Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kenneth Drew

Members
  • Posts

    952
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kenneth Drew

  1. 2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

    If the Mayflower descendant New England WASP Bush/Pierce bloodline considered the Kennedy's "vulgar" and  neuveau rich, one can wonder what they think of the initial cheap housing, tax cheating and unsavory perhaps even money laundering character associating wealth acquiring Trump clan and especially the constantly cursing and bragging Donald Trump?

    By far the crudest, most vulger, amoral and insecurely self-promoting and self-obsessed President this country has ever seen or heard! *

    And one of the least intellectual ( GW wasn't real bright either but he didn't talk like a threatening street thug ) and who personally directed his dark trademark junior high school bully taunts and insults at Jeb Bush himself on 2016 primary national TV ..."you're weak Jeb"... WEAK!    Maybe your mother should be running?

    Educated, well read, high plane witty Kennedy versus low brow WWF cursing, trash talking and personally insulting Trump?      HA!

    Profiles In Courage JFK versus draft dodging "Pu$$y Grabbing" bragging Trump?

    The ultimate "classy versus crude" comparison analogy.

    The Neanderthal regression comparison is clear here.

    We have our own on stage crazy hyperbole yelling Hulk Hogan in the White House now.

    With an accompanying almost daily twitter and/or staged rally insult circus.

    It's all a national and even international disgrace and an embarrassment to us all.

    And very unfortunately this no respectful proprietaries boundaries president's election reflects the mentality, character and values of half our citizens.

    A very sad and even tragic fact.

    What say the elitist Bush's about the Kennedy's now ... after Trump?

     * End note.

    LBJ was as vulgar, crude and amoral, but he at least kept this side of him in private realm versus the public one.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  2. 8 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

    In just the last few weeks Trump has created 4 majorly humiliating leadership gaffs that are worse than embarrassing, and that in total should be receiving much more media coverage as a reflection of his never ending presidential office incompetence.

    The parents of the young British man killed by an American diplomat's wife driving on the wrong side of the road in England were furious at Trump's shameless attempt to have them meet their son's killer without prior notice when they were brought into the White House. They felt they were being used in a self-promoting photo-op ploy by Trump.

    They went back to England feeling more depressed and angry over this than before they made the initial trip to the U.S.!  How embarrassing. How stupid.

    The brazenly self-promoted Trump Mar-A-Lago scheme blew up as it should have and was headlined in the national media until it was quickly withdrawn. Another humiliating and embarrassing Trump gaff.

    The spontaneous withdrawal from Syria announcement by Trump was met with such outrage even by our own military that he and his team had to immediately create and initiate a damage control campaign that was just frantic. What a diplomatic disaster and mess that situation still is.

    When Trump finally went to and presented himself in person at a large audience venue of non-screened citizens, he was greeted by the loudest booing and jeering response any President has ever received at such a major event like the World Series. Thousands even shouted "LOCK HIM UP!" to add to his humiliation.

    He earned that negative response.

    This "lock him up" chant was a reference to Trump's own "lock her up" sound bite (referring to Hillary Clinton ) and that he created and constantly encouraged his angry rally crowds to yell and repeat over and over for years by not ever telling them to stop.

    All this craziness in just one month!?

    Trump's presidency has been one after another of these humiliating and embarrassing leadership failures ... for years. Hundreds of them!

    Obama never had "one" of these embarrassing incidents ... in 8 years!

    However, Trump is still loved by his base, regardless of his constant incompetent leadership failures.

    We are in a precarious state with half our country pretending nothings wrong with this high anxiety causing President.

     

    Joe, you do know that those parents actually requested a meeting with that woman, and  when Trump actually arranged one for them they were so shocked they didn't know what to say.  Out of about 50000, in the stadium, every tv shot focused on one section with one guy jumping up and down with a towel and 10 people around him shouting, the other 49990 didn't agree with them.  

    Obama never had "one" of these embarrassing incidents ... in 8 years!  Chuckle:  sure he only had one and it  lasted about 8 years.  He was the joke.  So you agree with the 350?  

     

    1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

    Don't worry. Kenneth.   Trump has most likely already sub-contracted these crucial anti-Deep State tasks out to his Kremlin handlers.

    As for the election, 350 votes would be somewhat suspicious, but Putin has most likely finalized plans for another pre-emptive GRU strike on our voting systems for 2020.

    Best of all, Bill Barr is working overtime to protect the Fuhrer from prosecution, even if he shoots people on 5th Avenue.

     

     

     

  3. On 10/15/2019 at 3:41 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

    I do think there are parallels with Trump and the Deep State but for different reasons. The Deep State was afraid of JFK’s policies and felt he was a traitor. The Deep State battle with Trump is personal (they believe is was too inept to be President)

    I think Trump should form a team (war room) to track activities of 'Deep State'.   I feel they are working vigorously against him and that he should make the first strike, don't wait for them.  I do make an early prediction that Trump will take about 350 electoral votes in next election

  4. Paul,  in the article by Bertrand Russell from 1964, is this quote  "One young lady standing just to the left of the presidential car as the shots were fired took photographs of the vehicle just before and during the shooting, and was thus able to get into her picture the entire front of the book depository building. Two F.B.I. agents immediately took the film which she took. Why has the F.B.I. refused to publish what could be the most reliable piece of evidence in the whole case?"     (Bertrand Russell, 1964) 

    Since the release of FBI documents this week, supposedly now, all or almost all FBI files have been released.   Do you know if  the photographs that Russell mentions been included in the release?  

  5. Thanks for that response Paul.  I have no problems with most of your conclusions and statements.  As far as CIA that confessed to being involved, I'm surprised we have even two.  Were I a CIA agent that was involved, I don't think I would ever admit it because it would be a severe betrayal of the brotherhood.  But I think there is little doubt that GHWB was in Dallas in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination and he certainly was a CIA agent at the time.  I'm actually not convinced that LHO was not on the CIA's payroll also.  But there seems to be a lot of evidence that there were several there at the time.  But, serious question, if the CIA and/or FBI weren't seriously involved,  who was so instrumental in the cover up?  Who had the Zapruder film modified?   Who arranged for the surgery during the transportation of the body to Washington?  Who arranged to not have normal SS coverage during the parade?  Literally dozens of these simple questions if the CIA and FBI not involved.   How did they get Oswald's palmprint on the rifle after he was dead if the FBI didn't do that?  These are the type of questions that there are no answers for if this were a General Walker exercise.  So, I don't personally expect any answers at all to be released by either the FBI or CIA that would incriminate themselves.  I will check out that book, I may have already.  About 4 years ago I started actually making a list of all the books I read but, unfortunately I didn't do that prior to then and so many books I've read that I can't recall too much about.  

    Best regards,  Kenneth Drew

  6. 3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

    I don't know if you missed my point -- probably you understood me and are being sarcastic when you say you agree with me.

    Paul, no I wouldn't try to be sarcastic with you, but, in general,  There are many areas about the assassination that we are in agreement on.  I realize you associate the JBS with it and that is not excluded in my list of possibilities.   Pardon me if I misstated something you've said or believe, but I hadn't read anything on this site for about a year because it was just spinning wheels.  I started reading again lately because of the expected release of documents, even though I don't expect (as I said) to learn anything from the CIA.  Reading what you say just above, it seems as if you don't think so either, but because you don't think they were involved,  which contradicts greatly with my beliefs that it was almost exclusively run by the CIA.  I can think of no other reason for there to be so many CIA agents in Dallas that day with a heavy concentration in and around Dealey Plaza.  I certainly expect that the 54 years they've had to purge all records that indicate their involvement has been well used.  I've certainly, over the years, heard all the theories and while I'm positive  it was murder by the CIA-FBI-LBJ coalition, I have no way to absolutely prove it any more than anyone can disprove it.  Everyone that lays out a scenario usually has about 90% of the angles covered, but almost all fail to wrap up that last 5-10%.  For example,  most indications are there were likely 4 shots heard/recorded, but since there was very likely 6-8 shooters, why didn't the others shoot?  Or did they and it just wasn't picked up in the background noise.  So when I said we were in agreement,  I meant the methods, not necessarily exactly who each and every player was.    It sure gave a lot of people an opportunity to jump.     I certainly respect your opinion and your work, though as I said, it's been a while since I've caught up.   

  7. 1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

    In my opinion, we will find not one, single CIA document to be useful in solving the JFK assassination -- since they tended to be looking only to the International field.

    Since I claim that the JFK assassination was a Domestic Plot, I maintain that mainly the FBI documents released by NARA this year will solve the JFK assassination. 

