JFK: Breaking The News

Oregon Magazine ^ | November 21, 2003 | Larry Leonard

[WaterDragon]

PBS, 8:00 P.M. Wednesday, November 19, 2003 – Following the visual of the Rebel Flag, a youngish, very short haired woman appeared on the screen. My reception is fuzzy here, so while I can hear the audio perfectly, I cannot always see the picture clearly. As near as I could tell, she was in a setting which spoke of academics. It may also have been an office conference room. She had the large round glasses of the modern female “scholar.”

The first time she opened her mouth, she testified to the total bias, the total Orwellian historical rewrite, that one has come to expect of public broadcasting. Here is what she said..

”There was a lot of right wing resentment about the President’s visit. This was because of his support of the civil rights movement.”

That's the key. Remember it. Right wing means Republicans, of course. Republicans were against the civil rights movement.....(SNIP>

FOR A QUICK MOVE TO THE FULL ARTICLE, CLICK HERE

[freethistle]

At that time I was young and planning to register with Conservative Party in New York when I was old enough to vote. The anger was definitely right-wing.

We had the John Birch society really active-they had the Let Freedom Ring telephone message line going-and they were anti-Kennedy. I thought it was a little over the top but I used to call in and get the message of the day.

Years later I found out from in-laws in the midwest that the local civic leaders in their town had secret meetings when Kennedy ran to discuss what to do in the event he let the Pope take over religion in the US.

(Some of that may seem crazy now but the fear was real. One of my in-laws attended the meeting and he was genuinely concerned about Kennedy being a danger).

Some people were making plans for joining the resistance and going underground if Kennedy got too cozy with the Pope or the communists. He was considered then to be a liberal.

It was sort of weird because the Catholic Church was very anti-communist and had official prayers to be said for the conversion of Russia. (maybe they worked).

The New York Times, iirc, had an article before his visit to Dallas about the anti-Kennedy stuff going on there.

There were right wing Democrats in those days,and right wing Republicans-they were scared of change, opposed Kennedy and things were kind of rough.

I thought then and still think that Oswald was CIA-connected-which doesn't mean the CIA killed Kennedy. But a person going to Russia in those days was a very rare thing.

Heck, a girl in my grade school back then wrote to Russia for a penpal and she got a visit from the FBI.

If you 'defected' to Russia in the 1950s or early 60s you were a traitor and would have been followed by the FBI, and have an enormous FBI file.

[WaterDragon]

I disagree, nosofar. The level of taxation in this country is humungous, and it's depressing the economy. Over and over again, it's been proven that lowering taxes INCREASES revenue flowing into Washington.

The Democrats are looking NOT for more money (because they also understand the above principle) but for the CONTROL and POWER that they gain with heavy taxation.

Clearly, they even practically SAY it, they prefer that America NOT be a powerhouse economically. We are harder to manipulate and control during fabulously prosperous times.

[WaterDragon]

I disagree, nosofar. The level of taxation in this country is humungous, and it's depressing the economy. Over and over again, it's been proven that lowering taxes INCREASES revenue flowing into Washington.

The Democrats are looking NOT for more money (because they also understand the above principle) but for the CONTROL and POWER that they gain with heavy taxation.

Clearly, they even practically SAY it, they prefer that America NOT be a powerhouse economically. We are harder to manipulate and control during fabulously prosperous times.

[WaterDragon]

I hope your little girl is better soon, onyx.

[WaterDragon]

It is positively Orwellian, to borrow the adjective Mr. Leonard uses, how leftist jounalists and historians ignore these facts as they recount to the young and the ignorant

Do you think the 'young and ignorant' journalists even know the historical facts these days?

[WaterDragon]

I remember, in the Deep South, at that time that Kennedy was hated by the staunchest Democrats. He could only have gotten votes by fraud, and the Democratic party down there engaged in voter fraud openly as a matter of course.

[Landru]

"Do you think the 'young and ignorant' journalists even know the historical facts these days?"

HA!!!!
Ever heard the term, "Uselful idiot"?

...sure you have. :^)

[onyx]

Thank you, sweet friend. She seems to be feeling better.

[Vinnie]

The day the Berlin Wall fell is a day each & every person will live to regret; &, I believe the regret will come rather soon, at that.

That is something I have said for yrs.

When the Soviet Union existed we knew who had their finger on the nuclear button. When the USSR broke up several lesser countries found a nuclear arsenal at their disposal. Very dangerous.

Securitywise we were better off with one possible adversary than several.
That doesn't even address the lack of security surrounding the nuclear material.

We live in an even more dangerous world as a result of the USSR breakup.

[hershey]

I remember quite clearly how angry my family was about Kennedy's Cuba failure. He denied air support to the troops on that beach, as a result-- they were captured or killed by Castro's thugs. Then, months later, the Soviets installed missiles; he lied about the bargain he made remove. The fact that we promised not to install missiles in Turkey was kept quiet for years. The 'right wing' never opposed civil rights. We didn't like forced bussing...thanks to which Boston's schools are a mess. Kennedy's inept foreign policy was what had us fuming. He was a lousy president, no matter how you slice it.

[nosofar]

"The level of taxation in this country is humungous, and it's depressing the economy. "

I don't say it's not too much. I don't really have a strong opinion on it. Just that the taxes were much higher under JFK and so the justification for lowering taxes was greater.

