Plainer Words since 1968
November 22, 2013
Dear Friends and Bible Mountaineers;
The following article on “Conspiracy” was first emailed on November 22, 2003. This year, the establishment is getting closer to admitting that government agencies (i.e., rogue “elements” of the CIA, the FBI, & etc.) were likely to have played a role in the assassination of JFK. Not only that, but the recently released Memoirs of Jackie Kennedy stated that she believed Lyndon B. Johnson was responsible for the assassination of her husband.
Last year, www.Lewrockwell.com had an article, “The Ongoing Kennedy Casket Mystery.” Stories about the JFK Assassination just won’t go away. I would not be surprised that in the next few years, the truth that a conspiracy existed among folks in high places who were the responsible parties. I have always believed such a conspiracy existed. This year, there is little talk about “conspiracy nuts” regarding the killing of JFK. Today is the fiftieth year of President Kennedy’s murder by assassination. I first issued this commentary on his assassination on November 22, 2003. I have re-issued this several times since then. We will do so, again, this year. I believe a “coup d’état” took place on that infamous day. I was no supporter of JFK. Barry Goldwater was “my man.” But, if this assassination is continued to be blamed on Lee Harvey Oswald, then, any President of the United States of America is not safe from the “oligarchy” who rules from behind the curtain secrecy.
Editor’s Notes:
Fifty years ago today, my wife, Gloria and I along with our two boys, Tod and Scot, were in Dallas, Texas. We had driven from Mobile, Alabama earlier that week. I was to attend the National Convention of Soft Drink Bottlers. I was the VP and General Manager of the Royal Crown Bottling Company of Mobile. The featured speaker was Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson. We were also in Dallas, our hometown, to attend my sister’s wedding on the evening of November 22, 1963. Around noon that day, November 22, 1963, I was driving to downtown Dallas from Oak Cliff. While driving to downtown, I turned on the car radio to see if the motorcade of John F. Kennedy had made it through downtown. I wanted to avoid the traffic. I was absolutely astounded to hear on the radio, “President Kennedy has been shot!”
I arrived downtown twenty minutes after the President was shot. I parked the car and walked a block to Dealey Plaza. There, I found hundreds of people milling around. Many women were crying; others looked on in stunned silence. The crowd seemed traumatized. Uniformed policemen were still running in and out of the Texas School Book Depository building. Men who appeared to be tramps were marched from the train tracks to the police headquarters. As I looked around, I noticed many people were pointing to the “grassy knoll” area which I later learned; most of the witnesses to the assassination said the fatal head-shot was fired from the “grassy knoll.” Men in civilian clothes were rounding-up people and herding them into police headquarters. I assumed they were either Secret Service or FBI agents. There was still the smell of cordite in the air. Men were running to and fro. Confusion reigned. This was not being treated as a “Crime Scene.”
Little did I know, at the time, the ramifications that this one event in Dallas, Texas would have upon America. By the time I got back to my parents’ home in Oak Cliff, Lee Harvey Oswald had already been captured by the police inside the Texas Theater in Oak Cliff. It was being said that Oswald, also, killed police officer J. D Tibbett as he made his way to the Texas Theater.
One of the few remarks Lee Harvey Oswald made before Jack Ruby gunned him down in the basement of police headquarters was, “I am a patsy.”
I have read dozens of books regarding the assassination. I never believed that Oswald was a lone gunman. I have never believed the government’s specious history of the event. The latest book I have read was, “Blood, Money, Power: How LBJ Killed JFK,” written by Barr McClellen, who was a personal attorney for LBJ in Austin, Texas. Incidentally, Barr McClellan’s son was the Press Secretary for President George W. Bush during his first term.
The book which is to end all controversy on the assassination of JFK is “Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F, Kennedy,” by Vincent Bugliosi. Reviewers state it is the Establishment’s book - end the JFK story. Amazon.com had 211 reviews; only four rated the book as [LIKED]. It is a book of 1,600 pages attempting to prove Oswald was the lone assassin.
The newest book is not a government whitewash. The latest release will require the Establishment to have another one written, still claiming Lee Oswald acted alone.
The latest book (issued October 2013), and one of the most compelling ones on who killed JFK, has just been released. It, too, asserts LBJ was responsible for JFK’s murder. “The Man Who Killed Kennedy—the Case Against LBJ” was written by Roger Stone. Interestingly, he revealed that Jack Ruby was hired by Congressman Richard Nixon at the request of Congressman Lyndon B. Johnson in 1947. Ruby had been a Johnson man prior to 1947 (16 years before JFK was assassinated in 1963). This will not be the last book on this subject.
