JFK, Remarks at the Breakfast of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, 11/22/1963

the University of Californa at Santa Barbara ^ | November 22nd, 1963 | John Fitszgerald Kennedy - 35th President of These United States

[DoughtyOne]

On this forum we share a number of problems with John F. Kennedy.  We could spend a fair amount of time focusing on those problems, and for good reason.  Let's not spend time on that here.

I am presenting his last address, because it so well contrasts what the Communists/Fascist Democrats in the United States have become.  I'd like that to remain the focus if you folks don't mind.  We really do want that to be the focus, because it's a very important matter that has not been focused on at all by the left.

Note Kennedy's pride in the military, the infrastructure and it's preparedness to meet all comers at that time and in years to come.

Remember also, that within nine years, Senator George McGovern would take over the party advocating mutual disarmament on 'the Peace Ticket'.  And remember that the main reason why the U.S.S.R. went belly up, was because Reagan made it known no price was too large, for us to pay to maintain peace, and it simply could not compete.  If McGovern had he had his way, he would have defeated what Reagan's resolve accomplished.  Don't we need that resolve today?  Didn't Kennedy think so?

Take special note also, of Kennedy's description of what would happen if the United States were to relinquish it's global role.  Was he right?

Obama would be this John F. Kennedy's mortal enemy.  Those who voted for Obama and support his efforst to do things 180 degress different than JFK would have, have no idea this is true.

More people should know these differences.  To that end... good reading.

And now President John F. Kennedy, November 22nd, 1963.

Mr. Buck, Mr. Vice President, Governor Connally, Senator Yarborough, Jim Wright, members of the congressional delegation, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Attorney General, ladies and gentlemen:

Two years ago, I introduced myself in Paris by saying that I was the man who had accompanied Mrs. Kennedy to Paris. I am getting somewhat that same sensation as I travel around Texas. Nobody wonders what Lyndon and I wear.

I am glad to be here in Jim Wright's city. About 35 years ago, a Congressman from California who had just been elected received a letter from an irate constituent which said: "During the campaign you promised to have the Sierra Madre Mountains reforested. You have been in office one month and you haven't done so." Well, no one in Fort Worth has been that unreasonable, but in some ways he has had the Sierra Madre Mountains reforested, and here in Fort Worth he has contributed to its growth.

He speaks for Fort Worth and he speaks for the country, and I don't know any city that is better represented in the Congress of the United States than Fort Worth. And if there are any Democrats here this morning, I am sure you wouldn't hold that against him.

Three years ago last September I came here, with the Vice President, and spoke at Burke Burnett Park, and I called, in that speech, for a national security policy and a national security system which was second to none--a position which said not first, but, if, when and how, but tint. That city responded to that call as it has through its history. And we have been putting that pledge into practice ever since.

And I want to say a word about that pledge here in Fort Worth, which understands national defense and its importance to the security of the United States. During the days of the Indian War, this city was a fort. During the days of World War I, even before the United States got into the war, Royal Canadian Air Force pilots were training here. During the days of World War II, the great Liberator bombers, in which my brother flew with his co-pilot from this city, were produced here.

The first nonstop flight around the world took off and returned here, in a plane built in factories here. The first truly intercontinental bomber, the B-36, was produced here. The B-58, which is the finest weapons system in the world today, which has demonstrated most recently in flying from Tokyo to London, with an average speed of nearly 1,000 miles per hour, is a Fort Worth product.

The Iroquois helicopter from Fort Worth is a mainstay in our fight against the guerrillas in South Viet-Nam. The transportation of crews between our missile sites is done in planes produced here in Fort Worth. So wherever the confrontation may occur, and in the last 3 years it has occurred on at least three occasions, in Laos, Berlin, and Cuba, and it will again--wherever it occurs, the products of Fort Worth and the men of Fort Worth provide us with a sense of security.

And in the not too distant future a new Fort Worth product--and I am glad that there was a table separating Mr. Hicks and myself--a new Fort Worth product, the TFX Tactical Fighter Experimental--nobody knows what those words mean, but that is what they mean, Tactical Fighter Experimental--will serve the forces of freedom and will be the number one airplane in the world today.

There has been a good deal of discussion of the long and hard fought competition to win the TFX contract, but very little discussion about what this plane will do. It will be the first operational aircraft ever produced that can literally spread its wings through the air. It will thus give us a single plane capable of carrying out missions of speed as well as distance, able to fly very far in one form or very fast in another. It can take off from rugged, short airstrips, enormously increasing the Air Force's ability to participate in limited wars. The same basic plane will serve the Navy's carriers, saving the taxpayers at least $1 billion in costs if they built separate planes for the Navy and the Air Force.

The Government of Australia, by purchasing $125 million of TFX planes before they are even off the drawing boards, has already testified to the merit of this plane, and at the same time it is confident in the ability of Fort Worth to meet its schedule. In all these ways, the success of our national defense depends upon this city in the western United States, 10,000 miles from Viet-Nam, 5,000 or 6,000 miles from Berlin, thousands of miles from trouble spots in Latin America and Africa or the Middle East. And yet Fort Worth and what it does and what it produces participates in all these great historic events. Texas, as a whole, and Fort Worth bear particular responsibility for this national defense effort, for military procurement in this State totals nearly $1 1/4 billion, fifth highest among all the States of the Union. There are more military personnel on active duty in this State than any in the Nation, save one--and it is not Massachusetts-any in the Nation save one, with a combined military-civilian defense payroll of well over a billion dollars. I don't recite these for any partisan purpose. They are the result of American determination to be second to none, and as a result of the effort which this country has made in the last 3 years we are second to none.

In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent. I hope those who want a stronger America and place it on some signs will also place those figures next to it.

This is not an easy effort. This requires sacrifice by the people of the United States. But this is a very dangerous and uncertain world. As I said earlier, on three occasions in the last 3 years the United States has had a direct confrontation. No one can say when it will come again. No one expects that our life will be easy, certainly not in this decade, and perhaps not in this century. But we should realize what a burden and responsibility the people of the United States have borne for so many years. Here, a country which lived in isolation, divided and protected by the Atlantic and the Pacific, uninterested in the struggles of the world around it, here in the short space of 18 years after the Second World War, we put ourselves, by our own will and by necessity, into defense of alliances with countries all around the globe. Without the United States, South Viet-Nam would collapse overnight. Without the United States, the SEATO alliance would collapse overnight. Without the United States the CENTO alliance would collapse overnight. Without the United States there would be no NATO. And gradually Europe would drift into neutralism and indifference. Without the efforts of the United States in the Alliance for Progress, the Communist advance onto the mainland of South America would long ago have taken place.

So this country, which desires only to be free, which desires to be secure, which desired to live at peace for 18 years under three different administrations, has borne more than its share of the burden, has stood watch for more than its number of years. I don't think we are fatigued or tired. We would like to live as we once lived. But history will not permit it. The Communist balance of power is still strong. The balance of power is still on the side of freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom, and I think we will continue to do as we have done in our past, our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead.

So I am glad to come to this State which has played such a significant role in so many efforts in this century, and to say that here in Fort Worth you people will be playing a major role in the maintenance of the security of the United States for the next 10 years. I am confident, as I look to the future, that our chances for security, our chances for peace, are better than they have been in the past. And the reason is because we are stronger. And with that strength is a determination to not only maintain the peace, but also the vital interests of the United States. To that great cause, Texas and the United States are committed.

Thank you.

[Fiddlstix]

Bump
To read later

[BenLurkin]

About 2,000 people make parts for the F-22 Raptor at the Lockheed facility in west Fort Worth.

[rbmillerjr]

Today’s media would mock JFK and say he was a conservative nut that is too extreme for America.

Today’s Nobel Prize committee would throw his nomination form into the trash.

The Dems would call him dumb.

The GOP would tell him he needs to moderate his stances on military matters so that the liberal media would like him.

Olberfuhrer, would devote hours to him each week, condescendingly calling him “sir...sir, have you no shame or decency?”

[papasmurf]

“And gradually Europe would drift into neutralism and indifference.”

bump

[Huebolt]

By the way, Lee Harvey Oswald was born in Louisianna and lived IN THE BRONX, NEW YORK, where every other book on the library shelf has “MARX” in it somewhere. He was one of the original liberal democrats that New York turns out by the millions. That’s why conspiracy theories abound, he was one of THEM.

[A_Former_Democrat]

And today’s JFK would probably have been as bad as Teddy . . if not worse.

Same for MLK. They would’ve changed with the prevailing philosophies . . . that’s why there aren’t decent Democrats any longer . . . they followed along like lemmings

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Ben. I hadn’t realized it was being produced there.

Here’s to their jobs remaining after this clown is put out to pasture.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks PapaSmurf.

[Mr. K]

I heard once that JFK gave a speach about a week before his death saying that the American people had been the victims of a hoax perpetrated on them regarding the office of the president- or something.

DOES ANYONE ELSE remember that???????

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, from New York to traveling to Russia, to supporting Castro’s Cuba, he was a wing nut of gargantuan leftist ideology.

You’re right on target IMO.

[NativeNewYorker]

I saw this on History Channel last night. It was very VERY hard to watch, knowing what would happen later that day.

[DakotaRed]

From the sounds of this speech, those claiming his intent to withdraw from Viet Nam seem to be very wrong.

Too bad more Democrats who came along in Congress after him didn’t hear or read this speech before the pulled the plug and let millions die wanting freedom.

[Misterioso]

You would think a JFK lover would know how to spell his middle name.

[dalebert]

worth the read...do you think we can get democrats to read it?

[TornadoAlley3]

“We would like to live as we once lived. But history will not permit it. The Communist balance of power is still strong. The balance of power is still on the side of freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom, and I think we will continue to do as we have done in our past, our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead.”

[abb]

Another Kennedy tidbit the State-Run Media seldom touches on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy#Support_from_Catholics_and_Kennedy_family

McCarthy established a bond with the powerful Kennedy family, which had high visibility among Catholics. McCarthy became a close friend of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., himself a fervent anti-Communist, and was a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port. He dated two of Kennedy’s daughters, Patricia and Eunice,[45][46] and was godfather to Robert F. Kennedy’s first child, Kathleen Kennedy. Robert was chosen by McCarthy as a counsel for his investigatory committee. Joseph Kennedy had a national network of contacts and became a vocal supporter, building McCarthy’s popularity among Catholics and making sizable contributions to McCarthy’s campaigns.[47]

[Carl from Marietta]

The man could damn sure read a speach, and he was pretty good with the ad libs as well.

He would certainly be considered a conservative today.

[montag813]

Is the audio of this speech available?

[loveliberty2]

The following quotation takes on new meaning for American citizens of 2009. It is from the conclusion of the Address to have been delivered at the Dallas Luncheon to which he was en route when assassinated on November 22, 1963:

"The world is different now . . . And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe . . . the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." (Source: "Our Ageless Constitution" - p. 163)

[PAR35]

JFK would be more conservative than most of what pass for Republicans these days.

[PAR35]

He’s correct in what he posted - a lot of the parts are made there. It’s put together in Georgia.

[maryz]

And today’s JFK would probably have been as bad as Teddy . . if not worse.
Same for MLK. They would’ve changed with the prevailing philosophies

Given your screen name, it's hard to see why you paint with such a broad brush. There's been a lot of realignment since then -- in 1963, one still spoke, quite accurately, of the "Solid (Democrat) South"! Reagan -- and numerous other Democrats -- didn't change with the prevailing philosophies; they changed parties.

[TigersEye]

JFK wasn’t a communist that’s for sure. Ron Paul would do well to read this speech and contemplate it.

[A_Former_Democrat]

Yeah, but the politicians are a different story. Some have switched parties, but just look how much more liberal that party is now. They just keep moving left and getting loonier and loonier by the minute.

[DoughtyOne]

I don’t. I’m not sure what he would have been talking about, but I’m interested.

[DoughtyOne]

Yeah, it was rather chilling wasn’t it.

[DoughtyOne]

Number one I’m not a JFK love. Number two, as I get older I sometimes make typing errors and don’t catch them. And number three, you’re really a pinhead if that’s all you have to say about my post.

[DoughtyOne]

Oh we can get them to read it. Can we get them to understand it? Now that’s the question. I doubt it very seriously. I do think it would be very hard to imagine any of the left reading it and thinking a Kennedy could be wrong though. They’ve got some sort of fixation on that family that defies logic.

[DoughtyOne]

I hope you are right. I am no longer convinced of it. Yes we’re the last beacon, but that beacon is very dim these days.

[DoughtyOne]

That’s an interesting tidbit, specifically because of Joe’s seeming tolerance for Hitler. He hated Communism, but found Hitler to be someone he wasn’t always inclined to trash.

Frankly, we need McCarthy today more than ever. I’d suspect something like 98% of Hollywood would be out of work overnight these days.

[DoughtyOne]

Actually, if you look at his face during that speech, you note that he wasn’t looking at or returning to a certain spot during the delivery. He wasn’t reading it.

He’s probably one of the better orators of our time and that’s not taking anything away from Reagan.

That’s not to say he didn’t use the teleprompter at other times. I’m sure he did.

[DoughtyOne]

I’m not sure. I wouldn’t be surprised, but I’m not aware of it. I’ll nose around a bit.

[DoughtyOne]

Nice. Thank you.

[DoughtyOne]

It would seem like it wouldn’t it.

[DoughtyOne]

That’s a good point. Thanks for making it.

[Misterioso]

More to say. JFK is not anyone I would champion or even praise. I’m amazed that a Freeper, especially one with your whiskers, would come on with a speech of his. You going soft?

[TornadoAlley3]

You wrote> I hope you are right. I am no longer convinced of it. Yes we’re the last beacon, but that beacon is very dim these days.

Below is an excerpt from the JFK speech posted above, ironic we are fighting this administration

“We would like to live as we once lived. But history will not permit it. The Communist balance of power is still strong. The balance of power is still on the side of freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom, and I think we will continue to do as we have done in our past, our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead.”

[TigersEye]

Frankly, we need McCarthy today more than ever. I’d suspect something like 98% of Hollywood would be out of work overnight these days.

To be fair to Joe McCarthy he had nothing to do with Hollywood blacklists. He was only interested in exposing communists in government which is as it should be.

[DoughtyOne]

Misterioso, the Kennedy name goes back quite a ways in Democrat circles. Jack and John’s dad Joe was Ambassador to Great Britain.

You and I know the sordid details about John, Bobby, and Ted. We know the sordid details about Joe too. Their family history is particularly vile. We both recognize that.

Now I could praise Reagan on the issue of defense and we could all high five each other and the Dems would take a whiz on his memory, or I could talk about John’s perception of what made our nation healthy as far as defense and the Communist threat and any dem reading it would sit up and take notice.

Even if they did disagree, it would provide something to think about, especially with his predictions being so right on target about what has taken place since his day. This highlights Obama’s brain dead plans in particular. They reveal what a threat his carried out defense plans would be for our nation.

Which one would carry weight with people whose minds we would most like to see moved on this subject, Reagan’s or Kennedy’s views on these matters?

If you know my instincts are generally positive on Conservative ideals, then try to give me the benefit of the doubt here and realize I have a good reason for wanting to do this. John Kennedy’s views on defense were solid as a rock. Not withstanding his botching of the CIA effort to invade Cuba, the guy’s heart was in the right place on defense matters.

It’s okay to give people like Kennedy their due when they are right on something, particularly when it can further the understanding of sound policy.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. I just wish Obama had taken time to read Kennedy on this matter, instead of Ayers/Wright.

[tang-soo]

That plant was the location for my first professional job as a new graduate in electrical engineering. Though it was named General Dynamics at the time. It was part of Convair prior to that and likely during the time of this speech. I worked there for 3.5 years starting in 1982, then ironically left for Martin Marietta which also got absorbed into Lockheed.

[Sans-Culotte]

I saw that speech on that History Channel show over the weekend-"JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America" was the title, I think. The speech, extolling America for "keeping South Viet Nam free from communism" and for "making NATO possible" is 180° removed from Obozo's recent apology tour. And the Obamunist even has disciples of the Chairman working for him to boot...

Sigh..."Johnny, we hardly knew ye..."

[DoughtyOne]

Your right, that was the full title. I should have been more accurate on that. I noted later that I had truncated it considerably. My cable guide presented it in a manner that made that prominent and the whole title obscure. When I put down my thoughts, I used the wrong source for the title.

There are a few aspects of Kennedy that I admire. There are many others that I don’t. He was a severely flawed man. He came from a severely flawed family. His father was a vile person. The boys seemed to pick up his worst traits.

Womanizing to the point of personal moral destruction was John, Robert, and Ted’s legacy. Their mom had to endure Joe’s love interests being brought back to their home, and the dinner table. John’s conquest were legendary, spies and actresses among them. Bobby was known to have picked up with Marilyn where John left off. Ted, well we all know about Ted. And then you see that Ted was even passing the family trait off to his nephews.

These were men with few things to admire. So saying we hardly knew John is a wistful way to address a man cut down in mid-life, and I agree with it to a point, but we really do know him. The media protected him during his day, so we really didn’t know him then as well as we should have. But we know him now. And what we know isn’t pretty.

The problem with men like JFK, is that they open the door for men like WJC. Where JFK did have some savvy, WJC was a complete horn dog with no underlying intelligence that would see this nation protected, or even to survive.

Right now we have a man in there that is completely out of his depth. WJC thinks that’s grand. JFK would bitch slap this poser up side the head and send him back to the bull pen.

[DoughtyOne]

If that sounded overly argumentative, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean it to be. I was just offering my overall perspective now that this thread has wound down.

You and I agree on much of what you said.

Take care...

[Sans-Culotte]

Actually, that was a good summation of JFK's strength and weaknesses. In fact, I always thought the "Camelot" metaphor was apt for the JFK presidency. Arthur's Camelot was a glittering city that offered something good "for one brief shining moment". But, underneath the gloss and glamor, rot was just below the surface, and Arthur fathered the son that would end his own life and the bring the "brief shining moment" to an end.

Likewise, JFK's Camelot had its glitz and glamor and some substance, but underneath was the rot of unbridled sexual immorality that would have brought the castle tumbling down eventually.

Still JFK served his country in WWII, was an anti-communist and admirer of Joseph McCarthy, and was, I believe, an "America First" kind of guy. I don't know if he would have turned out to be the complete failure Ted was. I somehow doubt it, because the signs that Ted would be a failure were there early on.

[reagan_fanatic]

A democrat with JFK’s philosophy would be hounded out of todays democratic party. I have no doubt JFK would have rolled along with the changing viewpoints of the party had he lived, and would be hard to distinguish from his brother Teddy.

BTW, nice picture of the motorcade - I didn’t know there were any out there that sharp and clear.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with that. I left those parts out because I had mentioned them earlier in the thread. I certainly do agree with you though.

On the issue of John vs Ted, you’re right. Ted couldn’t hold a candle to John.

Ted was basically your non-intelligent buffoon. As such, it was particularly painful to watch him accorded the senior statesman status the Democrats and media heaped on him.

He was a drunken lout that even at his advanced years of age was still too juvenile to know better than bar hop with his nephew(s). If they had just been going out to socialize, hey, no problem. It was instead a hunting expedition, and I’m sure Ted was probably as much in play as any of them. What a great example for the young men.

[DoughtyOne]

That’s certainly possible. I don’t know though. John wasn’t a mental midget like Ted. Even though Sorenson (I believe it was Sorenson) ghost wrote Profiles in Courage, John wasn’t a light weight in the sense Ted was.

Grasping the concepts he presented in Fort Worth that day, I think there’s a good chance he would have broken from the party when McGovern came along.

Let’s back up a bit though. John already had us involved in Vietnam. I believe he was savvy enough that he would have fought that war with the full cooperation of his generals of the day. McNamera wouldn’t have had his fingers in it. John wouldn’t have been stupid enough to micro-manage it from the Oval Office.

There’s a better than even chance, the Vietnam war would have turned out much differently, and five or more years sooner to boot.

Oswald’s legacy extends much further than the presidency of JFK. With JFK in there, possibly very little down side from Vietnam. No vacuum in the region. Cambodian and Vietnamese deaths from purges wouldn’t have happened. We’d still have a solid ally in the region, military bases to boot. McGovern wouldn’t have pulled the party off into the nether regions that make guys like Barry Sowetto viable.

Clinton may not have been viable.

Ayers would be just another 1970s guy sitting out on his patio in a daze, thinking what could have been.

Who knows...

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"So this country, which desires only to be free, which desires to be secure, which desired to live at peace for 18 years under three different administrations, has borne more than its share of the burden, has stood watch for more than its number of years. I don't think we are fatigued or tired. We would like to live as we once lived. But history will not permit it. The Communist balance of power is still strong. The balance of power is still on the side of freedom. We are still the keystone in the arch of freedom, and I think we will continue to do as we have done in our past, our duty, and the people of Texas will be in the lead."

JFK gave a great speech that day. Reaganesque.
Far cry from apologizing for the United States.