Effie Perrine

Are there more losses than benefits to this New Yorker satire? Since so many American’s are visual literalists I think so!  The visual style looks like propaganda from WWII. How many will really read the story inside the magazine? Not the people who believe the story is offensive according to Fox News.

My father-in-law sent my husband an article called “Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up.” I’m guessing he also meant for me to read it though it wasn’t addressed to me…but since I am part of the “Crack Up” I thought I would read it.

The article is written by a guy named James Piereson. I haven’t been so bored by anyone’s vitriol since I forced myself to read “Reclaiming History” by Bugliosi.  The article was such a waste of time, especially for those who are looking for real research and answers to difficult questions.

He basically says the Kennedy assassination splintered the real liberalism which in some ways was moving to the right. Yeah-an assassination can do that, can’t it? Brilliant deductions on his part! The assassination of an Archduke can set off a world war but the death of the President of the United States is inconsequential? Please.

He also claims liberalism was splintered by Jacqueline Kennedy’s emphasis on projecting the ideal of Camelot on to the Kennedy Administration. His reasoning is that because Camelot is unattainable-liberals thought their ideals unattainable after Kennedy’s death. Blaming a grieving and possibly unhinged Jacqueline Kennedy for splinting liberalism in the wake of assassination is ludicrous.

I liken the Kennedy administration to any other political governing entity whose head of state is killed. Lincoln, Julius Caesar, Archduke Ferdinand and others have suffered the same fate with similar consequences to the state of the nation and the world.

James Piereson is not a truth-seeker. He glides over any real scrutiny by writing, “There is little point in rehearsing the many criticisms of the Commissions work…” Along with merely citing books which support the Commissions conclusions, he avoids answering “all” serious inquiry into the murder of President Kennedy.

The death of President Kennedy represents a coup-d’-etat with Oswald as merely one player. The truth lies not in whether or not Oswald actually took a shot killing Kennedy but in our ability to use rudimentary critical thinking skills to ascertain some conclusion. It is clear Piereson is still sucking the teat of serenity in the Commission’s liberal fairy tale.

So, I was having a case of the guilties after my “Blind Republican Friend” post so I decided to be a mensch and read my post out loud to Nick. First of all, he is on the internet and has a voice activated system.

Secondly, he says I wasn’t listening to him and said I should read some self help book which I can’t remember the name of because I was tuning him out after he started telling me some racist jokes.

He laughed when I told him the title of my post. Also, he was glad I didn’t use his real name because he “actually” has an internet based business.

Lastly, he said the only real difference between liberals and conservatives is their stance on Israel-a comment I found a little reductive and dishonest. To avoid any political minefields, I just said I wished they had given Texas to the Holocaust survivors.

The other day I spoke to my friend Nick and I told him I launched this blog. When I told him about it, all I said was that it was about 9/11 and the JFK assassination. He said, “Effie, that is a very controversial point of view.” I was coy and asked, “What do you mean?” Nick said, “You think 9/11 was an inside job.” I immediately rationalized things this way “I never said that” –which is technically true.

I was a little surprised by the fact that Nick knew anything at all about the 9/11 Truth movement because he is blind and barely goes on the internet. I said, “Look, I don’t know what brought the twin towers down but there was evidence of explosions which were not in the areas of impact.”

I then said that I didn’t know who the conspirators were and then I brought up Building 7. “But that was brought down by fires,” he said. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that if you “look” on the Internet you can clearly see Building 7 brought down by controlled demolition.

He then started whining about the Pentagon. “Do you think a missile hit the Pentagon?” he asked. “I don’t know what hit the Pentagon,” I said “I’ve never seen footage of anything hitting the Pentagon.” Nick, exasperated said, “Well, what do you think happened to Barbara Olson?”

This was a low moment for me but I wanted to break the tension so I said, “She is in fairy land.” I actually made him laugh. Later, my husband said I should have told him she crawled back under the rock she came from. Apparently, my husband did not like her anyway.

The last thing Nick asked me about was United Flight 93. I said I thought the U.S. government shot down Flight 93. He asked “Well, do you see anything wrong with that?” I actually said no. I said, “considering the thousands of lives saved-no it was probably the right decision.”

Nick had to go get his kids from school but we left the conversation basically having laughed at least once and agreeing at the end. He said he’d call me the next day to finish the conversation. I never heard back from him.

When I first started researching the Kennedy assassination I stumbled upon the story of Judyth Vary Baker, which inadvertently led me to discover the book “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” because Judyth’s story is detailed in the book.

Ominous and scary were words that rolled through my mind just looking at the cover art of the book on the Web with pictures of lab monkeys, Oswald and a newspaper clipping regarding Mary Sherman’s death all in a veil of primordial green coloring and fiery titles.

I finally found the book under “Medicine History” at Barnes n Noble in New York City.  I felt like I had stumbled across something clandestine, hidden and taboo.

Fortunately, Ed Haslam, author of  “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” uses personal style to disarm this initial paranoia one gets from holding the book for the first time. Even his picture on the back cover of the book is weirdly comforting against the specter of the book cover.

His lifetime journey, which is detailed in the book, to find out what happened to Dr. Mary Sherman, begins with stories about his childhood fascination with the topic.

The thread that held the book together for me was Ed Haslam. You can’t help but love a kid who incurs the derision of his teacher when disclosing top governmental secrets to his classmates.

What drives Ed Haslam through his harrowing and death-defying lifetime journey, which eventually brings him to the very corridors of the truth behind the Kennedy assassination and possibly the very origins of the AIDS epidemic?

How many doors through these corridors is Ed Haslam willing to go? Apparently Ed Haslam is a truth seeker in every sense of the term.

