The Evil Rot at the Center of the Empire

Given President Biden’s decision to succumb to the CIA’s demand for continued secrecy of the CIA’s 60-year-old Kennedy assassination-related records, this would be a good time to remind ourselves of how President Kennedy felt about this type of secrecy:

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.

Kennedy’s attitude toward the evil of governmental secrecy was just another reason why the U.S. national-security establishment hated him so deeply and considered him a grave threat to national security, in addition to, of course, Kennedy’s determination to end the Cold War racket and establish friendly and peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the rest of the communist world. 

In his 1985 book People of the Lie, the noted psychiatrist M. Scott Peck noted that there definitely is evil in the world. 

The Central Intelligence Agency epitomizes the evil to which Peck was referring. That’s not to say, of course, that everyone who works for the CIA is evil. It’s to say that everyone who works for the CIA is either wittingly or unwittingly working for an evil institution, one that should never have been grafted onto America’s federal governmental system and that now forms the core of the rot that afflicts the American empire. 

The problem, of course, is that all too many Americans do not wish to confront, much less acknowledge, the existence of this evil. Succumbing to CIA propaganda and wishing to defer to the power of the national-security establishment, they have convinced themselves that the CIA is a force for good in the world and that it is necessary to their safety and well-being. 

Thus, such Americans have turned a blind eye to the evil actions in which the CIA has engaged practically since its inception in 1947.

How many times are we reminded of the evil of the Nazi regime that the U.S. defeated in World War II? Hardly a week goes by without someone bringing it up in the mainstream press.

Yet, here we have an an entity within the federal government that secretly hired Nazi officials after World War II ended. How can that possibly be reconciled with moral or religious principles? When an entity knowingly cavorts and partners with evil, doesn’t that say something about the evil nature of that entity?

Let’s not forget the drug experiments that the CIA conducted on unsuspecting Americans. I don’t know if the CIA’s secret Nazi employees assisted with those drug experiments, but I do know that the mindset that went into those experiments was the same type of mindset that motivated the Nazis to conduct medical experiments on people. 

That CIA partnership with Nazis isn’t the only partnership with evil that the CIA has engaged in. There is also its partnership with the Mafia, one of history’s most evil criminal organizations, one that engages in murder as one of its regular activities. Yet, all too many Americans ignore that CIA-Mafia partnership. They would rather just look the other way.

What was the purpose of that secret CIA-Mafia partnership? Assassination, which is really just a fancy word for murder. The purpose of the secret CIA-Mafia partnership was to murder Cuba’s president Fidel Castro. 

Why Castro? Because he was a communist. More important, he was also a communist who established peaceful and friendly relations with the Soviet Union and rest of the communist world.

That’s it. That’s what the CIA says justified its assassination partnership with the Mafia to assassinate Castro and its repeated attempts to assassinate Castro.

One of the fascinating aspects of the CIA-Mafia partnership to assassinate Castro has been the reaction of many Americans who just have taken it all in stride. That blasé reaction to unjustified state-sponsored murder is a perfect example of what CIA propaganda and indoctrination has done to warp, pervert, and stultify the consciences of many Americans. 

The fact is that not only was the CIA partnership with the Mafia evil, so were its repeated assassination attempts on Castro. The CIA never had the moral, religious, or legal authority to murder anyone, including Castro, just because he happened to be a communist or a socialist or just because he favored establishing peaceful and friendly relations with the Soviet Union and the communist world.

And yet, all too many Americans, especially the mainstream press, have been so nonchalant about those repeated CIA murder attempts on Castro.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there has also been a steadfast willingness among many Americans to turn a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence establishing that the November 22, 1963, assassination of President Kennedy was a regime-change operation on the part of the CIA and the national-security establishment, no different in principle from the CIA’s repeated assassination attempts on Castro.

But let’s set aside the Kennedy assassination. Let’s just talk about the CIA’s assassination of Patrice Lumumba, three years before Kennedy was murdered. Or how about the CIA’s kidnapping/murder of Gen. Rene Schneider in Chile seven years after Kennedy was assassinated? How can those two assassinations be labeled anything but evil? What did Lumumba and Schneider do to warrant having their lives snuffed out by the CIA? They did nothing to warrant their assassinations.

Or how about the CIA’s regime-change operation in Iran ten years before Kennedy was assassinated? It was accompanied by the deaths of many innocent Iranian people. Then came 26 years of U.S.-supported horrific tyranny and oppression under a brutal U.S.-installed dictator. That led to the Iranian revolution and more decades of horrific tyranny and oppression. That led to brutal U.S. economic sanctions that have killed and impoverished countless innocent citizens of Iran. How can all that not be labeled evil?

Or how about the CIA’s regime-change operation in Guatemala nine years before the Kennedy assassination? The CIA had a secret assassination list for that operation which listed the people who were to be murdered as part of the operation.

What did Guatemalans do to deserve such evil being inflicted on them? They had the audacity to elect a socialist named Jacobo Arbenz, who declared a willingness to establish peaceful and friendly relations with the Soviet Union and the communist world. 

