Michael Griffith
-
Posts
1,736 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Griffith
-
-
On 7/15/2024 at 7:27 AM, Gerry Down said:
The recent assassination attempt by Crooks on former president Trump provides an interesting opportunity for comparison between him and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Some comparisons of note include:
- LHO was young (24). TMC was young (20).
- LHO was a loner. TMC was a loner.
- LHO was bullied (in school, and the marines). TMC was bullied (in school).
- LHO was intelligent (read a lot of books). TMC was intelligent (won a school math aware).
- LHO enjoyed playing chess. TMC enjoyed playing chess.
- LHO was involved in debates (on the radio in N.O.). TMC was involved in debates (school debates).
- LHO in his teens was interested in military service. TMC in his teens, according to a former classmate, was interested in military service.
- LHO wore camouflage (in the marines). TMC wore camouflage to school.
- LHO liked guns (as confirmed by Adrian Alba in N.O.). TMC liked guns.
- LHO was interesting in bomb making. TMC was interested in bomb making.
- LHO involved himself in contradictory positions (FPCC & DRE). TMC involved himself in contradictory positions (registered Republican & donating to Democratic causes).
- LHO shot at his target from a distance. TMC shot at his target from a distance.
- LHO used an unsuitable assassination rifle (an old bolt action rifle). TMC used an unsuitable assassination rifle (AR-15, not suitable for long distance).
- LHO put other peoples lives at risk during his assassination attempt (Gov. Connally, Mrs. Kennedy). TMC put other peoples lives at risk during his assassination attempt (Corey Comperatore, James Copenhaver, David Dutch).
- LHO shot a law enforcement officer (officer Tippit). TMC threatened to shoot a law enforcement officer (seconds before shooting at Trump).
- LHO had no obvious motive. TMC had no obvious motive (as of yet anyway).
- LHO had no criminal record. TMC had no criminal record.
This is 2024, right? I'm just wondering because I can't believe anyone is still assuming a priori that Oswald fired at Kennedy, when we have compelling evidence that he was not even on the sixth floor during the shooting. Also, several of these parallels don't hold up.
-
On 7/11/2024 at 6:23 PM, W. Niederhut said:
Matt,
After the 5-4 Bush v. Gore ruling in December of 2000, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld started to assemble George W. Bush's Cabinet.
According to Bob Woodward, (in Plan of Attack) Dubya called up his father, at the time, and asked, "Dad, who are the Neocons?"
Poppy replied, "In a word, son, 'Israel.'"
Most of the Bush/Cheney Neocons-- Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Dov Zakheim, Michael Chertoff, Buzz Krongard, et.al.-- were joint Israeli-American citizens. Many had been involved, with Cheney and Rumsfeld, in William Kristol's 1990s Project for a New American Century.
Just shaking my head. Pitiful. Sad. But, just what one would expect from a Fletcher Prouty devotee: so now Israel is to blame for/was behind the creation of the neocons. Unreal.
-
On 7/6/2024 at 11:33 AM, W. Niederhut said:
Michael,
You keep ducking the key science and forensic questions that would help you better understand PNAC's 9/11 op.
What was the resistance of the massive steel substructures to the observed abrupt, free fall collapse of the WTC skyscrapers?
What is the melting point of steel?
Why did the FBI testify that Barbara Olson's alleged 9/11 phone calls from flight AA77 (to Bush/Cheney Solicitor General Ted Olson) never actually happened?
This gets nuttier and nuttier. The FBI said no such thing. Barbara Olson made two calls to her husband, Ted Olson, before her flight, Flight 77, hit the Pentagon. Ted Olson has given a detailed account of those phone calls. After he received the calls, he called the FBI to warn them that the flight had been hijacked.
CNN.com - Wife of Solicitor General alerted him of hijacking from plane - September 12, 2001
On Sept. 11, Former Bush Solicitor General Remembers His Late Wife : NPR
From the Sky, Parting Messages in Flight 77's Final Moments (capecodtimes.com)
As for your "science and forensic" comments, I again point out that all of your claims have been addressed and refuted to the satisfaction of 99% of the scientists who have examined them. You are peddling a bizarre theory that is just as bad as other fringe theories such as the fake Moon landings theory and the theory that Princess Diana was assassinated. It's just embarrassing, and discrediting.