    Regards,
    --Paul Trejo

    I agree Paul.  The CIA was basically in charge of the whole event.  They control the documents.  They've had 54 years to arrange the documents to show what they want them to show.  I doubt they will ever release a document saying:  " JFK----CIA releases documents to prove that they did it.".  Even if they let a tidbit out, such as 'well GHWB really was on the ground in Dallas that day, but he doesn't remember what it was all about,  claims he never worked for the CIA and, of course, we, the CIA certainly never knew he was  on our payroll. None of our dozens of agents that were there on the ground that day remember seeing George".    Naw, somehow, I don't think they're ever going to tell the truth.  

  8. On 10/27/2017 at 5:09 PM, Ernie Lazar said:

    1.  The FBI is our nation's primary internal security investigative agency?

    Question: True or False:   everything they release is 100% accurate.  They say it, you  have to believe it?  

     

    On 10/27/2017 at 5:09 PM, Ernie Lazar said:

    3.  All governmental agencies (local, state, and federal) know that the FBI is our nation's primary internal security investigative agency?

    True or False:  And that's why we don't have sanctuary cities or states, because they know the FBI will enforce all federal laws?

     

    On 10/27/2017 at 5:09 PM, Ernie Lazar said:

    4.  Because of #3, literally hundreds of federal and state and county and city governmental agencies and departments and commissions (and their field office locations in every state or city/town) know that, by law, it is their responsibility to share any internal-security-related information with the FBI?

    Joke of the Day?

     

    On 10/27/2017 at 5:09 PM, Ernie Lazar said:

    6.   Because of #5, the FBI has received literally MILLIONS of unsolicited contacts from outside independent sources of information (by phone, by mail, and by in-person visits -- and even (in former decades) by telegram.  [See, for example, Harry Dean file].

    And, if they share it, the FBI is required to believe it.  And it is always 100% accurate.   So now we know that the FBI got a report that LBJ was a member of KKK so it is required, by law, to be accurate.   

     

    On 10/27/2017 at 5:09 PM, Ernie Lazar said:

    7.   HOWEVER, in many instances, these contacts with the FBI did NOT produce usable or factually true information.  In fact, FBI files contain numerous notations describing certain individuals as "mental cases".  Nevertheless, ALL of this information is contained in FBI files (HQ and field office)?

    But, But, But,  that can't be.   It's in their files, it is required to be accurate.  

  9. I'm sure that no one expected the government to release any incriminating evidence.  If it is worth withholding for 54 years, then it is worth withholding for many more.  I'm quite sure there are many documents that will never see the light of day.  Most people that are interested already know who was involved and why they were involved.  They know most of the details of how the conspiracy was hatched and carried out.  Is there absolute proof?  Depends on whether anyone wants there to be proof.  I believe that most persons that believe Oswald was the assassin either actually knows little or nothing of the actual details, or believe stories they have read that sound plausible.  The CIA and FBI did a good enough job of selling the lone nut story that it has been enough for those that want to believe it to be true.   Those that really want to know the truth will never buy the 'lone nut' story.  

  10. 2 hours ago, Ernie Lazar said:

    If there is nothing substantive released

    Which is exactly what most people expect.  If the Assassins can keep it secret for 54 years, why would anyone think that somehow, magically, someone will be made to release all the secrets that have been kept for all that time.  No file that names a shooter (real shooter) or assassin plotter will ever be released by the CIA or FBI or the US Congress.

  11. Why were these documents kept secret and not released?  Because they contain information that will show that the CIA and FBI  were very involved in the plot.  Do I expect the 'truth' to come out?  No, it has been kept secret 54 years and they didn't do that to allow it to come out now.  There are too many people still alive that does not want this info public and anything that shows those folks in a bad light just plainly will not be released.  Does anyone think that if there were a CIA document that clearly said that George H W Bush was our agent in charge on the ground during the hit, that this info would be released?  If that document clearly said that CIA agents Sturgis, Barker, Hunt were hit men on the ground, that it will be released?  The presence or absence of Trump in the picture will have no bearing on whether 'the truth' is released or not.  They've kept it secret 54 years, they're not opening a candy store this week.  

  12. I've watched both Chapters.   Made for TV.  Nothing believable about any of it.  Kinda funny that the same locks are on the doors at the 'listening post' in Mexico City.  And the walls of the Metropole hotel still have the 'concealed boxes for surveillance gear'.   And he 'believes' that Oswald was the lone assassin.   Oh well!

  13. Kenneth,

    I believe I've dealt objectively with the history of Ex-General Edwin Walker in my three-part Smashwords offering, at these URLs:

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501625

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501629

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501646

    Since I made a certain percentage of these books free to any viewer, I gather you've skimmed through a few pages of them. At only 99 cents each, I think they're accessible to most folks -- and they took me the better part of two years to pull together.

