Assassination and Its Aftermath
Congressman
Martin Dies
American Opinion, Volume VII, Number 3, March 1964, pp. 1-10.
Congressman Martin Dies of Texas served seven years as Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the historic Dies Committee. Now practicing law in Texas, Congressman Dies remains one of the most outspoken foes of the International Communist Conspiracy. He is author of the recent and explosive volume, Martin Dies’ story—which we recommend.
In the first chapter of Theodore Roscoe’s The Web of Conspiracy, which is the story of the assassination of President Lincoln, Roscoe says that the murder of Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth could not be concealed by official censorship, or the government’s juggling of English, or a propaganda treatment, or re-writing of history:
What censorship, phrase-juggling, propaganda, and the doctoring of history did conceal was the fact that Booth could not have murdered Lincoln had not Lincoln been betrayed…
The betrayal which permitted a lone gunman to walk into a theater in the nation’s capital and shoot down the President was securely hidden away.
This concealment and distortion of the truth is a black chapter in our nation’s history. Such a thing may be far more serious in the tragic case of the murder of President Kennedy.
I
It is difficult to understand why President Johnson at
first approved a Texas Inquiry by the Attorney General of Texas ,and then
appointed a commission headed by Chief Justice Warren, and then yielded to
Warren’s insistence—accompanied by a threat of resignation—that the Texas Inquiry not
be held.
What Constitutional authority is there for such a
Presidential commission? Why was not the Committee on Un-American Activities, or
the Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee permitted to conduct the probe? And
why did President Johnson ignore the proposal of a close personal friend of the
President and a member of the Presidential commission, that a bipartisan
Committee of Congress conduct the investigation? Why was it deemed necessary to
establish a commission of dubious Constitutional authority—to say the
least—handpicked by a President seeking reelection?
Why was Chief Justice Warren appointed chairman of this
commission? As a member of the Supreme Court he may even be confronted with the
appeal of Jack Rubenstein. Though he disqualifies himself, his inconsistent
roles as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and chairman of the commission may
taint the findings of the commission, as well as a later decision of the Supreme
Court. It has even been widely reported that Warren is on record as opposing the
impropriety of such a dual role. He did not, however, refuse the chairmanship.
Why choose Warren when there are millions of Americans, rightly or wrongly, who
do not have confidence in the Chief Justice because of his persistent defiance
of the great legal principle of stare
decisis (to stand by decided cases)?
The doubts expressed here are not meant to reflect upon the
patriotism of Justice Warren or the other members of this commission. But, under
our system of freedom, Americans have a right, and it is their duty, to ask such
questions.
II
Within one hour of the President’s death the Dallas
police arrested Lee Harvey Oswald, and the fact that he was a pro-Castro
sympathizer and a “Marxist” was made public. Nevertheless the usual
“Liberal” spokesmen blamed the President’s death upon “right-wing
extremists” and “hate mongers.” The Voice of America beamed to the world
the indictment that Dallas was a city “of the extreme right-wing movement.” Tass,
the official Russian News Agency, said: “President Kennedy of the United
States has been assassinated. His death is blamed on extreme right groups.” It
reported that it got this information from the Voice of America.
Even after the news services published the facts about
Oswald—his defection to Russia; his affidavit renouncing American citizenship;
his residence in Russia; his record of Communist beliefs and activities, which
were well known to our government and nationally publicized before the murder of
the President—the spokesmen for the so-called “Liberals,” and the duped or
uninformed, continued to link “right-wing extremists” with “left-wing
extremists” as responsible for the murder. Oswald has almost always been
described as a “Marxist” and not a Communist, even after the evidence was
conclusive that he was a Communist and that, like so many Communists, he used
the words Marxist and Communist
interchangeably. While it is true that Socialists, Social Democrats, and other
left-wing groups, as well as many other so-called “Liberals,” derive their
social and political philosophy from Karl Marx, the only groups whose members
label themselves “Marxist” are Communist. As a matter of fact the communists
have always contended that they are the only true Marxists in the world. After
all, Karl Marx did write the Communist
Manifesto.
