Myra Bronstein

"JF Kennedy niece Maria Shriver backs Obama http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9S1Go...U8fu-tBFidEK-UQ LOS ANGELES (AFP) — Maria Shriver -- wife of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and a member of the powerful Kennedy political clan -- on Sunday endorsed Barack Obama for US president, just days after her former-actor husband backed Republican John McCain. "The more I thought about it, I thought, you know, if Barack Obama was a state, he'd be California," Shriver said to cheers at a rally held at the University of California for the Democratic presidential contender. "I mean, think about it: diverse, open, smart, independent, bucks tradition, innovative, inspiring, dreamer, leader!" said Shriver, a member of America's foremost political dynasty. Her endorsement came one week after her prominent uncle, US Senator Ted Kennedy and her cousin Caroline -- the only surviving child of slain US President John F. Kennedy -- publicly endorsed Obama. Shriver said her own endorsement Sunday was a spontaneous decision. "I thought to myself when I woke up this morning ... there's no place I should be but right here today," she told the celebrity-packed rally headlined by talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy, Obama's wife Michelle, and pop music legend Stevie Wonder. Obama, Shriver said, "is about the power of us, and what we can do when we come together. Because as everybody up here has said, there is much more that unites us than divides us." "He is about empowering women, African-Americans, Latinos, older people, young people. He's about empowering all of us." Shriver's backing of the Illinois senator comes just two days from "Super Tuesday" on February 5, when California and 20 other US states hold nominating contests...." Spontaneous decision. 'Kay...

This is just an excellent thread Greg. Wish I had something to contribute, but for now I can only read with interest. Great work.

Thanks Peter. The whole thing's interesting. Esp the intersection of Walker, who I am certain was involved and am almost certain was funded by HL Hunt, and Hemming.

He might have been intelligent but he sure had problems showing it. Why is it that the forum admin is the only person not to respect the request in the original post? "If you can't say something nice, then please restrain yourself and leave no post at all." (Emphasis in the original.)

Sure, overlooking a couple of million dead Vietnamese, a million dead Iraqis, millions of addicts who got hooked on Reagan's contra coke, etc. Johnson was planning to go to war and recognized the need to pacify blacks before sending a disproportionate number of them off to 'Nam. I could go on. Didn't Hitler love his Mom? Not such a bad sort... I suspect this is part of the answer. However, you have to remember that when LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Right Act he stated to associates that signing the bill had lost the South for the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. This was true and enabled right-wing supporters of the Democratic Party to switch to the Republicans. The 1964 Civil Rights Act therefore united the right in such a way that it destroyed the potential of the Democratic Party as a progressive force. I still don't see much courage in Johnson's actions. Forgive my seemingly limitless cynicism, but Goldwater already had the Republican nomination by this time. LBJ knew he only needed to swing slightly left in order to occupy the political middle ground. JFK knew he would have BG on toast if the Republicans nominated him and LBJ also relished his chances against this unsophisticated redneck. Throw in the media's messianic support for LBJ in the aftermath of JFK's assassination, and the war LBJ started in August '64 against the 'communist menace' and LBJ was a shoo-in in '64. He wasn't too worried about temporarily alienating the right wing fringe of his southern constituency, because he knew he had the media to help him appeal to the wider electorate. After all, they helped him cover up the assassination, venomously attacking all WC dissenters. Of course LBJ would portray himself to colleagues as some kind of courageous statesman gambling with his political future for the greater good of America. That's his familiar behavioral pattern. However, I've yet to see any genuine courage on LBJ's part in my analysis of his public or private life. I always wondered about the Civil Rights Act and how incongruous it seems when analysing LBJ's career. I think Cliff Varnell hit the nail on the head and I'm kicking myself for not tumbling earlier. Nice call, Cliff. "People just don't realize how conservative Lyndon really is." Bobby Kennedy, November 22, 1963 http://books.google.com/books?id=bVrRvYV7i...Kt8FJl8HeetH7FA Yes, the civil rights act was incongruous. Lyndon was merely trying to get some good ink in the history books at the tail end of one of the most corruption-filled murderous presidencies in history.

Sure, overlooking a couple of million dead Vietnamese, a million dead Iraqis, millions of addicts who got hooked on Reagan's contra coke, etc. Johnson was planning to go to war and recognized the need to pacify blacks before sending a disproportionate number of them off to 'Nam. I could go on. Didn't Hitler love his Mom? Not such a bad sort... I suspect this is part of the answer. However, you have to remember that when LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Right Act he stated to associates that signing the bill had lost the South for the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. This was true and enabled right-wing supporters of the Democratic Party to switch to the Republicans. The 1964 Civil Rights Act therefore united the right in such a way that it destroyed the potential of the Democratic Party as a progressive force. Your comments are true John, but I'm unclear on the point you're making.

Now Mark, in all fairness it DID take some courage for LBJ to ride in the Dealey Plaza motorcade knowing well in advance that bullets would be flying, yet waiting as long as possible to dive onto the floor of his limo.

Sure, overlooking a couple of million dead Vietnamese, a million dead Iraqis, millions of addicts who got hooked on Reagan's contra coke, etc. Johnson was planning to go to war and recognized the need to pacify blacks before sending a disproportionate number of them off to 'Nam. I could go on. ... I will go on. "Clinton's persistence in painting President Lyndon B. Johnson as the key enabler of civil rights for Negroes smacks of a telling irony. One could just as easily praise President Ronald Reagan for forging King's birthday as a national holiday. As a nickel-plated, white Texan of his times, LBJ considered King's movement a nuisance early on; then, grasping its inevitability, the opportunistic president seized upon it. His view of King had Johnson referring to him as "that goddamn n preacher," according to a close White House aide. The Nobel laureate's anti-Vietnam War stance was blamed for helping sink Johnson's re-election chances, and LBJ likely took to his grave the notion of King as an uppity, N-word ingrate." Johnson "not all bad"? I beg to differ.

Nicely said Mark. I'm proud of Senator Kennedy for his response to HRC's slight.

This article has excellent information. I am so friggin' sick of people lauding Johnson as Mr Civil Rights when he refused to help the elected president with his landmark civil rights package, in spite of the fact that he was his VP and former majority leader, so should have been of huge help. Then when he passes the warmed over legislation over Kennedy's dead body he gets all the credit. The next time someone refers to the Great Society I'm leaping on 'em and tattooing this quote to their forehead: "Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963."

Unfortunate news, if so - which I have no reason to doubt. He died with many questions unanswered and many, many tempting loose ends dangling...... I didn't know GPH personally and had a small bias against his bashing of Plumlee. The nature of their mutual enmity unknown to me. I relish not the death of anyone. Man of many mysteries. I hope he left some materials [either already out, or to be released upon his death] to help lift some of the fog. Not the moment to go into all this in detail, but some believe Hargrave and / or Vidal may have taken a flight to Dallas and, yes, that either implicated him or he was in some ways involved or set-up to look involved. R.I.P. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhemming.htm http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=g...G=Google+Search Wow, I just heard. Huge milestone. ... I'm respecting the request in the other thread not to post there if nothing nice could be said.

Hillary really beat Obama in the Florida primary. A very strong lead over him. Did the Kennedys endorsing him the day before put the whammy on Obama? Did people see him as a dead man, as I did? Or does the public hate the Kennedys so much that they voted for Hillary? Kathy Kathy, Hillary was the only Dem to campaign in Florida, her "win" was inevitable. Yet what she "won" was no delegates. Zero. http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/29/1...ut-no-delegates So I think it's safe to say that the events in Fla had nothing to do with the Kennedy endorsements.

Well that's certainly true. Of course President Kennedy said things with substance, not just style. So far Obama has not displayed the substance. Still, IMO Obama's speech at the 2004 Dem convention was great. I agree with what is being said here. Yes the 04 speech was terrific, but I have not been impressed since then. ... Same here. His voting record has been timid and safe, standard issue politician. But I'm not 100% certain that he's part of The Machine, whereas I am certain Billary is. Plus, the endorsement of the Great Ted Kennedy, and Caroline... huge. Ultimately I want to hear from my (former) candidate though on whether or not he, Kucinich, is endorsing Obama.

Well he served under him in a variety of positions...

