TBR News May 8, 1012

May 08 2012

The Voice of the White House


             Washington, D.C. May 8, 2012: “There is fact and then there is fiction. ‘Fact’ is that the sun rises in the east or that water is wet. ‘Fiction’ is that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny exist. One of the things that has always struck me as entertaining is the rage and detestation with which the Evangelical Christians view the gay community. Even more amusing is their view on evolution but I will save that for another time. Considering the total lack of period reference to their Jesus, coupled with the indisputable fact that the New Testament gospels were written over a hundred years after the fact and subject to constant revision over the centuries, an historian realizes that the New Testament is nothing but propaganda. But to get back to the anti-gay attitudes of the Evangelicals, if they were to actually read the immense body of serious history of the beginning of the Christian era, they would realize that the basic dogmas of the early Christian church were lifted, in toto in most cases, from the doctrines of the Essenes, a period Jewish cult. If Jesus existed, he must certainly have been an Essene. The problem with this concept is that the Essenes were an all-male communistic community of farmers, despised women and only used them to breed sons. Eventually, the Essenes joined the revolt against Rome and were virtually obliterated by the Romans, and most crucified for rebellion against Rome. A small handful of cult members fled to the hills and were the ones who wrote what are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are written in an easily-translated script and have been in the hands of Jewish scholars for almost fifty years. It is rather odd that very little has been published of these period scrolls and it is rather commonly known in the historical community that these scrolls will never be published because they connect Jesus to the Essense and openly espouse a homosexual lifestyle. If this is the case, it is rather ironic that the Evangelical cultists are so anti-homosexual when their founder and leading member was quite evidently a practicing member of a homosexual community. This strikes many historians, and lay people, as rather hypocritical but fanatic cultists are often guilty of hypocrisy.”



The Information Assurance Mission at NSA


April, 2012


Mobile phone platforms are susceptible to malicious attacks, both from the network and upon physical compromise. Understanding the vectors of such attacks, level of expertise required to carry them out, available mitigations, and impact of compromise provides a background for certain risk decisions. In general, comparing risks introduced by the new generation of mobile devices to those of traditional, widely-deployed desktop systems provides insight into how the risks to DoD networks are changing. Due to the larger cultural and technological shift to mobile devices, this may be more relevant than comparison of diff erent smartphone brands. Attack Vectors User-initiated installation of malicious software is strongly addressed by the new mobile phone platforms. The ability for enterprises to confi ne software installation to trusted software repositories (“app stores”) addresses the software provenance problem by providing strong technical mechanisms that restrict the sources of software. Such mechanisms were never available on desktop operating systems, which instead relied heavily on adherence to policy to control software installation. Th rough the use of cryptography and built-in, OS-enforced restrictions on software sources, the mobile platforms can ensure software deployment occurs in a way that is more accountable and more effi cient than general-purpose desktops. Th e level of expertise necessary to deploy a malicious app onto a public app store remains low, because some app stores perform no vetting and others – as with any software analysis – must make a speed versus accuracy tradeoff . However, targeting individuals with malicious apps can be eff ectively mitigated by only allowing access to trusted app repositories. Smartphones use aa separate “baseband” processor to carry out communications with the cellular network, with which they are constantly connected. Attacks which take advantage of bugs in the fi rmware executed by this processor have been publicized over the previous year. Some of these require an attacker to spoof a cell tower, which is now inexpensive and supported by open source software such as OpenBTS; others can be launched via globally remote communication such as text message. Th is attack vector is obviously absent from wired systems, and the ability to monitor or disrupt such attacks is also diminished when compared to wired networks with established points of ingress/egress. Th e baseband (and WiFi) fi rmware, as with other software on the device, can be patched regularly to address these bugs as they are discovered. Th e level of technical skill and motivation required for such attacks remains high, but has been decreasing due to public attention. Further into the future, however, such vulnerabilities could beexpected to diminish due to the stable nature of the functionality provided by such software. Lost or stolen mobile devices can place DoD data at risk of exposure. Policy compliant DoD laptops, as well as the established DoD smartphone platform, include capabilities that can credibly be described as full disk encryption and which are extremely diffi cult to defeat. The newer generation of smartphones do not yet include such comprehensive capabilities in COTS form. Nevertheless, they do support encryption of enterprise data on the device, if the user opts to store such data in certain areas. Th e level of technical skill required to access data stored outside such protected areas on the device is low. However, data-at-rest protection is considered a fundamental platform feature, and vendors continue to advance in this area by making such features more comprehensive. It also remains important to note that encryption or “secure containers” are not a countermeasure against either remote attacks (such as some “jailbreaks” or “roots”). Also note that encryption is not generally intended to protect against attacks that involve re-use of a device after a loss of physical control. Malicious email or web-based attacks, called “spear phishing” when tailored for particular targets, remain the most likely front door to DoD networks for globally remote attackers. To combat this threat, most modern smartphone platforms include features (such as process sandboxing, Data Execution Prevention (DEP), Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), and verifi ed boot) which make it more diffi cult for attackers to successfully exploit vulnerabilities. Only the very latest desktop operating systems and web browsers contain many of these anti exploitation features. Although such attacks against smartphones remain possible, their resistance to attacks compares favorably to the typical DoD desktop. Adversaries targeting DoD networks can attack substantial numbers of outdated and nearly unsupported desktop operating systems such as Windows XP, and obsolete and insecure browsers such as Internet Explorer 6. Mobile devices, on the other hand, compare more closely to modern desktop operating systems such as Windows 7, and security-hardened browsers such as Internet Explorer 9 or Google Chrome. Th e level of technical skill required to exploit systems via malicious email or web page varies considerably, from very low to very high. Th e level of diffi culty corresponds directly to the age of the operating system, whether desktop or mobile. Judgments about a particular mobile device’s resistance to such attacks are further complicated by researchers’ interest in making very sophisticated attacks publicly available. Such sophisticated techniques are not even necessary on older desktops.

Impact of Compromise

An attacker who has fully compromised a device which remains in use (whether a smartphone or a PC) can effectively impersonate the user of that device. This includes access to all data and network resources available to the user. This is because a sophisticated attacker can elevate privileges to that of the device’s operating system, and carry out any activity from the device that the user would (and without the user knowing). This includes making use of any credentials stored directly on the device, or those which are accessible from it. Storing credentials on hardware tokens provides a mitigation, as the attacker is then required to connect to the compromised device in order to make use of these credentials. This requires an attacker to expend more effort and engage in more-visible network activities. Any credentials stored directly on the device’s main storage, however, can be collected by an attacker during the initial compromise and then used to impersonate the user and access resources from another location at the attacker’s leisure.

As malicious email or web pages can be used by an adversary to make a successful initial intrusion into either a smartphone or desktop, little stands in the way of an attacker making further use of such techniques to compromise other systems (and gather privileged credentials) once inside an enclave. This can be enabled by using contacts listed in the address book of the user’s device. For outdated desktop systems which are most vulnerable to this kind of attack, it is notable that applying the limited configuration guidance available for browsers, email clients, or PDF readers is a very weak mitigation when compared to updating to newer software.

Although modern smartphones are more resistant to fully remote compromise when compared to outdated desktop systems, their array of hardware features provides an attacker with much greater capabilities for information gathering and remote communications.

This includes a microphone for listening to conversations, GPS for location tracking, cameras for visual surveillance, and cellular or WiFi radio for non-enterprise controlled or monitored network communications. Such capabilities may be of little consequence on a compromised device that belongs to a rank and file soldier or civilian, but may betray significant sensitive information from a senior leader.

Effective detection of compromise remains a high priority, and this is dependent on platform vendor cooperation. On some platforms, detection is currently hindered by security features themselves. App sandboxing, for example, limits the capabilities of any security-enhancing software that is not provided by the platform vendor as part of the device’s operating system. Even mobile devices with a “trusted” or “secure” boot process – a valuable feature – often prevent independent access of the device’s main storage area for verification purposes. Should vendors choose to provide it, low level hardware support for integrity checking could address this problem. Such a design permits confidence that a compromised operating system is not providing false integrity information.


The new generation of smartphones is more resistant to some types of cyber attacks that have proven extremely damaging to DoD, such as spearphishing and user-installed malicious software. At the same time, their use involves acceptance of other risks such as attacks via the cellular network, and a greater likelihood of data loss due to lost or stolen devices. Overall, vast numbers of obsolete desktops are likely to continue to be attackers’ front door to DoD networks, although smartphones do permit highly motivated adversaries to carry out highly-targeted attacks against senior leaders. NSA continues to partner with industry to develop technological enhancements that prevent and detect such attacks.

Table 1. Attack Categories Against Mobile Devices

Attack Vector Impact Sophistication/Level of Effort Required Mitigation
Malicious App Total compromise of device Low – but difficult to target Enterprise-controlled App Store
Cellular Network Varies; up to total compromise of device High – but falling Applying software patches
Physical Access: Lost/Stolen Device Loss of data stored outside encrypted storage areas Low – but increasing Store data only inside apps or partitions that provide encryption
Physical Access: Reuse After Loss of Control Total compromise of device High User training
Malicious Email/Web Page Total compromise of device Medium to High – depends on device Applying software patches


How to become a cyberspy


May 42012

by  Stewart Mitchell


The secret services are recruiting cyberspies. Stewart Mitchell reveals how you get in – and what you’ll be doing when you get there

The cyberspy has been a stalwart of thrillers ever since the birth of the web, but never before has there been such a demand for professionals to defend the nation’s networks.

Amid a wave of attacks from foreign states and unknown hackers, the Government last year committed an additional £650 million to cybersecurity – part of which will be spent hiring new recruits.

Le Carré-esque positions are opening up (see boxouts) at the very heart of the security services, from contractors that supply the Ministry of Defence, to staffers within GCHQ, MI5 and MI6.