To many uninformed people a Marxist is much different from
a Communist. It is therefore extremely important for the “powers that be” to
conceal or becloud the fact that the President of the United States was murdered
by a Communist whose record of Communist activity was well known to our
government; whose place of work on the day of the murder was well known to our
government, and who was thus—knowingly—allowed a perfect opportunity to kill
the President. The enforcement of our anti-Communist laws and the most
elementary precaution could have prevented the dastardly act. Our government
knew about Communist Oswald but it did not act as the law required!
III
It is equally important for the government to convince our
people that Oswald was acting on his own initiative and not in furtherance of a
foreign or domestic conspiracy. (Later I will show why there has been a
concerted campaign to disassociate Oswald from Communists at home and abroad.)
On November twenty-third there was an Associated
Press story from Washington which quoted authorities of the state Department
as saying, “they have no evidence indicating involvement of the Soviet Union
or any other foreign power in the assassination of President Kennedy.” The Associated
Press said on November twenty-third that Oswald was a “loner” and kept
pretty much to himself. This line was followed many times in the so-called
“Liberal” newspapers and on television and radio.
Storied appeared in the newspapers to the effect that, when
Oswald was a child in New York, a teacher warned of his mental condition. The
“Liberal” columnists and television commentators continued to emphasize that
President Kennedy was the victim of “extreme rightists and hate mongers.”
Ministerial associations, even in Dallas, warned against “extremists” and
“hate mongers,” CORE and NAACP issued a statement that President Kennedy was
killed because he championed human rights (meaning the Civil Rights Program).
Even President Johnson, in his first speech to Congress, warned against
“extremists and hate mongers.” In fact the vast majority of “Liberal”
leaders, in and out of the government, seized upon this opportunity to divert
attention from the all important facts that President Kennedy was shot by a
Communist; that thirty years of investigation of Communism by Congress and by
other countries proved the basic and elementary fact that every communist must
accept ironclad discipline and obey orders, and that Communists never commit
political crimes except in obedience to orders of superiors.
In the first Report issued unanimously by the Dies
Committee—composed of Democrats, Republicans, “Liberals,” and
conservatives—we found:
The Communists in the United States openly admit their allegiance to the Communist International at Moscow, and glory in the fact that they obey all the orders issued from there immediately and implicitly…The following statement appears on the 1938 membership card of the Communist party, originals of which were introduced as evidence before the committee: “The undersigned declares his allegiance to the program and statutes of the Communist International and of the Communist Party of the United States of America, and agrees to submit to the discipline of the party and to engage actively in its work”…The Communist International is dominated by the Russian Communist party and Soviet officials, and could not exist without the wholehearted support of the leaders of the Russian Communist party and the financial backing of the Soviet Government.
That report was submitted to Congress on January 3, 1939,
and a copy of it went to every member of Congress and of the Executive Branch of
the government. It was printed in newspapers throughout the country and
distributed to public libraries. The quoted excepts have been reaffirmed by
every Committee of Congress or agency of the Executive Branch which has ever
investigated communism. This principle of discipline (unquestioned execution of
orders of superiors) has been demonstrated throughout the world upon too many
occasion to enumerate.
It is true that since our investigation and exposure of
Communists in the country the Communist Party has stopped issuing cards and
printing other incriminating evidence. But Communism is dogmatic. It may change
its tactics from time to time to deceive the unwary, but its basic principle of
absolute Party discipline, and its objective of world conquest, never changes.
IV
Is there any question that Oswald was a Communist?
The Associated Press
in a story from Dallas quoted Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry as saying that
Oswald admitted he was a Communist. Curry added, He didn’t try to hide it.”
In another Associated Press story from
Dallas, dated November twenty-eighth, Dallas Police Chief Curry is quoted as
saying: “He [Oswald] readily admitted he was a Communist. Apparently he was
proud of being a Communist. Last year Oswald said in New Orleans he was not a
Communist but a Marxist. But actually Oswald has never drawn any distinction
between the two.”
District Attorney Henry Wade was quoted by the Associated
Press as saying, “There was lots of material (in Oswald’s room) dealing
with Communism, such as the Daily Worker
[sic] and there was even more material
dealing with Fair Play for Cuba Organization.” In the same story Chief Curry
is quoted as saying that, after Oswald’s arrest, photographs were found
“showing him standing at attention with a rifle in one hand and in the other a
copy of the Communist newspaper, The
Worker.”
When Oswald was arrested, according to the Associated
Press, “he announced he wanted for his lawyer John Abt of New York, well
known for past Communist defendants.”
As Associated Press
story dated November twenty-fourth reported that “When Oswald on November 2,
1959 turned in his American passport to our Embassy in Moscow he presented his
affidavit which stated: “I affirm that my allegiance is to the Soviet
Socialistic Republic.” And he told American Embassy officials, “I am a
Marxist.”
Four years ago, in Oswald’s interview with Priscilla
Johnson, on the third floor of Moscow’s Hotel Metropole, he referred to the
Soviet Government as “my government” and he said” “Even if I am not
accepted [for citizenship] on no account will I go back to the United States.”
He said (and this was a most significant statement) that when he talked to
Soviet officials they warned that neither Oswald’s wish nor theirs would
determine whether his citizenship application was to be accepted. They said it
depended on the “over-all” political atmosphere at the moment. Meanwhile
they offered Oswald the sanctuary of a prolonged stay in the U.S.S.R.
The husband of one of Oswald’s landladies (he had a room
for his wife in Oak Cliff and a room for himself near his job under the name of
O.H. Lee) was reported by the Press as saying “Oswald talked Marxism, Marxism,
Marxism. Oswald refused to eschew violence as a method for achieving ends.”
[The above statement of Mr. Paine was reported by Sid Moody, Associated
Press newsfeatures writer.]
There is no dispute about the fact that when Oswald was in
New Orleans he was active in the Fair Play for Cuba’s local committee, of
which he claimed to be secretary. (An investigation and Report by the Senate
Internal Security Sub-Committee showed conclusively that these groups were
largely financed by Castro. FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover stated that these
committees, were heavily infiltrated by Communists.) He was even shown on a
national television network carrying a pro-Castro placard.
In a story which appeared in the Dallas
Morning News, Assistant District Attorney William F. Alexander is quoted as
saying that evidence found in Oswald’s Oak Cliff room proves he was “an
active worker in the Communist Party.” He said the evidence included letters
in which a Communist leader thanked Oswald “for past services.”
How much more evidence would be required to prove that
Oswald was a Communist? For years the Communist Party has not issued membership
cards or kept written records. During the early years of the Dies Committee we
were able to secure membership cards from the various police departments and
other sources. We compiled the only list of Communists in the United States that
is in existence. The original list was left with the Committee when I quit
Congress in 1945. What happened to that list I do not know. I do know that,
since the Communist Party discontinued keeping any written records, there is no
evidence more conclusive of Communist membership than the evidence marshalled
against Lee Harvey Oswald.
V
In my next article, I hope to discuss the circumstances
linking the Soviet Union with Oswald’s murder of the President. Naturally such
evidence must be circumstantial and based upon the dogmatic pattern of Communist
behavior. The Communists are too clever to leave any trace of connection with
Oswald other than certain circumstances I hope to discuss.
I shall also suggest the probable answer to the question
that is being asked by many people: “Will the Warren commission report the
truth?” This question does not infer that the members of the commission are
lacking in integrity and patriotism. But one columnist pointed out we cannot
expect very much from the commission because no member of the commission has had
any investigative experience and the commission must rely upon the reports of
other groups. In a sense each of these agencies is itself under investigation.
This columnist, who writes for a large newspaper chain, said that it is naïve
to expect these officers to bear witness against themselves or, indeed, each
other. He commented that it is not in the nature of bureaucracies to destroy
their carefully nurtured fables of omniscience.
I am not prepared to fully agree with the columnist. But as
I shall explain, there are strong and compelling political reasons, as well as
present international factors, to influence this probe and prevent a full
disclosure of all of the ugly facts that have been camouflaged for years but
have now come to a climax in the assassination of President Kennedy.
