C.A.A. Savastano's Blog

A charitable act hoping to improve the situation of others without any expectation of reward is noble. However, we must distinguish between authentic charitable work and those using such things for manipulative purposes. Some United States government agencies have avoided employing force by using political or financial methods to influence domestic law and the policy of foreign nations. These methods expand a base of soft power by using charity groups to conceal deeper covert intentions. The expansion of a “humanitarian” group leads to greater funding, influence, membership, and sometimes more power under the guise of helping people. Legal clashes since last year over the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have led to significant budget cuts, moving several programs to the US State Department, and its formal closure. While some claim the entire agency was corrupt and others deem all its programs essential, neither claim is based wholly on facts.

USAID was created for charitable purposes but it quickly became a cover mechanism for the Central Intelligence Agency and other groups amid the nineteen sixties. Legitimate charity and programs were funded and run by members of USAID, but that does not justify the expanding corruption within the organization. It cannot account for the lack of accountability, illegal financial schemes, or deceptions committed to silently enforce government policy. One modern instance alleges multiple USAID contractors fraudulently charged the government one hundred thousand dollars in the course of multiple years. A related suspect, Steven Paul Edmund Sutton, pled guilty to pocketing twenty-one thousand for himself.i Yet this was the proverbial tip of the duplicity iceberg. Mahmoud Al Hafyan was charged for defrauding USAID by diverting nine million dollars in humanitarian aid to armed groups in Syria and one terrorist group in Iraq. A Federal Bureau of Investigation agent’s statement noted, “Al Hafyan diverted millions of dollars” to support terrorists and “...to line his own pockets.”ii

Roderick Watson, a USAID contacting officer, and three business owners pleaded guilty for “their roles in a decade-long bribery scheme involving at least 14 prime contracts worth over 550 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars.”iii USAID had dramatic credibility issues, lacked true oversight, and used charity to pursue intelligence goals. However, it will not be the last group used for such purposes, and it certainly was not the first in modern US history. USAID has become synonymous with corruption and intelligence operations under the guise of humanitarian assistance. Yet it was a government run group. One likely modeled off the earlier use of independent charity groups. The question is which groups and do they still exist?

Amidst nineteen thirty-three a committee of “American intellectuals, artists, clergy, and political leaders” formed a branch of the International Relief Association at the behest of its leader, Albert Einstein. It was created to aid refugees escaping fascist Germany, which Einstein himself did later that year. The group was rightly lauded in the press for its early humanitarian work during the nineteen thirties and forties by helping untold people escape the despotic German regime. “Another group of leaders formed the Emergency Rescue Committee when Paris fell…” and both groups eventually merged. “And so came into being the organization that grew into today’s International Rescue Committee” (IRC). The group’s current website notes “At this time, there were no refugee programs, no aid agencies to ensure the safety of refugees. IRC volunteers were among the first civilians to offer aid to Europe’s displaced peoples after Germany’s surrender”.iv Similar to USAID, the IRC was created with noble intentions and did significant good but was not immune to the unseen hand of intelligence.

Leo M. Cherne was the IRC Chairman for Multiple Decades

The first notable member of the later IRC leadership with proven connections to the Central Intelligence Agency, is businessman, diplomat, and humanitarian Leo Cherne. He built his name in government by authoring policy documents and books regarding New Deal programs and the effects of America entering WWII. His growing influence was accentuated by predicting the US would enter the war years before Pearl Harbor. After joining the faculty of Georgetown University, Leo’s undertakings further included founding the Research Institute of America publishing company. He became the International Rescue Committee’s Board Chairman during nineteen fifty-one and was granted covert security approval by the CIA the same year. Cherne eventually gave regular speeches at military, government, and business events. He used acquired business connections for the CIA’s Project QKENCHANT, a nineteen fifties program designed to use companies for cover and intelligence gathering. Cherne was simultaneously undertaking intelligence operations amid his earliest years leading the IRC. Seemingly that would establish he might influence the operations of a charity, since he was already doing the same thing with related businesses.

IRC President JohN Richardson Jr. Amidst The Late Nineteen Forties

This reasonable deduction is confirmed within some of John F. Kennedy files released earlier this year. Several intelligence gathering reports submitted over a decade by varying IRC officials from across the globe connects some in the group with the CIA. John Richardson Jr., an IRC Board member and later President was providing intelligence to government officials during the nineteen fifties. He provided a Hungarian officials comments about the “U-2” spy plane “incident”, the “status” of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, and other matters of political interest. He further appraised officials regarding Hungarian politics stating “Political Situation Stabilized for Time Being/No Positive Support of Regime/Desire of Regime for International Acceptance/Suggestions for Increased Contact with Hungarian People”. However, the reformist Hungarian government of Imre Nagy that American officials supported was later defeated by the Soviets. Richardson provided his “contacts in Poland” to officials and noted important potential sources of intelligence with stars. He eventually became the president of Radio Free Europe amidst the nineteen sixties, another CIA influenced group, but remained on the IRC’s board.

William J. Van den Heuval was Among the IRC Leaders Sending CIA Multiple Intelligence Reports

William J. Van den Heuvel, a subsequent IRC president also offered intelligence gathered from its charity efforts. He sent contact reports that provided information about varying locales that range from West Berlin to Angola. Officials were being provided information on student movements aiding refugees fleeing East Germany and monitoring the effect of Soviet medical facilities on local populations. Van den Heuvel’s biography is also quite interesting. He joined William Donovan’s law firm and subsequently was the assistant to both Ambassador Donovan and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. Donovan was the illustrious leader of the Office of Strategic Services, a wartime intelligence group that following multiple reorganizations became the Central Intelligence Agency.

The IRC faced public criticism in the course of the nineteen seventies, because they allegedly prior took fifteen thousand dollars from the CIA via the Norman Foundation. A supreme irony was the claim followed President Ford’s appointment of Leo Cherne to a “committee that will investigate the possible abuses of authority by the Central Intelligence Agency.” Cherne told the media that no IRC official “had the slightest knowledge that any of those were C.I.A. funds”. He went on to state the committee “never sought” Agency funding and “would not have ‘welcomed’ them if they had been offered overtly”. Indeed, Leo seemed to prefer only covert relationships with intelligence services.v A day later, the Norman Foundation leader who prior stated he received official funds made a public retraction in the press.

At the close of nineteen seventy-nine the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and gained control over significant areas of land. That military takeover created a wave of dissidents and exiles seeking to flee elsewhere. The Carter administration in America responded by increasing aid to Afghan insurgents. When related US government policy began to affect the IRC’s goals, Cherne’s sought to manipulate it with his own intelligence connections. A nineteen eighty memo from Leo Cherne to CIA Director William Casey bemoans rule changes by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service. The reasoning given by Cherne was strictly based on supposed humanitarian principles such as preventing undue hardship for refugees. Yet if he wanted to honestly change government policy would Leo not have approached the officials running it? Instead, he used the leader of the CIA to influence others privately and decry such policy.

CIA Director Casey states in a followup memo “...I have been appraised by our mutual friend Leo Cherne...Leo is Chairman of the International Rescue Committee...the Immigration and Naturalization Service has been turning back refugees who are deemed to have left...to better themselves economically rather than escape political oppression. This is too fine a line and, when applied to turning back refugees back to Afghanistan and Cambodia, it becomes quite outrageous.”vi Perhaps more outrageous, is the fact the CIA Director was trying to alter government policy for his friend’s charity. This communication illustrates the IRC’s Chairman using the Central Intelligence Agency in efforts to covertly further his group’s purposes. It appears Leo Cherne’s past denials are demolished by his own repeated actions and those IRC’s members who frequently reported to intelligence employees.

While the International Rescue Committee began with truly admirable goals, time has made some of its former programs resemble USAID. The IRC settled a multimillion dollar lawsuit with the US government during two-thousand and twenty-one for accusations of “Engaging in Collusive Behavior and Misconduct on Programs Funded by the United States Agency for International Development”.vii According to the settled lawsuit, by two-thousand and twelve some in the IRC were allegedly engaged in the same corrupt practices that shut down USAID. Make of that what you will. However, the eroded trust in some modern charities is well deserved based upon groups serving as tools of intelligence community. The IRC was noted by Forbes to be the fortieth largest charity within the United States with an estimated total revenue of more than a billion dollars amid twenty twenty-four. It’s highest compensated officer was paid over a million dollars annually and it held net assets of two hundred and eighty-one million dollars.viii When being charitable, attempt to learn exactly who you are providing resources to based on available evidence and ignore the emotional manipulation.
Sincerely,
C.A.A. Savastano

