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.

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?

-------------------

It was a trade-off that Khruschev won. He got American missiles pulled out of turkey and elsewhere. He got Castro recognized in a stablized USSR-backed Cuba that was then free to attempt to export revolution elsewhere a la Che Guevara. Khruschev got everything he wanted out of the deal.

Additionally, the backing down and manipulation of Kennedy meant he would also back down in Viet Nam. We were on the ropes. It would be years later under Reagan when we regained some equilibrium.

some hippie protest singer from the '50's?

You mean the '60's, right?

The only things people argued about in the '50's were "was Red Skelton ever funny?" and "was Penny really just Sky King's niece?"

There were tons of garbage in the '60's. It was not fun. And Kennedy's death set the stage for the next 40 years of turmoil.

I have trouble seeing the screen

If this is a sympathy ploy, it worked. I'm turning in. Good night.

I'm no leftist. I've voted straight Republican for decades. My conservative credentials would probably even impress you.

And all this proves my point. I say it's callous to "cheer" the bloody slaughter of another human being, and I'm called a sappy "leftist."

That's preposterous and pathetic. And deep down, you know that.

I was a student for Goldwater after leaving the regular army. I deplore the assassination of Kennedy because it converted him into sainthood. That conversion has held a grip on this country for 40 years. Beyond that, if somebody is an aggravation to me, it's a relief if they catch a bullet. The Kennedy's were the formost crime family in the U. S. and I have no use for any of them. If Bubba gets it, I won't be the one to do it, but it will cost me a fortune. I'll mortgage my land and use the money in celebration to set up drinks for the house in every joint between here and Cincinatti. And I don't even drink. I nmake no secret of it. Take it or leave it. That's what you get with me. Blandness is not spoken at my house.

If someone's an aggravation to me, it's a relief if they catch a bullet.

Wouldn't want to aggravate you, no sir.

I supported Goldwater, too. But I draw the line at blood-thirst. You're right about one thing, however. I have misread you.

I thought you were sober.

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.

What time frame were the news reports giving that early? I don't see how they could know.

The usual time frame you hear these days is 3 shots in under 6 seconds, but that's not right. The real time frame is to start the clock at the first shot then get 2 more in about 8 seconds. Not that hard, and easily reproducible.

I believe the original stuff coming out (hey its been a looooong time) was 5 seconds...

It wasn't until years later I actually saw the site, and the way the street was, giving you basically 0 target apparent motion, that I realized yeah, you could possibly do it, but not in 5 seconds.

Greg

Let me put it to you in words we can understand. If a rattlesnake gets run over by a car, I feel no remore for the death of the snake, nor am I so psychologically repressed that I feel conscience for not feeling remorse over the death of the snake. It's just one less snake capable of biting me. Whether the snake is a true reptile or of the human variety makes no difference. I'm happy to se it's departure from this world. Nobody gets any slack in the matter. Nobody gets any crocodile tears.

If that bothers you or anybody else, so be it. I can live with it.

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.