Well that's certainly true. Of course President Kennedy said things with substance, not just style. So far Obama has not displayed the substance. Still, IMO Obama's speech at the 2004 Dem convention was great.

I agree to a point and am done selecting the lesser of two evils. However, there is a significant difference between Obama and the remaining Dem candidates; they voted to invade Iraq and he didn't. Therefore they can never have credibility on the subject whereas he can.

That totally jumped out for me too, Myra. I hope that Senator Kennedy will refer to his brother's beautiful speech of hope and peace when he makes his announcement. To this day I cannot read (or hear) those words without crying. Dawn I have the same reaction Dawn.

The only time I'm been impressed with Obama is when he makes a speech. He's a great speaker. However he's a standard issue politician from what I've seen. My candidate, Dennis Kucinich, just dropped out of the presidential race to focus on reelection to congress. No one else is in Kucinich's league. Not even close. At the same time none of the other Dem candidates are nearly as bad as Billary.

I'm sure we all know by now that Caroline Kennedy (sans Schlossberg) endorsed Obama in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html And now we're hearing that the great Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama as well. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politi...ennedy_end.html As huge as that is what really hit me was the location Senator Kennedy is chose to make his announcement: "Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State's senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support." I'm very proud of Senator Kennedy for having the wisdom to take this stand... especially from this time and place. "We must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together." --John F. Kennedy

Couldn't see anything at that URL. Just got a message that "remote linking of images is not permitted." Yeah Myra your right, must be a copy right thing. But I was able to go to the site and see the image. Wow, I've never seen it before. Oswald getting arrested at the TX Theater. I tried attaching it; we'll see it that works. I can see why the guy you mentioned reminds you of Ruby. There is a resemblance.

When the LBJ tapes were originally released, 7% were kept back for reasons of "national security". It seems this tape falls into this category. Savvy researchers will not be surprised, considering that there is a LBJ tape with a 14 and 1/2 minute gap, not unlike the very famous Nixon tape with the 18 minute gap.....of Watergate fame. Although it is purely idle speculation, 2 to 1 odds say the deleted subject matter is the same...... Robert, Do you know the date of the tape with the 14.5 minute gap? Thanks.

Couldn't see anything at that URL. Just got a message that "remote linking of images is not permitted."

Myra, here's the right link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Ernie_Ford The photo was most likely taken when Ruby was running the Ranch House. Other notables Ruby hired while there included Tex Ritter and Artie Shaw. See CE 1223 The Band (then known as The Hawks) may also have played there. Whoops, thanks for providing the correct link Greg. Interesting about Tex Ritter and Artie Shaw. That's some good arcane knowledge.

According to Wikipedia (I know, I'm a hypocrite for reading propagandapedia, but for non-political non-historical subjects it can be ok... I know I know, I'm defensive about getting caught reading Wikipedia): "There is a photo of [singer Tennessee Ernie] Ford with country singer Hank Thompson and Dallas nightclubs owner Jack Ruby in the 1988 book, "The Ruby Oswald Affair" by Alan Adelson." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph..._post&f=126 How weird is that?

Bernice, I was not able to get on the forum all day yesterday. I tried early am before court and got that "this page can't be displayed" thing. Same later when I got in. So could not respond to your question til now. Walt is writing a massive book dealing with the chronology of things related to the JFK assassination. (I believe that is how he has explained it, though he is not going into any detail and it will be only made available to those who get his newsletter, which I do). But none of this involves Jay Harrison's work. It is Jay's research that Walt believes there may be little interest in. Those who knew Jay, or knew of him would totally disagree. He was an amazing deep cover researcher. He won't be found on the net because those who knew him and wished to remain on friendly terms had one rule : Keep his name secret. With very good reason he feared for his life. He also had zero interest in fame. He helped many a researcher. Jay was utterly devoted to justice in the assassination of JFK. Like Tosh Jay was there that day. (He was a cop). He was also mil intel earlier in life. It was there he learned how to do genealogy. So he had the ability- and the fierce determination- to dig deeply into the deep connections and backgrounds of potential players in this case. I appreciate that Walt is very busy...but.... Dawn Dawn, How can we sign up for Walt's newsletter? Or can we? If that's the only way to get his book... I want in. Thx. Myra