DECONSTRUCTING THE JFK MYTH

"Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." - JFK

This stirring call to action best remembers the King of Camelot. He inspired an entire generation of youth to the call of public service. What noble intentions they had when entering into the hallowed halls of government duty. It is sad that the premise was so flawed! The invocation needed to read: "Ask not what you can do for your country -- Ask what we can do together to insure individual Liberty" . . .

How different our nation would be if Americans could understand the difference between these two calls to action. By the diminished standards of today, it can be argued that Kennedy was more of a reactionary than many current day Republicans. But let no one be misled, the propagandists of the ilk of Sargeant Shriver and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., designed a legend that defied factual references. Jack was a socialist through to the core. Don't be offended that a hero to some was really a predator with the charm of the tooth fairy. His open smile and quick wit, disguised the left hand that turned into the social excess of the 'Great Society'. What a legacy for decades to come. Its failure is evident to any sane person. The consequences of central planning and federal intrusion have allowed the multiple expansion of coercive government into every facet of society. Just what is great about this kingdom?

The likes of a Stewart Udall and Abraham Ribicoff were certainly in the vanguard of a 'collectivist' revolution. Who could forget good old Abe, taking up the George McGovern cause at the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention! But you don't have to rely on the ideology of appointees to strip away the sentiment of the fair haired hero. He proclaimed proudly to the NY Liberal Party on September 14, 1960:

"But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Note the pompous self delusion when it came to rationalize the 'good intentions' of their cause. Couple this with a willingness to micro manage public policy that established the federal programs that would reshape America society, and we have the proof that for Kennedy, country really means - government. And what is a socialist, if not a 'public servant' of the State?

And who can question that JFK's cold war interventionist credentials? "And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility."

Read that again, 'our government', 'move ahead', 'liberal spirit of daring', the same old internationalist tradition of Wilson and FDR is pure socialism . . . So why not call it for what it is, the surrender of the Republic to the supremacy of the State. JFK surrounded himself with mad men like Robert McNamara and Dean Rusk, who's only allegiance was to project the empire into world affairs. The notion that Communism in Southeast Asia was the greatest threat to domestic tranquillity, when the comrades were devising similar programs down in foggy bottom, decries credulity.

So were we supposed to take JFK at his word when he proclaimed in his inaugural address that: "the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God." Or are we better served by reflecting upon the actual record that created the environment that allowed the next deceiver to establish that Great Society?

The Peace Corp established little accord, but broke ground to instill a false duty to serve the State. His failed attempts to introduce the Medicare approach of cradle to grave health, greased the skids for the dismay we now call socialized medicine. Kennedy's civil rights bill was meant to right former wrongs, but as any credible historian will reluctantly acknowledge, we are more divided today in culture and convictions, than back some forty years ago. The ideological polarization's are clear to any student of current events. So why do we indulge in national denial about the real results and adverse consequences of the 'New Frontier'?

The 'pretender emancipator', had no problem auctioning off the freedoms of the people to the overseers and carpetbaggers of the federal bureaucracy. The Kennedy plantation was extended far outside the Hyannis compound. The rise of the War on Poverty, has brought forth an even greater dependency. But this time, all American citizens are under the yoke of a federal master.

The JFK government admiration society, ushered in the era of State/Capitalism that merges both big business and big government into the same axis of public control. Individual rights became the ultimate causality of this socialism. So how does the Liberal reconcile the inherent conflict in their programs with "the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state"?

As we all know, consistency is seldom practiced while veneration for the federal crumbs are now a way of life. Idealism as the virtue of self sacrifice in support of government policy is a sickness. Kennedy is revered for preaching contempt for your own dignity. The illicit need to infuse a pathetic personal identity into the public persona, causes false heroes to be honored. When they become martyrs, factual chronicles become a fantasy. Just like Camelot, a nice dream better left for the theater.