He wasn’t the only one. Ten years after Kennedy was assassinated, the Chilean people elected a socialist named Salvador Allende, who, like Arbenz, established peaceful and friendly relations with the Soviet Union and the communist world. The CIA said that that made him a threat to U.S. “national security.” The CIA and the Pentagon convinced the Chilean national-security establishment that it had a moral duty to violently oust their country’s president from office. How can the CIA/Pentagon-instigated Chilean coup, which left Allende dead and tens of thousands of Chilean citizens raped, tortured, executed, or disappeared by the brutal U.S.-supported military dictator who replaced him, not be labeled evil?

In fact, that’s why the CIA’s goons kidnapped and murdered General Schneider. Schneider opposed the CIA’s violent regime-change operation and instead favored supporting and defending the Chilean constitution, which provided only two ways to remove a president from office: impeachment and election.

With the exception of the Kennedy assassination, Americans have come to accept all of these CIA regime changes as part of America’s legacy as a national-security state. Unfortunately, however, owing to a stultification of conscience that came with the unconstitutional conversion of the federal government to a national-security state, all too many Americans have not yet come to the moral realization that every one of those regime-change operations, including the Kennedy assassination, was evil to the core. 

In his 1978 book The Road Less Traveled, M. Scott Peck stated, “Mental health is an ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs.” 

The same principle applies to a nation. For America to heal in the wake of the Afghanistan and Iraq debacles and all the lies that came with them, it is necessary for Americans today to dedicate themselves to reality at all costs — especially the reality that a rotten evil entity known as the CIA lies at the core of America’s federal governmental structure. For America to restore morality, freedom, health, and right conduct to our land, it is necessary to eradicate, not reform, that evil.

Jacob Hornberger

Splinter the CIA into a Thousand Pieces and Scatter It to the Winds

Last night I delivered the concluding presentation in our conference “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination.” We’ll be posting it online within a few days. If you missed it, I would invite you to watch it. It is around 2 1/2 hours long. It is the most complete singular presentation I have ever made on Kennedy assassination. 

Ever since I wrote my book The Kennedy Autopsy, I have said to people who are new to the assassination: Don’t spend time studying what happened in Dealey Plaza — bullet trajectories, witnesses, etc. Instead, just focus on the autopsy that was conducted on President Kennedy’s body. It will lead you directly to what happened on November 22, 1963.

Last night, I made what I believe is an irrefutable case for a fraudulent autopsy. I am convinced that anyone who watches my presentation will arrive at the same conclusion. My presentation is reenforced by almost 100 Apple Keynote slides. 

Who conducted the autopsy? That would be the U.S. national-security establishment. That is an irrefutable fact, one that everyone agrees with.

Why is a fraudulent autopsy important? Because there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy. None. No one has ever come up with one. No one ever will. The plan for a fraudulent autopsy, which was launched at Parkland Hospital in Dallas and then carried out at the military’s Bethesda Naval Medical Center, leads directly to the national-security establishment as the orchestrator of the assassination.

My presentation also detailed the vicious war that was being waged between Kennedy and the national-security establishment over the future direction of America. Their respective visions were irreconcilable. There was going to be a winner and a loser in this war. In the end, Kennedy proved to be no match for the overwhelming power of the national-security establishment.

As I pointed out last night, the same phenomenon occurred ten years later in Chile. The Chilean national-security establishment, with the full support of the Pentagon and the CIA, forcibly removed their democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, from office. The reason? The Chilean national-security establishment deemed Allende to be a grave threat to Chilean national security. If the national-security establishment had not acted, the argument goes, Chile would have become another Cuba — a country under tight communist control. 

That was the same justification for removing Kennedy from office ten years before — that his policies for the future direction of America would end up bringing about a communist takeover of the United States. 

After the Bay of Pigs disaster, where the CIA had defrauded Kennedy, he was so angry that he fired CIA Director Allen Dulles and is reputed to have vowed to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds.” That necessarily means Kennedy was determined to eradicate the CIA from American life. But the CIA would not go quietly into the night. It fought back, and it won.

Why are there so many people who are reluctant to delve into the Kennedy assassination? I believe there are two reasons: One, there is a deep fear of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist.” Some people feel that if they are considered to be a “conspiracy theorist,” their lives will be over. The smearing of people as “conspiracy theorists” has proven to be one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in CIA history.

My hunch though is that another reason is that people don’t want to face the prospect of living in a world without the CIA. After all, isn’t that the logical consequence of concluding that the CIA orchestrated the assassination of a U.S. president? How can we justify leaving a vicious and malevolent agency that assassinated a U.S. president and that continues its coverup of that evil deed in existence? Once one comes to the conviction that a regime-change operation took place on November 22, 1963, that inevitably leads to a conclusion that the CIA should be splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds. 

Unfortunately, however, a life without the CIA scares some people. Thus, they would rather not know about the evil actions carried out by the CIA, especially the extremely discomforting ones, like the assassination of a U.S. president based on protecting “national security.” Thus, they consciously choose not to be aware.