They’ll be part of a global cyberwar in which adversaries probe other sovereign states looking for information, network topographies and vulnerabilities – with the West pointing the finger at China and Russia for the escalated threat level. GCHQ claims it receives more than 20,000 malicious emails every month.

But what challenges will the next-generation spooks face? And what type of skill set are the security services looking for? We’ve talked to people close to the security services to find out.


Career opportunities

The injection of government funding at a time when almost all other services are being cut reflects the importance placed on British cyber-intelligence, and both national security services and private contractors are crying out for skilled staff.

In the UK and elsewhere, opportunity is knocking for people who can identify vulnerabilities, analyse data streams or develop sniffing tools. At the time of writing, the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) was looking for service desk analysts, systems group task managers, engineers for services systems, network and electrical engineers, and software development engineers.

GCHQ and MI5 are equally busy, recruiting a phalanx of information intelligence experts to staff two new cyberstations set up by the Defence Cyber Operations Group to meet the challenge of Britain’s silent conflicts.

The security services attempt to attract talent by playing up the importance of the roles, touting unique opportunities to hack and probe in the national interest, but they face competition from better-paid roles in the private sector. Experts suggest that staff could earn three times as much employed in private sector companies, but there’s still an undeniable pull to having MI6 on your business card.

“The Government has to compete realistically in that market, and won’t be able to do it by purely looking at remuneration packages. However, the Government can play up the different types of work available at some of these institutions, and that it’s pretty unique,” says Adam Thilthorpe, director for professionalism at the BCS, who’s been working with the services on their recruitment. “There’s also its impact – or potential impact – on the UK, which is incredible, and on the world as a whole, so it’s that side of things the Government needs to push to attract ability.”

GCHQ recently admitted that it was having to pay bonuses to retain civil servants being lured away by the private sector, with everyone from Google to defence contractors looking for qualified and experienced staff.

“At one single American company, SAIC, which is private and isn’t even listed, if you go to the job listings and search for a position that requires top security clearance, and where the job description contains both the words ‘exploit’ and ‘vulnerability’, you’ll find 168 openings right now,” says Mikko Hypponen, security analyst at F- Secure.

Finding replacements for poached staff isn’t easy, especially given the strict rules on who can apply. The desperate shortage of applicants with the right skills was highlighted recently when GCHQ turned to Facebook to set a challenge for wannabe cybersecurity specialists, with eligible candidates pushed along the recruitment process if they managed to break the “can you crack it?” challenge.

  The puzzle, designed to reflect real-life challenges, presented potential candidates for 35 available jobs with a grid featuring 160 pairs of letters and numbers that required a three-stage solution to crack.

Applicants first had to appreciate that the grid was code that could be run by an Intel x86-compatible processor, with the code relying on the RC4 algorithm to decrypt a block of data hidden in the PNG file of the grid itself.

Applicants then had to demonstrate JavaScript programming skills to create a virtual processor that would reveal within the data a location of an executable file to download. The last challenge was to reverse-engineer the executable to generate a licence file to show the mission had been accomplished.

GCHQ said there were various ways of solving the problem, which would demonstrate the way applicants’ minds worked, and that it was representative of challenges faced on a daily basis.

“GCHQ cybersecurity specialists spend time analysing executable code from many sources,” GCHQ says. “Sometimes it can be from malware that’s been discovered, to work out what it does, and where it comes from. On other occasions it can be to assist in the assessment of a security product, to ensure that what the developer has intended to do is actually what they’ve achieved in practice.”


Arm-wrestling with China

But the roles aren’t restricted to analysts working on code vulnerabilities or “arm-wrestling” with adversaries in China or Russia, who are widely believed to be actively targeting the UK’s systems on a daily basis.

Working alongside the coders and hackers are teams assessing the data, feeding it into risk assessment profiles, and co-ordinating resources, sometimes across departments.

“People think of security as being only a technical discipline, but there are a lot of other skills; risk assessment and the training of awareness and security management, which is about assessing things and advising people,” says Amanda Finch, general manager of the Institute of Information Security Professionals. “A lot of people are technical and enjoy getting into how to make things work or create technical controls, and they might be the penetration testers, working out how they can break into things. Then you have people designing firewalls and crypto codes, which is sexy to others – for me, the risk management side is very interesting.”

Despite the intriguing nature of the work, with echoes of Ian Fleming characters, many of the roles have more in common with The Office than James Bond.

There are many routine jobs that are crucial but monotonous: spotting a link in a database could make the difference between locating a potential terror plot or network breach, for example.

“There’s a lot of number crunching involved, purely because of the amount of info that’s available; part of the skill is trying to figure out what’s relevant,” says Thilthorpe. “It requires excellent technical skills to start with, then they’re developed through to a broader and greater understanding.”

A job in the security services has always been regarded as one of the most stable there is, not least because spy masters don’t want disgruntled former employees on their hands.

In fact, one way that GCHQ and other services are trying to recruit and retain experts is through the CESG framework, which shows off people’s skills and qualifications, and provides a career path from entrance level to the upper echelons of management.

  It may seem mundane to reward cyberspies with civil service grades, but it provides a logical progression that may convince staff to stay in the public sector.

“We need people who are flexible, can think outside the box and think on their feet – and we need to show people that this is a career that’s fun, interesting, and not badly paid,” says Judy Baker, director of the Cyber Security Challenge, which was set up by the Government, GCHQ and private sector security companies to filter and encourage talent. “If we don’t get it right, it’s hugely serious for the future. It isn’t only national security – it isn’t even only the digital economy – it’s how people live their lives.”


Recruiting the right people

Unlike technical meritocracies such as Microsoft or Google, the security services have a reputation as something of a closed shop, recruiting from elitist institutions. But with IT security skills in short demand, the landscape is changing and the forces are widening the search for suitable candidates.

“The days of the tap on the shoulder at Oxbridge being the only way into these services have gone,” says Thilthorpe. “The number of skills and the variety of skills that governments and security services need mean they have to throw the net wide – and some of the skills are really very specialist.”

  A job in the secret services is also no place for extroverts. “GCHQ is an organisation that has secrets of crucial importance to the security, defence and economic wellbeing of the UK,” GCHQ says in its guidance to would-be employees. “Foreign Intelligence Services are active in this country and are targeting these secrets. To protect yourself and the UK’s secrets, don’t take everyone at face value.”

The organisation recommends employees “keep to an absolute minimum details relating to their employment that are discussed with friends, family and other contacts”.

The guidelines portray a world in which employees need to consider their work security in almost every aspect of their lives, from where they live to where they go on holiday.

“Employees should let Personnel Security know if they were moving into a flat share with foreign nationals,” GCHQ insists, while “if you are planning any travel to unusual locations, either before you start your employment or once you have joined, you should notify a member of Personnel Security before making any payments.”

That may sound like it’s tinged with paranoia, but the mysterious death of MI6 cybersecurity operative, Gareth Williams, in 2010, proves it isn’t necessarily misplaced.

Part of the application process is a vetting period that can take up to six months, or even longer, which is a key consideration for anyone thinking of switching from current roles.

The Developed Vetting process will involve interviews with pretty much anyone the service sees fit; referees, friends and family could all be included, with questions ranging from lifestyle and drug use to political persuasion.

“The checks can be intrusive, but are only carried out to the level necessary to safeguard national security,” GCHQ says. “You’re not obliged to go through the vetting process, but if you choose not to, you won’t be appointed to a post for which Developed Vetting clearance is required.”

There are other prerequisites that are specific to the nature of the roles, including British citizenship and no history of criminal computing behaviour.

            The first thing isn’t to get a criminal record and blow your chances of getting a clearance, so don’t hack anything, don’t steal cars – if you do, you won’t get security clearance and you won’t get a job with the Government,” says Hypponen. “The second thing to understand is that, normally, computer security jobs are international, and you can get a job in almost any country you want, but that doesn’t hold true for these jobs, these jobs you can only get in your home country.”


 Ethical dilemmas

For those who make it through the arduous recruitment process, life at the cutting-edge of communications security might be rewarding, exciting even, but working on national security poses its own set of ethical dilemmas.

Cyberspies may well be involved in developing tools that could have a dramatic impact on people’s lives, either in the UK or overseas.

“There are problematic situations that you could end up in,” says Hypponen.

“A lot of these governmental trojans used to spy on people are being created by people who are looking for work along these lines, so their tools, their technologies, will end up being used to carry out surveillance and collect personal details from people. Their lives will be blown open by your work; these are things individuals should think through before applying for such positions.”

In the wake of the much-publicised Stuxnet attack, which damaged an Iranian nuclear enrichment plant, it’s increasingly clear that cybertools could have a very real physical impact.

It’s widely accepted that online experts of every political persuasion are studying how to attack controls systems, such as the Siemens controllers hit by Stuxnet and the SCADA systems that regulate power and water supplies. What might seem like a simple line of code created by the security forces could end up being deployed as a destructive weapon.

“If we go forward and think of real cyberwarfare scenarios, and offensive use of malware to protect your homeland, what should antivirus companies and professionals be doing in situations such as these?” says Hypponen.

“Who’s going to write those viruses, and will people who are working for security companies be recruited to do offensive work? There are many ethical questions, many of which haven’t been thought through or haven’t been seen – yet.”
Wall Street & London elite lay groundwork to justify large scale destabilization in Russia: US to Attempt Overthrow of Putin Government

March 5, 2012

by Tony Cartalucci


As predicted – the Western media and US State Department-funded “opposition” inside Russia have called Vladimir Putin’s landslide victory a “fraud.” It was stated on Thursday March 1, that the Western media had “already determined how Russia’s elections will unfold, creating the pretext in the minds of impressionable viewers to justify the unrest the US is undoubtedly planning.” Image: Despite every poll indicating well in advance an easy victory for Vladimir Putin, and his critics admitting mobs of anti-Putin protesters constitute but a minority, claims of “election fraud” are rife across Western media. Clearly a man sure to win is not going to taint his victory by needlessly cheating. Conversely, in Thailand, when convicted criminal Thaksin Shinawatra ran for office by proxy through his own sister, and squeaked by with a tenuous victory, the Western media hailed it as a triumph of democracy. The difference? Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand works for Wall Street, Vladimir Putin does not.