It must be remembered that all governments, including our
own, suppress or distort facts in the name of national security or international
policy. All of us recall that after our U-2 was shot down over Soviet territory
the State Department issued a statement that this plane had strayed from its
course, into Russian territory. When the Communists challenged our release about
this plane, our President admitted that it was engaged in observation of
military installations in Russia. It was finally admitted that we had been
making these flights for some time.
One must also keep in mind that it is not difficult for any
Administration to persuade any Congressional Committee that it must suppress
vital facts in the interest of national security or our international policy.
The Congressmen have no way of knowing or discovering whether certain facts will
endanger our national security or international policy. They must rely upon the
judgment and integrity of the Administration in power, which presumably has all
the necessary facts upon which a correct judgment must be based.
Sometimes the request of an Administration is sincere.
Sometimes it is made for political purposes at home, which have nothing to do
with national security or international policy. Having associated with
politicians all my life, frankness compels me to confess that the great majority
of them are strongly influenced by the all-important consideration of winning
elections. Their business, whether Congressman or President, is getting elected
and staying elected. Politicians, with very rare exceptions, never confess
mistakes. As Administration will do a great deal to prevent the exposure of its
blunders.
Perhaps in these human weaknesses politicians are not much
different from the general run of humanity. The great difference is that we have
a right to expect our public officials to put our country’s real interests
above their own political interests. All of the solemnly swear to God that they
will subordinate self in the service of our country. There have been many
glorious periods in our history when the great majority of public servants
performed their duties faithfully in fulfillment of oaths of office. These
bright periods are becoming increasingly less frequent¾to
the dire peril of our American Republic.
Will the Warren commission be different? On January
nineteenth, counsel for the Warren commission stated that the commission will
have to consider the possible timing of its report. What he did not say was that
a commission which will consider the “timing” of its report will likely
consider the political effect of that report.
VI
In order to overcome the skepticism of millions of honest
Americans who have honest doubts about the Warren commission, the commission
must discover and publish all of the facts about the role of Jack Rubenstein in
the assassination of President Kennedy. The commission has at is command the
services of thousands of intelligence agents and police detectives to uncover
the truth about Jack Rubenstein, who in 1947 changed his name to Jack Ruby. A
private citizen has very limited facilities. However, I have searched some of my
records and I have come up with certain interesting facts that may have
significance.
I have been informed that the name Rubenstein is a common
name among the Jews. There could be several or more Jack Rubensteins. According
to my records some of the Rubensteins spell their name Rubinstein.
At any rate there is no question but that in 1929 a man by the name of Jack
Rubenstein was on the Executive Board of the Young Communist League in the
United States. We have an exhibit taken verbatim from the Communist Daily
Worker to prove this fact. The Young Communist League is an organization for
Communists under twenty-one years of age. In 1929 the Jack Rubenstein, who shot
Oswald, would have been approximately nineteen years of age.
According to our records the Jack Rubenstein who was a
member of the Executive Committee or Bureau of the Young Communist League also
assisted in the formation of The Revolutionary Youth and the publication Revolutionary
Age.
I have read in news stories that the Jack Rubenstein who
shot Oswald has a brother Hyman Rubenstein and a sister named Ann Rubenstein.
Our Committee Hearings mention a H. Rubinstein and an Annette Rubinstein and a
Leon Rubenstein.
Now all of this may be mere coincidences and should be
given no probative force until it is proved that the Jack Rubenstein in our
records is the same person who shot Oswald. The names Hymen and Ann are common
names and our records only mention an H. Rubinstein and a Dr. Annette Rubinstein.
I should mention, however, that in all my seven years of experience in
conducting a vigorous probe I found only one instance of such duplication of
names. If the Dallas Jack Rubenstein is not the same person as the Jack
Rubenstein who was a prominent official of the Young Communist League in 1929,
the Warren commission should produce the real Jack Rubenstein or account for his
whereabouts or death.
There was a story from Chicago that the police records for
this period (1929-1930)
have disappeared. When I held Hearings in Chicago they had extensive records of
Communists, including their fingerprints. But even if these records are gone, I
have furnished one who will participate in the inquiry with the names of known
associates of the Committee’s Jack Rubenstein. It is reasonable to believe
that some of these associates are alive. Somewhere there must be a photograph of
the Jack Rubenstein who was in the Young Communist League in 1929.
