Mort Sahl — who was one of the most popular comedians in America in the late 1950s and early 1960s — died this week at the age of 94.
Remarkably, at the height of his success — when he was making over $1 million a year — an enormous sum at that time — he became convinced that the Warren Commission, which allegedly investigated the JFK assassination, was part of a massive cover-up — and he began discussing the “conspiracy” during his live stage shows, much to the chagrin of everyone except his fans.
Not only did he discuss the assassination during his shows, he actually joined the investigation team of Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who indicted Clay Shaw as part of a conspiracy to murder JFK — which became the basis of the Oliver Stone movie, JFK, starring Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison.
Mort Sahl — given all of his personal experience working with Garrison — was mystified why Oliver Stone would not interview him during the making of the film. But considering that Arnon Milchan — the biggest military arms dealer in Israel with deep ties to the Mossad — was the executive producer of Oliver Stone’s movie, it’s not surprising at all that Stone would have avoided that can of worms by consulting Sahl.
To put Mort Sahl’s courage in perspective — imagine Howard Stern openly talking about the 9/11 conspiracy on his nationally-syndicated radio show — something we know would never happen.
Sahl’s refusal to shut up about the JFK assassination got him blackballed in Jewish-dominated Hollywood — and he lost his career for many years as a result — something he never regretted. He eventually did start working again in the 1970s long after the controversy had blown over.
A few years before his death, Sahl did an extensive interview with his friend — celebrity P.R. agent, Elliott Mintz (see below) — and Mintz pointedly asked Sahl who killed Kennedy. Sahl said, “The C.I.A.” Of course, there’s no doubt that Clay Shaw had a ties to the C.I.A., but what Sahl failed to mention was Shaw’s connection to Permindex, the shell company connected to Jewish financier Louis Bloomfield — and his connections to Tibor Rosenbaum and the Mossad — all of which is detailed in Michael Collins Piper’s book, Final Judgment.
And, yes, James Jesus Angleton — who was Chief of Counter-Intelligence and the “Israeli Desk” at the C.I.A. — and also a staunch Zionist — was instrumental in covering up the Mossad’s connections to the assassination. And Israel created two memorials to honor Angleton — for his unspecified “help” with the Mossad.
Did Mort Sahl know about the Mossad’s connection to the JFK assassination? The answer is that — yes — he must have known. By his own admission in that extensive interview with Elliot Mintz, Sahl admitted that he had read Jim Garrison’s “unpublished book” on the assassination. In that unpublished book (not to be confused with his published book from 1981, On The Trail Of The Assassins) Garrison named Israel’s Mossad as the “mastermind” of the plot to kill Kennedy — a fact documented in Piper’s book, Final Judgment.
So why didn’t Mort Sahl ever mention the Mossad’s connection to the assassination? Most likely fear — Sahl said he knew that the same people who killed JFK also killed his brother Robert — he knew both of the brothers personally, so their deaths hit close to home. On top of that, he’d already been blackballed once — if he touched this “third rail,” his career would be permanently over.
Thanks to Oliver Stone’s whitewash, it has become very safe to claim that the “C.I.A.” killed Kennedy — the equivalent of saying the “boogeyman” did it. But if you mention Israel and the Mossad — especially if you are high-profile like Mort Sahl — you’re likely to have an unexpected fatal accident — like author Jack Bernstein — or as Frank Sinatra would euphemistically say, “He took a cab.”
Why is JFK believed to have been killed by the “far Right” when after his death:
1. There was no invasion of Cuba.
2. We got the Civil Rights Act.
3. The Voting Rights Act.
4. Fair Housing laws.
5. War on Poverty (for blacks).
6. We got Vietnam but it was conducted in such a screwed up way that we lost.
7. We got the Immigration Act of 1965.
So we are to believe that the “far Right” was competent enough to carry out the assassination and get away with it and have the US government cover it up for them yet the government went on to carry out policies that are the exact opposite of why the far Right supposedly wanted Kennedy killed?
I don’t think “the CIA” had Kennedy killed. But I know for sure they covered it up. For one, I don’t think the CIA was competent enough to do it. If you look at how they planned to kill Castro, it’s almost comical. Many of their covert ops were utter failures. The ones that did succeed only got lucky and turned out to be long term failures anyway. There were probably individuals within the US intelligence agencies that provided useful information to the assassins.
The most likely suspects are Castro and the Israeli’s. Both had the motivation to do so. It’s not out of the realm of possibility they were both involved.
I think it’s significant that we still have the embargo on Cuba. We have good relations with Vietnam and they did far worse to us. I don’t think it’s about getting Cuban votes in Florida.
I was surprised to learn that CIA chief Allen Dulles was friendly with JFK while JFK was a senator, even providing advance copies of James Bond novels to him via his friend Ian Fleming.
I don’t think the mechanics of the assassination were as complicated as made out to be. One shooter from the building across the street with a good rifle could have done it. Having multiple shooters would be too risky if it was intended to pin the assassination on one person.
I think Oswald was probably a double agent for both the US and Cuba. The CIA would not want that known.
Note that Israel and Cuba had good diplomatic relations in the early 1960s.
guest, you are wrong on many points. First, any objective analysis of the ballistics during the assassination shows a triangulation of fire, and obviously multiple shooters. First shot hit Kennedy from behind, through the back of his neck, and exited through the knot in his necktie, as you see his hands go up to his neck. The kill shot came from the front and blew out the side of his head, throwing him backwards. Jackie climbed out onto the back trunk to retrieve chunks of his brain.
What’s the motive for Cuba to kill Kennedy? Bay of Pigs? Really? You think Cuba, a third world country, is going to risk killing a sitting US president, and potentially getting wiped off the map, just because the CIA attempted a haphazard “invasion” that didn’t harm Cuba in any way, and harmed America’s reputation in a huge way?
No matter what you might “think”, there are zero facts to support your theory that Oswald was some kind of “double agent” with Cuba. Oswald was a patsy and had nothing to do with the actual assassination. The whole “Cuba connection” was concocted by the CIA itself to throw people off the trail of the real assassins. This was the crucial role that Angelton played.
If the Zapruder film is legit, it supports the shot coming from behind. Kennedy’s head ever so slightly jerks forward before that area in the side is blown off and only after that does his head jerk back. As for why his head ultimately goes back, perhaps it was the power of that piece of his skull blowing off that pushes him in the opposite direction of the skull explosion (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) or perhaps it was just some neurological reaction given he just got shot in the brain which controls that system.
Regarding Jackie picking up some of his brain matter on the back of the car, that’s a simple physics/motion thing given the car was moving forward. Go into your car while driving and toss a peanut straight up out of the window and watch it land near the back of your car or behind it. Or simply spit out your window and watch what happens. I also believe they found a lot of blood and some small fragments of his skull/brain in the car as well so it’s not like it all just flew onto the car and behind it.
The “magic bullet” is another one people get wrong because they watched too much JFK or believe Oliver Stone too much. Stone and the people that push that it had to be a “magic bullet” put both Johns sitting directly behind each other and at the same height. This is NOT how they were. The two rows of seats were slightly offset (the Connollay seats were more inside rather than going to the doors like the rear seats) and the Kennedy row was also raised higher and Kennedy was leaning on the side of the car. Anyone can go look at photos of that day and see this fact (or view the Zapruder film before the neck shot and see that Kennedy is clearly more to the right of Connally) and how it can then back up the trajectory for the wounds. Furthermore, the Zapruder film shows the two reacting at pretty much the same time, with Kennedy grabbing his neck and Connally reacting to his wrist being hit. It’s highly unlikely that magically, both were shot by two different people at the exact same time, to the point I think that likelihood being up there with a cave dwelling Muslim flying a plane into a building and his passport being found in pristine condition down the street and then also Germans being able to have cremated 1 mil+ bodies in a couple years when it would have take decades and there also being zero evidence or remains of this happening.
I have no idea if other people were actually behind JFK being killed (I could definitely see our “favorite” tribe being behind it) but what I do know is that there doesn’t need to be multiple shooters and all this other stuff for that to be true. It’s perfectly plausible that there was one guy in the place they said and he did it, as the Zapruder film (again, if it is legit) supports. I also don’t know why so many that believe it was a “conspiracy” act like Oswald wasn’t even a part of it and that he was just some great guy. He was a commie and I don’t see why it would be so hard for people to have manipulated him and got him to do the hit. Someone claiming they are a patsy doesn’t mean they are innocent. Just means they got duped and became the lone fall guy.
There were multiple witnesses of shots coming from multiple directions. A shot hit the curb right near the feet of some onlookers watching the limo go by. It’s simply untenable to claim one gunman from behind, unless you are Gerald Posner or Arlen Specter who believe in magic bullets that just appear on stretchers in hospital hallways just when you need them. Sorry, Mike, so sale.
Agreed!
On all points here.
I thought she was going for the back of his Skull but 100% on the triangulation & everything else.
I could’ve sworn I saw an old interview back when we all had dial up where Jackie said why she went out on the trunk.
The ZAPRUDER Film was altered.
The driver stopped the limousine and then turned and shot President Kennedy.
One witness to the shooting was Jean Hill and in the movie “JFK” she stated the “driver stopped the vehicle”.
You should read the following book
“Definite Proof – The Secret Service Murder of President John F Kennedy”
I looked at that over & over. They did alter the film but if you watch it real close what looks like a gun turns out to be the top of the other guys black hair.
Besides his head snapped back and & to his left, toward Jackie. Now if the driver would’ve shot him his head would’ve snapped to the back & to his right.
JFK wins the (((stolen))) election of 1960, goes along with implementing Tikkun Olam, but gets whacked because while he was for the jewish agenda in America, he was anti-zionist?
With all the leftism that JFK implemented, I’m half surprised that the narrative is allowed to be “the CIA whacked him” rather than “the RWNJs did him in”.
I’m still a bit confused by this overall as I’ve read on here that JFK’s Profiles in Courage is “based”, but aside from giving nukes to Israel, what did LBJ do as POTUS that JFK would not of had he lived?
By today’s standard, JFK would be considered a “right wing extremist”. He was a politician, not a truth teller. What he believed in private was not the same as the policies that he promoted. Personally, I think Eisenhower did far more of the bidding of the Jews than JFK ever did. Ike made America safe for Jewry’s takeover. But Ike still gets a free pass, especially from those who think of the Eisenhower years as white America’s greatest era, the calm before the storm.
Jackie..
Levy.
French joo plant.
“What did LBJ do as POTUS that JFK would not have had he lived” (other than give Israel the nuclear bomb) is you answering your own question.
JFK was all about nuclear non-proliferation. He was told about the Israelis nuke works at Dimona and insisted upon an inspection of the facility to shut it down. Within a few months, JFK was dead and LBJ was helping Israel. Nukes are clearly an Israeli survival need they were not going to allow anyone to stop. There is a reason that Jack Ruby’s real name is Jacob Rubenstein.
RWNJs?
You’re right LBJ gave them nukes which is something JFK was not going to do.
Those bstrds wouldn’t have attacked the U.S.S. Liberty.
Being a jew, he certainly wouldn’t have reason to fear the top of the heap – Or, Would he?
“9-11 The Lauder-Rothschild Connection” – Christopher Bollyn
https://www.bollyn.com/16214/
Mort didn’t identify as a Jew. He grew up in a secular family and he wanted to assimilate.
He didn’t think like most Jews and didn’t participate in the Jewish “hive mind”.
A critic of Israel, Sahl remained secular but said, “I believe in Jesus, and I wish he were coming back to punish all these people. The story sounds very rational to me, driving the money changers out of the temple, honor thy father and mother….I like the idea of universal justice, ‘Father, why have you forsaken me?’….It terrifies me that this is all an accident.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HUqLuXUy8
That clip of Mort reminds me of discussion on here about whether non-Adamics can be Christian, and the idea that if they follow Christianity then their reward is the order and stability that adhering to its tenets brings them in this life.
Mort seems to be expressing that same position here, while subscribing to it himself?
Sahl was too smart for show business.
He dumbed himself down to make a living.
He was amusing without even trying to be funny.
Not really a comedian at all.
Yes, by today’s standards Mort Sahl would definitely have been considered a right wing extremist. He definitely criticized the radicalism of the left, especially feminism and racial identity politics.
The fact that he called blacks “negroes” is enough to get him cancelled today.
If “negroes” is enough to get him canceled today then I look forward to the day when MLK statues are taken down by the lefties and tossed into the scrap bins.
Martin Luther King, the negro who called himself a negro. If it’s good enough for him, it should be good enough for everyone.
Mort Sahl and Jim Garrison were personal friends. Garrison definitely would have personally sent Mort Sahl a copy of his unpublished manuscript. Not a stretch at all to think that Sahl knew Garrison had fingered the Mossad.