JFK was a member of the Cabal, through and through (by birth, and what he did in his life prior to being President). However, he also did things that were more against the Cabal agenda than any other President. Why he did that I don't know. I personally think he actually was acting against the Cabal, though some of his actions were both for and against them, so it's hard to tell. Some of his actions were decidedly against however. Rather than the Cabal winning through those actions (as so many other actions I've found in history that appear to be "against" but are actually for), they needed to be shut down and memory holed. This is the only thing that makes me think there was more to JFK than just controlled opposition.

For example, his speech against "secret societies" was actually, when you read the whole thing, in support of the media keeping the government's secrets. It was in support of the C_A doing things without public oversight. But that wasn't stated until the end, and the entire first part seemed to be so completely against it. The speech taken in total just didn't have the required rhetoric to support the conclusion. It's as if it were two different speeches, where the first part was a cut and paste for a completely different speech. The speech he actually gave created a very long sound bite that made it sound like the opposite of the conclusion. I think that was an intentional Fuck You to the Cabal, both pushing their overall agenda in his speech, while at the same time revealing their efforts in the shadows.

Whether or not his wife was his handler, that's a definite maybe for me, but he was absolutely a member of the Cabal (controlled elite aristocracy) from birth. I think he just may have rebelled. I don't think he would have done so on his own though. There is just too much entrenchment. This suggests to me that there may have been a larger effort to help him do so. It could very well be that JFK's win over Nixon was itself a Q-type effort, and that is why Nixon conceded. Who knows.

As for Ford, his entire resume screams Rockefeller agent. You don't get to be a member of the CFR, and especially not the Trilateral Commission and a Bohemian Grove regular unless you are completely compromised, as in, a blood sucking pedovore. He didn't need a handler.

JFK was a member of the Cabal, through and through (by birth, and what he did in his life prior to being President). However, he also did things that were more against the Cabal agenda than any other President. Why he did that I don't know. I personally think he actually was acting against the Cabal, though some of his actions were both for and against them, so it's hard to tell. Some of his actions were decidedly against however. Rather than the Cabal winning through those actions (as so many other actions I've found in history that appear to be "against" but are actually for), they needed to be shut down and memory holed. This is the only thing that makes me think there was more to JFK than just controlled opposition.

For example, his speech against "secret societies" was actually, when you read the whole thing, in support of the media keeping the government's secrets. It was in support of the C_A doing things without public oversight. But that wasn't stated until the end, and the entire first part seemed to be so completely against it. The speech taken in total just didn't have the required rhetoric to support the conclusion. It's as if it were two different speeches, where the first part was a cut and paste for a completely different speech. The speech he actually gave created a very long sound bite that made it sound like the opposite of the conclusion. I think that was an intentional Fuck You to the Cabal, both pushing their overall agenda in his speech, while at the same time revealing their efforts in the shadows.

Whether or not his wife was his handler, that's a definite maybe for me, but he was absolutely a member of the Cabal (controlled elite aristocracy) from birth. I think he just may have rebelled. I don't think he would have done so on his own though. There is just too much entrenchment. This suggests to me that there may have been a larger effort to help him do so. It could very well be that JFK's win over Nixon was itself a Q-type effort, and that is why Nixon conceded. Who knows.

As for Ford, his entire resume screams Rockefeller agent. You don't get to be a member of the CFR, and especially not the Trilateral Commission and a Bohemian Grover regular unless you are completely compromised, as in, a blood sucking pedovore. He didn't need a handler.

JFK was a member of the Cabal, through and through (by birth, and what he did in his life prior to being President). However, he also did things that were more against the Cabal agenda than any other President. Why he did that I don't know. I personally think he actually was acting against the Cabal, though some of his actions were both for and against them, so it's hard to tell. Some of his actions were decidedly against however. Rather than the Cabal winning through those actions (as so many other actions I've found in history that appear to be "against" but are actually for), they needed to be shut down and memory holed. This is the only thing that makes me think there was more to JFK than just controlled opposition.

