Steve Jenkins

Had the media done its job things would have been very different for the Bush family. They were truly above the law. The Clinton's seem to be in the same boat.

As for Nuclear War there were some that felt sooner rather than later would be a good thing. We had an advantage in ICBMs at this point and there was a belief that it was temporary. These folks did not get their way during the Cuban missile crisis or as a result of 11-22-63. In my opinion that is a good thing.

Many look to see who benefited by an act of this type. Perhaps a great deal could be gained by looking at some of those who seemed to fall out of favor. Business picked up in South East Asia in a major way while Cuba not so much. Johnson got a promotion and a get out of jail free card. Hoover got to keep his job and with that his secret files which offered some protection for his own indiscretions. E. Howard Hunt appears to be marginalized after 1-22-63 as does Genersl Walker.

It is not unreasonable to see the Assasination as an attempted false flag intending to blame the Cubans with the intention of starting a full on invasion of Cuba. That is clearly not how it played out. If anything Cuba was on the back burner from that point on. Johnson was on record for his concern that such a development could lead to nuclear confrontation with Russia, not unreasonable in my opinion. There is evidence that Johnson used this concern to motivate some members of the Warren Commission to take part in both the Commision and the lone nut tract. Both Johnson and Hoover had something to gain buy the JFK killing. Johnson got to be president and Hoover for to keep his job past 70. At the time he would have been automatically retired at 70 without special action by the president. Something Kennedy was not likely to do and something Johnson did in fact do. Johnson himself was facing potential criminal investigation, something he was able to head off with the powers of the presidency. Both were subject to potential blackmail if they did not play ball. There is indication both Johnson and Hoover had prior knowledge of how things would play out but I have not seen any that indicated they were involved. It is likely that it was easier to get folks to get on board with the coverup after the fact than before the fact. If the truth had come out early many of the mechanisms needed to fight the Cold War could have been dismembered as a result, particularly the intelligence services.

Possible that folks using this method severely underestimate how unhappy the average voter is with how things are.

In my opinion the media has attempted the process of character Assasination of Trump but so far at least he seams to gain momentum with every shot across the bow. It is quite possi

I myself have more questions than answers and perhaps that is because one played out decades ago and brought down a president while the other has yet to play out. They both came to a slow boil before a presidential election and they both could potentially bring down a president. It seems to me that here is ample evidence to bring charges against any normal person and since Clinton appears to be the establishment choice I wonder if she is beyound reach or in fact in the crosshairs.

Anybody have any insight?

Don't take this the wrong way Douglas because this is purely an observation and not a judgement, but you have really shifted gears politically since your youth. I can not imagine a younger version of you supporting Bernine Sanders. For the record my thoughts on things have changed quite a bit over the years. These days I think both parties are too entrenched and not responsive to our needs. I also think the media will do what they can to show any challenges to the powers that be in the worst light posible. Maybe we should look at the big picture and not focus so much on an individualls imperfection. Nobody can really stand up to a microscopic review. Nobody has any secrets, not with the technology there is today.

My mind smokes at the complexity of it all. For years I wrestled with the micro details of the assasintaion and only later realizing it could only really be appreciated with a net cast over a larger puddle of water. Certainly more relevant today than one might think.

While the alleged sniper weapon was unsurprised are we to assume that other weapons that may have been used that day were also unsurprised? If one intended not to draw attention to oneself in order to increase the chances of getting away, would it not make sense to surpress things a bit? Is his not consistent with reports that the shots sounded like firecrackers or backfires?

Was Clay Shaw not on the board of Permindex? Was Permindex not linked to the DuGaulle attempt? Was not Bannister linked to the DuGaulle attempt. There are certainly plenty of clues that this truly was a global phenomenon.

I think at the heart of the vast majority of the political assassinations if not all of them is the removal of nationalists by globalists. The million dollar question is does this make the world a better place?

I think many of the folks that accept there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy have not yet come to appreciate the scale involved. Many believe that it involved a rogue element of the CIA. The problem with this conclusion is thst there is evidence that there is connection between the Kennedy, DuGaulle, Castro, and Diem killings or attempted killings. This was not the work of a rougle group. So much for making the world safe for democracy. Democratic or Dictator, nobody was safe.

My take on Free Trade is that it increases profit if a corporation can produce products where labor and cost of production are the cheapest and then sell them in wealthier markets. The problem as I see it is that the long term consequence of this is a lower standard of living in no longer manufacturing end market. This is where globalism is taking us. At some point producing things cheaply is not enough without somebody with enough money in their pocket to buy what is produced. I don't see how sending our manufacturing base offshore has helped the country or the people who live in it. There was a time where the leader of a nation was expected to do what was in the best interest of the country and it's citizens. Protectionism is a dirty word these days because the powers that be see no benefit in protecting one nation or the human beings that live there. They see Nationalism as an obstacle to be dealt with. Kennedy, DuGaulle, and Castro were patriots that tried to do what they thought was in the best interest of their country and their people. Nixon began to introduce protectionist policy's to protect the American economy and its people. Look at the resistence they met.