Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Texas didn't Kill Kennedy

When a sniper took aim and blew President John Kennedy’s brains all over the back of the front seat of that open limousine that day, he “changed the world,” according to legend. That happened in Dallas, Texas and many attribute that killing to Texas. They’re wrong: Texas didn’t kill Kennedy, somebody who hated him, rightly or wrongly, killed Kennedy. Kennedy’s POLICIES killed Kennedy, but his death has long been blamed on the State of Texas. His death has spawned a “cottage industry” making a LOT of money for people arguing about whether his death was due to ONE SHOOTER or several. The “Warren Commission, after much talk and spending much money, decided it was. It may or may not have been. But Texas didn’t kill Kennedy, WASHINGTON did. My money is on Johnson. I had my own problems with Kennedy’s policies. They were the subjects of the FIRST pamphlet I wrote to comment on political actions (in the sixties), entitled, “I Am An Extremist!” It detailed the many things about which I was extremely angry” and lampooned the extremists who called ME an extremist for them. But my objections to his policies didn’t rise to the level of wishing him dead. Today, many have decided there WAS, in fact, a second shooter; that Oswald was a lousy shot and missed THREE times, leaving it necessary for a second shooter to fire the lethal shot and get he job done (I still find it hard to imagine Oswald as a Marine).

We will never know because the “investigation” into the Kennedy killing was one of the worst botched “investigations” in memory (maybe that was on purpose). Evidence was altered, the very AUTOPSY done on his body is said to have been botched, and the only man who really KNEW if there was a second shooter was MURDERED by (Jack Ruby) a man who had some strange “friendships” among government people, before he could be properly questioned. Yes, his murder did change many things: for one, the president has never paraded around in an open limousine since. Presidential security has increased considerably. Kennedy was a liberal, as liberals were known then. Some of his policies would have made today’s politicians call him a conservative. One of those was to LOWER the tax base and by so doing INCREASE the “tax take,” an action repeated by one of his successors, Ronald Reagan, with similar results, almost DOUBLING the “tax take” in the following years until liberals managed to raise it significantly since, thus LOWERING “the tax take,” while bemoaning that decrease without ever admitting it was THEIR ACTIONS that had done it. Even though most of Kennedy’s actions WERE liberal, this is just ONE that I would have heartily approved of, though I was not yet sufficiently knowledgeable to know that at the time.

I disapproved of his actions toward Cuba, including his attempt to kill Castro, though I am not, and never will be a Castro supporter. I merely thought his action in APPROVING the “Bay of Pigs invasion, then “pulling our support out,” leaving his troops to die, and creating a situation where we had to pay a LOT of money (and tractors) to get some of his prisoners released, though he and other politicians denied that ever happened. There were other things to which I objected, but I will not enumerate them here. Yes, I’ve been observing politics that long, and things have not gotten better since. In fact they have gotten “progressively” worse. Terminally worse, in my opinion, and that leads me to wonder why Barack Obama is still alive. Maybe it’s because only a right-winger would want to kill him and only leftists do that (maybe it is the specter of Joe Biden as president that is good insurance against assassination). They tried to convince the world Kennedy was killed by a right-winger when it happened (as usual). But it was not to be, since Oswald (his presumed killer) was a “dedicated leftist and known communist,” which somehow could NOT be hidden from the world. Progressivism (communism) was in decline then, and they started calling themselves LIBERALS to fool us. Liberalism is now KNOWN to be a “cover” for those who wish this country to be a COLLECTIVIST (communist, socialist, etc.) nation. Progressivism has regained its prominence as an “alternate name” for communism since its real definition (communist) has been forgotten.

Yes, Kennedy’s murder did “change the world,” but not for the better, because politicians have so messed things up since. We have slipped ever closer to becoming the “Soviet Union” of the 21st Century as politicians work tirelessly to create a “collectivist (socialist) society.” Obama is the “front man” of that effort, having been BORN to communist parents, RAISED as a communist, schooled by communists, and mentored by communists. How could he be ANYTHING but a communist in his thinking, even if he might not be a “card-carrying member” of the communist party. It is his collectivist THINKING that counts, reinforced, as it has been by his communist mentors over the years after his communist upbringing. His support for Muslims, however, is strange, if you didn’t know that Islam has ALSO been a big part of his upbringing, having been born (whether he will admit it or not) in a Muslim country and raised in Muslim schools (that part is proven). It would be amazing to me if he WEREN’T a Muslin sympathizer. All that aside, it is his ACTIONS that tell me he is both a collectivist (socialist) and a Muslim sympathizer who would make this country REPLACE RUSSIA as a collectivist “showcase nation” for a while, until it collapses of its own weight, as did Soviet Russia. Collectivist nations can NEVER survive for long because they produce NOTHING and eliminates incentive to produce. Russia survived longer than it would have if it didn't have America’s financial support.

Communism and socialism DEPEND on the labor of those capable and WILLING to earn for themselves to provide money and property to steal and redistribute to others, who are NOT “producers.” Collectivism destroys INCENTIVE, which is NECESSARY for progress, and that will kill collectivism in this country ultimately, as it did in Russia, though probably not in my lifetime. I am glad I am as old as I am (76), and will not live to see most of what is coming. But I am sad to know that my progeny will. I have tried my best to stop it from happening, but I fear I’ve failed. So I will just have to watch it happening until my time comes, which I fear will not be long, with Obama controlling the health profession in his ignorance. (Just common sense)

No comments: