Posted on 08/25/2018 7:16:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
“JFK had a legendary love life. Did one of his affairs connect him with the mob?” (CNN, promoting its Kennedy family hagiography, March 31, 2018.)
“Legendary” –whether morally-neutral or complimentary or both-- is not exactly the terminology CNN is employing with regard to President Trump’s “love life.”
Consensual and discreet adulterous affairs distant (both time-wise and geographically) from the White House do not qualify a “love life” as “legendary” with CNN.
But apparently, feeding amyl-nitrate poppers to a starstruck 19 year-old, taking her virginity in the very White House bed and directing her to fellate a 50-year old friend while watching does.
Or has CNN forgotten about Mimi Alford? A reminder:
“When a reveler (at a celebrity party) passed around a tray of sex drug amyl nitrate, writes Mimi Alford, the president (JFK) asked her if she wanted to try it. “I said no,’ Alford recalls, ‘but he just went ahead and popped the capsule and held it under my nose. I ran crying from the room".
A few months earlier an aghast Nikita Khrushchev was reading repeated pleadings and cajolings from Fidel Castro to quit pussyfooting around and launch a nuclear strike against the U.S. Just as the shaken Khrushchev frantically ordered his officers in Cuba to keep Fidel Castro and Che Guevara FAR AWAY from the launch buttons! and get the missiles OUT!”—at this very time JFK was romping in the White house bed with the 19 year-old Mimi Alford!
Mere months earlier dozens of Cuban exiles (many of them college kids about Mimi Alford’s age) were infiltrating Cuba and bringing out eye-witness reports of what remains the biggest military threat to the U.S. since 1812. In the process dozens were also dying by firing squad and torture at the hands of Castro and Che Guevara’s KGB- tutored secret police.
For all the good the Cubans did:
“Nothing but refugee rumors,” sneered JFK’s National Security advisor, McGeorge Bundy on ABC’s Issues and Answers on October 14, 1962. “Nothing in Cuba presents a threat to the United States,” continued the Ivy League luminary, barely masking his scorn for these hot-headed and deceitful Cubans and their sensational reports of missiles. “There’s no likelihood that the Soviets or Cubans would try and install an offensive capability in Cuba,” he scoffed.
And for all the thanks the Cubans got:
“There's fifty-odd-thousand Cuban refugees in this country," sneered President Kennedy himself the following day, "all living for the day when we go to war with Cuba. They're the ones putting out this kind of stuff."
Exactly 48 hours later U-2 photos sat on the President’s desk revealing those “refugee rumors,” complete with nuclear warheads, and pointed directly at Bundy, JFK and their entire staff of sagacious Ivy League wizards.
"We ended up getting exactly what we'd wanted all along,” snickered Khrushchev in his memoirs regarding Kennedy’s “resolution” of the resulting “crisis.”: “Security for Fidel Castro's regime and American missiles removed from Turkey. Until today, the U.S. has complied with her promise to not interfere with Castro and to not allow anyone else to interfere with Castro [italics mine].
After the Missile Crisis "resolution," the U.S. Coast Guard and even the British navy (when some intrepid exile freedom fighters moved their operation to the Bahamas and Kennedy notified his chum, British PM Harold Mc Millan of their intrepidness) shielded Castro from exile attacks. In the Florida Keys and Bahamas they were arresting and disarming the very exiles the CIA had been training and arming the month before.
In his diaries Khrushchev snickers further: "it would have been ridiculous for us to go to war over Cuba–for a country 8,000 miles away. For us, war was unthinkable." So much for the threat that so rattled the Knights of Camelot and inspired such cinematic and literary epics of drama and derring-do by their court scribes and court cinematographers (i.e. the MSM and Hollywood.)
Eighteen months after the botched Bay of Pigs invasion, two months after his deal with Khrushchev (and shortly after the amyl-nitrate party) a guilt-stricken JFK ransomed the surviving Bay of Pigs freedom-fighters back from Castro's dungeons. Living under a daily firing-squad sentence for almost two years these Cuban freedom-fighters –aware it would probably save their lives--had refused to sign the confession damning the “U.S. Imperialists” (the very nation, which for all they knew at the time, that had betrayed them on that beachhead.) “We will die with dignity!” responded their second-in-command Erneido Oliva to his furious KGB-trained interrogators, again and again and again.