References:
i. United States Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia, May 19, 2025, Former Contractor of USAID-Funded Program Extradited to the United States, Convicted and Sentenced for Conspiracy to Obtain Grant Money Through Fraud, United States Department of Justice, justice.gov
ii. US Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia, November 19, 2024, Syrian National Charged with Diverting $9 Million in U.S.-funded Humanitarian Assistance to a Terrorist Organization Affiliated with Al-Qaida, US Department of Justice, justice.gov
iii. US Office of Public Affairs, June 12, 2025, USAID Official and Three Corporate Executives Plead Guilty to Decade Long Bribery Scheme Involving Over $550 Million in Contracts; Two Companies Admit Criminal Liability for Bribery Scheme and Securities Fraud, US Department of Justice, justice.gov
iv. Rescue Timeline 1933, March 14, 2015, Albert Einstein and the birth of the International Rescue Committee, The International Rescue Committee, rescue.org
v. John M. Crewdson, February 20, 1976, Group Led by C.I.A. Board Nominee Reportedly Got $15,000 From Agency, New York Times, newyorktimes.com
vi. William J. Casey, May 13, 1981, Letter to the Honorable William French Smith, Central Intelligence Agency, cia.gov
vii. US Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia, March 19, 2021, The International Rescue (“IRC”) Agrees to Pay $6.9 Million To Settle Allegations That Ut Performed Procurement Fraud by Engaging in Collusive Behavior and Misconduct on Programs Funded by the United States Agency for International Development, US DOJ, justice.gov
viii. The Largest 100 U.S. Charities, 2024, The International Rescue Committee, Forbes, forbes.com

Related Articles
Cold War Business
Killing the Wrong Revolutionary

Four Suspects accused of Crimes Targeting Property & Vehicles Include: (LTR) Paul Kim, Cooper Jo Frederick, Lucy Grace Nelson, and Daniel Pounder

Just months after a small minority of fringe voices within America praised illegal attacks targeting its next president, a rich and influential business leader was murdered on the streets of New York. United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was allegedly killed by twenty-six year old Luigi Mangione. The victim was a white, wealthy, male, and the resulting praise for his death and assailant has been quite something to behold. Several people across the country have supported this brazen vigilante crime. Mangione has quickly gathered admirers and supporters akin to other infamous criminals such as Charles Manson or Ted Bundy. I wonder if his victim had been a woman of a different cultural background would these supporters feel differently? Weeks later a female teenager would carry out the thirty-ninth school shooting within the United States this year.

Luigi Mangione Following Arrest

Some public advocates for Mangione attempt to label him as martyr or striking a blow for what they term justice. Yet they blame all the past actions of a corporation upon a single person while asserting this was acceptable. However, that is not how logic, corporations, or the law works. Logically there are several other methods of seeking to find justice that do not require murdering another person. From initiating lawsuits to seeking aid from legal advocacy groups, the alleged perpetrator had the money to undertake a real legal crusade if he cared to do so. Instead he killed someone for his grievances and has amassed a significant defense fund provided by those of like ideals. Yet justice requires a legal setting, it is the antithesis of justice to kill someone without a trial or regard to the rule of law.

Most people have some respect for the law because any thinking person understands civilized society depends upon it. Yet that respect dwindles when emotion leads to some celebrating random self-appointed vigilantes. Luigi Mangione a person who is not rational or intelligent enough to figure out a non-violent solution. A killer who arbitrarily chose his target and decided to violate the most enshrined American right, the right to life. For if a society cannot agree that all people have a right to exist, it is not a civilized one. Such action dictates a disregard for the assurances of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness within the Declaration of Independence. You have respect for the life of others or you do not.

Some have alleged certain political doctrines are responsible but this only explains a part of the greater issue. Mangione reportedly drew from several different questionable influences and political doctrines and was even himself a paradox of sorts. He was a white, upper class, ivy league educated male who believed he was striking a blow for all people by killing someone like him. Luigi Mangione is not a folk hero, he is just another infamous killer in a recent modern succession. The results in such matters lead to responses unanticipated by most and consequences applied not to the assailant but the public. Those cheering and offering public support do not understand the new costs we all shall pay.

Corporations quickly started creating or increasing their security coverage for leading figures which likely will now increase financial costs. Such new financial burdens will likely be passed onto the public. I have repeatedly supported that illegal violence is a self-defeating practice that renders greater punitive overreach by government. Official entities wield the ability to label more crimes domestic terrorism and increase budgets accordingly. It allows for criminal acts to be redefined and defendants can be removed from all the legal criminal protections into military or extralegal bodies to render whatever they call justice.

Unsurprisingly, Luigi Mangione has been charged with domestic terrorism in New York and this will feasibly set a legal precedent. Such a legal standard will allow those in power, no matter the political party, to charge other citizens under questionable and broad standards of what precisely is murder and what they deem constitutes terrorism. A legal Pandora’s box has been flung open with little concerns for all the damage it may cause and the potentially demolished rights of accused citizens. New York District Attorney Alan Bragg has attempted to present the act being terrorism because “it was a killing intended to evoke terror” but failed to offer any extensive statutory legal basis.i Bragg has decided this murder, which in nearly any other criminal case would be just a murder, is terrorism.

New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg

However, in the very same city a month prior, Bragg opined that criminal gangs undertaking violent crimes repeatedly for years “did not impact just these defendants and their associates...It impacted the entire neighborhood, a climate of fear for ordinary residents who had no part in this violence.”ii Bragg admits those suspects terrorized a neighborhood for years, they killed each other and harmed others by establishing a climate of public fear. Until their apprehension, the 200/8 Block, 6 Block, and Own Every Dollar allegedly shot eighteen people, killed seven people, and this includes four innocent bystanders. Alvin Bragg in a related press release said “I want to be very clear: if you...use guns to commit violence against fellow Manhattanites, you will be held accountable.”iii Yet these wide ranging criminal groups were not charged with terrorism but murder and several other associated criminal charges.

Based upon the standard used by Alvin Bragg, it appears the death of a regular terrorized citizen is murder but a wealthy and influential citizen’s death is terrorism. A single violent act that may have frightened a small part of the public, lead corporate executives, is considered provoking societal terror. Conversely, a years long gang campaign of intimidation and violence targeting Americans does not qualify for the more serious charge Mangione faces. It would seems Bragg’s most powerful allegations are utilized not to protect his district but for highly publicized cases. In my view, the law should be fairly and universally applied even in moments of public outrage. Luigi Mangione if convicted should face the legal standard for all his crimes, nothing less and nothing more. To punish any citizen with untested or legally questionable standards is a violation of their constitutional rights and renders injustice for all.

Unfortunately, actual politically motivated violent attacks on people and property have continued to increase since the beginning of this year. Many former protests that incited significantly less violent reactions were largely constrained to President Donald Trump’s properties and seemingly did not pose a public threat. Things have quickly changed, widespread political vandalism now targets vehicles with alarming frequency using weapons that range from keys to explosives. While several current and past protests and cases of widespread vandalism were contained largely to younger age groups, many current vandals have no excuse of ignorance or youth. Quite a few of these “adults” were over forty, based on age, yet their behavior resembles a destructive toddler without concern for illegal acts. While the question of whether these attacks were coordinated remains, that a growing pattern of violent unlawful behavior is now ongoing cannot be reasonably debated.

Months following Elon Musk political alliance with the Trump campaign a string of attacks began. Molotov cocktails struck an Oregon city Tesla dealership in January on the day Donald Trump was inaugurated. A forty-one year old man has been charged with attempted arson in multiple incidents and firing a rifle at the dealership amid the next month.iv The next attack struck a Tesla dealership in Colorado allegedly using the political graffiti and the same type of incendiary devices the first had. Two men, a forty-two year old and second man in his twenties were arrested for separate alleged crimes involving the same Loveland dealership.v vi During March gunfire targeted an Oregon Tesla dealership twice, one Las Vegas dealership was firebombed, and explosives were discovered in a Texas dealer’s showroom.vii This was accompanied by a widened list of related targets that included charging stations being destroyed or damaged in Massachusetts, Indiana, and South Carolina.viii

A “DOGEQUEST” Map of America Noting Tesla Owners, Dealers, and Protests

Vandalism and destruction of Tesla properties expanded to potentially include anyone that owns a Tesla vehicle nationwide. Some have even tried to justify these intimidation tactics which employ violence, online threats, and false police reports. A now removed website named Dogequest contained “a list of Tesla owners, their addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses in an apparent effort to dox those who have not sold their vehicles out of fear of being targeted.”ix x Such fear was proven legitimate as dozens of vehicles were keyed with fascist symbols, smashed, and set ablaze in not just the United States but internationally as well. Vandalism and firebombing of Tesla properties and several vehicles have also been reported within Canada, Sweden, Italy, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand.

This voracious political hatred is leading people to lose all respect for the legal rights of other American citizens. Those still desiring to feed their limitless political outrage that have yet to act, may wish to reconsider similar behavior. As those being charged shall learn, unlike Luigi Mangione, several later Tesla attack suspects actually meet the United States government’s definition of domestic terrorism. They are undertaking “ideologically driven crimes in the United States that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy or conduct of a government.”xi The civil population would be endangered Tesla dealers, workers, or car owners and the government body influenced would be the Trump administration.xii These acts only help the ideological opponents of prior mentioned suspects because the majority of public opinion is against criminal violence.

Gov. JOSH Shapiro & His Family were targeted by a Firebombing

Only deluded people can believe these crimes are justified or will effectively accomplish legitimate political change. Those wasting a breath to defend such injustices may wish to consider what happens if this mob decides another type of political ideology is unacceptable? Will current supporters be so eager to cheer on criminals destroying their property or privacy? Less than one day after this article was completed, the democratic Governor of Pennsylvania’s residence was firebombed while Josh Shapiro and his family were inside asleep.xiii Is a fleeting moment of imagined revenge worth targeting innocent people and destroying your reputation forever? All suspects found guilty will likely face extensive court fines, serious legal consequences, and be remembered as just a footnote in criminal history.
Sincerely,
C.A.A. Savastano

References:
i. Jake Offenhartz and Jennifer Peltz, December 17, 2024, Suspect charged with killing United Healthcare’s CEO as an act of terrorism, Associated Press, apnews.com
ii. Melanie Marich and Jorge Fitz-Gibbon, New York Post, 30 Members of feuding NYC street gangs busted after bloody turf war that killed seven: ‘A climate of fear’, New York Post, nypost.com
iii. Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, November 14, 2024, D.A. Bragg: 30 Gang Members Indicted For Widespread Gun Violence Over Six Year Period, manhattanda.org
iv. Isabel Funk, April 3, 2025, Salem filmmaker pleads not guilty of attempted arson in Tesla dealership attacks, Salem Statesman Journal, statesmanjournal.com
v. United States Attorney’s Office, District of Colorado, February 27, 2025, Lyons Resident Charged In Connection With Series of Incidents At Loveland Tesla Dealership, US Department of Justice, justice.gov
vi. Sage Kelley, March 14, 2025, Second arrest made in string of Loveland Tesla attempted arsons, The Denver Gazette, denvergazette.com
vii. Micheal Dorgan, April 2, 2025, Number of Tesla attacks soars past 50 as violence targeting Musk’s company escalates, Fox News, foxnews.com
viii. Andrew Goudsward and Jasper Ward, March 20, 2025, Three charged in arson attacks at Tesla dealerships, charging stations, Reuters, reuters.com
ix. David Ingham. March 19, 2025, A website mapped Tesla owners and their personal information amid a wave of of attacks, NBC News, nbcnews.com
x. Alexandra Koch, March 21, 2025, Tesla vehicles, dealerships targeted with arson, gunfire and vandalism in at least 9 states: FBI, Fox News, foxnews.com
xi. United States Congressional Research Service, December 29, 2023, Understanding and Conceptualizing Domestic Terrorism: Issues for Congress, US Congress, congress.gov
xii. Johnathan J. Cooper and Gene Johnson, March 19, 2025, Violent attacks on Tesla dealerships spike as Musk takes prominent role in Trump White House, Associated Press, apnews.com
xiii. Kinsey Crowley, April 14, 2025, Photos capture extensive damage to Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home after arson attack, USA Today, usatoday.com

Related Article:
The Menace of Malice

Media and public speculations regarding unidentified drones spotted in the United States within recent months have ranged from aliens to foreign governments. The story built often on sensationalism was manipulated by some in politics to further incite the matter and present themselves as if they were doing something about it. Yet this was despite that no politician or media personality complaining had portrayed the matter as beyond the control of American officials. Consider that if a foreign government or otherworldly presence desired to infiltrate America they might turn off the lights on a drone to prevent detection. It would make little sense for a military enemy or anyone intent on nefarious deeds to advertise there presence. Yet the many drones, that also include misidentified commercial aircraft, were not seeking to conceal themselves but in several instances were there precisely to be observed. Why did these drones garner significant media attention and what did they distract public attention from?

The sightings reportedly began about two weeks following the Twenty-twenty-four US presidential election and would escalate with commensurate media hype as the Biden presidency came to an end.i Public reports of drones and other strange objects, in some cases the size of trucks, were spotted in multiple regions across the United States. Drone sightings expanded from dozens to estimated thousands of them spotted in the skies over California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.ii Unknown flying objects were also observed internationally at multiple Royal Air Force bases in England, a US Air Force base in Germany, and both of those foreign governments were at a loss to explain these appearances. Based on several later reports they were a mixture of misidentified local air traffic and private citizen drones. Yet several aerial vehicles reported seemed to possess more advanced technology and used stealthy tactics.

A Common “Quadcopter” Drone Used by The American Public and several Businesses

The Federal Bureau of Investigation stated they were unaware of who controlled these nearly silent drones but also insisted the US military and foreign governments were not responsible. At least one American governor, senator, congressman, mayor, and local emergency management official called for action to be taken by President Biden and federal agencies in December of last year but the unexplained drone wave raged on. Officials were supposedly unaware or unwilling to disclose how our airspace was seemingly not under government control. “The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have said such sightings mostly appear to be not drones at all”.iii The operative word in that sentence is mostly.

Among the early clues which revealed the origin of these vehicles were multiple appearances of “unidentified” drones near US military bases domestically, abroad, or hovering near research facilities. These drones were likely controlled by the American government due to the strict control of its own secured air spaces. It is nearly unthinkable the United States military would allow possible enemy aircraft near their holdings under any circumstances. Yet these potentially dangerous flying vehicles remained a legitimate threat and no official could or would explain who controlled them. Eventually the persistence of aerial sightings “sparked widespread circulation and conspiracy theories, with officials investigation” but provided no “clear answers”.iv

“White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby” believed that everything was likely just people “mistaking manned aircraft for drones”. While that does explain some, perhaps even a majority of the phenomenon, it fails to account for simultaneous domestic and international sightings in the same period that were not manned aircraft. Nor does this dismiss multiple smaller craft observed near restricted government and military airspace. However, local New Jersey officials disagreed and believe their warnings to “the federal government have fallen on deaf ears.” It was almost as if some federal officials were dismissive of those unaware of what these vehicles were actually doing.

Seal of the US Federal Aviation Administration

Problems would arise when multiple emergency lines were overwhelmed by reports and potentially affected emergency services response times in related areas. New York Governor Kathy Hochul said the drone incursions were so pervasive that runways were closed for a short period at one New York airport.v Certainly the drones were causing fear, uncertainty, and anger in citizens that were provided no real answers for months and drove the creation of disinformation and conspiracy theories. The United States Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for enforcing aerospace regulations and they issued temporary flying restrictions on drones within certain counties “due to special security reasons”.vi The FAA order was among the growing factors which support these machines were indeed part of “special security” operations. Threats of the US government using deadly force on those who violated certain airspace would additionally lend credence this was no longer merely attempts to assuage public fears but to lock down airspace in multiple areas for its own reasons.

Perhaps a federal agency had been manipulating things by using the unidentified drones for its own purposes. The very disinformation so many American bureaucrats have deemed a threat were now possibly being inspired by an officials themselves. Military leadership stated they could not “stop them” but further claimed six instances of drones spotted over military bases were “no threat to installation operations and no impact to air and ground operations”.vii However, a former military chief of the US Northern Command and NORAD told one media outlet “who is responsible for coordination across all organizations in the government to address this...everybody’s pointing their fingers at each other saying its not our responsibility.”viii So was the message unconcern or hysteria, that depends on the date of the statement.ix A decided lack of consistent official positions about these unknown objects does not inspire one to believe such repeated claims. That skepticism is warranted.

Prior FAA ADMINistrator Michael Whitaker

The Trump administration during January revealed its predecessor had “authorized” the FAA to use government drones for “research and various other reasons” under the leadership of Michael Whitaker.x For over two months they had done so with an utter disregard for the public good. President Donald Trump had stated prior to assuming office the Biden administration was concealing its full knowledge and wanted to “keep people in suspense”. Consider if the FAA wanted to undertake normal research or even clandestine operations it could have done so in a contained area or provided local governments general information to minimize negative consequences. Conversely, if a group wanted to see all the negative effects and public reactions unknown drones might inspire they could just observe precisely what occurred.

This misuse of government power shrieks of Cold War operations undertaken by some intelligence agencies upon American citizens. Claims of widespread psychological operations are usually the stuff of history, the realm of film, or based on tenuous claims without evidence. Yet this drone hysteria was fueled with reckless abandon by taxpayer dollars and corrupt officials who did not concern themselves with any negative public consequences. They insulted the intelligence of the American people to perhaps distract from years of failure in foreign policy matters, questionable pardons, or perhaps to sow dissension in the period before a new presidency. There is no satisfactory explanation for this deception and I doubt those responsible will face legal justice as regular Americans would. Never trust any theory, official or public, which does not possess sufficient evidence.
Sincerely,
C.A.A. Savastano

References:
i. Jeff Arnold, December 14, 2024, Mystery drones: Where they have been spotted?, The Hill, the hill.com
ii. Bernd Debusmann Jr., December 19, 2024, What we know about mysterious drones over New Jersey and other states, BBC, bbc.com
iii. Jeanine Santucci, December 14, 2024, ‘Drone sightings’ prompt worries, but these theories could explain what’s happening, USA Today, usatoday.com
iv. Adeja Shivonne, December 14, 2024, What we know so far about the alleged drones in NJ, NY: Residents remain skeptical, Fox News, fox5ny.com
v. Anthony Robledo, December 14, 2024, ‘This has gone too far’: Drones temporarily closed runways at NY airport, governor says, USA Today, usatoday.com
vi. ABC Digital Staff, December 19, 2024, FAA bans drones in parts of NJ, notice threatens ‘deadly force’ for ‘imminent security threat’, ABC News, 6abc.com
vii. Haley Britzky, December 21, 2024, Drones continue to buzz over US bases. The military isn’t sure why or how to stop them, CNN, cnn.com
viii. Ibid
ix. Tom Hanson, December 22, 2024, Why drone hysteria has taken off, CBS News, cbsnews.com
x. Stacey Dec, January 28, 2025, Trump says NJ drones were ‘authorized’ after suggesting Biden kept public ‘in suspense’, ABC News, abcnews.com

Evidence and information related to Carmine Savastano’s 2024 JFK Lancer presentation “The Modern Age of Political Rage” are offered for your review. The speech includes a brief review of modern assassination attempts and two questions that remain despite the extensive press coverage and statements offered by officials. These attempts are further considered in the context of what appears to be just the latest cycle of modern American political violence. Four distinct spans of rage fueled by societal divisions, political incitement, and increasing security failures amidst the last sixty years are inspected. What began in Dallas six decades ago was feasibly the first attack, in a series of dozens, which targeted presidents and presidential candidates. The presentation offers a sobering look at increasing violent trends and considers if society can muster the will to reverse them.