For example, his speech against "secret societies" was actually, when you read the whole thing, in support of the media keeping the government's secrets. It was in support of the C_A doing things without public oversight. But that wasn't stated until the end, and the entire first part seemed to be so completely against it. The speech taken in total just didn't have the required rhetoric to support the conclusion. It's as if it were two different speeches, where the first part was a cut and paste for a completely different speech. The speech he actually gave created a very long sound bite that made it sound like the opposite of the conclusion. I think that was an intentional Fuck You to the Cabal, both pushing their overall agenda in his speech, while at the same time revealing their efforts in the shadows.

Whether or not his wife was his handler, that's a definite maybe for me, but he was absolutely a member of the Cabal (controlled elite aristocracy) from birth. I think he just may have rebelled. I don't think he would have done so on his own though. There is just too much entrenchment. This suggests to me that there may have been a larger effort to help him do so. It could very well be that JFK's win over Nixon was itself a Q-type effort, and that is why Nixon conceded. Who knows.

As for Ford, his entire resume screams Rockefeller agent. You don't get to be a member of the CFR, and especially not the Trilateral Commission unless you are completely compromised, as in, a blood sucking pedovore. He didn't need a handler.

JFK was a member of the Cabal, through and through (by birth, and what he did in his life prior to being President). However, he also did things that were more against the Cabal agenda than any other President. Why he did that I don't know. I personally think he actually was acting against the Cabal, though some of his actions were both for and against them, so it's hard to tell. Some of his actions were decidedly against however. Rather than the Cabal winning through those actions (as so many other actions I've found in history that appear to be "against" but are actually for), they needed to be shut down and memory holed. This is the only thing that makes me think there was more to JFK than just controlled opposition.

For example, his speech against "secret societies" was actually, when you read the whole thing, in support of the media keeping the government's secrets. It was in support of the C_A doing things without public oversight. But that wasn't stated until the end, and the entire first part seemed to be so completely against it. The speech taken in total just didn't have the required rhetoric to support the conclusion. It's as if it were two different speeches, where the first part was a cut and paste for a completely different speech. The speech he actually gave created a very long sound bite that made it sound like the opposite of the conclusion. I think that was an intentional Fuck You to the Cabal, both pushing their overall agenda in his speech, while at the same time revealing their efforts in the shadows.

Whether or not his wife was his handler, that's a definite maybe for me, but he was absolutely a member of the Cabal (controlled elite aristocracy) from birth. I think he just may have rebelled. I don't think he would have done so on his own though. There is just too much entrenchment. This suggests to me that there may have been a larger effort to help him do so. It could very well be that JFK's win over Nixon was itself a Q-type effort, and that is why Nixon conceded. Who knows.

As for Ford, you don't get to be a member of the CFR, and especially not the Trilateral Commission unless you are completely compromised, as in, a blood sucking pedovore. He didn't need a handler.

JFK was a member of the Cabal, through and through (by birth, and what he did in his life prior to being President). However, he also did things that were more against the Cabal agenda than any other President. Why he did that I don't know. I personally think he actually was acting against the Cabal, though some of his actions were both for and against them, so it's hard to tell. Some of his actions were decidedly against however. Rather than the Cabal winning through those actions (as so many other actions I've found in history that appear to be "against" but are actually for), they needed to be shut down and memory holed. This is the only thing that makes me think there was more to JFK than just controlled opposition.

For example, his speech against "secret societies" was actually, when you read the whole thing, in support of the media keeping the government's secrets. It was in support of the C_A doing things without public oversight. But that wasn't stated until the end, and the entire first part seemed to be so completely against it. The speech taken in total just didn't have the required rhetoric to support the conclusion. It's as if it were two different speeches, where the first part was a cut and paste for a completely different speech. The speech he actually gave created a very long sound bite that made it sound like the opposite of the conclusion. I think that was an intentional Fuck You to the Cabal, both pushing their overall agenda in his speech, while at the same time revealing their efforts in the shadows.