To Castroites such an attitutde not only enrages, but baffles.
On Dec. 29, 1962, these Cuban freedom fighters, many on crutches others in wheelchairs gathered with their destitute and traumatized families in Miami’s Orange Bowl to hear President Kennedy address them. “I am here today not to be honored—but to pay honor,” intoned the U.S. president. “I know of no men in modern history who showed more courage under more difficult conditions than those before me today.”
The president continued in this vein and upon completing his tribute the Cuban freedom-fighters handed him their sacred battle flag, a gesture which surprised and seemed to deeply move the U.S. president.
“I promise to deliver this Brigade banner to you in a free Havana!" he beamed at the freedom-fighters and their loved-ones.
The stadium erupted: “CUBA LIBRE!” yelled the delirious crowd while hugging and cheering and sobbing. “CUBA-LIBRE!” yelled men (and boys) who’d snickered in the face of KGB torturers weeks earlier, but now wept openly. The hour of liberation seemed nigh, and with the full backing of “The Leader of the Free World.”
But AH!--two months earlier this same Leader of the Free World had made a different pledge to Khrushchev, ensuring anything but a Cuba Libre; promising, in fact, that Havana would remain Communist, as enforced by U.S. arms.
And the following fifty years showed which pledge the U.S. honored. The pledge to the Butcher of Budapest to preserve Castroite Stalinism has proven sacrosanct--while the pledge of liberty to the men who risked their lives to warn the U.S. of the greatest threat in her history was trashed.
Mimi Alford, on the other hand, claims the president was always perfectly honest with her.
Bunche was qualified enough to be made Sec of State in 1961, not just some lesser window-dressing cabinet spot as Robert Weaver was at HUD. That alone had the Dems freaked out.
Frank should’ve realized he was being used by “the family” when they told him to tell Sammy Davis, Jr. not to marry May Britt before the election. They were playing both sides, manipulating both MLK and pandering to White supremacists. Sammy well remembered which of the two candidates was warm and welcoming towards him (Nixon) and which couldn’t even look him in the eye (JFK).
Trump is no JFK but nobody will ever be another Trump!
In the elevation of Milk to sainthood, it was Mayor George Moscone who is now forgotten (along with Leo Ryan). It was Milk’s pettiness against Dan White that precipitated the entire affair. Moscone was all prepared to rescind White’s resignation, but Milk persuaded him to leave White out in the cold. Of course, Dianne Feinstein owes her elevation to power entirely on Dan White’s trigger finger (and Milk’s vindictiveness).
Of course, not that changing the outcome of any of that would’ve stopped San Francisco’s downward spiral.
As for Sam Cooke, having read some brief accounts of his strange death, I got the impression he himself may have been a sex predator, which ultimately got him killed when he flipped out on the motel operator lady who shot him.
That’s always the problem with these celebrities and politicians. As much as you may admire them one way or another, how talented and smooth and charismatic they are, in private, they may be just awful people. All this fawning over a certain Senator, and they forget he shamefully abandoned his family for wife #2 and the power and prestige it brought him because of the father-in-law. Notice you NEVER hear about the first wife or the kids she raised in his absence, only the two “newer” kids (the one with Cindy and the adopted one). Can’t let the truth get in the way of the media narrative.
Thank heavens Trump isn’t another JFK. The damage he and his family did to this country is incalculable. Hopefully we’ll have more future leaders in the mode of Trump, able to speak truth to power and to eviscerate the corrupt establishment, media and rotted culture.
Yep -- I had the same response. Ended up gobbling it down one sitting. Really explains a lot of how far left we seem to have tilted in such a short time -- the groundwork has been laid for almost a century, and only broke into the open with the ascendancy of BushObamaHillaryBernie.
I would say White’s impulsive resignation and subsequent indecisiveness precipitated the affair.
I can hardly blame Milk for not welcoming back a political opponent. I would certainly oppose the reappointment of some liberal if I were in a similar situation.
What did Kennedy do to Sinatra? All I know is they were banging the same gun moll.
Yes I agree, an earlier Nixon administration could have had a very different outcome than the one we got.
How would you have handled Civil Rights?
I don’t know much about Garfield other than that he was highly intelligent. I do know that Chester Arthur ended up not being very “stalwart” at all, singed civil service “reform”.