The H. Rubinstein and Ann Rubinstein could well be
different persons than the H. Rubinstein and Dr. Annette Rubinstein mentioned in
our Hearings. Unless it is proved otherwise it must be assumed that they are
different persons; but even if they are, it does not explain the fact that in
1929 there was a Jack Rubenstein in the Communist apparatus. Or does it, Mr. Justice
Warren?
VII
Even if the Jack Rubenstein who shot Oswald is a different
person from the Jack Rubenstein who was on the Executive Bureau of the Young
Communist League in 1929, there are other suspicious circumstances about
Rubenstein’s role in the assassination which must be explained.
According to a story appearing in the Dallas
Morning News of January twenty-first, Jack Rubenstein went to Cuba in 1959,
about nine months after Castro became that country’s Communist dictator.
A report which appeared in the Houston
Chronicle December 1, 1963 says: “Ruby (he had changed his name to Ruby
from Rubenstein in 1947) was born Jack Rubenstein in Chicago, where he was known
to police as a labor organizer, a ticket ‘scalper’ and a gambler with
reputed underworld acquaintances.” Victor Riesel reports in his column dated
November 30, 1963, that he had discovered that Ruby’s night spot at one time
was a haunt of Chicago hoods who came to Dallas to “case it” for a possible
“take.” He also disclosed what he found out about the underworld connections
of Rubenstein when he lived in Chicago.
Jack Ruby has one of the best known and highest-paid
lawyers in America, who announced that $100,000 in cash had been raised for his
client’s bail bond. At the hearing to determine whether to grant Rubenstein a
bail bond, two psychiatrists testified he was mentally unbalanced. One was Dr.
Walter Bromberg, Clinical Director of the Pinewood Psychiatric Hospital in
Westchester County, New York. The other was Dr. Roy Schafer, a psychologist on
the staff of Yale University. It further appears uncontradicted that he
cultivated Dallas policemen for frequently visited his night club. If he is
mentally sick and has been for many years, even in his childhood, is it not
strange that some friend, some member of his large family, or some policeman
would not have said or done something to indicate that someone
considered him mentally sick?
VIII
Who is it that is so afraid to defend an obscure operator
of a third-rate night club with the record Ruby is reported to have?
An Associated Press
story summarized the report of the
FBI as concluding that “Lee Oswald was the solitary and unaided assassin and
that Jack Ruby had no connection with Oswald or his deadly plan.” And,
Victor Riesel reported that the White House was desperately “eager to avoid an
international incident by appearing to give the slightest insinuation of an
international plot to assassinate John Kennedy.”
It appears fantastic that this operator of a cheap might
club would receive aid from every influential source. I am now staring at the
headline which appeared on the front page of the Houston
Chronicle of January twenty-first. That headline reads, “’Hero-minded’
Ruby awaits word on Bail.” Another story says he cried. Still another reports
that when he was interviewed on television he “broke down” when he spoke of
President Kennedy. We are told by his friends, and some members of his family,
of his great emotional upheaval when he learned of the President’s death.
At first the defense fed the propaganda mills the story
that his “great devotion” to the President produced temporary insanity which
was responsible for his act. This “line” became ridiculous in the light of
the revelation that he did not view the cavalcade, nor pay his poll tax, and
that he loitered around the jail with a gun from the time Oswald was imprisoned
until he had an opportunity to shoot Oswald. The “temporary insanity” lasted
too long.
Of course Jack Rubenstein should not be tried in the Press
or by anyone who must rely upon Pres stories. That is not the American way. But
when a well-organized campaign, evidently supplied with ample money, is
conducted to brainwash the American people in advance of the trial we have a
duty to raise these honest questions.
IX
I know that the great majority of our people do not realize
that there is, and has been since the organization of the Communist Party, a
gravely menacing and remarkably successful Communist Conspiracy—in the United
States and throughout the world. Despite more than twenty years of investigation
and the exposures of the Committee on Un-American activities, the Internal
Security Sub-Committee of the Senate, and the vast quantity of literature
including the various public statements of FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover, our people
still do not understand or believe that there is a sinister conspiracy seeking
the overthrow of our country.