And I notice you are still declining to answer the questions I've posed to you. Again:
Where did the passengers on Flight 77 go if the plane did not hit the Pentagon? Why was airliner debris, including part of the fuselage, found among the rubble at the Pentagon? (A friend of mine who worked as a security guard at the Pentagon at the time saw the debris with his own eyes--and he's a Democrat, by the way.) What about the numerous witnesses who saw an airliner flying unusually low and heading straight for the Pentagon?
How were the alleged explosives smuggled into the WTC towers? Why oh why would the alleged plotters have even cared if the towers collapsed or not, given that the American people would already have been intensely enraged by the hundreds of Americans killed on the airliners and at the points of impact in the towers, and by the attack on the Pentagon?
What about the fact that we have airport video surveillance showing the terrorists going through the security checkpoints at the airports from which the four planes took off?
What about Flight 93 and the fact that we have a flight audio recording of the struggle between the terrorists and some of the passengers before the plane crashed in Pennsylvania?
Again, it's embarrassing that we're even having this discussion. There are some facts that have been suppressed about the 9/11 attacks, but none of them involve the crazy stuff you're talking about.
-
On 7/1/2024 at 6:09 PM, W. Niederhut said:
Michael,
I'd be happy to discuss the 9/11 science data, but this is a thread about scholarly rankings of Donald Trump as the worst POTUS in American history-- an assessment which is accurate, in my opinion.
Briefly...
What I know, for certain, is that;
1) WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11.
All three buildings collapsed abruptly at near free fall acceleration to Ground Zero, indicating abrupt demolition of the entire massive steel sub-structures-- as opposed step-wise, assymetrical collapse by gravitational "pile driver" forces.
2) The high-tech, military grade explosives burned hot enough to completely liquefy steel girders, and they also explosively pulverized thousands of tons of concrete into high-heat, pyroclastic flows into the Manhattan atmosphere. Jet fuel -- the official government explanation for the WTC demolitions --simply doesn't burn hot enough to liquefy steel. Nor was there sufficient jet fuel on the upper stories to abruptly demolish the entire massive steel sub-structures below.
So, who put the military-grade, thermitic explosives in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 prior 9/11?
Who controlled access to those buildings?
Cui bono? Who, ultimately, benefited from the shocking Pearl Harbor-like 9/11 op?
Also, you must surely know, as a U.S. military intelligence guy, that the U.S. government had successfully flown and maneuvered Boeing jetliners with Raytheon's GPS-guided remote-piloting technology in the summer of 2001. I think it was tested in Marana, Arizona in August of 2001.
Give that military industrial complex data some thought.
One, I notice you avoided saying whether or not you believe in the key 9/11 conspiracy theory that a missile, not an airliner, hit the Pentagon on 9/11. I say "key" because this is the main theory advanced by nearly all 9/11 Truthers, and it was the 9/11 theory that Truthers talked about the most for years. I'm certain you've seen the video Loose Change, made by four of the primary original Truthers. They insist therein that a missile fired by the U.S. military hit the Pentagon, not an airliner.
Two, I notice that you once again declined to explain how the alleged explosives were smuggled into the WTC towers when security was extremely tight in those buildings.
Three, I notice that you once again declined to explain why the alleged plotters would have bothered to plant and then detonate explosives in the WTC towers in the first place, as if they somehow could have believed that the American people would not already be outraged and furious enough over two airliners smashing into the WTC towers and killing all their passengers and all the people who were in the paths of the airliners when they smashed into the towers.
Four, regarding your comment about remotely flying airliners, holy whacky cow, are you suggesting that the radical Muslim terrorists who were videotaped boarding the plane that hit the Pentagon and boarding the planes that hit the towers--are you really suggesting that any/all of those planes were remotely piloted???!!! Is that what you're suggesting? You know we have video of the terrorists boarding all of those planes, right? Right?
How about Flight 93, the flight that we know was hijacked by four terrorists and that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after some of the passengers attacked the terrorists--was it remotely piloted too?
This whole discussion is simply ridiculous. You disqualify yourself from being taken seriously and destroy all your credibility by defending such nutty, discredited theories, especially in a public forum.