[WaterDragon]

Agreed, the taxes were higher when Kennedy took office. LBJ, Clinton and Carter raised taxes again....Reagan and Bush lowered them again. I feel VERY strongly about tax cuts, so I argue with you. LOL

[dixiechick2000]

Oregon Magazine is wonderful, and I really appreciate WD posting so many articles from it.

I hope and pray the little girl is doing much better, now.

[Landru]

>The day the Berlin Wall fell is a day each & every person will live to regret; &, I believe the regret will come rather soon, at that.
"That is something I have said for yrs."

Well there's been a lot of whining about all the manufacturing that's now being done in the most extreme communist country there ever was, Red China, right?
Ever wonder why the world's largest capitalist nation is becoming rapidly dependent on the world's largest communist nation?

Has anyone recently seen any documentaries, news stories, features -- whatsoever -- of life inside Red China since all this commerce began in the early 90s?

I've heard many of Red China's provinces have become polluted, putrid messes due to the massive industrialization & if so what does that mean for the Chinese society in general?
I have to wonder just what're the totalitarian party bosses up to over there that they'd trash their nation & their peoples for the sake of capitalists & their comfort or are the communist bastards giving the "freedom loving" Chinese citizens all the capitalism they can stomach, in their terms?
Make a hellova anti-capitalist army after being enslaved while effectively putting an end to any future Tienaman Square nonsense.

Is anyone within our own government asking those kinds of questions in the name of "national security"?

Or how about some of the other socialist shitholes like Sweden or even France?
Seen anything coming out of those places in the past decade or so?
I haven't.

Where are the "Man on the street" stories from those places like the ones we're bombarded with daily here stateside that're continually attacking, picking away at our culture and/or ideology?
Isn't *anyone* in the least bit suspicious about what they're not seeing; or, for that matter asking why they're seeing what they are?
Guess asking such questions of ourselves or those we've elected might promote the national insecurity, huh.

There certainly are no physical walls anymore; but, then again in 2003 apparently walls are no longer needed.
"Walls" aren't necessary with the kind of media blackout in effect & that's for damned sure; but, let's not kid ourselves, either.
The walls today may not be the kind one can see but are nonetheless walls just the same, higher than anything ever found in East Berlin.

Now the same forces responsible for the walless worker's paradises over there have for some years now been *free* to come here & do their best to make us the same damned way?
And for one reason or another we're too damned stupid and/or lazy to resist because the proverbial water's being brought to a slow boil?

"When the Soviet Union existed we knew who had their finger on the nuclear button. When the USSR broke up several lesser countries found a nuclear arsenal at their disposal. Very dangerous. Securitywise we were better off with one possible adversary than several. That doesn't even address the lack of security surrounding the nuclear material. We live in an even more dangerous world as a result of the USSR breakup."

True enough.
We've bigger problems than ever, security-wise; &, that can't be any clearer than in the mideast whatwith the number of nations who're flush with (our!) petro dollars looking to glady spend a large chunk of dough to get their hands on one or more russian nukes.
Fairly well understood by most, I'd say.

But "the" real, most immediate threat comes from the enemy who's now within I fear the most; because, they're closest.
They're also using our own government and in more & more instances our own people, against ourselves.
So aside from the nukes that may or may not be floating about out there?
The most imminent danger we're facing right now will likely come without a shot ever being fired; because, nukes are a dirty, obsolete method for taking *anything* over for the people I'm talking about.

...be watching for the term "neocom" in the not too distant future.

[onyx]

Thanks for your concern and especially your prayers. Yes, she is feeling a whole lot better.

WD --- a well-researched article -- dixiechick2000 was right -- it was worth reading. Thanks for posting it.

[WaterDragon]

No one expects democrats to have a right wing these days.

There are indeed conservatives who are registered as Democrats but can see that that party has tossed them aside to please lefty special interests. Zell Miller makes a note of this. The liberal media will never admit it.

[RLK]

JFK became involved in the civil rights movement rather lately and rather weakly. His personal tastes were opposed to the movement unless it could somehow be manipulated to bring him a few votes. Revisionistic history has attempted to portray him as a second MLK.

Kennedy had enemies for other reasons. There was a sarcastic maxim at the time, "What's the road to the White House?" Answer: "Go to Harvard, then turn left."

When Kennedy had the president of United States Steel summoned to the White House like a dog to receive a tounglashing for increasing steel prices, it created a lot of anger in the business and other communities. Kennedy was a heavy-handed leftist when it suited his purposes. I lived through the period. There is little now written about Kennedy that I recognize from the period.

To paraphrase a Reagan quip, I remember John Kennedy and believe me John Kennedy was no John Kennedy.

[WaterDragon]

I never understood how JFK won the South when everyone there seemed to hate him so.

One thing he did do was, as the article notes, cut taxes, and he twisted the arms of the Democratic Congress to get those cuts. At least in JFK Democrats had some leadership. Today there is none except for the special interest groups.

[RLK]

At least in JFK Democrats had some leadership. Today there is none except for the special interest groups.

------------------------------

The average age of mental maturity in the Democratic presidential candidates is 19 with a standard deviation of one.

[WaterDragon]

That old? You're an optimist! No. You're about right. Scientists in England recently announced results of years of research on the brains of adolescents.....they say it is clear that the human brain does not physically complete maturity until AFTER adolescence, which usually ends in the mid-twenties.

Democrats -- evolutionary regressives?