    Yet if you request it, I'll post a 24-hour coupon for viewers like you to obtain a FREE copy -- one at a time.

    I consider you a courteous gentleman of the old school -- firm in your opinions and yet respectful of others. I value your opinion and I'd like to know what you think of my histories of Edwin Walker -- whom I regard as one of the most important men in US history.

    Best regards,

    --Paul Trejo

    Paul, here is a link to the beginnings of my opinions on book one. I'm enjoying reading it. I'm posting this link because it is about 6 pages as of now, a little lengthy to post here on this blog. If you think I should post it you can comment.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Cl13iUKLkDin3fZ7ApqenBS1C8p4rAmDx9rm2uVtJw/edit

    I believe I have the settings correct to give you access.

    Respectfully,

    Kenneth Drew

  14. ...To be Radical in any direction -- Left or Right -- exceeds the boundaries of Patriotism. That's my position. I hope that's clear...

    Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way".

    Kenneth, it's my understanding of our US history books that there are Dictators on both the Left and the Right extremes.

    Hitler was a Right-wing dictator. Mussolini was another Right-wing dictator. Stalin was a Left-wing dictator.

    I agree with both of those comments

    One major complexity of World War Two was that England, France and the USA regarded Hitler as more dangerous than Stalin, and so we even included Russia among our Allies in order to defeat Hitler and Mussolini.

    That seemed to be necessary at the time. I don't think many Americans were ever comfortable with the alliance with the Soviets, but certainly more uncomfortable with Hitler

    However -- England, France and the USA also despise Left-wing Radicals, and so immediately after the defeat of Hitler, the former Allies, England, France and the USA sharply broke with Russia and started the Cold War.

    In other words -- we hate Left-wing dictators, but we hate Right-wing dictators even more. So, we held our nose to include Stalin with the Allies against Hitler, but as soon as Hitler was defeated, we broke with Stalin immediately.

    I'm not so sure that it was a matter of hating Right wing dictators more, I think it was that the largest fire needed to be put out first. I don't think many Americans were excited about having to deal with either of the two large enemies.

    The difference between Left-wing dictators and Right-wing dictators can be easily defined, IMHO.

    I'm gonna guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, I don't see any real difference in dictators. Neither is preferred.

    (1) Right-wing Fascism is based on rabid Nationalism that feeds on ancient Racism (which explains why the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews during World War Two). It's a wildfire that can run wild.

    Very interesting, do you think the Germans wanted to exterminate ALL of the Jews? the Rothschilds, for example? Surely not. So why did they limit the extermination to lower class jews?

    (2) Left-wing Dictators tend to be Internationalist, and they claim this is superior, and yet their methods are despotic, tyrannical, and they choose to slaughter everybody with success and property and call this Democracy.

    (It's the Right Wing dictators that our history books call Fascists, because Mussolini boasted of that title. Yet I can see the logic of calling ANY dictator a Fascist. But that's just a matter of semantics at that point.)

    Both Right-wing and Left-wing dictators are vicious criminals and must be stopped at all costs. But dictators exist on both extremes of the political spectrum -- and this, in modern politics, is called RADICAL. That's the definition I'm working with, and IMHO Dr. Jeffrey Caufield is working with that same definition in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

    This may be part of my disagreement because I don't believe anyone in America in 1963 wanted to remove JFK because he was a dictator.

    Naturally, cussing the President is a good old-fashioned American custom. It's Free Speech. Yet to accuse the President of Treason isn't just a break with the President -- it is also a break with the Pentagon. Notice that the Pentagon doesn't agree with the charge of Treason. Nor does the Supreme Court. Nor does the Senate. (If they did, there are very specific legal procedures they would follow.)

    I have not 'yet' accused Obama of treason. He certainly has some persons representing him that I would, John Kerry, for example. I do think Obama is not working in the best interests of this country and his speeding up the flow of unvetted muslims into the country is certainly not in our interests. His unilateral attempt to legitimize illegal aliens with the stroke of a pen is illegal at least and should not be allowed from a legal standpoint.

    IMHO, President Obama is no Muslim. Leaving Iraq too soon was probably a mistake, but it was an honest mistake -- it was never intended to give power to ISIS. President Obama acts against ISIS every day, and has made many advances against ISIS.