-
W. Niederhut, why don't you tell our readers whether or not you believe one of the main 9/11 Truther theories, namely, that a missile, not an airliner, hit the Pentagon on 9/11, and that American Airlines Flight 77--the airliner that hit the Pentagon--did not actually hit the Pentagon but was diverted to a secret site and that its passengers were either killed, imprisoned, or placed in witness protection programs?
No, folks, I'm not kidding. Watch the nutjob documentary Loose Change, which also pushes the bizarre "controlled demolitions" theory for the collapse of the WTC towers (including WTC 7). These loons brush aside the fact that hundreds of witnesses saw Flight 77 flying low and heading straight toward the Pentagon, that dozens of Pentagon employees helped clean up the debris from Flight 77 (a friend of mine was one of them), and that some of the Flight 77 passengers made cell phone calls to friends/loved ones just before the airliner hit the Pentagon to report that their plane had been hijacked.
So, W. Niederhut, do you believe the theory that a missile, not an airliner, hit the Pentagon on 9/11?
While you're at it, why don't you answer questions that I've posed many times to 9/11 Truthers: Why, why, oh why would the alleged inside-job plotters have planted explosives in the WTC buildings in the first place? Did they think that the American people would not be thoroughly outraged by the deaths of hundreds of Americans on the two airliners and in the towers when the planes hit the towers, and by the infliction of massive damage on two iconic symbols of American enterprise?
And, also, who smuggled in hundreds of pounds of explosives into the WTC buildings? When? How? Ever since the first Islamic terrorist attempt to bomb the Twin Towers in the 1990s, security had been tight at the buildings, with every single person and their suitcases being scanned. How did the alleged plotters manage to get hundreds of pounds of explosives into those buildings?
-
11 hours ago, John Cotter said:
Any updates on this? Time is of the essence now for the Democrats.
The White House is in full Orwellian denial mode, claiming that Biden didn't do that badly in the debate and that he merely had a cold.
As I mentioned in the OP, Democratic sources report that Jill Biden was the driving force behind her husband's decision to run again, and that she is the one who will have to be persuaded to get him to drop out of the race. I don't know if I believe that, but if it's true, I hope the First Lady is thinking about the big picture. If he stays in the race and manages to win, his cognitive decline will only get worse.
-
On 12/31/2006 at 9:05 AM, John Simkin said:
I have noticed that the newspapers over the last few days have attempted to link Saddam Hussein with other dictators such as Adolf Hitler. One even went as far to say that it was noticeable that all the worst dictators in history were all non-Christians.
It is a common myth that Hitler was not a Christian. In fact, he always made it clear that he was a Roman Catholic. In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. Once he gained power he got the support of both the Protestant and Catholic churches. The anti-semitism on which the Nazi movement was built was fostered by the main churches. It was this support which made Nazism so acceptable to respectable people.
Even as late as 1941 Hitler told one of his generals: I am now, as before, a Catholic and will always remain so.This is patently absurd. As any reputable historian will confirm, Hitler only professed to be a Catholic for political reasons. Privately, Hitler hated all versions of Christianity. Once he consolidated his power, he engaged in ruthless persecution against Catholics and Protestants alike, as well as against Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. The Nazis killed thousands of Catholic priests and nuns and lay leaders, took over all leadership positions in the church, and closed Catholic schools.
Hitler, Himmler, and Christianity in the Early Third Reich (iwu.edu)
Catholic Martyrs of the Holocaust | Catholic Answers Magazine
How Hitler's Forces Planned to Destroy German Christianity
What Was Hitler's Religion? | Catholic Answers Magazine
Was Hitler a Christian? | GotQuestions.org
(56) Hitler's Religion: Christian Apologetics Faces the Hitler Question - Richard Weikart - YouTube
Hitler's Religion: Christian Apologetics Faces the Hitler Question
-
People who push these 9/11 conspiracy theories are a tiny minority of the Western world. The collapse of the WTC towers has been rationally, scientifically explained to the satisfaction of 99% of the scientists who have examined the issue.
The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers are radical leftists who cling to these crazy theories for political reasons. If 9/11 had happened under Obama, instead of under George W. Bush, 99% of these folks would not be pushing these nutty theories.