Articles
The Unwanted Unknowns
A Public Review of the Secret Service
A Public Review of the Secret Service pt. 2
The Menace of Malice

Evidence
Preliminary Report of the United States House of Representatives
US v Ryan Wesley Routh Court Documents

Podcast
“Maybe Carmine...Maybe Not”, The Lone Gunman Podcast, Episode 317

JFK Lancer Website

In just over a few months we have experienced two confirmed political attacks targeting a presidential candidate. Each of those events has gained some clarity but also inspired some officials to predict the next potential occurrence to avoid repeating past security failures. Yet investigators should never presume they cannot be mistaken or a public accusation is warranted lacking the necessary evidence. We are in the early stages of official investigations but some desire to name the next potential attacker precipitously. This has in past cases lead to more public confusion and officials misinforming the very people who employ them. Unwanted questions and unknown motivations can linger despite the best attempts or intentions of law enforcement to close a case.

Vem MILLER WAS Arrested Outside A Trump Rally in CAlifornia

Just last month Vem Miller was arrested by police in his vehicle outside a Trump Coachella Valley event where he attempted to gain access beyond a perimeter checkpoint. Miller, according to several officials, drove a vehicle with a fake license plate, had multiple unregistered firearms, significant ammunition, and varying false documents. He would later purport being a weapon novice and like a “kindergartner kid when it comes to guns” yet he was adult enough to illegally load and carry them. One would further surmise that Miller actually fired them on occasion if he planned to protect himself effectively despite alleged claims he never fired a gun before. If he felt so insecure it was always within his ability to not attend the Trump event to stay safe, but Vem did attend the heavily secured rally, thus he did not feel insecure and required no weapons.

While Miller did elude notice at the first security perimeter checkpoint he was caught in his vehicle at the second checkpoint possessing false press credentials, loaded weapons, and no credible reason to enter armed beyond his claims of journalism. Local officials offered they had “probably” averted a third assassination attempt but federal officials stated there was no danger to the former president. When Miller was later questioned about the circumstances of his arrest he stated no bail was required and Sheriff’s lied about this detail. Yet based on police records his claim is false. Miller was arrested and only released after paying five thousand dollars in bail for two misdemeanor charges, carrying a loaded firearm and possessing a large capacity magazine.i Miller would assert that nearly all official evidence and statements concerning his arrest were false, this is notable, because it is verifiably untrue. Miller would claim further to have met several people in the Trump family and been “integrally involved” with the campaign. However, if that were the case he did not require false passes and identification to enter. No Trump campaign representative has affirmed contacting Miller for campaign planning or at events.

Vem Miller allegedly sought to bring illegal guns and false documents into a political rally following two attempts to assassinate Donald Trump in the last few months. He purports to not be aware of gun laws in California as if this would excuse his actions. Yet this professed ignorance of the law does not explain why he brought a loaded shotgun in his vehicle to a political rally, even the most foolish person would understand that is a bad idea. Nevertheless, he did all of this and now acts surprised that anyone took issue with his activities. Vem Miller’s asserts that all who dealt with him were liars and charges related to his case would support he is either profoundly incompetent or knowingly deceptive. Miller stated in one interview “Nothing they did is lawful, I did not do anything they are claiming I did” but little fact supports his arguments.ii Yet despite all the deficiencies in Miller’s claims, he is correct that local officials should not have named him a potential assassin without more evidence.

Officials already had proven charges which are legally sufficient for prosecution but claims that police foiled a third attempt on Donald Trump’s life are not based on significant facts. If truly he was a suspected assassin more evidence is required to prove this and federal officials would likely have charged him if sufficient proof existed to do so. The Riverside Sheriff’s office could have charged Miller with a felony count instead of misdemeanor illegal gun possession, thus if he was a sufficient threat they should have done so. Miller is at best an unrelated but properly detected security threat and his apprehension reveals modern security measures can be used effectively. In this instance officials created a problem for themselves by inflating his importance.

Another source of multiple past historical controversies emerge from some in the public seizing upon official discrepancies related to incomplete crime scene handling. Transparent legal procedures with multiple independent observers are necessary if reliable inquiries are desired. Should officials want to prevent rampant misinformation spreading they require open investigations which can be publicly verified. Securing a crime scene for appropriate durations to allow multiple investigating official groups access to untainted evidence is quite important. We can observe the past loss of crime scene control, such as in the Kennedy cases, allows varying potential witnesses to leave without statements. It further allows officials, members of the press, and the public to alter and taint the crime scene and prevent viable later investigations. Nevertheless, old habits are hard to break, and officials have already made prodigious errors seeking to shut down public questions and deem such cases within their ability to control. However, one notable question has drawn the attention of some in the United States legislature to the recent attack in Pennsylvania.

Thomas Crooks Attacked TRUMP and Others in Pennslyvania

A preliminary United States congressional report on the event in Butler notes the Federal Bureau of Investigation “released the crime scene after just 3 days”. Several local official reactions spanned from “surprise to dismay to suspicion” after this action in light of the Bureau’s awareness that Congressional investigations had already been announced. The report offers “FBI does not exist in a vacuum. They had to know...releasing the J13 crime scene would injure the immediate observations of any following investigation.”iii While the Bureau might claim they had done all necessary review, it is not within their power to make final determinations as merely one of multiple investigating groups. According to a Department of Justice crime scene procedure guide the average duration for processing should take hours to a few days. However, cases of significant historical importance may require longer periods of evidence preservation beyond the average parameters. Why the FBI rapidly processed the evidence and scrubbed the scene without concern for additional investigators is worth questioning. Especially due to past verifiable attempts by the same agency to conceal evidence in similar circumstances. They might have simply been seeking to protect the now shattered image of the Secret Service but federal officials have only provided skeptics a new reason to doubt them. The Bureau disrupted continued investigations and this logically further reduces the public’s trust in the Department of Justice.

RYAN ROUTH Was Captured After Targeting TRUMP in Florida

Another matter officials cannot explain is how Ryan Wesley Routh, the second Trump attacker, had significant prior knowledge of his target’s location before his apprehension. Acting Secret Service director Ronald Rowe Jr. stated the West Palm Beach golfing trip was not originally part of Trump’s private schedule.iv The public did not have access to any of that information. Some might say a truly lucky guess, so let us explore that idea. Routh reportedly lived in Hawaii and would travel many states away to undertake his attempt.v Trump participated in a debate September 10, 2024 located in Philadelphia and in the following days could have visited any of his dozen golf courses nationwide.

What means did Routh use to determine which of three possible golf courses in Florida was his target’s final destination? How could the attempted shooter anticipate the exact twelve hour window in which to setup a sniper’s nest one hundred feet from the sixth hole and wait for his victim to appear? A notebook of Trump’s publicly announced locations was discovered in Routh’s possessions but it was limited to only public appearances. Events just days following the attempt were scheduled in New York and North Carolina, Routh’s former home state, and exactly anticipating Trump’s off the record schedule would be nearly impossible with no assistance. Ronald Rowe later stated “that at this point in the investigation there is no information on if or how Routh knew Trump was going to be at the golf course.”vi

Acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe Jr. Could not Explain Ryan Routh’s Presence in Florida

Nevertheless, how did Ryan Routh also evade detection for nearly half a day to position himself in the very area prior noted by Secret Service to be a security issue at such resorts? The attempted shooter further packed food and this infers he realized an extended duration would be required to for a chance to fire.vii He setup a concealed position just outside the golf course fence close to his target and escape vehicle. A Secret Service agent that fired, a single reporting FBI official, and one local eyewitness spotted him in flight but it appears no camera, person, or passerby spotted Routh until that point. This oversight might be explained by the Secret Service’s failure to do “a full security sweep of the course because it was an impromptu visit”. Apparently, with a prior attempt just months ago, they decided less security measures were needed. This may be due to some within the Secret Service not understanding less information about last minute arrangements is not desirable. The opposite is true, less preparation requires more diligence at the location to prevent security lapses as this entire matter would attest.

Federal prosecutors have requested an indefinite delay before trying Routh because of the “massive amount of evidence they have gathered” including hundreds of witnesses and seized multiple electronic devices with thousands of videos.viii Yet the answer to the previously offered question is potentially not within that mountain of evidence. How many people knew where Donald Trump was at that precise duration of time and might impart that knowledge to others? This does not prove nefarious intentions but the information could have been accidentally leaked with the same results. After the series of verifiable failures by multiple government agencies related to these events, another enormous mistake is wholly possible. Officials have no current explanation. Anything is possible, but not just anything is probable. If the public cannot know Trump’s location and Routh acted merely of his own ideas without aid from others, what explains his extensive foreknowledge? It is a question that could become intractable due to yet unknown facts and might have dire security implications if left unanswered.
Sincerely,
C.A.A. Savastano

References
i. Miller, Vem, October 12, 2024, Case No. C24860022, Charges 25850 (A), 32310 (A), Riverside Sheriffs Office Jail Management System, jimspub.riversidesherriff.org
ii. Anna Kutz, October 15, 2024, Trump rally arrest: Vem Miller says it’s ‘false allegations’, News Nation, newsnation.com
iii. United States House of Representatives, August 12, 2024, Preliminary Report of Congressman Clay Higgins, House Bi-Partisan Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Former President Donald Trump, clayhiggins.house.gov
iv. Five unanswered questions about the apparent assassination attempt on Donald Trump, September 17, 2024, Sky News, news.sky
v. Greg Allen, Prosecutors say suspect in Trump shooting attempt wrote a letter detailing his plans, September 23, 2024, NPR, npr.org
vi. Kaitlin Lewis, September 16, 2024, Donald Trump’s ‘Off -the-Record’ Golf Trip Explained by Secret Service, Newsweek, newsweek.com
vii. Chris Williams, September 24, 2024, Ryan Wesley Routh charged with assassination attempt of Trump, Fox News, livenowfox.com
viii. Alexander Mallin, October 3, 2024, Prosecutors request indefinite delay in trial for Trump assassination attempt suspect Ryan Routh, ABC News, abc7.com

Related Articles
A Public Review of The Secret Service
A Public Review of The Secret Service pt. 2
The Menace of Malice

The seeming culture of entitlement and several failures of the United States Secret Service has been apparent for decades to many people. Repeated failures span from the attack on president John F. Kennedy to Congressional investigations regarding corruption within the same agency five decades later. Kennedy’s death is the most infamous dereliction that resulted in the firing of no one in particular. Neither the Secret Service’s leader or any person in the Kennedy detail was publicly held to serious account or fired. That precedent would extend for decades as the Service racked up hundreds of complaints, dozens of charges, and several performance failures. A noticeable minority of its members would neglect to adequately guard sitting presidents. By two thousand-thirteen US Secret Service had accumulated great notice for its spiraling mistakes. The administrations failed range both political parties and negligence would occur during several occasions.

Secret Service Director J. Pierson Resgined Due to Security Failures

Amidst two thousand-fourteen a suspect possessing a knife was able to scale the White House fence and enter the premises. He was stopped in the East Room and the normal alarm protocols that would have detected the intruder earlier were not active due to complaints of false triggering from political staff. A surveillance team further did not observe the intruder and this would reveal not just the alarms were the issue. Director Julia Pierson absorbed the political fallout with her resignation and unfortunately the Secret Service just shuffled leaders and did nothing to change its deep internal problems. Two high ranking agents of the Service “crashed a car” on White House grounds a year later. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general these agents were “likely drunk”.i This reaffirms brazen unprofessionalism supported by several past incidents whether it was drinking just hours before duty or on duty to such excess they were sent home from events in prior years.

During the spring of two thousand-seventeen an unknown figure scaled the White House fence carrying pepper spray and a note for then president Donald Trump. The most incredible part of this episode was the seventeen minutes an intruder was allowed to stay on the lawn despite having triggered numerous security sensors alerting the Secret Service. According to one report “Officials said afterward that Secret Services officer had ignored the alarm” and it required this sort of ineptness and deliberate failure which finally led to the firing of two agents. Yet most past agent misconduct was not truly punished but they were allowed retirement with benefits, placed on temporary leave, or just sent for retraining. It seems only after an undeniable catastrophic failure or committing brazen illegality will a Secret Service member be fired. Yet what if someone could not just avoid federal protection but also compromise the group trusted with defending America’s political leaders.

Haider ALI Lied to Officials and offered them illegal Gifts

The Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that amid two thousand and twenty-two members of the Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security accepted several valuable gifts and housing from men impersonating federal agents for multiple years. The gifts from Haider Ali and Arian Taherzadah included free penthouse apartments, iPhones, surveillance systems, and electronic equipment. These men even offered a free rifle to a member of First Lady Jill Biden’s guard detail. Both were arrested and later sentenced to prison and the Secret Service fired a single agent despite that at least four members were compromised by this attempt to influence two different security agencies.ii iii Outside actors infiltrated security circles for years undetected and this reaffirms the failure of the federal officials to quickly prevent the compromise of national security organizations.

Arian Taherzadah Claims Official Gifts were a Friendly Gesture

We cannot rely much on the agents, leadership, or security organizations charged with securing our country should it require more than basic measures. That is a serious problem. If officials are truly concerned with improving agent performance they may wish to expand their scope to the entire organization’s leadership and protocols. Some might think it is a question of funding, but the Secret Service budget has nearly doubled in ten years to three billion dollars. Others may believe staffing is the issue, but the agency had added roughly twenty five percent more employees in the same period.iv The problem is not resources, personnel number, or official constraints and thus we are left to assess the security agency itself and those who lead it. We do not have another decade to squander on repeated failures and these issues require significant changes to correct. Changes that begin with restaffing, improved security training, protocol adaption, competitive pay, and well managed centralized operational command. The current Secret Service director may wish to inquire with the Department of Defense on how to run a more effective command structure.

In just over two months, two assassination attempts have targeted former president Donald Trump. Yet each was defined by vastly different environmental circumstances and the competence of security present. The first event was planned weeks prior in an open public area that provided officials plenty of time to learn and secure the location. Yet despite local officials providing ample warning of the security holes in the Secret Service plan, federal officials went ahead. The Secret Service had “repeatedly denied requests for more personnel and other security resources” for the Trump campaign prior to the Pennsylvania rally due to supposedly lacking resources. While none were denied at the Pennsylvania rally, the group’s own spokesperson affirms “In some instances...resources were not provided, the agency made modifications to ensure the security of the protectee”.v Thus federal security forces utterly failed even with the regular amount of personnel, resources, and “modifications” used for similar events.

Butler Township police had prior informed the Secret Service they needed to post agents on a building identified as a threat by the county tactical squad, a location the gunman would later use to fire shots. They did not. Interviewed officials at the planning meeting held with federal and local security agencies for the event would call it “informal and disorganized”.vi The communication structure used in the earlier summer attempt was “a cobbled combination of radio command centers and cellphones” which included two command centers instead of the usual one. The gunman was repeatedly observed walking around the grounds with a rangefinder and made several trips into the security perimeter to set up his ladder, assemble his weapon, and establish a firing point. “When the local sniper spotted Crooks and texted his unit...other officers stationed inside the AGR building had to relay that information to the local command, who then told the State Police, who then told the Secret Service.” Instead of direct communication using a central command point with all these groups, a redundant game of telephone was played wasting precious time and resources when they were most needed. The current Acting Secret Service Director admitted that his agency had no idea regarding a “man on the roof, nothing about man with a gun. None of that information ever made it over our net.” Several of these obvious mistakes were captured on film, photo, and audio recordings which laid bare the stark errors of those entrusted with security arrangements.

The latest attempt that occurred at one of Trump’s golf courses includes far different circumstances. The latest suspect Ryan Wesley Routh was thirty years older than the last suspect Thomas Crooks. Routh has obvious political motivations and had called for Iran to assassinate Trump dissimilar to Crooks.vii A unique feature of this latest failed attack is he did not use a public event for the violent undertaking. Nearly every political assassination in American history has occurred at public events with crowds providing concealment to past criminals and distracting security. Instead Routh chose to set up a firing point in the dense shrubbery around the golf course and wait for his target to come within range. According to media reports he laid in wait for half a day with a rifle, scope, a camera to record his actions, two backpacks, and had an SUV nearby to flee. Advance patrol Secret Service agents spotted Routh’s gun barrel at least three hundred of yards away from Trump and shot at the position. The assailant fled after being spotted and was detained fleeing in his vehicle by authorities shortly after the failed attempt. If these agents had failed, as prior Secret Service groups recently had, Routh would obtained a clear shot roughly ninety yards away from the former president. Security had improved following the resignation of the last Secret Service director and placement of multiple employees on leave. Yet one success does not unmake decades of failures.

