscerible] and ascribe the developments of these conditions on the events that accompany to this policy because it’s only in the light of that policy that these events and effects make any sense. And this is their problem, Dr., they cannot avoid having effects result from the grants that they make. They cannot avoid it, therefore those in this country who would be concerned with what are they up to merely has to look at the effects and work back and compare the effects of a grant with the explanation of the grant in the first place. I mean, I’ll just use as an instance, to clarify the matter. You will remember there was a time when the Federal Reserve system was installed in this country by the Congress, in other words it was legalized, and it had been preceded by a long period of years and a struggle to get the Federal Reserve approved. Finally it was approved and the argument that swung the approval in that direction was that if the system is installed the result will be the elimination of bank failures. And as much as there had been in those days a plethora of bank failures this was held up as a very beneficial development, practice, since what we call fractional reserve central banking. But nobody goes back, this was in 1912, nobody goes back to 1930 when every bank in the United States was closed, every bank. There wasn’t a solvent bank in the United States. That, you see, was proof that the original purpose was in no sense to eliminate bank failures, and this discrepancy and these contrasts and these contradictions are the telltale part that those who have imposed these practices on us as a people are scared to death that it’s going to be picked up and stressed and then taught and so forth and so on, but it isn’t.


      DM: No, and the mass media doesn’t ever talk about it.


      ND: And no, neither does the educational world. This is what will meet the challenge. One accredited educational institution with trustees who openly declare that we notice this, we notice the inconsistency, the contradictions and we are setting forth an effort to account for them. And that in my opinion would explode the whole network. And they have told me that this is what they’re scared to death [of]. Somebody is going to pick up the string.


      DM: Mr. Dodd, what do you think is the basic crux of this whole problem?


      ND: Well, Dr., I feel that the problem itself originates with that aspect of human life which condemns men collectively to experience what is known as the fall of man, and that subsequently Christ became into the world with the knowledge that the individual could confront this condition and not become victimized by it. But that entailed the individual emulating Christ, who through the temptations in the wilderness was confronted by the satanic, listen to what the satanic had to offer and say no, and then add, and I know you to be Satan, and Satan went away. That to me is the clue to how to nullify this influence which has had humanity in its grip for centuries. Well, of course what it means is that one has to accept the realism of the inclusion of evil, and that in turn challenges the world of education to equip the student with the knowledge necessary to recognize evil in action within the sphere of his own experiences and refuse to be part of it. Then this influence which has been behind the creation of this network can’t operate. It cannot operate in the light, and admittedly it, you know, says that it acknowledges that, so that those who are a part of it knowingly are scared to death that somebody, at some point as they put it, they’re going to pick up the end of a string and little by little follow it to the end, and as they put it to me, when that happens we’re through.


      DM: Now did you or any member of your staff ever have the opportunity of going through the records of any of the great foundations?


      ND: Well we had one remarkable instance of that kind, again by invitation. This invitation came from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and was in response to a letter that I had written to the endowment asking certain questions seeking certain information, and this invitation was issued to me over the telephone to come to their office in New York when I was next there. This I did, and on arrival found myself in the presence of Dr. Joseph Johnson, the president, two vice-presidents and their own counsel, a partner of Sullivan and Cromwell, and after amenities Dr. Johnson said Mr. Dodd we’ve received your letter and we can answer all these questions but it will be a great deal of trouble because with the approval by the Senate, a ratification of the United Nations Treaty, we felt our job was done, so we took all our records from the beginning of this endowment up to that 1945 and sent them to the warehouse and then we concentrated on just using our funds to build this new building across the street from the United Nations, which would provide all the various organizations that would follow the United Nations activities with a place to meet but we have a counter suggestion and that is, Mr. Dodd, if you can spare a member of your staff for two weeks and send them to New York, we will provide that member with a room in the library, our library, and the minute books of this endowment since its inception, and we think whatever you want to find out, you can find out through that source. Well, my first reaction was these men had lost their mind because I had a pretty good idea of what those minute books might show up, but as I thought about it I realized that most of them were new in their position and my guess was none of them had ever read the minutes themselves, which would be of course quite a task to cover 50 years of minutes, you know reading. I accepted this invitation and selected a member of my staff, Ms. Katherine Casey, who was a practicing Washington lawyer but who was on my staff to see to it that I and the conduct and work of the staff did not break any official rules in Washington. Katherine was also unsympathetic to the investigation. Her attitude was what could possibly be wrong with foundations, they do so much good. Well I went out of my way not to prejudice her, but I did say Katherine, when you get to New York you’ll find that you can’t possibly cover 50 years of minutes in two weeks so you’ll have to do what we call spot reading and I blocked out certain periods for her to concentrate on. And when she returned to Washington her eyes were figuratively as big around as saucers and she brought back to me the following on Dictaphone belts. We’re back in 1908 and the trustees meet and they raise this question among themselves, namely, is there any means beside war known to man more capable, assuming you want to alter the life of an entire people..