And, folks, be advised that 9/11 Truthers also make the unbelievable claim that a missile, not an airliner, hit the Pentagon on 9/11, and that American Airlines Flight 77--the airliner that hit the Pentagon--did not hit the Pentagon but was secretly diverted to a secret site and that its passengers were either killed, imprisoned, or placed in witness protection programs.
No, I'm not kidding. Watch the nutjob documentary Loose Change. These crazies brush aside the fact that hundreds of witnesses saw Flight 77 flying low and heading straight toward the Pentagon, that dozens of Pentagon employees helped clean up the debris from Flight 77 (a friend of mine was one of them), and that some of the Flight 77 passengers made cell phone calls to friends/loved ones just before the airliner hit the Pentagon to say their last goodbyes.
-
Yikes, I just now noticed this sub-forum. This is an embarrassment. We might as well add a sub-forum titled "Is the Earth Flat?"
No sane, educated person doubts that the Moon landings occurred. The evidence that the Moon landings were real is indisputable. For example, foreign Moon orbiters, such as ISRO Chandrayaan 2, have taken photos of the Apollo 11 and 12 equipment left behind on the Moon.
Moon landing conspiracy theories, debunked | Royal Museums Greenwich (rmg.co.uk)
-
I should add and clarify for the sake of new readers that I am not voting for Donald Trump and am not a huge fan of Trump. One of my main objections to Trump is that I believe he is personally immoral and dishonorable, which is one reason I am supporting Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for president.
I believe Trump did many good things as president, such as the tax cuts, the USMCA trade deal, imposing tariffs on Chinese and Russian goods, calling out NATO nations for failing to meet their treaty obligations on defense spending, appointing good judges to the federal judiciary, moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, strongly supporting Israel, etc.
But, I also believe that Trump did many bad things, such as gutting our environmental laws, refusing to deal with the serious problem of maritime plastic waste, appointing several corporate cronies to key positions in his administration, refusing to stand up to Congress on reckless federal spending, adding $8.4 trillion to the national debt, trying to pressure Ukraine's president into investigating Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and frequently provoking needless controversies by making intemperate, insulting, juvenile remarks and/or by making false statements.
-
22 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Michael Griffith writes:
No-one is brushing it aside, Michael!
As we have seen over the last few pages, there is no good evidence that the alleged incident actually occurred. The story is based entirely on contradictory recollections from between 34 and 48 years after the event. Everything else is speculation.
Now, there is good evidence that a version of the Zapruder film was examined at NPIC that weekend. We have a perfectly plausible candidate: the first-day copy which the Secret Service received in Washington early on the Saturday morning. It is uncontroversial that the Secret Service in Washington had possession of that copy; that a version of the Zapruder film was brought to NPIC in Washington by Secret Service officers; that this film was examined at NPIC by Secret Service officers; and that this film was taken away afterwards by Secret Service officers. The simplest explanation is that the film at NPIC was the Secret Service's first-day copy.
It's all a lot of fuss about nothing!
P.S. Is Paul Rigby really claiming that the Muchmore film wasn't taken by Marie Muchmore? And that it is a fake?
Making the specious argument that there's no good evidence the diversion occurred is a form of brushing it aside. The accounts agree in most essential details. To believe the diversion did not occur, you'd have to believe that the three NPIC people who disclosed it just imagined, or simply fabricated, that they saw and analyzed the Zapruder film within 48 hours of the shooting.
-
12 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:
As Greg has correctly noted, Oswald was hardly illiterate. Not only did he read a great deal, but he was fluent in Russian.
-
On 2/19/2024 at 7:39 PM, W. Niederhut said:
I have long believed as much,* and I say this as a guy who asked Santa Claus for a hardback book about American Presidents for Christmas in 1964, at age 7.
During the past 60 years, I have read biographies of most American Presidents.
We have had previous discussions about this subject on the Education Forum with American history scholars, including James DiEugenio.
My own opinion, stated previously, is that the last of the old Jacksonian Democrats, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, have long been somewhat unfairly vilified for their well-intentioned efforts to save the Union and preserve the old Jacksonian coalition between northern Democrats and Southern slave holders.
For their reluctance to dissolve the Union, Buchanan was almost hanged in Pennsylvania during the Civil War, and Pierce ended his days as a lonely pariah in New England.
Compared to Donald Trump, and Andrew Johnson, both Pierce and Buchanan were well-educated men and, in Pierce's case, a decorated U.S. war veteran (Mexican American War.)
Pierce was a Colgate alumnus, and close college chum of the great American writer, Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Buchanan was a diligent, well-respected lawyer and distinguished American diplomat.
In similar fashion, Millard Fillmore was vilified by history for his efforts, in 1850, to preserve the Union.
Andrew Johnson, the blatantly racist drunkard from East Tennessee who sabotaged proper Reconstruction, comes closest to rivalling Trump for worst POTUS in history, IMO.
George W. Bush also deserves a disastrous ranking for his promotion of the specious, multi-trillion dollar PNAC Neocon "War on Terror."
But only Donald Trump has done what historian Michael Beschloss called, "the worst thing a President can do"-- refusing to relinquish power.
I wonder how readers will react to your post when they learn that you are a 9/11 Truther and an L. Fletcher Prouty apologist. The 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theory peddled by Truthers is perhaps the most inexcusable, absurd conspiracy theory ever advanced on the planet. 99% of the scientists who've examined it have declared it to be baseless, ridiculous, unscientific, and bizarre. It ranks right up there with the fake Moon landings conspiracy theory--a theory which, by the way, was supported by a journal that you've cited as a source.
Readers can find your awful, embarrassing attempts to defend Fletcher Prouty in this forum (LINK). For example, they can see your curious, discrediting refusal to admit that Prouty lied when he made the bizarre claim that he flew Chiang Kai-shek and his delegation to the Tehran Conference and that Chiang secretly attended the conference. Prouty's only source for this myth was a lone sentence in a 1994 book by William Gibbons that was clearly an innocent misstatement that confused the Cairo Conference and the Tehran Conference.
They can see your curious, discrediting refusal to admit that Prouty plainly and clearly indicated that he was sent to the South Pole to keep him from possibly preventing the JFK assassination.
They can see your curious, discrediting attempts to justify Prouty's bizarre suggestions that Churchill had FDR poisoned and that Princess Diana was murdered by "the Secret Team."
And, they can see your genuinely shameful excuses and denials regarding Prouty's speaking appearances at two conferences held by anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying groups (Liberty Lobby and the IHR), regarding his 10 appearances on Liberty Lobby's anti-Semitic radio program, regarding his letter to the editor of the IHR's Holocaust-denying journal praising the journal's principles, and regarding his sleazy smearing of Scientology whistleblowers and his shameful defense L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.
-
You don't support RFK Jr. (1) because for you the JFK case is just another hobby horse that you use to peddle your far-left political views, and (2) because you are a blindly partisan Democrat, what people used to call a "yellow dog Democrat."
I truly cannot comprehend how any objective, open-minded, patriotic American can still support Biden after his disturbing display of serious cognitive decline in his CNN debate with Trump on Thursday night. The CNN debate is by no means the only time that Biden has showed clear signs of serious cognitive decline. You can find numerous clips of other such episodes of incoherence, freezing, blank stares, slurring of speech, confusion, etc., on YouTube.
For those who find Trump an unacceptable alternative to Biden, there is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has a viable shot at winning, who is polling in mid- to high teens across the country, and who the exhaustive Zogby poll of all 50 states found can beat Trump or Biden head-to-head in a two-man race.
What Conservatives and Liberals Would Each Get with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the White House
-
I find it amazing that lone-gunman theorists and those who posit a minimally troubling conspiracy ala Pat Speer can brush aside the secret diversion of the Zapruder film to the CIA-contracted Kodak Hawkeye Works photographic facility and to the CIA's NPIC. There is no plausible innocent explanation for this diversion and for the effort to keep it secret.
-
I never thought I would see the day when the New York Times would admit a major problem with a liberal Democratic president, but yesterday, following Biden's horrendous and troubling debate performance on Thursday night, the New York Times editorial board called on Biden to drop out of the race and to let another Democrat run against Trump:
NYT calls on Joe Biden to drop out of presidential race with Trump (usatoday.com)
Many other liberal voices have now begun calling on Biden to drop out of the race after his disastrous debate performance.