Whether or not his wife was his handler, that's a definite maybe for me, but he was absolutely a member of the Cabal (controlled elite aristocracy) from birth. I think he just may have rebelled, which suggests there may have been a larger effort to help him do so. It could very well be that JFK's win over Nixon was itself a Q-type effort, and that is why Nixon conceded. Who knows.

As for Ford, you don't get to be a member of the CFR, and especially not the Trilateral Commission unless you are completely compromised, as in, a blood sucking pedovore. He didn't need a handler.

JFK was a member of the Cabal, through and through (by birth, and what he did in his life prior to being President). However, he also did things that were more against the Cabal agenda than any other President. Why he did that I don't know. I personally think he actually was acting against the Cabal, though some of his actions were both for and against them, so it's hard to tell. Some of his actions were decidedly against however. Rather than the Cabal winning through those actions (as so many other actions I've found in history that appear to be "against" but are actually for), they needed to be shut down and memory holed. This is the only thing that makes me think there was more to JFK than just controlled opposition.

For example, his speech against "secret societies" was actually, when you read the whole thing, in support of the media keeping the government's secrets. It was in support of the C_A doing things without public oversight. But that wasn't stated until the end, and the entire first part seemed to be so completely against it. The speech taken in total just didn't have the required rhetoric to support the conclusion. It's as if it were two different speeches, where the first part was a cut in paste for a completely different speech. The speech he actually gave created a very long sound bite that made it sound like the opposite of the conclusion. I think that was an intentional Fuck You to the Cabal, both pushing their overall agenda in his speech, while at the same time revealing their efforts in the shadows.

Whether or not his wife was his handler, that's a definite maybe for me, but he was absolutely a member of the Cabal (controlled elite aristocracy) from birth. I think he just may have rebelled, which suggests there may have been a larger effort to help him do so. It could very well be that JFK's win over Nixon was itself a Q-type effort, and that is why Nixon conceded. Who knows.

As for Ford, you don't get to be a member of the CFR, and especially not the Trilateral Commission unless you are completely compromised, as in, a blood sucking pedovore. He didn't need a handler.

JFK was a member of the Cabal, through and through (by birth, and what he did in his life prior to being President). However, he also did things that were more against the Cabal agenda than any other President. Why he did that I don't know. I personally think he actually was acting against the Cabal, though some of his actions were both for and against them, so it's hard to tell. Some of his actions were decidedly against however. Rather than the Cabal winning through those actions (as so many other actions I've found in history that appear to be "against" but are actually for), they needed to be shut down and memory holed. This is the only thing that makes me think there was more to JFK than just controlled opposition.

For example, his speech against "secret societies" was actually, when you read the whole thing, in support of the media keeping the government's secrets. It was in support of the C_A doing things without public oversight. But that wasn't stated until the end, and the entire first part seemed to be so completely against it. It just didn't have the required rhetoric to support the conclusion. The speech he actually gave created a very long sound bite that made it sound like the opposite of the conclusion. I think that was an intentional Fuck You to the Cabal, both pushing their overall agenda in his speech, while at the same time revealing their efforts in the shadows.

Whether or not his wife was his handler, that's a definite maybe for me, but he was absolutely a member of the Cabal (controlled elite aristocracy) from birth. I think he just may have rebelled, which suggests there may have been a larger effort to help him do so. It could very well be that JFK's win over Nixon was itself a Q-type effort, and that is why Nixon conceded. Who knows.

As for Ford, you don't get to be a member of the CFR, and especially not the Trilateral Commission unless you are completely compromised, as in, a blood sucking pedovore. He didn't need a handler.

JFK was a member of the Cabal, through and through (by birth, and what he did in his life prior to being President). However, he also did things that were more against the Cabal agenda than any other President. Why he did that I don't know. I personally think he actually was acting against the Cabal, though some of his actions were both for and against them, so it's hard to tell. Some of his actions were decidedly against however. Rather than the Cabal winning through those actions (as so many other actions I've found in history that appear to be "against" but are actually for), they needed to be shut down and memory holed. This is the only thing that makes me think there was more to JFK than just controlled opposition.