When I first found “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” in medical history at the bookstore I thought it strangely placed. Now, I realize because it crosses the divide of mere intrigue to ask the hardest ethical questions regarding that which should indeed no longer be clandestine, hidden and taboo, it seems to be in the appropriate place.

In studying Mary Sherman’s death, probably classified a national security homicide, Ed Haslam’s investigative lens becomes the kaleidoscopic and transparent lens for some of the 20th centuries’ greatest crimes and mysteries.

In order to be a conscientious objector, you at least need to know both sides of the issue. The only way to solve a crime is to take the road less traveled. Most, if not all will say from looking at my links that I am a conspiracy theorist.

Did more than one person have foreknowledge and act with complicity in the events of the 9/11 murders and the JFK assassination? Did more than one person cover up the evidence?

We can say yes, most definitely about 9/11 but we do not know all the conspirators and little does the American populace know about the money trail and the lives, associates and family members of the actual hijackers. It is the same with the conspirators in the JFK assassination.

Within a day, Oswald had been convicted and executed for the assassination of President Kennedy in the court of public opinion. According to Roger Craig, Dallas Officer of the Year in 1960, a Mauser rifle not a Carcano rifle linking Oswald to the murder was found on the sixth floor of the depository. As the late Johnny Cochran once said, “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

It was with the same zeal and techniques of disinformation that led to the conviction and execution of Saddam Hussein for the crimes of 9/11. President Bush has repeated that he knows there is no link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein and has admitted there were no weapons of mass destruction.

While Oswald and Hussein were no angels, the fact remains that they were tried, convicted and executed swiftly in courts of public opinion. Their fates were sealed to restore order and certainty in times of chaos. Most real precious stones unturned. It is the irony of ironies that the only witness to there being a Grassy Knoll shooter is a deaf mute.

Another characteristic between the JFK assassination and the 9/11 murders is that the families of the victims seem readily willing (at least superficially) or pressured to agree with the Warren and 9/11 Commissions at face value.

Eyewitness testimony is ignored, redacted, revised or classified in both Commissions under the auspices of “National Security.”

James Files (alleged assassin of JFK) is discredited by NBC/Kroll. Kroll was also the firm providing security to the World Trade Center.

A large percentage of people in the U.S. believe the Kennedy Assassination is a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories run amuck in both the stories of the Kennedy murder and the 9/11 murders. There is a freaky defensiveness among the constructors of the “official versions” of events coming from Warren and 9/11 Commission apologists.

Were these events merely national security failures or de facto coup d’ etats? At the very least we can say they were de facto and not de jure. There were flows of absolute and corruptible power flowing out from both events. Ritualistic sacrifices.

In the Kennedy assassination Hoover was given absolute power, Lyndon Johnson became President, and Ike’s Military Industrial Complex immediately profited. In the 9/11 murders, the President was given unprecedented power as well as those in his administration.

The press and the Congress were metaphorically and literally gagged and shackled after 9/11 and the assassination. Again, as with the Vietnam War, the MIC has bankrupted the U.S. government and weakened the prestige of the dollar. However corrupt, continuity of government is assured-the pabulum of the masses.

Lastly, the public outcry for justice for JFK and the victims of 9/11 is on the road less traveled by the public. There has been no remedy for the failure of both Commissions to take a good look at the institutional evil that comes from institutional murder and the lack of transparency of government.

As with the vehicle of JFK’s limousine being restored and ultimately placed in the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, the molten steel from the World Trade Center is now the pristine USS New York. Evidence of revision?

Today I am launching my President Kennedy Archive. The archive represents the “best of” about two months of solid research on the topic.

Who is Jack Ruby referring to when he talks of powerful forces that will ensure the truth of the Kennedy assassination and Ruby’s motivations will never be known? See Ruby mentioned by Madeleine Duncan Brown (links) attending the Murchison meeting the night before the assassination. Could these be the people he is referring to?

On the Zapruder film; I am “not” a ballistics or trajectories expert. Neither am I a blood splatter expert. My instinctive sensibilities tell me Kennedy was shot from the front at least once and Connelly shot by at least one real non-magic bullet separate from any striking the President.

Was there a Secret Service Agent killed on November 22, 1963? We may never know. Learning to read direct source notes is very cool so its great the Mary Ferrell Foundation (See MF SSA) has these first two documents available mentioning the Secret Service Agent. The (VP-SSA) provides access to Chapter 9, page 5 of Vincent Palamara’s analysis of the allegedly killed SSA.

Over bearing hen-pecking Marguerite Oswald or else radical, visionary and “on the money” Marguerite is a fascinating woman. Her bare minimum obituary in the New York Times shows the embittered nature of society against Marguerite-“a mother in history.”

The story of Jackie Kennedy’s pink suit is told on YouTube. The second link is Jackie’s profile on the Arlington National Cemetery site. Of interest on this page is that her oral history won’t be revealed until 2067. Lastly, Jackie’s conversation with Theodore White recorded less than four days after the assassination.

How in the world does Oswald negotiate getting back into the U.S.A. after causing so much trouble by defecting? Also, see page 3 under Oswald Poison Ice Atomizer link. You’ll be left wondering what the hell a poison ice atomizer is too.

I don’t understand why Vincent Bugliosi, who excoriated the Supreme Court in his book about the 2000 election would act like the public has no right to question authority. His writing in Reclaiming History is so antithetical to that ideal, I had to look for video of him talking about Reclaiming History before I would believe he actually wrote it.

Unfortunately, I did find video of him talking about it and the same hateful vitriolic style in his book is the same style he uses in his verbal rhetoric.

Finally, see the transcript of Marina Oswald’s visit to the Oprah Winfrey show. What does Marina and Oprah say about Lee Harvey Oswald now?