For the first time, millions of Americans who were not aware of Biden's seriously diminished capacity, or who did not believe the reports of his cognitive decline, saw with their own eyes that the man is no longer mentally equipped to be president. They saw his many blank stares, his freezing episodes, his mumbling, his confusion and disorientation, etc., etc.
Democratic sources say that Jill Biden is the driving force behind her husband's decision to run for reelection, and that she will have to be persuaded that her husband needs to withdraw from the race if this is to happen. -
I know there's no reasoning with folks like you, but RFK Jr.'s comments about the removal of Confederate monuments are reasonable and balanced and they reflect a view that is shared by a large percentage of the population, including many Civil War historians. It is irrational and absurd to claim that he is "venerating" Confederate leaders. That is a typical Prouty-like, 9/11 Truther-like stretch and irrational inference.
BTW, do you know that two years ago it was revealed that Lincoln owned and sold slaves?
New Book reveals that Abraham Lincoln owned ― and sold ― slaves Reel Chicago News
Lincoln's Reconstruction policies were so lenient that the Radical Republicans accused him of betraying the war effort and coddling traitors. The Radicals rejoiced over Lincoln's death (and may well have been involved in his death: LINK).
Better get out there and start demanding that the Lincoln Memorial be destroyed.
Of course, George Washington owned hundreds of slaves and occasionally even hired slavecatchers to retrieve runaways. Yet, Washington hated slavery and freed his slaves in his will. He also wrote that if the North and South ever separated over slavery, he would move to the North. But for the far left, that's not good enough.
Ulysses S. Grant repeatedly hired slaves when he was a farmer in the St. Louis area, and Grant's wife owned slaves for nearly half her life. Grant himself owned a slave for several years in the 1850s (but freed him in 1859). But for the far left, that's not good enough.
Time to start tearing down all the monuments to George Washington and Ulysses Grant, right?
-
On 4/6/2024 at 12:49 PM, Cliff Varnell said:
Trump Loves That RFK Jr. Is Running for President—and Helping Him Win
https://newrepublic.com/post/180190/trump-loves-rfk-jr-running
Kinzinger says RFK Jr.’s campaign ‘hijacked by MAGA’
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4578188-kinzinger-says-rfk-jr-campaign-hijacked-maga/
This is beyond absurd. Trump has been smearing RFK Jr. all over the place. So has Biden. So have the DNC and the RNC. Both Democrats and Republicans have been trying to sabotage his campaign (Democrats have been the worst offenders, but some Republicans are not far behind them in dishonorable conduct toward Kennedy).
No rational person who is following RFK Jr.'s campaign and who knows about his positions on the issues could believe that his campaign has been "hijacked by MAGA." Diehard Democrats and Republicans are both proving to be incapable of going against their party.
And, just FYI, about 25% of RFK Jr.'s donations are coming from people who donated to Trump in 2016 and/or 2020, while about 35% are coming from people who donated to Hillary and/or Biden, and the rest are coming from people who did not donate to either party in 2016 and/or 2020. Blind partisans just can't wrap their minds around the fact that Kennedy is attracting many people who had given up on the political process.
-
Biden also declined to release all the documents. But, yes, Trump broke his promise to release all the documents.
Of course, one can't be sure that Biden was the one who actually made this decision, given his increasingly obvious cognitive decline. He may have, or he may not have. You just can't know, and that's troubling.
-
10 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
Notice the Freudian slip Mrs. Harvey uttered at the end of this interview video?
She says " He ( Roselli ) had been recruited by some guy in the FBI for assassination purposes...on Kennedy." ..."Er-uh...I mean Castro."
I remember watching a documentary on the Bay of Pigs many years ago where two of the CIA officers who helped train the brigade angrily and bitterly condemned JFK. You could tell that these guys still absolutely, intensely hated JFK.
-
A detailed answer to the kinds of smears this 9/11 Truther is spreading about RFK Jr. is Dick Russell's book The Real RFK Jr.: Trials of a Truth Warrior (2023). Yes, the same New York Times best-selling author named Dick Russell who has done so much ground-breaking research on the JFK case, especially on Richard Case Nagell.
Russell spends two entire chapters on the issue of RFK Jr.'s research on vaccines and vaccine safety.