    Obama has made no advance against ISIS, in fact, he's never said those letters in that combination. Whether Obama is muslim or not is certainly debatable, though he was born and raised through childhood as muslim, leopards rarely change their spots. I certainly have seen no evidence that he is any religion other than muslim, but he may have given that up also.

    I tend to agree with Donald Trump on this point -- that President GW Bush made more mistakes in the Middle East than any other President, and got us in over our heads in the first place.

    While I agree mistakes were made, I doubt Bush made more than Obama has. Obama is doing all he can, it seems, to increase the muslim positions in the middle east.

    This modern political debate is topical when speaking about the JFK assassination, by the way, because it was just this sort of high-stakes, high-tension political scene that inspired the Radical Right Wing to kill JFK, because of two situations they thought were out of control, namely, Communist Cuba and the Civil Rights Movement.

    I can certainly agree that Cuba may have been part of the excuse used as reasoning against JFK, but I don't see anything happening in the Civil Rights movement that could legitimately be used as an excuse. I think JFK's position on the Viet Nam war was the reason he died. Anyone that would fake something such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident would do something such as kill a president. I don't think Walker was associated with the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

    It is significant that the Radical Right Wing, even today, regards the Civil Rights Movement as COMMUNIST.

    I can't speak of that. I don't know anyone in the radical right wing. I've never heard anyone accuse anyone in the CRM of being communist. Influenced by communists, yes but not of being a communist. As you well know, the Communists in the country did all they could via using several different movements and causes to aid them in their progressing communism.

    I will admit this -- that if I really and truly believed that the Civil Rights Movement was Communist, then I would also have to regard JFK as a Traitor because of his June 1963 speech in support of MLK. Also, the fact that JFK prevented the Pentagon from invading Communist Cuba -- that would have added to my conviction.

    I can see your reasoning, but I don't think any of it applies to reality. I don't believe MLK or JFK were traitors or communists. I think it is/was politics.

    I realize this sounds odd to the leftist reader, but I can see the honor of Ex-General Edwin Walker for acting on his convictions -- for boldly acting on his sincere Faith that JFK was a Communist Traitor. It wasn't a ploy. It was a genuine, bold military move according to his training. Sadly, Walker's Commander In Chief at that point was Robert Welch (because had Walker quit the Army in a huff, breaking with the Pentagon).

    I've not seen anyone claim that Walker accused JFK of being a communist.

    The shooters that Edwin Walker obtained for the job were not mercenaries -- they were also True Believers, and they took no money at all. That's my opinion.

    Paul, you've said previously that you don't know who the shooters were. have you changed your mind?

    Best regards,

    --Paul Trejo

    <edit typos>

  15. I made this distinction, Kenneth, that any Patriotic American who becomes converted to the doctrine that the President of the United States is a TRAITOR, can no longer qualify as a Patriotic American, but has now chosen to become a member of the Radical Right.

    what if the president is a traitor?

    To be Radical in any direction -- Left or Right -- exceeds the boundaries of Patriotism. That's my position. I hope that's clear.

    Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way".

    your position is as clear as the ignorance that formed it. fascism is radical right. there was private ownership in germany under old uncle adolf. hitler was not a leftist. ye gods man why do you think he hated russia so much. it was the bolsheviks and jews who stabbed germany in the back causing it to lose ww i he believed. criticizing the president is free speech protected by the first amendment. you can't libel or threaten him though. your statement that he is a moslem is patently untrue (even mccain had the decency to correct that nutty old woman during the election) as is your remark that he is doing everything he can to destroy america. i accuse walker and all other similar nut jobs to seeking the destruction of america and our rights. dictatorships are not exclusive to the right anymore than they are to the left. your politics are the ramblings of someone who is unlearned. what the hell is the american way anyway. what is patriotism? do you support bringing back huac and mccarthy,.

    Martin, if you would like a comment from me, you could use a little civility. With your first comment to me being about my ignorance and being unlearned. If you need to resort to name calling, please communicate with those on your level. If you would like civil comments from me, I will after I read your apology. Respectfully, K. Drew

  16. I appreciate your offer of a free coupon for those books, but hold off on that a little. I don't mind paying the 99cent, and I will attempt to read them. Much political stuff is hard to read though, especially when it disagrees with my thinking, however a tremendous amount about the JFK deal differs from my thinking and I read it anyhow. I will attempt to start one of the books this weekend, but I'm announcer for a huge State Baseball Tournament and it will occupy most of this weekend. I will certainly give my opinion. I owe you several other comments also but this tournament has taken a lot of prep time. I'll be back to normal after next Tuesday. I'll still read your comments. Again, thanks for the offer.