      DM: Now these are the Trustees of the Carnegie Foundation.


      ND: That’s right. And they discuss this question in a very learned fashion for approximately a year and come up with the conclusion that war is the most effective means known to man, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people. So then they bring up a second question, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war, and I doubt if in 1909 there was any subject more removed from the minds of us as a people than our involvement in a war. There were shows going on in the Balkans and most of the people of this country hardly knew where the Balkans were, and they conclude that they must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States, and that raises question number three, namely how do we secure that control. And the answer comes up we must control the State Department and from that time on their activities were centered on securing control of the State Department. Now as a means to that end the endowment founded an instrumentality called the Council for Learned Societies and that council was assigned the task of passing on every high official appointment to the State Department before the appointment was confirmed. At that point this finding linked up with what we had already suspected but nevertheless there was confirmation of it. Well this happened and then pretty soon the country was in a war, which came to be known, of course, as World War I, and this group of trustees at one point congratulated themselves on the wisdom of their original decision because, as they put it, war has demonstrated a power to alter the life of the people of this country already. And then their interest centered on seeing to it that we as a people did not revert to our customs and our practices which prevailed prior to the outbreak of World War I. And they decided after the war was over that that meant we had to control education in the United States. And so they realized that this was a very prodigious task. So they approached the Rockefeller Foundation and made the suggestion that the Rockefeller Foundation take on half the problem and they retain the other half - they divided it between those subjects which were domestic in their significance and those which were international. And they, together, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment, decided that the crux of the matter lay in their ability to alter the teaching of American History in this country. So they approached then, three of most prominent historians with that suggestion and they were turned down flat, so then they decided they’d have to build their own stable of historians, and so they then approached the Guggenheim Foundation which specialized in awarding fellowships and said figuratively, when we find a likely young man who’s headed to be a teacher of American History will you grant him, on our say so, a fellowship, and the answer was yes we will. So they gradually assembled 20. And they took these 20 to England, London, and there they briefed them to what was expected of them and that became the nucleus of the American Historical Association to which ultimately the endowment made a grant of 400,000 dollars for a study to be made which would conclude what the future of this country was to be, and at the end of 1932 this study comes out in seven volumes, the last volume of which was a summary of the other six, and it ended on the note that the future of this country belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic American efficiency and that became the, I’m using todays language, and that became the guidelines for higher education in this country, and then coincidentally with that then books began to appear, all of which were detrimental to our vision of our own patriots who had signed the Declaration of Independence and they were downgrading these men. Witness the last most recent book on Jefferson that had to do with his having enjoyed a colored mistress and things like that... no reason to write that sort of thing.


      DM: You know, were many of these books that have come out through the years funded, financed, subsidized by the great foundations?


      AD: Through the medium of their support of certain publishing companies, yes.


      DM: Did the mass media in the 1950s adequately cover the findings of the Reese Committee?


      AD: Oh no, no.


      DM: Was there any effort?


      AD: Most reaction through that media were aimed at criticism of me as a personality. That and let it go at that.



      The Dodd Report

      January 13, 2014 in Current Affairs | Permalink