It figures that a person who is a devout Fletcher Prouty apologist and a 9/11 Truther would be here trying to smear Bobby Kennedy Jr.
Just shameful.
-
This is both revealing and fascinating. Thanks for posting this.
-
A few days ago, Bobby Kennedy released a fantastic documentary on healing America's drug crisis: Recovering America: A Film About Healing Our Addiction Crisis. Rarely has a political video inspired and encouraged me the way this 44-minute documentary has. Bobby hosts and narrates the video. It is a good example of his open-minded, innovative approach to tackling issues and of finding solutions that can appeal to both liberals and conservatives.
-
On 5/28/2024 at 2:38 PM, W. Niederhut said:
There have been a number of detailed commentaries posted here during the past several months on the subject of RFK, Jr.'s 2024 presidential candidacy.
Three of the best have been those of progressive Democratic luminaries; Naomi Klein, Robert Reich, and Edward Curtin.
Klein and Reich raised important questions about RFK, Jr.'s progressive bona fides. Curtin questioned RFK, Jr.'s endorsement of Netanyahu's Gaza genocide.
Here are a few of my own observations and summaries.
Why I Don't Support Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for President
1) He has no legislative or executive experience in government.
2) He has stubbornly promoted disinformation about the efficacy and risk of vaccines-- even after being corrected by medical experts.
3) He has a history of impaired judgment and dysfunctional behavior, including heroin addiction.
4) He uses anabolic steroids, for body-building, which can cause neuropsychiatric side effects, including rage attacks-- 'roid rage-- and mania.
5) His own family-- the Kennedy family-- has urged Americans to vote for Joe Biden.
6) His own former environmentalist colleagues have denounced his candidacy.
7) His main source of funding is the extreme right-wing Republican billionaire, Timothy Mellon.
8 ) He has been promoted in the mainstream U.S. media by the right-wing propaganda mogul, Rupert Murdoch.
9) His own campaign staffer said recently that the purpose of his candidacy is to help re-elect Donald Trump.
10) When confronted with examples of his errors in judgment, he has denied responsibility, and blatantly lied about his behavior.
This post is a smear job.
Be advised, folks, that Niederhut is a devoted disciple and staunch defender of L. Fletcher Prouty. That should tell you all you need to know about his judgment and credibility.
BTW, a large chunk of RFK Jr.'s donations are coming from people who have never donated to political campaigns before. Also, about 1/4-1/3 of his donations are coming from people who donated to Democrats in 2016 and/or 2020, while about 1/4 of his donations are coming from people who donated to Republicans in the two previous elections.
A good answer to Niederhut's smear job is the 30-minute documentary Who Is Bobby Kennedy?, narrated by Woody Harrelson:
For those who want to know more about Bobby Kennedy's positions, see my article What Conservatives and Liberals Would Each Get with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the White House.
Ted Kennedy Warned Us About Samuel Alito
in Political Discussions
Posted
Oh, boy. Much of this is distortion and exaggeration. Let me guess: You have no problem with Ketanji Brown-Jackson's documented record of extreme leniency toward pedophiles, a fact that was clearly manifested in documents that the Democrats should have released early on but withheld until the night before the vote on her confirmation, right? I'm guessing you think she's an outstanding judge, but you have nothing but contempt, exaggeration, and distortion when it comes to Judge Alito.
If those documents that revealed Jackson's shocking record in pedophile cases, she may well have not been confirmed. Senator Josh Hawley's staff uncovered a large part of her shocking pro-pedophile record, but the full record wasn't available until the last minute because the Democrats withheld it until the last minute. Far from being "pretty mainstream," as Democrats and legacy news outlets claimed, her record in pedophile cases showed she was shockingly lax and lenient in the extreme.
Transcripts reveal details of Ketanji Brown Jackson's controversial sentencings | Daily Mail Online
Ketanji Brown Jackson being soft on pedophilia and child pornography is a big deal - Washington Times
Exclusive | Rapist gets lax sentence from Jackson, then nabbed for sex assault (nypost.com)
Senator Hawley Exposes Judge Jackson's 'Alarming Pattern' of Sentencing Leniency for Sex Criminals - Josh Hawley (senate.gov)
Yes, The Senate Should Investigate Jackson's Leniency To Sex Predators (thefederalist.com)