.This is similar to what took place during the 2009 Iranian elections where US State Department-funded opposition groups also claimed the elections were “illegitimate” and took to the streets in an attempt to reverse the democratic process through ochlocratic means. In Egypt, directly before the US-engineered Arab Spring, elections that predictably overlooked the suspicious Mohamed ElBaradei were likewise called “fraudulent” and used as the rhetorical justification to execute destabilization long-planned by the US State Department since 2008.
            Proceeding Thailand’s July, 2011 elections, as explained in ““Stolen Elections” Battle Cry of the Color Revolution,” Wall Street and London’s operatives laid the groundwork to likewise call any result aside from their proxies’ full installation to power “fraud,” to then be used as impetus to justify street mobs, destabilization, and violence.
            And already, before Sunday’s elections, US State Department-funded Freedom House, through an article written by its “president” David Kramer, stated in Foreign Policy magazine:

“Even if the system delivers the required results, clear evidence of rigging may lead voters to reject the election as unfair and illegitimate. Moreover, the authorities’ stifling of the Russian public’s voice runs the risk of creating an even more combustible environment in the period after March 4. The balloting, whatever its outcome, is therefore unlikely to extinguish the rising desire for real change. Unless and until that change is permitted, Putin’s continued pursuit of simulated democracy will fail to achieve even a simulation of stability.”

Kramer’s veiled threats of instability brought about by the opposition he, his Freedom House organization, and its parent organization, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have long been cultivating would then be repeated almost verbatim throughout the Western press on Sunday – also predictably. It was stated on March 1 that, “It is important to keep in mind Freedom House president David Kramer’s words, knowing that both the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House are self-serving frauds, when listening to these very same talking points regurgitated by the Western media during the elections this coming Sunday.”
            The LA Times would feature an editorial by the Wall Street-funded American Enterprise Institute (AEI) titled, “Putin’s Pyrrhic victory,” which stated, “Putin’s win “will be a Pyrrhic victory. Far from enhancing the Putin regime’s legitimacy, the election will diminish it further in the eyes of a significant part of the Russian population.”
            The corporate-funded hit piece would go on to admit that the “revolution” clearly constituted a minority but maintained:

            “…few, if any, regime changes, let alone revolutions, have been started by the majority. The majority has families to feed and a living to make. It is the younger, the urban, the better educated who have led successful modern revolutions. People who start them are getting uncensored news and opinions from the Internet and social media, not state-controlled television.And make no mistake about it: This is a young, middle-class revolt. ”

            This frightening stamp of approval for lawless ochlocratic “regime change” would then be followed by a comparison to the now admittedly fraudulent US-engineered “Arab Spring.”
            Joining the LA Times was a myriad of headlines regurgitating Freedom House president David Kramer’s predetermined conclusions, with the Wall Street Journal reporting, “Putin Claims Election Win as Observers Claim Fraud,” Fox News reporting, “Putin claims victory in Russia’s presidential election amid allegations of violations in election,” Reuters reporting, “Vladimir Putin ‘elected Russian president‘, opponents allege fraud,” and the London Guardian reporting, “Vladimir Putin’s critics cry foul over alleged voter fraud in Russian election.”
            Each report mentions either US-funded fraud Alexey Navalny or US-funded “independent election monitor” GOLOS, or both.
            Alexey Navalny is fully subsidized by the US State Department through the National Endowment of Democracy (NED). And while Alexey Navalny is renowned for “exposing corruption,” at least when profitable, those researching his background begin unraveling his own insidious, compromised agenda. Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow, and in his profile it states:

             “Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector.”

The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is indeed a National Endowment for Democracy fund recipient, meaning that Alexey Navalny is an agent of US-funded sedition and willfully hiding it from his followers. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list “youth movements” operating in Russia:

“DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection.”

            Alexey was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government and to this day has the very people who funded DA! defending him throughout Western media. The mention of co-founder Mariya Gaydar is also revealing, as she has long collaborated, and occasionally has been arrested with, Ilya Yashin, yet another leader of a NED-funded Russian “activist” opposition group.
            GOLOS, also mentioned endlessly by the Western media, is directly listed on the US State Department-run National Endowment for Democracy (NED) website as a recipient of funding. A NED subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI), chaired by Senator John McCain, openly desires the ousting of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin while the US State Department itself is publicly accused by Moscow of trying to incite unrest across Russia. It is then difficult to fathom how GOLOS can claim to be an “independent” poll monitor when they are funded by a foreign nation actively seeking to manipulate Russia’s political landscape. It is also difficult to then understand why any reputable journalist would cite GOLOS as a reliable source of information, when clearly they are compromised. Difficult to understand, that is, unless one accepts that the Western media is nothing more than paid-propagandist serving Wall Street and London interests. The next step will be to fill the streets of Russia’s cities with the NED-funded opposition’s mobs of “young, educated urban youths,” just as they did in Egypt. AEI’s op-ed in the LA Times clearly states an intent to leverage a minority magnified through “social media” to enact “regime change.” Whether Russia’s security apparatus is capable of quickly and decisively dealing with this foreign-funded sedition, and how far Wall Street and London are willing to go are the only remaining variables that will determine the outcome of what was from the beginning the Wall Street-London “Arab Spring’s” final destination.


            By understanding this process by which the neo-imperialists of Wall Street and London manipulate both domestic and international opinion through a clearly compromised media and network of disingenuous, insidious NGOs and “pro-democracy opposition” movements, this geopolitical gambit can be exposed and balked.
            The intended purpose of the US State Department is to maintain communications and formal relations with foreign countries – not project American hegemony around the globe. Meddling and subverting a sovereign nation is an act of war, and the potential conflict America’s ruling elite threaten to trigger will be one paid for by the American people, not the corporate-fascists on Wall Street, or their proxies in Washington.
            Study and understand how the US State Department has manipulated and destabilized nations from the Middle East, to Thailand, and now across Russia through foreign-funded NGOs like GOLOS, and treasonous opposition movements like those led by Alexey Navalny, Vladimir Ryzhkov, and Boris Nemtsov. Then spread the word. A well-informed population is inoculated from crass, demagogic and ultimately self-destructive manipulation by a degenerate and dangerous ruling elite.

Who Said: ‘The Jews Are Our Misfortune?

by Brother Nathanael

            “Die Juden sind unser Ungluck!” was a slogan, (a quote actually), printed on the bottom of the popular Third Reich newspaper, Der Sturmer.
Translated, the slogan states, “The Jews are our Misfortune!”
            Der Sturmer was published by Julius Streicher from 1923 to 1945. The paper was endorsed by Hitler as a useful tool for influencing the man on the street. Yet still, neither Hitler nor Der Sturmer were the authors of the slogan.
            After the war, Streicher was tried and hung at the Nuremberg trials for “crimes against humanity”—translate—”criticizing the Jews.” And the Jews got him “hung from the gallows” simply for publishing the paper.
            In 1935, Der Sturmer published the article, “How the Jew Hates the Sturmer.” Excerpts from its opening lines describe why Jewry feared the paper:
            “The Sturmer is a guide to the solution of the Jewish Question. A fearsome accuser of Pan-Jewry.
            Over the last decades our thinking fell victim to the poisoning of the Jewish world press. The Jew even silenced the voice of German blood. Our people stood before the abyss of a complete lack of judgment.
            This is why the Sturmer keeps saying: ‘The Jews Are Our Misfortune!’ This is why it is so hated by the Jews. Everyone knows that the Jew only fights that which he fears. And he fears the Sturmer in the depths of his soul!” View Entire Story Here.
The article points to the dominance of Jewry over the media both in Germany and beyond its borders.
            And in stating that the masses had fallen “victim” to the poisoning of the Jewish world press and “stood” before the abyss of complete lack of judgment, the paper was unknowingly auguring a warning for future generations.


            “The Jews are our Misfortune!” was originally put forth by Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896), a Professor of History at the University of Berlin and admired for his penetrating analysis of German political life.
            His greatest achievement was his multi-volume, “History of Germany in the 19th Century.”
            In his University lectures, political essays, and even in his History of Germany, Treitschke expressed disdain for the Jews.
            In 1880, he published a pamphlet entitled, “A Word About Our Jews,” which enjoyed much popularity. In this pamphlet the assertion, “The Jews are our misfortune,” first appeared.
Although to this day Jewry labels Treitschke as an “anti-Semite”… yet with astonishing prescience in sketching the Jewish problem of his day Treitschke shadowed forth the Western world’s current plight:
            “The influence of Jewry on our national life nowadays shows itself in many ways harmful.
            Just read the History of the Jews by Graetz. What rage against the ‘arch-enemy,’ the Christian Church!
            Most dangerous is the preponderance of Jewry in the daily press. Their anti-Christian defamations and blasphemies are shocking.
             Scarcely was emancipation achieved before Jewry demanded parity in everything. They refuse to see that we are a Christian people and that they are only a minority among us. We have experienced their demands that Christian images be set aside and that their sabbath be celebrated in mixed schools.
            An evil that everyone felt but no one wanted to touch upon is now openly discussed. Among educated men who reject any idea of church intolerance there rings with one voice: ‘The Jews are our misfortune!’” View Entire Story Here, Here & Here.
            A SPIRITUAL DEVASTATION is now wreaking havoc in what formerly was known and experienced as “Christendom.”
            In a newly published book, “Coming Apart: The State of White America,” the white working class is shown as no longer clinging to religion but letting go of everything that once distinguished it.
            This is surely due to Jewry’s control of the media where defamation of the Church is rampant. The Jewish-produced sitcom, “Good Christian Bitches,” is just one example of Jewry’s ridicule of Christianity.
            Could it be true then—that even today—the Jews are our misfortune?
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, PO Box 1242, Frisco CO 80443
E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation@yahoo.com

Israel vs the United States

May 1, 2012

by Germar Rudolf

1.The problem under consideration here is that Iran has, or will have, a nuclear weapon within a two year time span. If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, Israelis are afraid Iran will use it on them.