I wrote the following article in answer to those who deny that a conspiracy existed in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
****
November 22, 2003
PLAINER WORDS ONLINE … CONSPIRACY
Holy Writ is not silent on the subject of CONSPIRACY. Conspiracy is the act of two or more people planning to commit an unlawful, or evil act in order for them to gain, or profit from the covert enterprise. Many times, conspiracies are made for the conspirators to profit, financially, from the deeds of darkness. But, many times, the motive to conspire is to gain power, or favor. In the study of Scripture, we find that the latter motive is more predominate than the former.
The Scripture records a conspiracy in which the brothers of Joseph conspired against him to gain favor with their father. “And they saw him (Joseph) afar off, even before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him” (Gen.37:18).
The brothers, however, did change their minds. Instead of slaying Joseph, they sold him into slavery. Those involved in the conspiracy were not part of a “lunatic fringe;” nor, were they “crazed madmen.”
King David's own son, Absalom, conspired against him in his quest for the throne of the Kingdom. “And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counsellor, from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy was strong: for the people increased continually with Absalom” (2 Sam. 15:12).
The quest for political power knows no shame. Blood-kin knows no bounds in their lust and greed for power. A cursory look at the history of England's kings and queens reveals that in the quest for power, even among family members, they plotted to kill one another to gain the throne.
Baasha conspired against Nadab, King of Israel. “And Baasha the son of Aijah, of the house of Issachar, conspired against him: and Baasha smote him at Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines; for Nadab and all Israel laid siege to Gibbethon. Even in the third year of Asa King of Judah did Baasha slay him, and reigned in his stead” (1 Ki. 15:27-28). Baasha was not a “lone madman” nor was he part of the “lunatic fringe” in Israel. He was close to the seat of power. Baasha conspired to gain power which was held by Nadab.
Zimri conspired against Elah King of Israel, “And his servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him, as he was in Tirzah, drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza steward of his house in Tirzah. And Zimri went in and smote him, and killed him, in the twenty and seventh year of Asa King of Judah, and reigned in his stead” (1Ki.16:9-10).
Zimri, a powerful man in his own right, was not satisfied as being in charge of half of the king's army. He wanted the “whole enchilada.”
Shallum conspired against Zachariah King of Israel. “And Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and smote him before the people, and slew him, and reigned in his stead ... And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel”(2 Ki 15:.10, 15).
The Scripture certainly indicates that there exists, in circles of political power, an atmosphere which breeds a desire to bring about an unlawful change in political power.
Amon's royal court conspired against him. The king's trusted servants implemented their conspiracy and killed him. “And the servants of Amon conspired against him, and slew the king in his own house. And the people of the land slew all them that had conspired against King Amon: and the people of the land made Josiah, his son, king in his stead” (2 Ki. 21:23-24).
In this instance, the people rose up against the conspirators and exacted justice. This points out that when the people are aware of an unlawful attempt to change political power, they will rise up in indignation and demand a just recompense. In the case of King Amon, the assassins were unable to secure a plausible “cover-up.” Consequently, capital punishment was meted out.
Conspirators, such as the royal court of Amon, will go to any lengths to cover-up their evil deeds. They did not plan on the citizens turning against them. Future conspirators would learn they had better have a “patsy” they could blame for the crime. History reveals the best way to deflect any charges of conspiracy is to ridicule the accusers and provide for a “fall guy.” They must come up with plausible denial, so that when they deny any involvement, it at least sounds plausible.
During the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, the “establishment” Jews conspired to have Him put to death. The ruling elite of Israel (i.e., “The Ruling Class” comprised of the Chief Priests, scribes, and Pharisees) became enraged that the “son of the carpenter” had the audacity to enter the Temple and disrupt the “banking community” by overturning the seats on the Exchange. “And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers (bankers), and the seats of them that sold doves: And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And He taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? But ye have made it a den of thieves. And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy Him: for they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His doctrine” (Mark 11:15-18). The Jewish establishment conspired to kill Jesus Christ because He had a strong following among the average citizens. If He prevailed, the “elite” would lose their place of authority. They, eventually, were able to have the Son of God put to death and, then, were able to say that it was the popular will of the people. (During the Pre-Millennial Government of God, the Temple “shall [truly] be called, by all nations, the House of Prayer).