For example, his speech against "secret societies" was actually, when you read the whole thing, in support of the media keeping the government's secrets. But that wasn't stated until the end, and the entire first part seemed to be so completely against it. It just didn't have the required rhetoric to support the conclusion. The speech he actually gave created a very long sound bite that made it sound like the opposite of the conclusion. I think that was an intentional Fuck You to the Cabal, both pushing their overall agenda in his speech, while at the same time revealing their efforts in the shadows.

Whether or not his wife was his handler, that's a definite maybe for me, but he was absolutely a member of the Cabal (controlled elite aristocracy) from birth. I think he just may have rebelled, which suggests there may have been a larger effort to help him do so. It could very well be that JFK's win over Nixon was itself a Q-type effort, and that is why Nixon conceded. Who knows.

As for Ford, you don't get to be a member of the CFR, and especially not the Trilateral Commission unless you are completely compromised, as in, a blood sucking pedovore. He didn't need a handler.

JFK was a member of the Cabal, through and through (by birth, and what he did in his life prior to being President). However, he also did things that were more against the Cabal agenda than any other President. Why he did that I don't know. I personally think he actually was acting against the Cabal, though some of his actions were both for and against them, so it's hard to tell. Some of his actions were decidedly against however. Rather than the Cabal winning through those actions (as so many other actions I've found that appear to be "against" but are actually for), they needed to be shut down and memory holed. This is the only thing that makes me think there was more to JFK than just controlled opposition.

For example, his speech against "secret societies" was actually, when you read the whole thing, in support of the media keeping the government's secrets. But that wasn't stated until the end, and the entire first part seemed to be so completely against it. It just didn't have the required rhetoric to support the conclusion. The speech he actually gave created a very long sound bite that made it sound like the opposite of the conclusion. I think that was an intentional Fuck You to the Cabal, both pushing their overall agenda in his speech, while at the same time revealing their efforts in the shadows.

Whether or not his wife was his handler, that's a definite maybe for me, but he was absolutely a member of the Cabal (controlled elite aristocracy) from birth. I think he just may have rebelled, which suggests there may have been a larger effort to help him do so. It could very well be that JFK's win over Nixon was itself a Q-type effort, and that is why Nixon conceded. Who knows.

As for Ford, you don't get to be a member of the CFR, and especially not the Trilateral Commission unless you are completely compromised, as in, a blood sucking pedovore. He didn't need a handler.

JFK was a member of the Cabal, through and through (by birth, and what he did in his life prior to being President). However, he also did things that were more against the Cabal agenda than any other President. Why he did that I don't know. I personally think he actually was acting against the Cabal, though some of his actions were both for and against them, so it's hard to tell. Some of his actions were decidedly against however. Rather than the Cabal winning through those actions, they needed to be shut down and memory holed. This is the only thing that makes me think there was more to JFK than just controlled opposition.

For example, his speech against "secret societies" was actually, when you read the whole thing, in support of the media keeping the government's secrets. But that wasn't stated until the end, and the entire first part seemed to be so completely against it. It just didn't have the required rhetoric to support the conclusion. The speech he actually gave created a very long sound bite that made it sound like the opposite of the conclusion. I think that was an intentional Fuck You to the Cabal, both pushing their overall agenda in his speech, while at the same time revealing their efforts in the shadows.

Whether or not his wife was his handler, that's a definite maybe for me, but he was absolutely a member of the Cabal (controlled elite aristocracy) from birth. I think he just may have rebelled, which suggests there may have been a larger effort to help him do so. It could very well be that JFK's win over Nixon was itself a Q-type effort, and that is why Nixon conceded. Who knows.

As for Ford, you don't get to be a member of the CFR, and especially not the Trilateral Commission unless you are completely compromised, as in, a blood sucking pedovore. He didn't need a handler.