2.Israel would have logistical problems attacking Iran. Any attack would have to be an aerial attack, using fighter-bombers to pin-point known Iranian nuclear facilities.

 The current opinion in some circles, mostly in the United States, is that at some point in the near future , the growing  imposition of devastating economic sanctions on Iran will convince its radical religious leaders to terminate their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Also, there is the growing hope that the CIA’s funded Iran’s Green Movement will overthrow, a la the Ukrainian Orange Revolution and replace the Muslim fundamentalist  regime, or at the very least find the means to modify and secularize the regime’s ideological extremism. It is also possible that disrupting operations  now being implemented by the intelligence agencies of Israel, the United States, Great Britain, and other Western powers—programs designed to subvert the Iranian nuclear effort through physical sabotage and, upon occasion, the carefully engineered disappearances of nuclear scientists—will have derailed Iran’s progress towards achieving the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.

 It is now planned in Tel Aviv that senior Israeli officials, representing both their political and military establishments, will come to Washington for conferences both with their American counterparts and, eventually, with President Obama. These conversations, which have been carefully planned and scripted, will have the Israelis advising their American counterparts that they are planning an attack, nuclear or non-nuclear as the situation develops, on Iran because a nuclear Iran poses the ‘gravest threat since Hitler’ to the physical survival of the Jewish people. The Israelis will also state that they believe that  by launching a preemptive strike at all possible Iranian sites suspected of participation in their nuclear program they have a reasonable chance of delaying the Iranian nuclear program for at least three to five years,. Further, talking-point secret Israeli memos state: Israel will inform their American counterparts that Israel has no other choice than to launch this attack. They will not ask for permission for this attack, because it will soon be too late to ask for permission.

 Insofar as President Obama is concerned, the Israelis are considering the most important point of these interviews would be to discover as to what would be the circumstances under which President Obama would move to halt the Iranian projects. The primary point, then,  is to convince the Americans that only military force, i.e., heavy bombing raids, would be able to “totally obliterate Iran’s attempts to get a nuclear weapon and, further, to prevent them from rebuilding their infrastructure in the foreseeable future.” From the Israeli  point of view, all of their future actions, which also include the use of their own nuclear weapons on Tehran depends entirely upon the answers, primarily of the President but also of the American military leadership..

 Also, in the possible event that the American President were to agree fully with Israeli wishes, i.e., to use American aircraft to obliterate the perceived Iranian threat by bombing specific, and even general, Iranian targets, could an Israeli-sponsored domestic American propaganda campaign to encourage sections of the American public, outside of the fully-cooperative Jewish community, to support such an American attack.

 At the present time, it is well-established that Israeli agents, Mossad and others, have inserted themselves into all the instruments of power and propaganda in the United States where they have sent any pertinent information to Israel and kept up a steady offensive against the minds, and wills, of the American people. Also, many of the more prominent American newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post are entirely Jewish-owned, the former is stated to be the most receptive to the needs of both Washington and Tel Aviv.

 Israel is fully prepared to take a chance on permanently alienating American affection in order to make a high-risk attempt at stopping Iran. If Iran retaliates against American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, the consequences for Israel’s relationship with America’s military leadership could be catastrophic.

  It has been seriously discussed in Tel Aviv and in the Israeli Embassy in Washington, that probably the best way to compel the American public and through them, the President, to unilateral action,would not be to launch an attack on Tehran  but instead, attack America through a false-flag operation. This would consist of a believable attack, or attempted attack, on a major American target a la the 9/11 Saudi-supported attacks.

 The most current plan would be for a known militant Arab anti-Israel group, Hezbollah, to actually deliver an atomic device to the city of New York, or, alternatively, to Washington.

 The American Central Intelligence Agency, now seeking to reshape its negative image, would report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation the exact details of the arrival and placement of the bomb.

 The actual bomb would be genuine but would have a part that was malfunctioning, thus rendering the weapon impossible to detonate. The Arabs involved in this delivery would have in their number, a Yemeni Jew, such as the ones that instigated the 9/11 Saudi attacks, and this sleeper would carry numerous forged documents “proving” that Tehran was directly behind this planned attack.

 Revelation of these documents by the fully-supportive New York Times and Washington Post would immediately swing a significant bulk of the American public behind an immediate attack on Tehran with the purpose of neutralizing its atomic weapons capacity.

 This program is now on the table and undercover Israeli agents, posing as top-level Iranian operatives, have located a small group of Hizbollah in Lebanon who would be willing to deliver and prepare this device in New York or, as an alternative, Washington itself. Israeli intelligence feels that the use of Hizbollah personnel would entirely justify their obliterating Hizbollah-controlled territory in southern Lebanon that now house many thousands of long-range surface to surface missiles that could easily reach Tel Aviv and other vital Israeli targets.

 This action, which has already been planned in detail, would be conducted by Israel alone and would compliment the projected American attack on Tehran. Israel stresses the fact that both attacks must be simultaneous lest a forewarned  Hezbollah launch rocket attacks on Israel upon hearing of the American attack. Timing here is considered to be absolutely vital.  

 Both Israel and Hezbollah have accused UNIFIL of bias. Israel again accused them of failing to prevent, and even collaborating with, Hezbollah in its replenishment of military power. Hezbollah, in turn, said “certain contingents” of UNIFIL are spying for, if not assisting, Israel.

 Israel has long been a serious planning for a future invasion of Lebanon and such an assault would continue attacking until both Hezbollah’s membership and their system of tunnels and bunkers was completely destroyed, because Israel will never tolerate a “zone of invulnerability” occupied by a sworn enemy, or a double threat posed by Hezbollah’s rockets.

 In the event that Israeli military aircraft attack Tehran, there is the vital necessity that these Israeli military aircraft would be under great pressure to return to base at once because Israeli intelligence believes that Iran would immediately order Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israeli cities, and Israeli air-force resources would be needed to hunt Hezbollah rocket teams.

 Israel’s Northern Command, at his headquarters near the Lebanese border, is ordered that in the event of a unilateral Israeli or American strike on Iran, their mission would be to attack and completely destroy any and all identified Hezbollah rocket forces, by any and all means necessary, to include small nuclear devices that could destroy a number of square miles of what is called ‘terrorist territory’ and render it useless as any future base of attack against Israel. At the present time the Iranians are keeping their  Hezbollah firm ally  in reserve until Iran can cross the nuclear threshold.

 During  the four years since the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon Hezbollah has greatly increased its surface-to-surface missile capability, and an American/Israeli strike on Iran, would immediately provoke all-out retaliation by Iran’s Lebanese subsidiary, Hezbollah, which now possesses, by most Israeli/American intelligence estimates, as many as 45,000 surface-to-surface rockets—at least three times as many as it had in the summer of 2006, during the last round of fighting between the group and Israel. It is further known that  Russia has sent large numbers of longer range surface-to-surface missiles to Syria which has, in turn, shipped them to Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon. These missiles have the capacity to easily reach Tel Aviv and Israelis are very concerned that a massive rocket barrage deep into Israel could not only do serious damage to their infrastructure but could easily provoke a mass immigration of Israelis to other areas, thus depriving Israel of both civilian and military personnel it would certainly need in the event of increased Arab military actions against Israel.

 Even if Israel’s Northern Command successfully combated Hezbollah rocket attacks in the wake of an Israeli strike, which American experts have deemed to be “nearly impossible” political limitations would not allow Israel to make repeated sorties over Iran. “America, too, would look complicit in an Israeli attack, even if it had not been forewarned. The assumption—that Israel acts only with the full approval of the United States is a feature of life in the Middle East, and it is one the Israelis are taking into account. A serious danger here to Israeli attack plans would be if the United States got wind of the imminence of such an attack and demanded that Israel cease and desist in its actions. Would Israel then stop? Though highly unlikely, this is an unpleasant and unacceptable

 At this time, the Israelis have drawn up specific plans to bomb the uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, the enrichment site at Qom, the nuclear-research center at Esfahan, and the Bushehr reactor, along with four other main sites of the Iranian nuclear program that have been identified by joint past and present Israeli-American aerial surveillance. 

 If Israeli aircraft succeed in destroying Iran’s centrifuges and warhead and missile plants, all well and good but even if  they fail to damage or destroy these targets ,such an attack is feared by American and other nations as risking a devastating change in the Middle East. Such an attack could initiate immediate reprisals such as a massed rocket attack by Hezbollah from southern Lebanon as well as other actions from neighboring Muslim states. 

 This could become a major diplomatic crisis for Barack Obama that will dwarf Afghanistan in significance and complexity; of rupturing relations between Jerusalem and Washington, which is Israel’s only meaningful ally; of inadvertently solidifying the somewhat tenuous rule of the mullahs in Tehran; of causing the international price of oil to spike to cataclysmic highs, launching the world economy into a period of turbulence not experienced since the autumn of 2008, or possibly since the oil shock of 1973; of seriously endangering Jewish groups around the world, and especially in the United States by making them the targets of Muslim-originated terror attacks and most certainly accelerating the growing immigration of many Israelis to what they felt might be much safer areas.

 An Israeli political and military consensus has now emerged that there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by December of 2010. (Of course, it is in the Israeli interest to let it be known that the country is considering military action, if for no other reason than to concentrate the attention of the Obama administration. The Netanyahu government is already intensifying its analytic efforts not just on Iran, but on a subject many Israelis have difficulty understanding: President Obama.

 The Israelis argue that Iran demands the urgent attention of the entire international community, and in particular the United States, with its unparalleled ability to project military force. This is the position of many moderate Arab leaders as well. if America allowed Iran to cross the nuclear threshold, the small Arab countries of the Gulf would have no choice but to leave the American orbit and ally themselves with Iran, out of self-protection. Several Arab leaders have suggested that America’s standing in the Middle East depends on its willingness to confront Iran. They argue, self-interestedly, that an aerial attack on a handful of Iranian facilities would not be as complicated or as messy as, say, invading Iraq. The basic question then is,why the Jewish state should trust the non-Jewish president of the United States to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.

 For more than a year, these White House officials have parried the charge that their president is unwilling to face the potential consequences of a nuclear Iran, and they are frustrated by what they believe to be a caricature of his position. It is undeniably true, however, that the administration has appeared on occasion less than stalwart on the issue.

 The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, himself a Hungarian Jew,has criticized Obama as a purveyor of baseless hope. At the UN Security Council last September, Sarkozy said, “I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good have proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he said, referring to Israel.

 Obama administration officials, particularly in the Pentagon, have several times signaled unhappiness at the possibility of military preemption. In April, the undersecretary of defense for policy, Michele Flournoy, told reporters that military force against Iran was “off the table in the near term.” She later backtracked, but Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has also criticized the idea of attacking Iran. “Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome,” he said in April. “In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”

  One question no administration official seems eager to answer is this: what will the United States do if sanctions fail?

 In Israel, of course, officials expend enormous amounts of energy to understand President Obama, despite the assurances they have received from Emanuel, Ross, and others. Delegations from Netanyahu’s bureau, from the defense and foreign ministries, and from the Israeli intelligence community have been arriving in Washington lately with great regularity. As an alternative to cooperation by Obama, Israel, through her supporters and lobbyists in the United States are preparing to offer extensive financial and other incentives to political opponents of Obama, mostly the right-wing Republicans and American Christian groups and cults. Both of these groups are being cultivated currently with the idea that if Obama will not cooperate, the Republicans will in the future as they always have before. Also to consider is the current antipathy of American Jews for Netanyahu’s Likud Party, and these American Jews, who are, like the president they voted for in overwhelming numbers, generally supportive of a two-state solution, and dubious about Jewish settlement of the West Bank.

 Both Israeli and American intelligence agencies are of the firm belief that Iran is, at most, one to three years away from having a breakout nuclear capability, which is the capacity to assemble more than one missile-ready nuclear device.. The Iranian regime, by its own statements and actions, has made itself Israel’s most zealous foe; and the most crucial component of Israeli national-security doctrine, a tenet that dates back to the 1960s, when Israel developed its own nuclear capability as a response to the Jewish experience during the Holocaust, is that no regional adversary should be allowed to achieve nuclear parity with the reborn and still-besieged Jewish state. the Iranian desire for nuclear weapons and the regime’s theologically motivated desire to see the Jewish state purged from the Middle East

  Patriotism in Israel runs very high, according to numerous polls, and it seemed unlikely to me that mere fear of Iran could drive Israel’s Jews to seek shelter elsewhere. But one leading proponent of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, If Iran crossed the nuclear threshold, the very idea of Israel as a Zionist entity would be endangered. “These people are good citizens, and brave citizens, but the dynamics of life are such that if someone has a scholarship for two years at an American university and the university offers him a third year, the parents will say, ‘Go ahead, remain there,’ If someone finishes a Ph.D. and they are offered a job in America, they might stay there. It will not be that people are running to the airport, but slowly, slowly, the decision-making on the family level will be in favor of staying abroad. The bottom line is that we would have an accelerated brain drain. And an Israel that is not based on entrepreneurship, that is not based on excellence, will not be the Israel of today.”

 Most critically if a Zionist Israel is no longer seen by its 6 million Jewish inhabitants and also by the approximately 7 millions of Jews resident outside of Israel that because of continuing threats from outside the country as no longer a natural safe haven for Jews then the entire concept of a Zionist haven/state is destroyed

 To understand why Israelis of different political dispositions see Iran as quite possibly the most crucial challenge they have faced in their 62-year history, one must keep in mind the near-sanctity, in the public’s mind, of Israel’s nuclear monopoly. The Israeli national narrative, in shorthand, begins with shoah, which is Hebrew for “calamity,” and ends with tkumah, “rebirth.” Israel’s nuclear arsenal symbolizes national rebirth, and something else as well: that Jews emerged from World War II having learned at least one lesson, about the price of powerlessness.

 If Israel is unable to change Obama’s mind, they will continue to threaten to take unilateral action against Iran by sending approximately one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—by crossing Saudi Arabia, and along the border between Syria and Turkey, and, without consulting the Americans or in any way announcing their missions  by traveling directly through Iraq’s airspace, though it is crowded with American aircraft. (It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)

The first belief by Israeli military planners is that Israel would get only one try. Israeli planes would fly low over Saudi Arabia, bomb their targets in Iran, and return to Israel by flying again over Saudi territory, possibly even landing in the Saudi desert for refueling—perhaps, if speculation rife in intelligence circles is to be believed, with secret Saudi cooperation.

 Israel has been working through the United States to procure Saudi cooperation with an Israeli air strike against Tehran and other targets inside Iran.. The Saudis are treating this subject with great caution lest other Arab states learn of their putative cooperation in an Iranian attack with over flights of Saudi territory by Israeli military aircraft.

 The current American/Israeli military plans are for the Saudis to turn off their radar after they have been noticed by the American embassy that an Israeli attack is imminent and also to permit the Israeli aircraft to land in their country for refueling The Israelis are not concerned with any kind of Iranian aircraft resistance because their airfields have been pinpointed by American satellites and one of the attacking groups would use low-yield atomic rocketry on all the identified Iranian bases. It is obvious that when, not if, the Saudis part in this becomes public, it will create immense ill-will in neighboring Muslim states, an impression the Saudi government is most anxious not to deal with.  

 Israel has twice before successfully attacked and destroyed an enemy’s nuclear program. In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak, halting—forever, as it turned out—Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions; and in 2007, Israeli planes destroyed a North Korean–built reactor in Syria. An attack on Iran, then, would be unprecedented only in scope and complexity.

 The reasoning offered by Israeli decision makers was uncomplicated: At the present moment, Israel possesses 135 nuclear weapons, most of them  mainly two-stage thermonuclear devices, capable of being delivered by missile, fighter-bomber, or submarine (two of which are currently positioned in the Persian Gulf). Netanyahu is worried about an entire complex of problems, not only that Iran, or one of its proxies, would, in all probability, destroy or severely damage Tel Aviv; like most Israeli leaders, he believes that if Iran gains possession of a nuclear weapon, it will use its new leverage to buttress its terrorist proxies in their attempts to make life difficult and dangerous; and that Israel’s status as a haven for Jews would be forever undermined, and with it, the entire raison d’être of the 100-year-old Zionist experiment.

 Another question Israeli planners struggle with: how will they know if their attacks have actually destroyed a significant number of centrifuges and other hard-to-replace parts of the clandestine Iranian program? Two strategists told me that Israel will have to dispatch commandos to finish the job, if necessary, and bring back proof of the destruction. The commandos—who, according to intelligence sources, may be launched from the autonomous Kurdish territory in northern Iraq—would be facing a treacherous challenge, but one military planner I spoke with said the army would have no choice but to send them.

 Netanyahu’s obvious course is to convince the United States  that Iran is not Israel’s problem alone; it is the world’s problem, and the world, led by the United States, is obligated to grapple with it, not Israel alone. It is well-known that Israel by itself could not hope to deal with a retaliation against it by Iran and other Arab states but that a confederation of other nations, led, of course, by the United States could defend Israel against her enemies. The Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, does not place and credence in the current sanctions against Iran, even the ones initiated by the United States at Israel’s urgent request. Is it known that Netanayahu is not happy with President Obama’s reluctance to support an Israeli attack on Iran and has brought a great deal of political pressure to bear on the President by American Jewish political and business groups.    

Recently, the chief of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, paid a secret visit to Chicago to meet with Lester Crown, the billionaire whose family owns a significant portion of General Dynamics, the military contractor. Crown is one of Israel’s most prominent backers in the American Jewish community, and was one of Barack Obama’s earliest and most steadfast supporters. According to the highest level intelligence sources both in America and Israel, General Yadlin asked Crown to communicate Israel’s existential worries directly to President Obama. 

 Those close to him say that Netanyahu understands, however, that President Obama, with whom he has had a difficult and intermittently frigid relationship, believes that stringent sanctions, combined with various enticements to engage with the West, might still provide Iran with a face-saving method of standing down. 

 Israel’s current period of forbearance, in which Israel’s leadership waits to see if the West’s nonmilitary methods can stop Iran, will come to an end this December. Robert Gates, the American defense secretary, said in June at a meeting of NATO defense ministers that most intelligence estimates predict that Iran is one to three years away from building a nuclear weapon.

             “ One of the consistent aims of Israel is to pressure President Obama, who has said on a number of occasions that he finds the prospect of a nuclear Iran “unacceptable,” into executing a military strike against Iran’s known main weapons and uranium-enrichment facilities.

Barack Obama is steadfastly opposed to initiating new wars in the Middle East and an attack by U.S. forces on Iran is not a foreign-policy goal for him or his administration. The Israeli goal is to compel him by public, and private, pressure to order the American military into action against Iran

 Barack Obama has said any number of times that he would find a nuclear Iran “unacceptable.” His most stalwart comments on the subject have been discounted by some Israeli officials because they were made during his campaign for the presidency, while visiting Sderot, the town in southern Israel that had been the frequent target of rocket attacks by Hamas. “The world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said. “I will take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat. And understand part of my reasoning here. A nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation, not just in the Middle East, but around the world. Whatever remains of our nuclear nonproliferation framework, I think, would begin to disintegrate. You would have countries in the Middle East who would see the potential need to also obtain nuclear weapons.”

 But the Israelis are doubtful that a man who positioned himself as the antithesis of George W. Bush, author of invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, would launch a preemptive attack on a Muslim nation.

 If the Israelis reach the firm conclusion that Obama will not, under any circumstances, launch a strike on Iran, then the countdown will begin for a unilateral Israeli attack.

Nathan C. Shea

Address –  Lockwood Rd Henrico, VA  Zip – 20190 

dob- September 5, 1976 (35 years old)

Visa – 4916 5207 0220 XXXX

UPS tracking number -1Z 8Y3 327 95 5468 353 9

Email ID: nathacsh@cia.gov  Password – Nee1zu3Ai91d4  

Daniel Vida

Address – Pretty Lake Ave, Norfolk, VA

dob – January 10, 1974 (38 years old)

Visa – 4716 5639 4375 XXXX

CVV2 – 027

UPS tracking number – 1Z 199 062 00 5717 481 2 

Email ID: dan.vida3@cia.gov  

Password – tiXue2vooL4fdwq  

Kevin Morehead

Address – Ox Rd, Woodstock, VA Zip – 20194

dob- October 27, 1975 (36 years old)  

Visa – 5207 9306 2697 XXXX

CVC2 – 370

UPS tracking number – 1Z 831 725 07 7755 563 5

EMail ID : morehead.kev@cia.gov

Password – MeijaaG8eimm6  

Ronnie B. Allen

Address – Richmond VA Zip – 20191

dob – April 5, 1973 (39 years old)

MasterCard – 5208 6923 4319 XXXx

CVC2 – 947

UPS tracking number – 1Z 581 796 27 1185 535 6

Email ID – RonnieBAllen@cia.gov  

Password – eiqu7kae1Rt  

Darrell A. Dunleavy

Address – Montpelier Ct.,Woodbridge, VA Zip – 20194

dob- November 20, 1973 (38 years old)

MasterCard – 5480 7450 0976 XXXX

CVC2 – 820

UPS tracking number – 1Z 054 879 87 9434 053 8

Email ID : darrelladunl41@cia.gov  eeee

Password – Uth2a675hheG  

Regicide: The Official Assassination of JFK

by Gregory Douglas


…And Everybody Else

According to a document found in R. T. Crowley’s papers, the officially organized assassination of John F. Kennedy by the CIA had the code name: “Operation ZIPPER.” This document, which is entitled “OPERATION ZIPPER Conference Record,” is reproduced in the appendix of this book, with this author’s subsequent explanation of the abbreviations used in it.[1] In the following, the events unfolding between March and November 1963 are reconstructed using both this document and R. T. Crowley’s comments to this author.

Early in March of 1963, the matter of the actual assassin became a pressing issue. Because of Crowley’s connections with the mob in Chicago (his father had been an important Chicago politician, parks commissioner, in the Kelly-Nash machine), he received the task of personally contacting members of the Chicago Mafia for advice and possible assistance.[2]

Chicago mob leader Sam Giancana, who had assisted in locating persons to carry out the CIA’s murder plots against Fidel Castro, loathed the Kennedy brothers but was far too shrewd to lend any of his identifiable men to cooperate in such a project. In two conferences in the Drake Hotel with Crowley, Giancana agreed to locate assassins who could be expected to perform in a professional manner. It was suggested that perhaps this recruitment might be better done outside of the United States. Rather than involve the Sicilian Mafia,[3] Giancana had one of his connections in that entity contact someone in the Corsican Mafia, the so-called Unione Corse, and it was from the ranks of this Marseille-based, well-knit, and very professional criminal organization that the assassins were found.[4]

The plotter’s reasoning was that if the killers were somehow caught before the CIA could kill them first, they could only identify the Chicago Mafia as their employers, and the Mafia would never identify the CIA as the real moving force. If this question arose, the Mafia could much more easily be silenced than foreign killers could.

Before the Corsicans were finally brought on board, a co-worker suggested shopping in Beirut, Lebanon, then a center of assassination professionals. The argument against this was that Corsicans would have no problems blending in the background in race conscious Dallas. Darker complexioned Lebanese or Arab professionals would certainly attract unwelcome notice in the provincial southern city.

Cuban militants had been ruled out in the beginning as too volatile and inclined to emotional excesses.

It would be Marseilles, then, instead of Beirut, that would supply the killers.[5]

Early March 1963, the Director of Central Intelligence, John McCone, began a series of delicate contacts outside his immediate circle.

The first government agency contacted was the FBI. The first conferences with its director John Edgar Hoover and Deputy Director William Sullivan were held on March 4th. According to the ZIPPER Document, the head of the FBI was permanently kept informed about the CIA’s actions by his top aide William Sullivan. Since Sullivan is described in the ZIPPER Document as a “participant” in the entire plot, it must be assumed that the FBI as a government department was collaborating with the CIA to achieve the projected goal.[6]

 On March 13 and 15, the next delicate contacts were made to Walter Jenkins and Abe Fortas, top aides of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson. According to the ZIPPER Document, Jenkins and Fortas, and with them of course the Vice President, were also kept informed about the rising plot.[7]

Not a bold man, Johnson’s concerns were entirely typical for him. He had forced himself on the 1960 Democratic ticket against Kennedy’s wishes, and throughout the thousand days of the Kennedy presidency, Johnson was treated with contempt by Kennedy’s people. Their favorite epithet was “Uncle Cornpone,” and it became common knowledge that Kennedy was planning to replace Johnson on the 1964 ticket. To accomplish this, Bobby Kennedy was preparing criminal charges against Bobby Baker, one of Johnson’s top aides.[8]

Johnson was aware that such charges would give the Kennedy faction the ability to force him off the ticket. Since Vice Presidents traditionally have run for the Presidency at the expiration of the mandatory two-term limit, any hope of gaining the White House would have been dashed. Johnson, therefore, became a willing if very timid participant in the ZIPPER project.

The two most important groups, the FBI and the future President of the United States, were hence quickly convinced to support the CIA:

“11. As both the Vice President and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been slated for replacement by the Kennedy faction, their support for this project was practically guaranteed from the outset.

                12. The Vice President came to believe that an attempt would be made on his life at the same time and was greatly concerned for his own safety.[[9]]

13. As the Vice President and the Director of the FBI were longtime neighbors and very friendly, the Director has repeatedly assured the [Vice] President that he was not considered a target and that no shots were fired at him in Dallas.” [LBJ was riding two cars behind JKF.][10]


There was, of course, another power to be taken into consideration, which could successfully prevent or reverse the attempted coup d’état: the Armed Forces of the United States of America. To integrate the U.S. Army into their putsch, the Director of the CIA conferred on March 28 with James Jesus Angelton to coordinate the objectives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Army with the CIA’s objectives within Operation ZIPPER.

The fourth cautious contact was made on 9 April by James Jesus Angleton: Lt. Colonel Bevin Cass, United States Marine Corps, was U.S. Military Attaché to the Dominican Republic and had been involved with the logistics of the Trujillo assassination.[11] Cass was later Commanding Officer of the Marine Corps infantry training center at Quantico, Virginia.

 Cass obviously served as a liaison officer between the Joint Chief of Staffs and the CIA, as an entry on 14 April 1963 indicates, according to which Cass was recommended by the Chairman of the JCS, General Lyman Lemnitzer. The fact that LtCol. Cass, as a “participant,” received a copy of the ZIPPER Document, that the Chairman of the JCS was either directly or via

LtCol. Cass in frequent contact with the CIA regarding Kennedy’s assassination,[12] and finally because the JCS is expressly mentioned as a “government department directly concerned” in the ZIPPER document that had specific knowledge about the assassination, it must be concluded that the U.S. Armed Forces are the fourth big cornerstone of the assassination of John F. Kennedy and, hence, the overthrow of the democratically elected government of the people of the United States of America.[13]

In the middle of April, Chicago Mafia boss Sam Giancana advised Crowley that or the job was one hundred thousand dollars per man and there were four involved.

The immediate overseer of the execution of the plot was William King Harvey, former FBI agent and head of the Berlin operations base of the CIA.[14]

Harvey was responsible for the construction of the famous Berlin tunnel. Soviet intelligence was fully aware of this interdiction of their secure telephone lines in the Soviet sector of Berlin, and Harvey proudly garnered crates full of creative Soviet disinformation.

In addition to this, Angleton contacted Israeli intelligence for assistance.[15] The man he contacted was Amos Manor, then head of Israeli counterintelligence, the Shin Beth, and an old friend of Angleton.[16] Angleton had worked closely with Zionist organizations in Italy during and after World War II and in 1951 had been appointed to be the CIA’s top liaison with both the Shin Beth and the Mossad. Through Angleton’s good offices, the CIA developed a close working relationship with both Israeli agencies, and in order to facilitate his plot against Kennedy, Angleton sought an Israeli agent who would oversee the entire operation.

In actuality, the Israeli’s sole reason for existence, as far as Angleton was concerned, was to make entirely certain that the Corsican assassins were removed as soon as possible after their work was done.

The man sent to him was known as Binjamin Bauman and he came well recommended.[17] He had been one of the Stern Gang members, a terrorist group controlled by Menachim Begin, later Israeli Prime Minister, who had assisted in blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 with heavy loss of life. Begin was still wanted for murder in England, but Bauman had merely changed his name and went to work for the new state in an official capacity. This is a classical example of a terrorist becoming a freedom fighter.

 John F. Kennedy was decidedly unpopular in Israel because of his firm determination to prevent that state from developing atomic weaponry.[18]

A safe house was to be set up in Maryland and there the Corsicans were to be killed, their bodies dissected and put into crab pots. The science of DNA had not yet been discovered, and what the famous soft-shelled crabs could not eat was to be dumped back into the water. Bones do not float.

In September of 1963, the visit by Kennedy to Dallas in November was announced and the Angleton assassination plan now had a specific time frame and geographical location with which to work.

The Corsicans would be flown to Canada at the end of October, met by members of the Mafia, and driven into the United States over the Windsor, Ontario, International Bridge. They would remain in a Mafia safe house in the Detroit area and then be flown in a private aircraft to the Dallas-Ft. Worth area:


52. French intelligence sources have indicated that a recruitment was made among members of the Corsican Mafia in Marseilles in mid-1963.

53. French intelligence sources have also indicated that they informed U.S. authorities in the American Embassy on two occasions about the recruitment of French underworld operatives for a political assassination in the United States.

54. It is not known if these reports were accepted at the Embassy or passed to Washington.

55. In the event, the Corsicans were sent to Canada where they blended in more easily with the French-speaking Quebec population. DIA analysis

 The Corsicans were under no circumstances to be told of the role of the CIA in their project. They always considered that they were working solely for the American Mafia and no one else.

Weapons for the assassination were procured from Sam Cummings, CIA agent and head of INTERARMCO, a “proprietary” branch of the Agency.[19] This company, run by a British expert living in Warrentown, Virginia,[20] specialized in gun running for the CIA. It was an easy matter for Cummings to procure two silenced .38-caliber pistols, two 7.65-mm surplus Argentine army Mausers, and a specially constructed .223-caliber rifle, which was cut down and modified from a standard NATO weapon. Special bullets for the latter weapon, filled with mercury and designed to explode when entering a body, were manufactured and accompanied the weapon.

A check of CIA records located the names of several persons of interest to the Agency in the Dallas area. One was Lee Harvey Oswald, the returned defector, and the other was a man with whom the CIA had extensive and documented dealings. This was the Baltic aristocrat George De Mohrenschildt. Born into the lesser Russian nobility, De Mohrenschildt had served in a Polish cavalry unit, the Promorski Brigade. After the Russian revolution, he immigrated to the United States and acquired a degree in petroleum geology. He traveled in establishment social circles, spent a good deal of time out of the country, and certainly worked for the CIA. He had encountered Oswald quite by accident through his connection with the Russian community in Dallas and became his mentor and, according to a later CIA classified report, his lover.

When De Mohrenschildt passed on the information that Oswald had been hired at the Texas School Book Depository on October 16, it was later realized that this building immediately overlooked the route that Kennedy would take on his November 22 visit to Dallas. Oswald was now viewed as the perfect foil:

14. Oswald also was intimately connected with de Mohrenschildt who was certainly known to be a CIA operative. Oswald’s connections with this man were such as to guarantee that the CIA was aware of Oswald’s movements throughout his residence in the Dallas area.

15. When Oswald secured employment at the Texas Book Depository, de Mohrenschildt, according to an FBI report, reported this to the CIA. DIA analysis


77. The pseudo-defector, Oswald, became then important to the furtherance of the plan to kill the American president. He had strong connections with the Soviet Union; he had married a Soviet citizen; he had been noticed in public advocating support of Fidel Castro. His position in a tall building overlooking the parade route was a stroke of great good fortune to the plotters. Russian Intelligence study

             In the first week of November, the assassination team had been flown to Dallas and spent two weeks in reconnaissance of the entire presidential route. It had initially been felt by the Corsican team leader that the shooting could be done as the cavalcade turned from Houston to Elm Streets. The presidential car would be moving very slowly as it negotiated the right angle turn and would present an excellent target. A shooting blind could be constructed on the top of the Dallas County Records Building on Houston Street that had an excellent line of sight to the Elm Street corner, but flanking buildings were higher and could provide an undesired observer a clear view of the shooters.

It was finally decided to use the Book Depository as one base. The railroad overpass was considered another excellent position but eventually ruled out because it was sure to be guarded. To its right, however, the heavy bushes and fences of the elevated “grassy knoll” proved to be irresistible. The official car with the President would be moving slowly past the spot and would permit a slightly downhill shot at very close range. Also, the extensive railroad yards behind this position gave ample room for an unobserved escape.

The final disposition of the assassination team was:

–            A shooter in the Texas Book Depository, sixth floor;

–            A shooter in the ornamental bushes just before the underpass;

–            Two English-speaking personnel in suits and equipped with false law enforcement identification in the railroad yard behind the second shooter.

 It was later reported that if anyone tried to investigate or interfere with the escape of the shooter, the two faux law enforcement agents would be able to display their identification and deflect pursuit.

Through his friendship with Oswald, De Mohrenschildt was aware that Oswald had bought a rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods through the mail in March of that year. Both Oswald and his wife had mentioned this rifle to De Mohrenschildt and he also learned where the weapon was kept.

16. The existence and location of Oswald’s mail order Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the garage of his wife’s friend, Ruth Paine, was also known to de Mohrenschildt at least one week prior to the assassination.

DIA  analysis

Oswald was a bad shot with a rifle, the Warren Commission Report to the contrary, and had never even test shot this surplus Mannlicher-Carcano Italian army weapon.[21] Stories about him going to Dallas rifle ranges with others and firing the Carcano were total fabrications as was an accepted tale of him driving a car. Oswald had never shot the purported murder weapon, possessed no driver’s license, and did not know how to drive any kind of a car.[22]

 On September 26, Oswald went to Mexico City by bus. He returned to Dallas on October 3. During this period, the official story is that Oswald went to the Soviet and Cuban embassies and made very vocal attempts to secure visas for trips to Russia via Cuba.[23] He was told, the official version explains, that a visa to go to Soviet Russia would take four months to process and the Cubans would not grant a visa for Cuba without a Soviet visa.

After the assassination, the CIA sent out a number of reports to various American agencies containing their version of the Oswald visit to include physical descriptions and photographs. All of this material was totally incorrect, and the person depicted was very obviously not Lee Harvey Oswald. What Oswald did while in Mexico is not known, but a CIA report of his dramatic visits to the two embassies is a deliberate falsehood:

78. Oswald was then reported by the CIA to have gone to Mexico City on 26 September, 1963 and while there, drew considerable attention to his presence in both the Soviet and Cuban embassies. What Oswald might have done in the Cuban embassy is not known for certain but there is no record of his ever having visited the Soviet embassy in Mexico at that time. CIA physical descriptions as well as photographs show that Oswald was not the man depicted. This appears strongly to be a poor attempt on the part of the CIA to embroil both the Soviet Union and Cuba in their affairs. Russian Intelligence study

 79.Reports from the CIA concerning Oswald’s September/October visit to Mexico City are totally unreliable and were rejected by the FBI as being ‘in serious error.’ The reasons for Oswald’s visit to Mexico are completely obscure at this writing but the  individual allegedly photographed by CIA surveillance in Mexico is to a certainty not Lee Oswald. As the CIA had pictures of the real Oswald, their reasons for producing such an obvious falsity are not easy to ascertain at this remove.

DIA analysis

The famous Mexican trip was a typical official red herring deliberately dragged across the investigative trail. In point of fact, it matters not what Oswald did while in Mexico because this trip had no possible bearing on the allegations of assassination heaped onto a dead Oswald.

 The patently obvious disinformation put out by the CIA about Oswald’s visit either indicates a frantic desire to be current with intelligence matters or, in a more sinister interpretation, a crude attempt to somehow link the assassination to the Soviet Union and Cuba via the predetermined assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Had this course been followed during the sittings of the Warren Commission, it might well have forced the timid new President to make accusations against both Russia and Cuba that could quite conceivably lead to armed conflict. Since this is the one thing that Johnson frantically wished to avoid, the Mexico City visitation was relegated to the oblivion of the Warren Commission Report without official attention, but certainly deserving of the subsequent sarcasm from a legion of anti-establishment historians.

–            Kennedy was shot on Friday, November 22, 1963.

–            Oswald was shot on Sunday, November 24, 1963.

–            Chicago Mafia leader, Sam Giancana, was shot to death in the basement of his home in June of 1975, prior to when he was supposed to appear before a Congressional committee.

–Oswald’s CIA connection in Dallas, George De Mohrenschildt, is alleged to have shot himself just prior to his scheduled appearance before a Congressional committee in March of 1977.

 Arranging a murder is relatively simple, but arranging a suicide is much more difficult.

 The Warren Commission was instituted shortly after the Dallas murders, evidence was gathered and presented to the Commission and a final report was duly released. Predictably, it named Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole assassin and, further, carefully played down the strong connections his killer, Jack Rubenstein, had with the Chicago mob.

Historians have discussed the number of witnesses who died in the following months and years. The number tends to raise suspicions of foul play but, so far, no hard evidence of a concerted effort to silence witnesses has been produced. Considering the vast extent of the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy and overthrow his administration, the conclusions are more than obvious.

The Warren Report included a number of issues intended to bolster their case against Oswald. One was the attempt to shoot General Edwin Walker, a retired right wing professional Army officer resident in Dallas, on April 12, 1963. That Oswald had nothing to do with this incident is obvious from examining the published evidence and investigative reports. The General was shot at by a .30-06 rifle. Eyewitnesses all agreed that two dark complexioned men were seen driving away from the scene. Oswald did not own such a gun, was not dark complexioned, and did not drive. The Walker story was supplied by Oswald’s terrified widow who desperately was attempting to avoid being sent back to Russia. She spoke no English and, in general, did what she was told.[24] Her story of the Walker incident has no value whatsoever and could never have been used in a court of law.