One major reason is because few people will read or heed
the warnings of the Red menace.
Another reason is that revelations about this conspiracy
are fantastic to the Western mind. Many people stooped to laugh about serious
findings of the Dies Committee. Unfortunately, the media of information in this
country have too many times discredited grave and truthful revelations as a
“publicity stunt.” And this general disbelief, carefully and shrewdly
encouraged by the Communists, has greatly facilitated their conquest of nearly
one-third of the world’s population. But I have listened to the testimony of
many credible former Communists, including the man who was in charge of their
espionage for Western Europe (who himself died in a Washington hotel under
mysterious circumstances) and I have helped uncover Communist crimes; and from
all this experience, study, and observation I can often recognize the “fine
hand” of the Communist Conspiracy.
If the newspaper reports from which I quote in this and the
succeeding article are correct, certain conclusions are inescapable. Since these
conclusions are based upon newspaper and television reports, I do not of course
pretend that they are in any sense final. If all of the sworn evidence available
is received and released uncensored an undoctored by the Warren commission, it
could render my conclusion incorrect. But my long study, investigation, and
observation of the modus operandi of
the Communist Conspiracy leads me to certain tentative conclusions.
On the basis of what has been reported by reliable and
trustworthy reporters, I believe that Oswald was acting under instructions which
had their original sources in Moscow, probably relayed through Castro. How
Oswald received the instructions I do not know. He may have gotten them when he
went to Mexico City ostensibly to apply for a visa to Russia by way of Cuba, or
he may have gone to Mexico City to arrange for his escape after the murder of
the President. He may have received his orders through one of the numerous
Communist couriers who enter and leave this country at will.
I believe that the reason Oswald was not granted
citizenship, which would have been of great propaganda value to the Communists,
was because he was of far greater value to the Communists as an American citizen
than as a Soviet citizen. In permitting him to marry a Russian girl, to travel
freely in Russia, and to be issued a work permit, the Communists obviously
realized that they could use him for some purpose. He may have been analyzed as
useful up to a point. I have seen cards the Communists kept of fellow travelers:
Each fellow traveler was carefully studied and tried and his value to the cause
stated on the card.
I believe that Oswald was acting in accordance with the
carefully considered plans of the most successful conspirators the world has
even seen. Those plans included a method of escape. What is was may never be
discovered. It may well have been that the plan included the liquidation of
Oswald. Of course this part of the plan would have been unknown to him. But if
the Communists believed that Oswald would talk under strong pressure the plan
certainly included his death.
One thing is certain—the murder of the officer was not
planned. Communists, the same as the criminal underworld, forbid the slaying of
policemen under such circumstances because they know that the chances of
apprehension are greatly increased. A police force cannot let the murder of a
policeman escape detection because all policemen would be in greater jeopardy.
It may be, therefore, that the murder of this policeman by Oswald was his death
knell. No Communist is ever permitted to disobey an order or ignore any detail
of his instructions.
As to the reason Moscow and Castro wanted the liquidation
of President Kennedy, no one will ever know. Of one thing we may be certain: The
reason, to the Communists, was urgent. Further speculation is idle.
In my opinion it is unlikely that the Communist conspiracy
to kill the President will ever be fully proved. Even if there were evidence
linking this crime to a Communist country, it is doubtful that the evidence
would ever be released, for fear of an international “incident” or harm to
international policy.
On February fourth, Chief Justice Warren said that the
commission had heard testimony which might not be available in a lifetime. On
February fifth, he said that he was being “a little facetious” in his
statement but that some of the testimony could possibly touch on national
security matters. It is therefore probable that the truth will never be know
about the murder of Mr. Kennedy and the reasons Rubenstein murdered Communist
Oswald, unless patriotic individuals and organizations discover and publish the
truth.
Back to Pre-WCR
Reactions of the Right
Back to Pre-WCR Reactions
Back to the WC Period