    Kenneth,

    I look forward to reading your candid comments about my collegiate work on the history of Ex-General Edwin Walker.

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501625

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501629

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501646

    Best regards,

    --Paul Trejo, MA

    Paul, I've started your first book. I'm doing commenting as I go along. Please don't take my comments as 'criticism'. Only opinion, as I don't think Walker was involved with the assassination, but then I'm not sure anyone has the plot put together correctly, in print. would those comments be appropriate on this thread, since it is about the subject.

  17. Kenneth,

    I believe I've dealt objectively with the history of Ex-General Edwin Walker in my three-part Smashwords offering, at these URLs:

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501625

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501629

    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/501646

    Since I made a certain percentage of these books free to any viewer, I gather you've skimmed through a few pages of them. At only 99 cents each, I think they're accessible to most folks -- and they took me the better part of two years to pull together.

    Yet if you request it, I'll post a 24-hour coupon for viewers like you to obtain a FREE copy -- one at a time.

    I consider you a courteous gentleman of the old school -- firm in your opinions and yet respectful of others. I value your opinion and I'd like to know what you think of my histories of Edwin Walker -- whom I regard as one of the most important men in US history.

    Best regards,

    --Paul Trejo

    I appreciate your offer of a free coupon for those books, but hold off on that a little. I don't mind paying the 99cent, and I will attempt to read them. Much political stuff is hard to read though, especially when it disagrees with my thinking, however a tremendous amount about the JFK deal differs from my thinking and I read it anyhow. I will attempt to start one of the books this weekend, but I'm announcer for a huge State Baseball Tournament and it will occupy most of this weekend. I will certainly give my opinion. I owe you several other comments also but this tournament has taken a lot of prep time. I'll be back to normal after next Tuesday. I'll still read your comments. Again, thanks for the offer.

  18. Holy mackerel Paul, this caught my eye: "As for the word Fascist, according to most authorities, a Fascist is a Radical Right winger, not a Left winger."

    Wow,

    Simple Definition of fascism
    • : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

    • : very harsh control or authority

    Full Definition of fascism

    1. 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

    fascism

    The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.

    1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.

    2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.

    3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

    I could go on and on, but it is very clear that fascism is 'exactly' the opposite of 'patritotic American' (your definiton of Radical Right Wing)

    So strange that someone could make such a simple semantic mistake.

    I don't have time now, but i'll comment more on the rest of your comments later, but this one just blew me out of the water. Fascism is a lot closer to Democrats than to Patriotic Americans.

    Kenneth, again, I'm making a careful distinction between the Right Wing and the Radical Right Wing.

    I admitted that while General Walker was a US General, that he was a Patriotic American.

    I allege that when General Walker resigned from the US Army, forfeiting his 30-year Pension, he became the only US General in the 20th century to do so. I also allege that General Walker resigned because of his 1959 membership in the John Birch Society, because Robert Welch had printed that President Eisenhower was a "dedicated member of the Communist Conspiracy" who was guilty of "treason."

    I showed that fact with quotations from Robert Welch's own book, "The Politician" (1959).

    I made this distinction, Kenneth, that any Patriotic American who becomes converted to the doctrine that the President of the United States is a TRAITOR, can no longer qualify as a Patriotic American, but has now chosen to become a member of the Radical Right.

    To be Radical in any direction -- Left or Right -- exceeds the boundaries of Patriotism. That's my position. I hope that's clear.

    Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way".

    When we follow the Radical nature of Ex-General Walker's positions in 1961, 1962 and 1963, and we trace his political associations during that period, and the statements that he made, IMHO it becomes easier to solve the JFK assassination. My position is supported by this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

    I hope my position is now clearer to you.

    Best regards,

    --Paul Trejo

  19. Holy mackerel Paul, this caught my eye: "As for the word Fascist, according to most authorities, a Fascist is a Radical Right winger, not a Left winger."

    Wow,

    Simple Definition of fascism
    • : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

    • : very harsh control or authority

    Full Definition of fascism
    1. 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

    The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
    1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
    2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
    3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

    I could go on and on, but it is very clear that fascism is 'exactly' the opposite of 'patritotic American' (your definiton of Radical Right Wing)

    So strange that someone could make such a simple semantic mistake.

    I don't have time now, but i'll comment more on the rest of your comments later, but this one just blew me out of the water. Fascism is a lot closer to Democrats than to Patriotic Americans.

×
×
  • Create New...