Of the four Corsicans, three vanished from the face of the earth after being escorted to a private plane at a Dallas area airfield about 2:30 on the afternoon of November 22. They were accompanied by Mr. Bauman and were informed they would be flown first to New Orleans, where the pilot, David Ferrie, was based, and thence to a safe house in Maryland. From the moment they climbed into the two-engined aircraft, they were never seen again.

One of the assassins, the man who fired at Kennedy from nearly point blank range and blew out the presidential brains, decided to work his way back to Marseilles on his own. For some unknown reason, he took a commercial bus to Mexico and from there he ended up in Barcelona, Spain. All that is known of him is the name he used on his passport: Guidobaldo Fini.

78….It is understood that the actual assassins were subsequently removed in a wet action but that one apparently escaped and has been the object of intense searches in France and Italy by elements of the CIA. Russian Intelligence study


80.The hit team was flown away in an aircraft piloted by a CIA contract pilot named David Ferrie from New Orleans. They subsequently vanished without a

trace. Rumors of the survival of one of the team are persistent but not proven 


DIA analysis


There was one other murder that bears directly on the Kennedy assassination. On October 12, 1964, shortly after noon, Mary Pinchot Meyer, 44, former wife of Cord Meyer, Jr., a senior CIA official, was found shot to death in a wooded area near her Georgetown studio. She had been shot once in the head and once in the upper body, a professional technique of assassination.

A dazed black day-laborer was found in the vicinity by police and, although not matching the description of an eyewitness, was arrested and put on trial for murder. The suspect, Ray Crump, had no coherent statement for the police at the time of his arrest, and an intensive search of the area failed to locate the handgun used in the killing. This, in spite of the fact that the suspect was apprehended in the immediate area of the killing.[25]

Period press reports indicate that a large number of CIA personnel were present immediately after the discovery of the body.[26]

Crump was acquitted at his subsequent trial.[27] The prosecution depicted him as a rapist, but he had no record of such offenses. He had been seen waiting on a Washington street corner for day labor prior to being found in a dazed condition on the towpath near Mary Meyer’s body.[28]

Her husband, Cord Meyer, Jr., was a close personal friend of James Angleton and a very bitter enemy of John Kennedy. Meyer’s intense hatred of Kennedy was due to the attentions that Kennedy had once paid to his ex-wife. In point of fact, Mary Pinchot Meyer had been Kennedy’s long-term mistress subsequent to her divorce from her husband. Mrs. Meyer had introduced LSD to the President during her many visits to the White House.[29]

Immediately after her murder, Crowley associate James Angleton was caught in her Georgetown studio going through her papers. He later removed her diary and kept it. Robert Crowley, who saw it, stated that it contained a significant number of references to her connection with Kennedy, the use of drugs at White House sex parties, and some very bitter comments about the role of her former husband’s agency in the death of her lover the year before.

Mary Meyer had made angry and indiscreet comments about her views on her suspicions of CIA involvement in the Kennedy killing to a number of her neighbors, a significant number of whom had husbands that were senior CIA officials.

This murder is still listed as unsolved, and the police records have disappeared. Shortly after her murder, her bitter former husband painted “Tough luck, Mary” on the Key Bridge near the site of her death.[30]

John Kennedy may have been a charismatic man but neither he nor his family could be considered either ethical or moral. The President and his brother, the Attorney General of the United States, repeatedly betrayed their wives, their criminal associates, their loyal Cuban supporters, and many others with alacrity when it suited them to do so.

According to the CIA, the FBI, the Vice President, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they also betrayed important intelligence secrets to the Soviet Union for political gain. Hence, John F. Kennedy had to die:

“6. This removal [of JFK] is the result of a consensus between the various concerned official agencies.”[31]

79 From this brief study, it may be seen that the American President was certainly killed by orders of high officials in the CIA, working in close conjunction with very high American military leaders. It was the CIA belief that Kennedy was not only circumventing their own mapped-out destruction of Fidel Castro by assassination and invasion but actively engaged in contacts with the Soviet Union to betray the CIA actions.

80. The American military leaders (known as the Joint Chiefs of Staff) were also determined upon the same goals, hence both of them worked together to ensure the removal of a President who acted against their best interests and to have him replaced with a weaker man whom they believed they could better control.

81. President Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, was very much under the control of the military and CIA during his term in office and permitted an enormous escalation in Southeast Asia. The destruction of the Communist movement in that area was of paramount importance to both groups.

Russian Intelligence study

1. The Soviet analysis of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy contains material gleaned from American sources both official and unofficial i.e., media coverage, etc. Some of this material obviously stems from sources located inside various agencies. To date, none of these have been identified. Russian Intelligence study

81. A study of the Soviet report indicates very clearly that the Russians have significant and very high level sources within both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Their possession of material relating to certain highly classified American military papers has been referred to the CIC for investigation and action.

[1]    The document actually covers the period from March to November 1963. According to personal information received from R. T. Crowley, the choice of ZIPPER was his. He said that since Kennedy could not keep his zipper shut, the CIA would do it for him. Originally, he wanted to call the plot “Operation JANUS” after the two-faced Roman god (a reference to Kennedy’s perceived duplicity) but decided that his co-workers were far too ill-educated to understand it.

[2]    See ZIPPER Document, 16, 19, 20 March, 4 April (3:35pm), 9 April (9:08am), 18 April (2:01pm, 2:25pm), 23 & 24 April, 2 May, 6 May (11:10am c.), 10 May, 19 June (1:45pm), 24 Oct. 1963.

[3]    The Sicilian Mafia appears to have been the first option, see ZIPPER Document, 4 April 63 (3:35pm)

[4]    See ZIPPER Document, 2 May (4:09pm), 10 May, 12 June (4:11pm), 16 July (1:45pm), 24 Oct., 14 Nov. 1963.

[5]    For information on the Unione Corse and its connection with drugs and the CIA, see also J. Nutter, op. cit. pp. 180f.

[6]    The FBI is listed as a “government department directly concerned”, see ZIPPER Document, no. 8.b. Though Hoover himself was only a few times directly involved with operation ZIPPER (4 & 15 March, as well as no. 12), it is obvious that Hoover’s assistantt Sullivan was a permanent part of the plot, since he is even listed as a recipient of the ZIPPER Document itself, and because his name is mentioned on many occasions: no. 12; 4, 7, 12 (8:30am) & 29 March (2:35pm), 30 April, 2 & 10 May.

[7]    See ZIPPER Document, 13, 14, 15, 18 March (9:30am) 25, 28 March (4:45, 4:55pm), 11 April (11:45am), 15 April (5:20pm), 30 April (9:31am), 6 May (11:10am a.), 31 May (1:35pm), 11, 12 June (5:30pm), 26 June (9:30am).

[8]    See ZIPPER Document, 18 March (9:30am), which apparently refers to the handover of copies of files compiled by the attorney General Robert F. Kennedy regarding Bobby Baker; see also the more explicit entry on 5 May, no. 8.

[9]    Compare this with Hoover’s Memorandum, , and R. T. Crowley’s Aide-Mémoire, see Appendix.

[10]   ZIPPER Document, no. 11-13.

[11]   This information was gratefully obtained from a source inside the U.S. intelligence community, which cannot be revealed here for legal and privacy reasons.

[12]   ZIPPER Document, 9 April (8:31am), 14 April, 24 April (3:09pm), 5 May, 6 May (11:10am), 25, 28 May (8:32am), 31 May (3:00pm), 12 June (12:30pm), 25, 26 June (11:30am), 31 July (9:40am),

[13]   As a less important conspirator, we should mention Allen Dulles, the former head of the CIA, see ZIPPER Document, 19, 31 July (9:40am). He, too, had no problem with the concept of the removal of the man who had removed him as head of the CIA. In the event of the President’s death, he fully expected to be called back to duty although he was not in particularly good health.

[14]   See ZIPPER document: participants/recipients, no. 7.; 14, 16 March (3:32pm), 29 March (6:60pm[sic!]), 14, 15 April (12:35pm), 10, 25 May, 24, 25 June, 5 July, 31 July (11:30 am): “transfer operation to WKH”, 9, 16, 23, 30 August, 6, 12, 20, 27 Sept., 18 Oct., 1, 14 Nov.

[15]   See ZIPPER document, 3 April.

[16]   An excellent overview of the CIA/Israeli intelligence cooperation can be found in P. Grose, op. cit.), pp. 422-424.

[17]   See ZIPPER document, 3, 4, 16 July (1:45pm), 17 July, .

[18]   See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. XVII, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994.

[19]   See ZIPPER document, no. 9.d.; 18 March (8:44am), 13, 15 April (12:35), 18 April (1:23pm), 6 May (11:10am d.), 14 May, 24 June, 17 July (9:45am). A full listing of CIA proprietary businesses were in the Crowley Papers but are not included in this work.

[20]   A number of important CIA agents and sources lived in Warrenton, including Heinrich Müller, former Gestapo Chief, see note and Crowley Papers.

[21]   Oswald’s Marine Corps Personnel Records indicate that he barely qualified as a rifle man.

[22]   See Warren Report, op. cit. for stories about the Oswald public appearances with the Carcano, e.g., on the license, p. 266.

[23]   Warren Report, op. cit. pp. 301ff.; G. Posner, op. cit. pp. 170-176, 211-212.


[25]   N. Burleigh, op. cit. pp. 234ff.

[26]   N. Burleigh, op. cit. makes references to mysterious “men in suits” at the murder scene and the fact that newsmen were kept at a distance during the investigation. Plates following p. 182 and comments in the text.

[27]   Ibid., pp. 273ff.

[28]   Ibid., pp. 209ff.; T. C. Reeves, op. cit. pp. 240f.

[29]   T. C. Reeves, ibid., N. Burleigh, op. cit. pp. 193 et seq.

[30]   R. T. Crowley, private communication to the author, and N. Burleigh, op. citp. 282.

[31]   ZIPPER Document, no. 6.

No responses yet

Leave a Reply