John 11:46‑48: “But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.” The “Ruling Class,” or the establishment never wants to lose their control.
Christ went against traditional thought in Jerusalem. He was contrary to Israel's “conventional wisdom.” He was viewed as dangerous. He had to be discredited, and if that didn't work, they would surely have to bring charges of sedition against Him. Today, He would have been referred to as part of the “radical right-wing,” the “religious right,” or a “populist.”
Then, “some of them went” to the Pharisees and related their eye-witness account of Christ raising Lazarus from the dead. The Pharisees called a council with the Chief Priests to plot their strategy. The establishment did not want to lose their place of authority in the nation. “Then from that day forth they took council (i.e., conspired) together for to put Him to death” (Jn.11:53). The elite oligarchy of any nation will never hesitate to kill, if necessary, to sustain their power.
They not only desired to have Christ put to death, but they, also, believed that Lazarus had to die again. In John 12:10‑11, it is said; ”But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.” Here, again, is another conspiracy.
When the Apostle Paul went to Jerusalem and questioned the authority of the High Priest, the establishment leaders rallied around Ananias and vowed an oath of conspiracy to slay Paul. Acts 23:12‑14; “And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy. And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.”
In this conspiracy, there were forty leaders involved. This should point out that a conspiracy can include a large circle and is not confined to just a very small group. A wide circle can and do conspire to commit an illegal act if they are united in their own self-interest.
Those who conspire to commit unlawful acts realize they must have a plan to “cover-up” their evil involvement. Conspirators must be prepared to shift attention away from themselves and focus upon a “fringe element,” or a “crazed madman.” When the man in the street realizes that an illegal and evil deed was committed by a group of highly placed individuals, they demand justice.
The shroud of darkness must cloak a conspiracy in order for the deception to be successful.
Today, many renounce the idea that a conspiracy could have been involved in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. A “lone nut,” John Wilkes Booth, who was the radical on the fringe of society, was the assassin, or so we have been led to believe. The assassination of John F. Kennedy was committed by a “lone mad man,” Lee Harvey Oswald. The establishment has insisted there was no conspiracy. Evidence certainly indicates that more than Oswald participated. The official versions of two other assassinations; those of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., were the acts of “lone nuts.”
“There is no way that in the proud country of America could a group of powerfully placed individuals conspire to assassinate the country’s leaders. And, then, cover it up.” This is the mind-set of many Americans. For any Conservative to be recognized at all by the establishment press, he must renounce the “Conspiracy Theory.” If anyone believes that conspiracy exists, he is labeled as a “conspiracy nut.” And, no attention should be paid to him. My comment on this is, “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).
The Scriptures, historical events, and common sense leads one to realize that individuals in high places are capable of secretly planning unlawful acts to benefit or enrich themselves; either financially or politically.
Common sense acknowledges that conspiracies exist, and it is not just a theory but a historical fact. Certainly, those who have participated in a conspiracy would ridicule anyone who questions the evil activity. The establishment who conspires, along with their fellow-travelers, always labels doubters as “conspiracy nuts.” This scares off many because they are concerned about how they are perceived.
The government must always be presented as a paragon of virtue, and anyone who would dare question its integrity must be some “right-wing kook.”
To say that Timothy McVey was a “lone mad bomber”of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City is to ignore the evidence. The evidence has been suppressed by both state and federal government. The government attitude remains: let the masses remain in perpetual ignorance. Just give them holidays, parades, sporting events, periodic wars, and a six-pack of beer. This will keep them docile and content.
Ten years ago I, by chance, met a man who had been a writer for the “Dallas Morning News” during the time Kennedy was shot. He said for years he bought into the Government’s “Warren Commission Report.” The Dallas News had officially endorsed the “Warren Commissions Report.” After he retired he did independent studies, based upon the one of the First Principles investigators are taught to follow---“Who stood to gain the most in the commission of the crime.” He stated emphatically Lyndon Baines Johnson had by far the most to gain by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Ever since then I had to agree with him.
Tom L. Ballinger
Endnotes:
We must add to the list the shooting down of Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island, N.Y. Officially, there was an internal explosion, even though several hundred witnesses saw what appeared to be a missile rise up from the Atlantic Ocean and strike the plane.
Also, there is a lot of credible information suggesting that the Twin Towers collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 was not what it is said to be. Could there have been a conspiracy involved? Yes, indeed—TIME MARCHES ON.
~~THE END~~
Visit our Web Site:
www.Plainerwords.com
 |