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle Resigned due to widespread Security Lapses

One local media source correctly notes of the Pennsylvania attack “weaknesses that led to the assassination attempt were not unique to the July rally but the inevitable breakdown of an already vulnerable system.”viii Decades of negligence were dismissed as mere isolated incidents but eventually the weight of too many debacles crushed these unrealistic official denials. This conforms to an over sixty year pattern of incompetent mismanagement that has affected important events and the course of history. While former director Kimberly Cheatle was assuredly incompetent, she was not alone, and inherited a system already in dire need of reform. The problems remain despite a single leader being replaced and one recent official admission of the need for a “paradigm shift”.ix These are not solutions, those shall require significant time and officials have already wasted several years denying these problems existed. If past performance is any measure of future behavior, officials shall continue resisting changes that would improve the Secret Service overall in the name of obscuring government incompetence.
Sincerely,
C.A.A. Savastano

References:
i. Aidan Pittman, July 18, 2024, Prostitutes, Grenades, and Drunk Driving: 20 years of Secret Service Scandals, U.S. News & World Report, usnews.com
ii. Holmes Lybrand and Evan Perez, FBI arrests 2 men in DC accused of impersonating federal officers; 4 Secret Service agents placed on leave, CNN, cnn.com
iii. Rebecca Carballo, December 3, 2023, Man Who Posed as Federal Agent Is Sentenced to Nearly 3 Years in Prison, New York Times, nytimes.com
iv. Simone Weichselbaum, Alexandra Chaidez, Andrew Blankstien and Julia Ainsley, July 20, 2024, ‘Agency in crisis’: Secret Service has decade-old staffing shortfall, NBC News, nbcnews.com
v. Julia Ainsley and Summer Concepcion, July 21, 2024, Secret Service denied requests for more security resources at Trump events before the attempted assassination, NBC News, nbc.news
vi. Irina Bucur, Tracy Leturgey, Jessica Lussenhop, Danielle Ohl, and Eddie Trizzino, August 20, 2024, Trump Assassination Attempt Laid Bare Long-standing Vulnerabilities in the Secret Service, ProPublica, propublica.com
vii. David Brennan, Chris Looft, and Julia Reinstien, September 16, 2024, Trump suspect told Iran ‘you are free to assassinate Trump’ in apparent self-published book, ABC News, abcnews.go.com
viii. Bucur, Leturgey, Lussenhop, Ohl, Trizzino, propublica.com
ix. Julia Ainsley, Jake Trayorm Elizabeth Chuck, and Rick Shapiro, September 16, 2024, Secret Service chief makes remarkable admission: We need a “paradigm shift’, NBC News, nbcnews.com

Related Article
A Public Review of the Secret Service

Related Podcast
Meet the Jacobs

The targeting of a major American political figure by lethal violence based upon history and the confluence of modern events was a proposition of not if but when. Until recently close inspection of historical political assassinations were usually limited to the realm of historians, researchers, and small parts of the public. However, after a recent failed attack sought to eliminate Donald Trump huge swaths of the public, media, and political figures have begun to learn the use of understanding such events. The rising tide of violence dates back over decades with unforeseen environmental challenges, some media figures, and special interest groups contributing to increasing public illegality. If history and increasing modern rates of violence serve as our guide, I fear this is not the end but the start of another pattern of political malice in the United States. Until serious public introspection occurs and the basic humanity of political opponents is respected those most inclined will potentially use criminal violence.

Some in both the major political parties of the United States have fanned the flames of public confrontation over wedge issues and corrupt agendas for decades. They have indoctrinated some with identity based politics to the extent that any opposing group by default is a part of the greater existential problems they believe exist. Media corporation branding has followed suit and identifying with media corporations led many to only consume media they politically support. This automatically removes half of the possible information they might use to come to a reasonable idea. By disbelieving and decrying the mere utterances of details contrary to their “news” of choice, the political isolation grows deeper. Social media echo chambers from across the political spectrum filled with misinformation or worse began to overtake any concerted attempt to dispel them by a dwindling group of unbiased people.

The resulting incidence of public violence spiked with mass shootings often targeting event venues and schools. The later introduction of shooting safety drills and lock downs were an unspoken acknowledgment these would not be isolated events. Amid the year two thousand America endured three reported mass public shooting events and by two thousand and nineteen the number rose to sixty-one.i An increase of ninety-five percent in mass public shooting incidents and this was just the precursor to worsening circumstances. Those highest rates of public violence would soon be overtaken due to the added pressure exerted upon the mental state of humanity via the pandemic. According to the United States Center for Disease Control the murder rate in America rose by thirty percent during two thousand and twenty an increase of nearly five thousand more victims than a year prior.ii Much like a creature in a slowly boiling pot, America’s citizens have experienced decades of rising violence and the current unbelievable rates seemingly are overlooked as the usual state of affairs.iii The temperature is steadily rising and most remain unaware that possible impending disasters approach.

Recent years of prior civil unrest, decades of political demonization, increasing technological obsession, and the marked decline of factual media reporting in the name of sensationalism have created a nightmarish landscape. Subsequently numerous amounts of people have for years regarded those, even family members, as not merely political rivals but enemies or outcasts to be shunned. Others even outright deny reality and endless theories following any notable event in politics has proved a useful financial and political ruse to manipulate sections of the public.iv v The worst unreliable sources are not limited to any side of politics due to steadily declining information levels presented by former and present officials.vi vii viii Unsurprisingly, this lack of insight and some ignoring the right to dissent have led to some attempting to quash opposing ideas by labeling them existential threats without concern to the eventual costs. What happens if a majority of the public follows suit and echoes this maniacal desire to stifle all but one chosen group’s agenda? Tyranny.

Elementary School teacher Jennifer Ripper is under scrutiny for publicly supporting violence

Some now defend or support public violence for whatever they deem “injustice” and regard such illegality as “normal” or “acceptable”. Yet they never are and never shall be. We are not discussing the mere fringes but educated people such as teachers and professors that rank among the worst examples.ix Of the recent failed assassination attempt elementary teacher Jennifer Ripper publicly lamented that it was unsuccessful and Trump was now a “martyr”. High school teacher Alison Scott offered she “wished they had a better scope” in her public support of recent political violence. College professor Tracy Budd stated online “Let’s hope today’s events inspire others”. Another former educator noted “Teachers and professors are thought to be responsible adults...The type of complete irresponsibility entailed in publicly okaying political violence means they are in the wrong profession."x Most adults know the public limits of free speech do not extend to calls for violence but some educators do not. Abominable public behavior must be checked by sensible people of all kinds and this happening repeatedly supports that many are no longer acting rationally.

High school teacher Alison Scott supported public violence and Now Faces a Loss of Credentials

They are the first to boil and they believe violent or deceptive behavior is brave, when its just vile. Additionally, those calling for it are cowards, and would never risk themselves but it appears seek to motivate others toward self destruction. The backlash has already ended careers, will likely cost educational credentials, and shall lead to further deserved repercussions.xi Yet this required the near death of a presidential candidate to clarify, there is a political sickness amongst us. With each additional negative influence the proverbial temperature of our society increases and mental health issues are further exacerbated. Many now lay in a desert of malice and must depart before any future prospect of a return to largely non-violent politics.

College Professor Tracy Budd is Under review After calling for More violence

Killing others because one disagrees with their political, religious, or ideological beliefs is still murder and those who commit such acts are monstrous in the literal sense. What might we assume is the character and morals of someone that supports attempted murder? Common decency remains in short supply but a civilized society must agree that a basic respect for all humanity must be upheld. Parts of American society have lost their regard for the legal right of another person to wholly disagree with them and still be a decent person. We cannot maintain a country if many people assume nearly half the population is evil and several others support unlawful violence to be legitimate. These damaging practices must cease and should be curbed at every turn if we actually seek to fix them.

Some prior rational people in recent years have become unhinged enough to regret a political assassin’s failure. The target of such an event is inconsequential, no one deserves to be assassinated, and it likely would render catastrophic political fallout. What can awaken them before they are boiled in rage and drown in apathy? The solutions required are likely numerous and shall take years or decades to implement them but just hoping is not a feasible option. Yet to even consider what they might be we must reaffirm that everyone deserves life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every American is granted reasonable personal freedom by the law and to diminish anyone’s legal rights is to diminish the rights of all.
Sincerely,
C.A.A. Savastano

References:
i. John Gramlich, April 26, 2023, What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S., Pew Research Center, pewresearch.org
ii. Ryan Lucas, September 21, 2021, FBI Data Shows An Unprecedented Spike In Murders Nationwide In 2020, NPR, npr.org
iii. Josiah Bates, July 28, 2022, U.S. Crime Is Still Dramatically Higher Than Before the Pandemic, Time Magazine, time.com
iv. Amarnath Amarasingam and Marc-Andre Argentino, July 2020, The QAnon Conspiracy Theory: A Security Threat in the Making?, West Point Combating Terrorism Center, Volume 13, Issue 7, ctc.westpoint.edu
v. Juliette Gache and Quang Pham, July 27, 2024, How BlueAnon conspiracy theories are gaining momentum since the assassination attempt on Trump, The Observers, France 24, observers.france24.com
vi. Ellen Mitchell, July 26, 2024, FBI Director stirs controversy with Trump bullet skepticism, The Hill, thehill.com
vii. Greg Norman, Trump’s former doctor gives health update calls out Wray as FBI affirms bullet struck former president, Fox News, foxnews.com
vii. Lauren Sforza, July 29, 2024, Obama photographer Pete Souza deletes X account after Trump ear attacks, The Hill, thehill.com
ix. Chris Harris, Rutgers professor under fire for online posts lamenting failed Trump assassination, New York Post, nypost.com
x. Kristina Watrobski, July 17, 2024, Teachers who cheered Trump assassination attempt disciplined by school officials, KFOX 14, kfoxtv.com
xi. Alexia Aston, July 31, 2024, OSBE takes steps toward revoking Ardmore teacher’s license after Trump assassination post, The Oklahoman, oklahoman.com

Related Sections
Motivations for Violent Behavior
Political Assassinations

Join researchers Rob Clark, Joe Borelli, and their guest author Carmine Savastano to discuss historical intelligence and the attempted Trump assassination. They inspect security lapses, the shooter, several missed opportunities to foil the plot, and the future political landscape.

The Company, BKHERALD, KUBARK, and several other coded, official, and unofficial names exist to describe the Central Intelligence Agency. Lurking in the shadows of clandestine operations the CIA over generations has undertaken some of the most complex impersonations and created numerous false entities or businesses to support its goals. CIA remains among the intelligence groups which possess skilled operatives that can generate deceptive credentials and identities as routine business. Yet less known are those who for a time evaded detection falsely using the name of the CIA and the operations they conducted illegally. Some of these varying people included minor intelligence assets, foreign militants, and criminals that used the Agency’s reputation to further secret enterprises and left officials deal with the ramifications.

One of the earlier instances of what officials note might become a “technical violation of impersonation statutes” involved two Cuban exiles within the American city of New Orleans during nineteen sixty-one. Manuel del Valle Caral and Julio Jane Arguida were both anti-Castro exiles used by the Central Intelligence Agency but without authorization the pair began recruiting Cuban students to join their cause. This method is similar to some of the original pro and anti-Castro groups formed in Cuba using academic cover to pursue intelligence goals. Yet these two individuals exceeded the mandate officials gave them and sought to illegally use the reputation of the US government to increase their ranks. A Federal Bureau of Investigation agent notified the FBI’s liaison with the CIA Sam Papich, Western Hemisphere Division employee Robert Wehdbee, and counterintelligence officer Jane Roman of the exile attempts.i This presents a minor example of the gray area that can develop within clandestine operations and the potential of assets using methods officials never approved. Nevertheless, illegal student recruitment was just a minor official concern, what if a person manipulated an entire group under such false pretenses for illegal acts?

The CIA would learn amongst nineteen seventy-three anti-Castro exile Guillermo J. Yglesias was financially bilking people under the pretense of government employment. Yglesias was a former member of the Movimiento de Recuperacion Revolucionario (Movement for the Revolutionary Recovery, MRR) a CIA funded group that in the past was given the ability to launch operations autonomously. It appears that Guillermo had decided to create his own autonomous structure to fiscally benefit himself and unknown others. The first significant lead emerged from a communication sent by Anselmo Alliegro, the nephew of Yglesias via marriage. He informed the CIA’s Domestic Contacts Division (DCD) his uncle contacted him amid early March of the same year “and stated that he worked for the United States Government, implied CIA”.ii

Guillermo told his nephew that employment for the Berwinder Corporation served as his cover and spun an elaborate tale of Watergate connected investigations freezing accounts required for secret operations. A forged or stolen document Alliegro observed purported that officials tasked “Ralph” with raising funds and officials would provide a Ponzi scheme like monthly return of ten to twenty percent for all money invested. Yglesias then asked his nephew “as an important favor to him” for a contribution “to his emergency funds.” By March 5th, 1973 Anselmo had given five thousand dollars to Guillermo’s “emergency fund” and provided a further nine hundred dollars for personal expenses. Over a month would pass and Anselmo’s investment return did materialize and by this point Yglesias had moved to a new rental home. The only way left to contact the latter was by telephone and when questions of money were discussed Anselmo was informed of a “delay in Curacao” and Yglesias deflected the questions with an offer “to work for him and his organization”. Already fifty-nine hundred dollars poorer, Alliegro informed his scheming relative he needed “some proof this was an official matter before I were to accept” due to his curiosity about what this “business actually was.”iii

First National Bank of Coral Gables CIRCA Ninteen Twenty-Six

According to Yglesias, he already had introduced his nephew to two members of his group. The first was Coral Gables First National Bank official Raul Menocal who oversaw their prior financial transaction. Another member of this supposedly backed official group was bookkeeper Urbano Anton who handled the money raised by Guillermo Yglesias. A third person identified as Luis Beltram was introduced to Anselmo and eventually referred to as “Security”, a seeming reference to a clandestine security officer. The fourth agent of this group was a middle aged man named Carlos from Puerto Rico, and the fifth member of the group he met was Jose Antonio Rodrigues Sosa. It was then a sinking feeling struck Anselmo and he realized this group was not akin to the many anti-Communist endeavors he supported but “an entirely different proposition”.

Anselmo was still provided no money as further months passed and one file notes in time Yglesias “stated the money was in no way being used for a Cuban operation” despite his nephew’s intent. Alliegro tired of Guillermo’s excuses and undertook his own investigation of the latter’s finances and organization. After contacting his uncle’s former hotel Anselmo learned his relative passed them a bad check for nineteen hundred dollars and that he owed additional funds elsewhere. A pattern of debt and false assurances was revealed and pushed Anselmo to dig further by questioning banker Raul Menocal. The bank employee disturbingly revealed he was under the assumption Guillermo “was legitimate” and working for the CIA but knew nothing of any other group.iv The betrayed nephew would proceed to visit Jose Sosa at his workplace Florida Lumber to “confirm his suspicions” and discovered Yglesias had approached the lumber worker with a similar pitch to join his group. Sosa additionally told him Anselmo himself was presented to Jose as a CIA employee to further support Guillermo’s repeated lies.

Armed with significant facts that could dispel the repeated deceptions perpetrated Anselmo went to his uncle Guillermo and demanded all of his money back. This prompted a third assurance of the money being returned after over four months had passed since it was invested without producing a cent. The money was still never received and finally Alliegro decided to contact the Central Intelligence Agency to report his uncle’s fraudulent activities. He informed Yglesias that he sought an interview with the CIA and was threatened with claims of being incriminated in related crimes or “that some terrible fate would befall him”.v It seems the younger man had finally scared the elder charlatan by involving actual government agents and prompted a death threat in return. Anselmo followed through with his intended course to alert officials and unsurprisingly his uncle’s threats were empty.

Yglesias had also simultaneously been pursuing other illegal leads to secure financial support using anti-Castro exiles. Rolando Masferrer Jr., the son of former MRR leader Rolando Masferrer Rojas, informed the Agency that Guillermo had contacted him to discuss “raising money for secret CIA operations in Latin America.”vi If he could have secured the younger Masferrer’s cooperation he might have tapped into the millions of dollars that MRR had amassed and its dozens of agents. However Rolando was unconvinced and would inform the Agency’s Miami DCD office June of the attempt falsely using the CIA’s name. This maneuver infers a boldness from Yglesias that may have been a desperate attempt to gain enough resources to escape the consequences of his other failing schemes. Yet Guillermo had several deceptive undertakings that seemed to extend beyond just taking money and greater aspirations for his group.

A COMPANY Patch Honoring Troops of Brigade 2506

The fall of nineteen seventy-three had Guillermo Yglesias approaching Antonio Eugenio Iglesias Pons, a close associate of Nicaraguan President Anastasio Samoza. Guillermo’s latest target was a former Cuban Army officer amidst the nineteen fifties who eventually became a liaison with the US Embassy and explosives expert. Antonio was among the members of the captured CIA supported Brigade 2506 following the Bay of Pigs and his brother was reportedly executed by the Castro regime. He further had developed ties with the aforementioned Nicaraguan leader and former employment with CIA that were of interest to others.vii viii Additionally, intelligence gathered by officials would place Antonio undertaking illegal anti-Castro exile operations until at least nineteen seventy-two. Guillermo approached Pons and offered employment with Belen Enterprises, a supposed front company for the CIA, located in the Floridian city of Miami. Yglesias would offer Antonio a generous salary of twelve hundred dollars monthly to have “very little to do” and he eventually realized this was due to his relationship with President Samoza. Pons was a useful contact which provided access to a world leader and his prior associations with the Agency could be used by Guillermo to offer the mask of legitimacy to fraudulent operations.

Amongst the same period Guillermo Yglesias had duped local real estate business owner Andres Castro to employ him and finance multiple fake real estate deals. Under official pretense the Agency impersonator borrowed roughly four million dollars or just over twenty-six million dollars in modern value. Using Antonio Pons they secured a one million dollar loan from the Nicaraguan government but Yglesias did not agree to use the bank foreign officials selected. Perhaps Guillermo could not launder the money received without utilizing his bank of choice and that deal fell through. Paired with the loans that would never be repaid, this eventually proved catastrophic to Castro’s business and during nineteen seventy-four he dissolved Belen Enterprises and fired its five employees.ix As the consequences mounted nearly every person beyond Guillermo's nephew still believed they had been part of CIA operations. Many who held Yglesias culpable likely still believed he was an instrument of the US government and if he would not return the stolen funds perhaps a court would.

The Agency had first learned of the peripheral CIA impersonations Guillermo Yglesias amidst the summer of nineteen seventy-three and less than two years following the matter had become a serious issue. A Miami Herald article from that spring noted Andres Castro “claims the Central Intelligence Agency was behind his selling of counterfeit mortgages” and “blamed the CIA for the failure of his mortgage business”.x Castro would name Guillermo Yglesias and Antonio Iglesias Pons amongst others as defendants but the impersonator and his former employee’s locations were then unknown. The failed business owner told the press he had provided offices to both men for over a year but what actual business they were conducting cannot be fully verified.