You weren't alive back then. You have absolutely no idea what it was like. All you know, is what you've read, and the vast majority of that, is utter propaganda, untruths, and baldfaces lies. JFK was an incompitent , a whoremonger, and a man who used AirForce INE to fly to / have a doctor flown in to D.C., to shot himself and his wife p with amphetamines. He met Kruschev stoned on qa massive dope cocktail. He set up and abandoned the Cubans, at the Bay of Pigs, was sending tons of guys to Nam, because his wife was a Francophile and to prove that he wasn't a coward. He was easily outmanuvered by Unions, the Mafia, and was a terrible president.

Little did I knowm when I cheered his death, that he and his wretched family would be turned into some pretentious , mythic lie. Had I known, I wouldn't have cheered. You bet I am " bloodthirsty " and proud of it. I have absolutely no shame , at my college student reaction .

Tell me, oh " HOLIER THAN THOU ", sanctimonious , supercillious kid, would you have cheered if Slick had been offed ? How about Hitler ; had you been alive ? Stalin, Pol Pot, Osama bin Laden, anyone ? If not, then that is just another debasement of American society. People used to have hot nlood in their veins; not PC ice water.

Oh, and BTW, most people didn't see the shooting live ; they saw it on film, much later. What we saw LIVE , was Jack Ruby killing Oswald, and that was blurry,almost too fast to see, and shocking. You have no comprehension of what those times were like. Pay attention to those who lived through it ; this is unvarnished history.

There are a few things that I would like to know about the JFK administration, one which I have never been able to discover, and that is: Just what happened to make Premier K pull the missiles out of Cuba? How close were we to T=0, and, as some have suggested, was the shipment (and removal) of noticible missiles to Cuba just a dumb show, to cover the installation of other, less detectable missiles, which, for all I know could still be in place (albeit now mostly stripped, and used to repair cars ;-)

Having lived through the crisis, I remember thinking to myself "This is IT", what we had been preparing for for years, then, nothing.

The funny thing was, on the weekend after JFK was assasinated, I happened to be out at the range (I had a beautiful 1903A3 Springfield at that time, wish I had never sold it). Someone produced a Carcano, and everyone tried to get 3 shots in (at 100 yards) in the time frame that all the news channels were talking about. Nobody REALLY succeeded, so we figured that was BS from the start. We were all chipping in to purchase ammunition, and making runs to a sporting goods store that actually had some in stock. After a while, someone felt that it was somehow disrespectful to be doing this, and closed the range down, I believe, for 3 days.

Since nobody from my generation forgets where they were when JFK was shot, the memory of the day after is sharp as well. The memory of going out to the range, with an almost continuous downpour of rain,that Saturday morning, trying to get 3 shots out, with an unfamiliar firearm (at that time) with someone timing sticks with me to this day (I was 17 at the time).

After all these years, and with a lot of reading, the whole picture of the JFK administration looks a lot different than we remember. It is scary, to realize that most of the socialist policies and leftist tendencies in government today, got their start during JFK's watch. What is remembered is the ABSOLUTE SILENCE after High School was dismissed and the respect in which he was held. What is true is that, when all is said and done, if JFK hadn't happened, we wouldn't have the liberal problem we do today.

Keep the Faith for Freedom

MAY GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THIS HONORABLE REPUBLIC

Greg

He's already managed to thoroughly decimate Johnson--expose him as absolute walking slime--as a human being and politician both, and I'm only up to 1933.

Lyndon Johnson doesn't really get interesting until 1948. Here are a couple of quick quotes on that year:

The '48 senatorial campaign was noteworthy. The runoff in the Democratic primary pitted Coke R. Stevenson against U.S. Congressman Lyndon B. Johnson. The controversial election was the closest in the state's history. The unofficial initial count by the election board showed an 87-vote difference, 494,l9l for Johnson and 494,l04 for Stevenson. George Parr, known as the Duke of Duval County, was important to the revised figures--Johnson'srrevised upward 202 votes and Stevenson's revised upward by one vote. The precinct of "Box l3" reported six days after the primary runoff and (San-Antonio Express-News, July 3l, l977) "...George Parr, the political boss of several South Texas counties, after a consultation with Johnson, ordered over 200 names added to the voter list--- they were...in alphabetical order." LBJ became known as "Landslide Lyndon".

Here are some quotes from a couple of guys who worked on the Johnson campaign (one was John Conally, the Texas Governor who was also injured when JFK was killed):

McCULLOUGH: [voice-over] Three days after the polls closed, the votes were still coming in and Stevenson led by a handful. It looked as if Stevenson would be the new senator from Texas. But Johnson remembered 1941. He was not about to lose again. The election now hinged on the "Duke of Duval County," George Parr, the man who controlled the votes in South Texas.

Mr. CONNALLY: George Parr controlled that county and those people voted the way he wanted them to vote, no question about that, none whatever. Now, the candidates had nothing to do with it.

Mr. GOULD: In the nature of things, you don't write down, "Bought these votes yesterday afternoon at 4 o'clock," but obviously, there was some understanding between the Johnson people and the political bosses in South Texas.

Mr. DALLEK: Earlier, when Coke Stevenson ran for governor, he had also been the recipient of the favor of the bosses because he had paid them. In one of his races, George Parr, the "Duke of Duval County," had given Stevenson a vote of 3,310 to 17. Is it conceivable that such a lopsided margin would have been given to any candidate for any office?

McCULLOUGH: [voice-over] In the tiny South Texas town of Alice six days after the polls had closed, 202 additional votes were reported from Precinct Box 13. When they were counted, all but two were for Lyndon Johnson. When the signatures of the 202 new voters were examined, some say the names were all written in the same ink and listed in alphabetical order.

Mr. DEAN: I did not notice that they were in alphabetical order, although some of the people who saw it testified later that that had happened.

McCULLOUGH: [voice-over] Homer Dean was a 29-year-old attorney working in the Johnson campaign when Coke Stevenson arrived in Alice and demanded to see the voting list locked in the vault of the Texas State Bank. Dean is one of the few people who actually saw the disputed names.

Mr. DEAN: Well, it did look to me like there had been a change in ink and it looked like 200 or 202 or 203 names had been added to the poll list in a different ink by a different hand. Mr. Stevenson was an outraged man that felt like the election had been stolen from him and he felt like what he'd just seen was evidence of that.

McCULLOUGH: [voice-over] Stevenson challenged the election at the Texas State Democratic Convention. It was no use. The Johnson forces were too powerful. When it was all over Precinct Box Number 13 made the difference. Johnson was by 87 votes, but the question of a stolen election remained.

Mr. DUGGER: You cannot make the statement, on the facts, that Johnson stole the election. I think you can say it was stolen for him -- that's true -- but did he order it done? I never could find a John Connally down there doing it.

Mr. CONNALLY: I wasn't within 200 miles of him. I was in Austin, Texas a battery of telephones, calling all over the State of Texas. I didn't know anything about it and that's the truth of the matter.

Mr. DUGGER: If Homer Dean knew it was stolen, you don't find Homer Dean saying he stole it.

Mr. DEAN: I didn't then and don't now think that Johnson directly participated in it. He received the benefit of it, but I don't think he directed it or even knew about it when it was happening.

Mr. DUGGER: You see, it just gets away from you.

McCULLOUGH: [voice-over] Nineteen years later, Ronnie Dugger met in the White House with President Lyndon Johnson and asked him about the election of 1948.

Mr. DUGGER: One night, up in his bedroom, he started laughing and he seemed to wonder if he could find something and he said he was going back into Bird's bedroom, which was next door. And he rummaged around in a closet. I think I could hear him rummaging around in the closet. And he came in with this photograph of these five guys in front of this old car with Box 13 balanced on the hood of it.

I looked at him and grinned and he grinned back, but he wouldn't explain it to me. I asked him, well, who were these guys and why did they have Box 13 on the hood of this car? What did it mean? And he just -- nothing. He wouldn't say. As we'd say in Texas, he wouldn't say nothin'. So there it is -- history turning on a mystery.

(Me again): I couldn't find it in any of the accounts, but I seem to recall that the building where the voting list was stored burned down, destroying the evidence. I do know that Stephenson's representatives were not allowed to write down any of the names on the list when they viewed it. According to them, they memorized some of the names, and found they had been dead for years, etc. Growing up in Texas, I was well aware of the BS that dems will pull in order to get elected.

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.