As I pointed out last night, however, if we are going to get our country back on the right track — toward freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony — it is imperative that we confront America’s dark legacy as a national-security state. To do that, we must not fear to seek the truth and speak the truth. 

This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at and from Full Context. Send him email.

Tracing the Genesis of The Swamp

Much has been made of the Washington, D.C. “swamp” over the last four years.  The vast apparatus of power that is now consecrated in the federal government is certainly immense and a far cry from what the Founders envisioned.  It contains programs and agencies that work for both domestic and foreign goals.

The question of how the swamp came to be has no one particular answer.  Some can be laid at the feet of the 20th-century Progressives during the Roosevelt-Wilson era.  Other expansions of power originated with the New Deal.  Certainly, the last quarter-century has seen its fair share of new agencies, policies, and expansions of government.  However, one particular moment deserves its own focused attention if we are to truly understand the vast apparatus that is the swamp and the rationale for its creation from a national defense perspective: the National Security Act of 1947.

It was post-WW2.  The United States under President Truman had challenging questions to deal with: how do we move forward in a postwar world?  How do we deal with the Soviet threat?  What should the role of government and the military be in a rapidly technologically changing world?  To help deal with these troubles, the National Security Act of 1947 thrust into existence the National Security Council, the CIA, and with the first secretary of defense (among other positions, departments, etc.) as various agencies were morphed, merged, and created anew.  In thinking about national security, the CIA itself was divided into two camps — one led by Richard Helms, who wanted the agency to be a purely information-gathering service, and the other led by Frank Wisner, who wanted covert actions to be used to alter political events to our favor (Weiner, p. 11).  Eventually, it would become both.  The information-gathering, in theory, would help the U.S. no longer be blind to world events or reliant upon the British to gather intel, thus allowing the NSC to formulate strategic and tactical planning, and the remodeled Defense Department would be better equipped to implement those plans.

There were a few reasons why President Truman would approve of this design.  First, the advent of the Truman Doctrine, and the Marshall Plan the following year, led America into a much more interventionist foreign policy.  By utilizing economic and military resources to aid other nations against the Soviets, Truman and his cohort believed they could contain the Soviet threat.  The National Security Act of 1947 would go a long way in providing the framework to implement those designs.  Secondly, the U.S. would have felt itself in an economic position to fund these programs.  A solid internal industry, growing technology, and being a creditor nation certainly on the surface would justify that optimism.  Finally, especially on the intelligence front, Americans felt that it was imperative that they be independent.  This proved prescient, as historian M. Stanton Evans revealed in his seminal work on communist influence and infiltration in U.S. institutions both before, during, and after the war (Evans 2007).  While the National Security Act did increase the size, scope, and power of the government, that power was meant to be used as a defense against what was considered an existential threat.

Fast-forward over a half-century.  While the Soviet threat no longer remains, its ideology has permeated American universities, news rooms, and even state and federal legislatures.  We are now a nation of debt and bailouts, with immense welfare liabilities that cannot continue to fund everything it used to.  Yet the cyber-world has opened an entirely new arena for national defense that requires high levels of training and investment.  The actual apparatus created in 1947 has expanded into countless competing agencies that requires an ever increasing budget to keep up with such demands.  Still, other concerns have been raised as unintended consequences continue to emerge.  The old adage of “power corrupts” has been present with the bureaucratic creations of the National Security Act of 1947, and growing concern over this point has certainly reached a new peak in 2020.  However, it has been present since the passing of the 1947 Act.  For example, in his history of the CIA, author Tim Weiner notes:

The CIA Act was rammed through Congress on May 27th, 1949. With its passage, Congress gave the agency the widest conceivable powers. It became fashionable a generation later to condemn America’s spies for crimes against the Constitution. But between the twenty five years between the passage of the CIA Act and the awakening of the watchdog spirit of Congress, the CIA was barred only from behaving like a secret police inside the United States. The act gave the agency the ability to do almost anything it wanted, as long as Congress provided the money in an annual package. Approval of the secret budget by a small armed services committee was understood by those in the know to constitute a legal authorization for all secret operations. (pp. 45-46)

These words are no doubt concerning to those who fear improper collusion of elected officials with agencies or councils designed to keep us informed and safe.  Certainly, 20th-century history shows us that domestic abuses occurred to tragic effect in places like the Soviet Union and Germany.  Yet it cannot be denied that the powers granted in the National Security Act of 1947 could be invaluable in protecting the nation if utilized properly and kept within our constitutional framework.

Where does this leave us?  In Colonel David Hackworth’s critique of the post-WW2 army, he called for major reform that started with an emphasis on valuing moral courage, practical education that related to the actual profession of soldiering, and an end to ticket-punching nepotism in favor of meritorious promotion of actual intellects and warriors (Hackworth, 1989).  A similar framework could undoubtedly do wonders for the offspring of the National Security Act of 1947, but if that framework is truly to be successful, it must be enacted by an American people who have followed it themselves.

Troy Smith, American Thinker


Evans, M. Stanton. Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy. Three Rivers Press, 2007.

Hackworth, Col. David. About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior. Touchstone, 1989.

Weiner, Tim. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. Anchor Books, 2008.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook