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.
Here you go:
Reagan on behalf of Goldwater’s presidential election (Oct 27. 1964):
https://ytcropper.com/cropped/qX5b84d02fbe6f4
In light of Reagan’s choice words in his famous speech, are you saying Reagan was a ‘liberal-progressive’ like you are attempting to brand JFK with?
Of course, Reagan was a conservative, conservative on many things and a moderate on a few things. Kennedy was a conservative in matters of national security and a vocal moderate on other things. Their positions on healthcare were similar, similarly wrong. Reagan was also wrong on amnesty. But Reagan’s wrongful decisions did not stop me from considering him the greatest President of my lifetime before Trump.
What you exclude is the CONTEXT of history.
IOW your statements are out of context. You show no understanding of historical context.
I could take cuts from a speech from Stalin and assert he was a conservative. But the historical context shows he was a communist totalitarian.
Both Reagan and JFK were patriots and JFK’s heroism was true heroism and not fake McCain type heroism. Were Reagan and JFK correct in their view about healthcare? No, they were wrong. But when you score the totality if their positions, both were fiscal conservatives and both were pro-military.
But the above does not highlight what you really missed which follows from the question of why are the rumored scandals of JFK appearing now? Why now?
My answer is that the Deep State fears the truth will be revealed about the JFK assassination showing involvement by CIA and the elder Bush.
Why would POTUS expose these secrets? Because the Bush and Clinton camps are cooperatives in CIA fronts of which the Clinton Foundation is one. Because the psychopath that is Hillary Clinton and the criminals around her are not able to survive Trump’s transparency. POTUS has said the corruption is so deep he will need to “do the documents”.
Americans cannot let the networks of Clinton, Obama, and all the dangerous leftists walk America off a precipice in the name of world globalism (communism), because that is where they want to take it including causing large swaths of population decrease. Globalism is where the ruling class has everything and the proletariat basks in a form of equality, equality of misery.
Why should people dance to the tune of the Deep State in what they put out in media? Why are people even paying attention to the JFK rumored scandals now? What is the point of engaging in it?
Does the Deep State really think that by blasting the public with ‘Kennedy was a rapist of virgins’ that when the truth is learned about the CIA-Bush role in the assassination that the public will think “Oh gee, Kennedy was a bad guy, he deserved it”? Maybe so? Q says these people are stupid. I agree.
But if Deep State persons are thinking they can escape public wrath by planting stories from more than a half century ago, they are very mistaken. They supported the Psychopath, they supported the Muslim Mystery Man, they supported the Bush clan and its criminal banksters, they facilitated subjugation of Americans to a Globalist Cabal, they support gun control and confiscation, they support Islamic Jihad migration into western societies, they facilitate tracking a person’s every move, every utterance, they support abridging rights and rendering the Constitution anachronous and irrelevant, they facilitate using the US Military as a mercenary force, they support anything and everything rigged in their favor, they support picking winners and losers, they facilitate taking out any person that voices objection or poses a threat to their schemes by murder, disappearance, or staged accidents if necessary, they support state media controlled with their message, they consider themselves above the law, they think of themselves as judge, jury, executioner, they think themselves as all that matters, murder and lies are part of their toolbox that they have exclusive ownership of.
But hey, JFK had it coming doncha know? And JFK had wrong ideas on healthcare. So there, it’s settled, Deep State wins.
Of course not. Reagan was a conservative. That's why he supported Nixon and Goldwater, and opposed your hero JFK. He opposed JFK because JFK was NOT conservative. Read Reagan's OWN 1960 letter to Nixon that I posted above. He compares Kennedy to a smooth talking pretty boy version of Karl Marx.
>> Kennedy was a conservative in matters of national security and a vocal moderate on other things. <<
Kennedy was not a "vocal moderate" on "other things", he was, in his own words, a proud liberal Democrat and progressive on the vast majority of issues. He was no centrist or "conservative on military and national defense", and ran to the LEFT of Nixon on both issues. As Fieldmarshaldj noted, the Dems hadn't nominated a centrist in decades.
>> Their positions on healthcare were similar, similarly wrong. <<
What are you talking about? Did you even WATCH the videos I posted? Kennedy and Reagan had OPPOSITE views on health care in the early 60s. Kennedy was all for socialized medicine and a federal government takeover of the medical industry. Reagan was vehemently against it. Kennedy was wrong and Reagan was right. End of story.
>> What you exclude is the CONTEXT of history. IOW your statements are out of context. You show no understanding of historical context. I could take cuts from a speech from Stalin and assert he was a conservative. But the historical context shows he was a communist totalitarian. <<
Your comments should be directed at the Kennedy worshipers on this board, who cherry pick two issues (Kennedy cut taxes and Kennedy said communism was bad) to pretend he was a "conservative" and "would be a Republican today", ignoring the OVERALL record and beliefs of Kennedy, 90% of which was typical liberal Democrat BS. They refuse to address the post I made pointing out that Kennedy had 10X as liberal positions, and that I cited 10 specific examples that they are unable to refute. Apparently, facts are pesky things.
>> you score the totality if their positions, both were fiscal conservatives and both were pro-military. <<
Looking at the "totality" of Kennedy's positions, calling him a "fiscal conservative" and "pro-military" is laughable. We can thank the Bay of Pigs and the beginnings of the "Great Society" on Kennedy's "New Frontier" platform, which again, OVERALL, was 90% leftist, and that's why Reagan opposed it.
>> the truth is learned about the CIA-Bush role in the assassination <<
Let me get straight... George Bush was the evil CIA operative that killed America's heroic savior Kennedy to prevent him from exposing the deeds of the political establishment in this country? Did you mean to post that on Democrat Underground or DailyKos instead of FR? Because your comments would be right at home on those leftist rags. Go ahead and start preaching about how the vile Poppy Bush took down America's hero JFK, the Bernie Sanders fan club over on those websites will applaud you for "exposing" this "truth" (and they'll tell you that Dick Cheney killed Senator Wellstone while you're on the topic of nutty conspiracies)
>> And JFK had wrong ideas on healthcare. So there, it’s settled <<
That may be the only rational sentence in your entire post. Now if you can only admit he had the wrong ideas on the other 90% of the issues, and that's why Ronald Reagan was dead set AGAINST Kennedy's election.
Because you were essentially incorrect about it, and we provided citations. The reason those stories have resurfaced now is because the left is trying to use Trump's sex life to bring him down, just as the stupid, stupid GOP did with Clinton (lowering the tone forever) instead of his crimes.
JFK/Clinton, Democrat horndogs = rock starz!
Trump, conservative horndog = Hitler!
Reagan was a social Democrat and a foreign-policy Republican. He signed the first legalized abortion law in the country when he was governor, and also the incredibly destructive "no-fault" divorce legislation, both of which were spread to all states via the "full faith and credit" clause and have destroyed the nation. By the time he got to the White House, Reagan received coaching from pragmatic Wm F Buckley (elect the most conservative candidate, regardless or irregularites) and others.
JFK discovered the Deep State and the globalist cabals and threatened to expose or dismantle them. That is why he and probably his brother were killed, not healthcare.
Dude, where did you learn history from ? The NY Slimes ? Labor unions were inherently left wing, with only the occasional leadership figure veering from the script. Labor unions are the quickest way to put an industry out of business. Nothing "Conservative" about that.
Utter malarkey and revisionist nonsense.
Reagan’s signing off on abortion as CA Governor was not a “social Democrat” issue, it was a libertarian one. A lot of Democrats did not approve of that, especially Catholics. This was something you’d have expected of Goldwater, who (along with his wives) unfortunately was a huge booster of abortion and Planned Barrenhood. The argument made was of “personal freedom” (which could be claimed as “Conservative”, although I would not where that issue was concerned) and to eradicate the so-called “back-alley or ‘hanger’ abortions” which was a talking point of radical feminists.
It would be like claiming George W. Bush's willingness to sign an assault weapons ban renewal was on the same level of John Paul Stevens calling for an outright repeal of the 2nd amendment, and concluding "both Bush and Stevens had the same wrong view on guns"
I've noticed not a single JFK worshiper on this board wants to discuss ANY of the numerous examples I gave of Kennedy's various left-wing socialist platform and policies. They just stick with the script and repeat the "fact" that Kennedy was supposedly "patriotic and pro-America" and "believed in a strong defense" and was a "fiscal conservative" (all vague, meaningless terms, unlike the actual Kennedy policies I brought up, like his support for a $3.19 billion federal housing program) ad infinitum.
Ironically, one thing Hostage got right is he noted you could take some random quote from Joseph Stalin out of context and use it to create a false narrative that he was a pro-America conservative, when in reality he was a hardcore socialist and has an endless track record to prove it. Ironically, that's precisely what he and his fellow JFK fanboys have done with their history revisionism about Kennedy.
And now they've changed the topic completely and are trying to sell the idea that Kennedy was killed by "Deep State" because he was on some secret crusade to expose political corruption in Washington DC.
Given how corrupt his election was and virtually the whole media and pop culture industry complicity in helping install him (including mafia influence and epic-level political fixing), you could make a valid argument that he was merely attempting to co-opt the existing Deep State Machine. But expose them as some sort of ethics crusader ? Are you effing kidding me ? Everything about JFK was a fantasy, a fairy tale. “Camelot” ? The real truth is so ugly that too many still remain in denial about him.
I have to wonder if the Kennedy cheerleaders on this board sincerely believe the propaganda they spew. If they got in a time machine and went back to 1960, would they honestly be on the same side as Harry Belafonte, Eleanor Roosevelt, Norman Mailer, Nikita Khrushchev, Michael DiSalle, Pierre Salinger, Abraham A. Ribicoff, the corrupt Daley Chicago Machine machine, the illegal alien felons in Texas, LBJ’s thugs, the AFL-CIO, etc., etc., in helping them narrowly steal the election for Papa Joe Kennedy and the Kennedy clan?
How could they not support that motley crew of characters ? Jack is such a dreamy “Conservative” kinda guy ! Ev’ry-body’s voting for Jack !
JFK was no Conservative. His voting record in the Senate was 1% better than LBJ’s, but that difference was not significant. Basically they were on the same page, but LBJ used the JFK assassination to push through the common agenda.
I want an autographed photo of Obama for the bottom of my toilet bowl. ;d
LOL
I never heard of Bush Sr. being implicated in the Kennedy assassination, was he with Ted Cruz’s dad on the grass knoll?
THANK GOD he was not assassinated. They would have painted the Washington Memorial Black and renamed it after him. And even if a psycho lib did it "Racist Republican voters" would get the blame with endless conspiracies of how the lib shooter was framed (by Mark Fuhrman and Ollie North)
I am a heavy proponent of wishing that reconstruction was enforced.
But didn’t you tell me enforcing reconstruction would have caused another war?
““Camelot” ? The real truth is so ugly that too many still remain in denial about him.”
I know I’ve shared this before:
Back when Mom was here, we’d go to yard sales and flea markets. We’d always laugh when we’d see a JFK/RFK/Kennedy(s)plate/commemorative junk/etc.
GTFO with that “Camelot” fantasy of fantasies garbage.
“THANK GOD” is right!
I believed if he was assassinated, it would’ve been a left-winger doing it. Besides, Zero was smart enough to have Plugs Biteme as assassination insurance. Nobody wanted a guy who staples his ass hairs to his head and molests little girls on camera to be President, not even the Democrats.
Yes, it would’ve resulted in another civil war. As you well know, you can legislate almost anything, but you cannot legislate away or enforce how people feel about each other. Was it morally or ethically right that Black folks got screwed as a result for another century ? Nope. But there simply wasn’t the burning desire amongst Whites in the North to put a gun to the head of White Southerners to demand they respect Blacks and their newfound rights, especially when they themselves weren’t big on Black folks (and were scrambling to keep them out — see Oregon).
Gov. Tilden probably won the Presidential election of 1876 essentially on the platform of, “That’s enough” (where Reconstruction was involved). Keeping troops stationed in the South for perpetuity was distasteful to a majority of Whites, and both sides were anxious for a reconciliation and “return to normalcy.” A lot of Republicans didn’t want that, either, and if Blacks were going to be relegated back to second-class status, they were going to try to win the South with appeal to White voters (aside from a few times in the 1890s and 1920s, it would take over a century to 140 years to fully accomplish).
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.