Prior events demonstrate that even a sometimes haphazard plot might launder millions in illegal funds for purposes unknown, influence foreign leaders, and successfully impersonate officials for more than a year without detection. Even when an intelligence group has some foreknowledge of the people and crimes involved they still require time to ascertain more information. This plodding bureaucracy failed to decisively act before the matter had exploded in the press and left them with a potential ten million dollar bill. What could a truly organized criminal group seeking to undertake greater nefarious deeds accomplish before most officials were aware they existed?
Sincerely,
C.A.A. Savastano

References:
i. Federal Bureau of Investigation, October 16, 1961, CIA Liaison Material, United States National Archives and Records Administration, NARA Identification Number: 124-90139-10121
ii. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Segregated Central Intelligence Agency File, DCD Information Report: “Guillermo Yglesias/Efforts to Raise, June 28, 1973, p. 1, The Mary Ferrell Foundation, maryferrell.org, NARA ID: 104-10071-10370
iii. Ibid, pp. 2, 3
iv. Ibid
v. Ibid, pp. 4-5
vi. Central Intelligence Agency, October 25, 1974, Speed Letter: Military Armament Cooperation, NARA ID: 104-10074-10065
vii. House Select Committee on Assassinations, August 4, 1975, FBI Subject Files, A-B, No Title, pp. 16-17, NARA ID: 124-10281-10062
viii. Ibid, p. 5
ix. Ibid, p. 19
x. CIA, Russ Holmes Work File, (n.d.), Newspaper Articles on JFK Assassination, p. 42

Related Article
The Autonomous Groups

The Unites States Information Agency (USIA) is a former intelligence group organized to conduct “foreign opinion research, media reaction reporting, and special evaluations and analysis” during the Cold War.i This group first emerged as part of the Coordinator of Information’s (COI) office led by General William Donovan amid WWII. Similar to the Central Intelligence Agency it was reconstituted from minor groups once within that COI’s office but USIA was not created until nineteen fifty-three. They administrated some foreign cultural and educational programs run by the Department of State, used press outlets such as the Voice of America, and gathered worldwide intelligence. Among the projects USIA supported was the American National Exhibition in Russia held in the course of nineteen fifty-nine. The display was presented to demonstrate several aspects of American life to the Russian public and focused on western cultural and technological innovations. Millions of people over the course of months reportedly filled a park in Moscow to observe the gathered displays. Following the exhibition’s successful conclusion one of the USIA’s press officer’s and his family were still present in Russia’s capital until the end of October. That employee’s name was John Jacobs.

JOhn Jacobs After HIS USIA Service

John Kedzie Jacobs was born April 5, 1918 to farmers Edward and Bertha Jacobs within the New York village of New Paltz. The young man was raised with siblings on a farm while attending a local schoolhouse and eventually New York State’s Highland High School. He would subsequently graduate from Antioch College before he briefly worked in an advertising firm and transitioned from advertising to press work for Gallop during nineteen forty. John despite prior reservations would enlist with the United States Army Air Corps following the attack on Pearl Harbor. He gained employment with the Unites States State Department later that decade to write articles for the Voice of America press service. John K. Jacobs by the nineteen fifties would join the USIA following its transformation from the State Department’s International Information Administration group.

CAtherine JACOBS AT Her Wedding AMIDST Nineteen Fifty-Two

Jacobs would meet his wife Catherine who had immigrated from a Soviet bloc nation to the United States under the name Katia Altschuller. Catherine “Katia” Jacobs was born December 25, 1921 within Bulgaria, resettled to America during the nineteen thirties, and became a citizen by the end of the nineteen forties. She married John Jacobs amidst nineteen fifty-two and they had four children by the close of nineteen fifty-nine. The entire Jacobs family would travel among the spring of that year to Moscow for a support role in the upcoming American National Exhibition. Officials note that attached to her passport was a memo granting John Jacobs “Top Secret Commerce security clearance” from the State Department to “assume duties as Press Radio Officer”. They were set to return October 30, 1959.

Lee Harvey Oswald attempts to renounce his American citizenship October 16, 1963 and members of the press quickly learn of his presence. Reporter Priscilla Johnson would be informed by a US consular official the same day Oswald resided in the same hotel she did. This initiated an extensive interview with Oswald and Johnson would report he was a misguided young man, poorly educated, and was out of his depth. United Press International (UPI) reported Oswald’s defection story at length two days following the Jacobs family’s departure. The press quickly seized upon the idea of Oswald being a disillusioned traitor who abandoned the United States and professed his desire to live in Russia. This desire would seemingly be temporary because he returned to America with a new family more than two years later.

Priscilla Johnson was granted covert Agency approval by nineteen sixty-two, two years later she moves in with Marina Oswald for an extended period, and the during the nineteen seventies publishes a book titled “Marina and Lee” while still falsely claiming she had no official connections.ii Yet in every other prior noted instance it was the Oswald family moving in with others and during nineteen sixty-three they lived in the Texan city of Irving with the Paine family. Ruth Paine had prior invited Marina and her children to live with her family and in time discussed the Oswalds with her sister Sylvia Hoke, employee of the CIA.iii Ruth would not be the last person with official connections seeking to host the Oswalds before and following Lee’s public incitements, alleged crime, and death. One later invitation is quite interesting due to many Americans considering the Oswald family pariahs and while there were several people in the US that felt sympathetic, Cold War intelligence agents and their relatives were likely not among them. A pattern of surveillance begun years ago within Moscow seems to have outlived its original target.

The USIA’s Former Official Emblem

John Jacobs in that period was employed by the USIA as the Deputy Director of “America Illustrated” when his wife drew the notice of federal officials. According to investigators Mr. Jacob’s wife invited the widow of Lee Harvey Oswald via a letter in Russian to dinner “just after” the death of President John F. Kennedy. John called the invitation merely a “humanitarian” act on the part of Catherine Jacobs but that is seemingly a deficient explanation. Would an intelligence agent’s spouse invite the wife of a person that damaged American interests prior and allegedly killed its president without consulting her husband? This act during the Cold War might destroy his career and her family’s public reputation but despite these possible consequences the invitation was offered.

Marina Oswald Called For Testimony amid Ninteen Sixty-Four

Mrs. Oswald according to Mrs. Jacobs sent a “lengthy” response letter around Christmas and Marina was invited to visit “any time she happened to be in the Washington D.C.” and that “several letters of correspondence were passed between them”.iv A seeming relationship was being established between Catherine Jacobs and Marina Oswald and the latter arrived in the nation’s capital during February of nineteen sixty-four for scheduled Commission testimony. The prior dinner invitation from the family of John K. Jacobs was among Mrs. Oswald’s planned stops following the conclusion of her official statements. Marina Oswald called upon the Jacobs family and notified them her testimony was completed February 6, 1964 and desired to accept their prior invitation for dinner. Yet the Jacobs had other commitments and rescheduled the dinner engagement for the next evening.

One prior commitment Mr. Jacobs had was reporting the details of this upcoming get together to his superiors before it transpired. He also notified the USIA Office of Security (IOS) just hours prior to Marina Oswald’s visit and was informed the contact did not require a security clearance and was thanked for providing such information. The IOS official states “there would appear to be no security consequence but in view of public relations aspect he be certain that his supervisors are well aware of what he was doing. He stated that this had already been taken care of.”v Just a single official appears concerned about the potential detrimental potential of what Jacobs was undertaking and it had little to do with “humanitarian” purposes.

Would a simple dinner meeting inspire Jacobs to obtain prior consent from his intelligence superiors or might he use this chance to gather intelligence and cultivate a source. Perhaps the omission of a crucial detail by officials handling the matter would further support this was more than a dining offer. The President’s Commission file did not mention a detail that was included within USIA documents, Catherine did not merely invite Marina and her family to dine but also proposed the Oswalds live with them.vi vii It seems that almost immediately someone connected to an intelligence official sought to feed and house Mrs. Oswald and her children. Marina visited the Jacobs home during the winter of nineteen sixty-four and Mr. Jacobs claimed no further contacts were made but the visit likely was more than just a pleasantry.

Secret Service Agent Charles Taylor contacted the USIA in the course of March to investigate the Jacobs matter but reported nothing derogatory. Taylor “emphasized the importance of the Secret Service not being identified with the investigation” to the USIA agent dealing with the matter.viii The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted a subsequent document review in which the several correspondences and multiple invitations from Catherine Jacobs transformed into just a single meal date. John K. Jacobs retired from the USIA amid nineteen eighty-three to reportedly again become a farmer and later a writer that died amid two thousand and fifteen. Subsequently released official files provide a greater view of the circumstances surrounding the Jacobs family’s involvement with Marina Oswald and the USIA’s foreknowledge of their plans. Yet nearly all public records about Jacobs neglect to mention the full extent of this peculiar incident or his extensive service for decades within US intelligence groups.
Sincerely,
C.A.A. Savastano

References:
i. Records of the United States Information Agency (RG 306), n.d., United States National Archives and Records Administration, archives.gov
ii. C.A.A. Savastano, December 5, 2017, The Power of the Press, THR, tpaak.com
iii. Consolidated CIA Files, Sylvia Ludlow Hoke, tpaak.com
iv. United States Information Agency, November 14, 1966, Jacobs, John Kedzie, NARA ID: 165-10001-10036
v. USIA, March 3, 1964, No Title, NARA ID: 165-10001-10033
vi. President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Warren Commission Document 867, Federal Bureau of Investigation Letterhead Memorandum of 17 April 1964, maryferrell.org
vii. USIA, March 13, 1964, [R], Oswald, Marina, pp. 1-2, NARA ID: 165-10001-10032
viii. Ibid

Related Article
Note the Chain