It’s very interesting who gets absurdly canonized after death and who gets forgotten. Seems like swine always get canonized and for all the wrong reasons.
They seem to dwarf the Truman fans!
Too caught up in attempting to appropriate these liberals and try to highlight the decline of the values of the democrat party. The democrats HAVE declined but from pond scum to radioactive waste, they were never GOOD. Reagan saying the democrats LEFT HIM may have been useful propaganda but it wasn’t true and he admitted as much (”I was part of the problem back then”).
Truman and Kennedy are comparable. Kennedy cutting taxes from 90% to 70% and being “anti-communist” doesn’t make him “a conservative” or a good President anymore than Truman making the hard choice to drop the bomb does.
They don’t deserve praise for fulfilling a couple of the minimum-requirements of decent governing. That’s like the libs giving Obama a a Nobel prize in the category of “Not being George Bush”.
Yes, the same phenomenon at work.
Personally, if I were Black it would have made me oppose Obama MORE, much more! Would I want my race shamed by having it’s first President be that creature? Of course not. I am from Chicago and his association with my city is shameful, I have preferred it if he stayed in Hawaii.
If I were a woman I’d hate Hillary more. I think my mother loathes her more than I ever could. What decent woman would want her to be the first female President? Her misrule would have doomed female candidates for the foreseeable future.
If I were Catholic in 1960 I’d have opposed Kennedy MORE than I would have otherwise, I would not have wanted the scion of that scum family to be the first Catholic.
If I were Mormon I would have an even lower opinion of Mitt Romney for bringing shame to my faith with his milktoast RINOism.
Maybe it’s just me.
That’s a lot of hot air, leading up to an insult. Buzz off.
Dewey was certainly the "more conservative" candidate in 1948, but its hard to tell since Dewey ran on some bland nonpartisan "corruption is bad and job growth is good" issueless platform in the 40s, trying to convince voters across the spectrum he was on "their side".
To be fair, I've seen a number of RATs play the same game in reverse, and argue that the Republicans have "changed", and the party has been "taken over" by a bunch of "alt-right" racists, and that "today's Democrats" would be "Eisenhower Republicans" back in the 1950s. They say with a straight face that Bernie Sanders policies are no different than Ike's, and all the people who supported Ike need to wake up and become Democrats.
Of course that's total BS, Ike was a squish and a centrist (both by 1950s standards and today's standards), but he would have been utterly appalled and disgusted by "today's Dmeocrats" screaming about transgender rights and putting men in the woman's bathroom, Israel being "illegally occupied territory", in-state tuition for illegal aliens and so on. And just like Kennedy vs. Nixon, there is little doubt that Adali Stevenson ran to Ike's LEFT in 1952 & 1965, and any modern day leftist Democrat with an IQ over 30 who got in a time machine and went back to that era would agree with Stevenson's policies more, despite pretending now that Eisenhower shared their worldview (like the Kennedy revisionists, they avoid talking about 95% of Ike's policies and focus on his "military-industrial complex" speech to "prove" he was "progressive")
The people on "our side" pushing the media narrative about how "the two parties switched sides back in the 60s and 70s" should have to sit thru a screening of Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" where he pretty much proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the RAT party has consistently been treasonous scumbags since the mid 19th century, and HAVEN'T changed their vile behavior or love for socialism as the issues have changed over the decades.
One thing's for certain, cold hard facts don't gel well with cult worship. Not one of JFK's fans on this board wants to discuss Kennedy's actual policies in depth, and would rather pretend Kennedy was a Jesse Helms clone because he cut taxes once and gave lip service about how communists are bad. Talking about the other 95% of his policies will cause them to IMMEDIATELY change the subject.
As I recall Dewey ran a decent race in 1944, I’d have preferred that he won that year, with conservative John Bricker as VP rather than the odious Earl Warren, if only FDR had died sooner, dem leaders knew he was dying which is why they replaced Wallace (who ironically turned against the commies and rejoined the GOP after his ‘48 campaign) with Truman. McArthur would have been my choice for the nomination that year.
But in 1948, after nearly losing out to Harold Stassen, he rested on his laurels and wanted to avoid controversy. Truman’s aggressive campaigning and that nasty farm recession won it for him.
A comparison is the recent UK election, May was certain to win but running a bad campaigns makes a difference, Corbyn was aggressive like Truman, thankfully he fell short.
Truman was actually the first President of the “approval rating” era (well they first had them for FDR). After the war he was in the toilet (except during the ‘48 election) for good reason. Historians have turned him into “one of the greats”. Pssh.
If only FR was around back in ‘48 and ‘60, we could show people what freeper types of those eras thought of Truman and Kennedy.
“To be fair, I’ve seen a number of RATs play the same game in reverse, and argue that the Republicans have “changed”, and the party has been “taken over” by a bunch of “alt-right” racists, and that “today’s Democrats” would be “Eisenhower Republicans” back in the 1950s.”
Good of you to point out that very similar nonsense. I see that all time. They mention how taxes were 90% under Ike (not of his doing) and how he coined the term “military-industrial complex” as some kind of proof that the GOP is now “waaaaaay more conservative”.
I think one of the reasons people are able to push the false "the two parties switched sides in the 60s and 70s" narrative is the GOP pretty much nominated a bunch of Democrat-lite candidates for 40 years after Coolidge left office.
Hoover, Landon, Wilkie, Dewey, Dewey redux, Eisenhower, Eisenhower again, Nixon, meh. Hard to get excited over any of those guys.
The conservative base was pretty much left out in the cold with those nominees (Nixon was ironically the "most conservative" of the bunch), and the powers that be in the GOP wanted Rockefeller next, leading to Phyllis Schafly's "A Choice Not an Echo" grassroots movement and the Goldwater nomination.
Having a bunch of Dem-lite nominees for 40 years seems to have helped the mainstream media in their history revision that the GOP was "the liberal party back then"
As fieldmarshaldj noted, the reverse wasn't true though, the RATs ceased running ANY "GOP-lite" candidates after John W. Davis in 1924.
From Al Smith to Lyndon Baines Johnson, it was 40 years of RAT presidential nominees pushing socialism, extolling the virtues of massive governmment expansion, and bashing GOP candidates for not getting aboard with it, yet people still buy the BS that the Dems prior to McGovern were the "conservative" party in America.
Heh. I kinda wish the internet was around back then. Here's some actual text from conservative publications when JFK was in office:
==============================================
Anti-Kennedy fliers were distributed in the 1962 mid-terms, featuring a mugshot photo of Kennedy over the words "Wanted for Treason."
Among the charges:
- "Betraying the Constitution (which he swore to uphold): He is turning sovereignty of the US over to the communist controlled United Nations: He is betraying our friends and befriending our enemies."
- "He has given support and encouragement to the Communist-inspired racial riots."
- "He has illegally invaded a sovereign State with federal troops."
- "He has consistently appointed Anti-Christians to Federal office: Upholds the Supreme Court in its Anti-Christian rulings. Aliens and known Communists abound in federal offices."
Likewise, the John Birch Society newsletter, American Opinion, accused Kennedy of "shameless intimidation, bribery, and blackmail" which compelled "weaklings in Congress to approve treasonable acts designed to disarm us and make us the helpless prey of the affiliated criminals and savages of the United Nations".
=======================================
Gee, something tells me that 1960s conservatives didn't see JFK as "honorable and patriotic" and "more conservative than most Republicans with the possible exception of Reagan"
And that flyer mentioned SCOTUS makes me think of yet another liberal Kennedy policy: he appointed Arthur Goldberg to SCOTUS, a liberal activist judge who started finding a non-existent "right to privacy" in the constitution and lead us down the path towards Roe v. Wade.
Al Smith turned against the new deal. Though it seems that maybe that was born out of personal animosity between him and FDR rather than any kind of conviction.
Speaking on the Birchers, I was curious as to what they are up to lately.
Check this out
I tend to agree with them
As I noted a few months ago, I've heard for years that The John Birch Society was always historically profiled as some fringe-extremist "radical right-wing group", whereas The Ripon Society was always historically profiled as some odious uber-liberal Rockefeller RINO-type group trying to turn the GOP into Democrats. Strange, I looked up what both groups have been touting lately, and I'm heavily in agreement with BOTH of them on 90% of the issues. Historically, the only major difference I see is the Ripon Society supported desegregation while the John Birch Society opposed it. In that case, I'd side with the Ripon crowd.
Seems the "fringe"ness of both groups is blow way out of proportion. They seem like fairly level headed conservative organizations to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.