The Assassination of JFK, RFK, MLK and the election of Barack Obama

[John Simkin]

Some people believe that JFK was killed by white racists who were opposed to civil rights legislation. When LBJ signed the 1965 Civil Rights Act he made a prophecy that he was “signing away the south for 50 years”. This proved accurate. In fact, the Democrats have never recovered the vote of the white racists in the Deep South. This is the electorate that now gives its support to the Republican Party. A new alliance has therefore taken place between the white racists, right-wing conservatives and Christian fundamentalists.

RFK and MLK called for further civil rights legislation before their deaths in 1968. Both men were probably assassinated as part of a right-wing racist conspiracy.

LBJ was right in his prediction. However, so was RFK when he said in 1968 that the US would have a “Negro president” in 40 years.

It is ironic that the Republican Party is now only really strong in the Deep South. LBJ was right in the short-term about how the passing of Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s would hurt the Democratic Party. However, in the long-term, it hurt the Republican Party.

If Barack Obama now orders the release of CIA and FBI files on the three assassinations, we might well be in a good position to have a fuller understanding of US history since the election of JFK in 1960.

[Pamela Brown]

Good points John. We must do everything we can to help our new President realize how important the release of the remaining files is. Unfortunately, to whatever extent Bush 41 (also past head of CIA) may have been involved in any or all of those events, the files may have been gutted.

[Robert Howard]

Only in your thread title did you address the [hopefully not, but all-too-likely, issue of assassination. He'd likely have to move far from his so-far announced foreign policy and economic stances to be assassinated. I'd forgive him if he had misled, in order to get elected, and now became a President of the People and got rid of his advisors [from the usual set of 'suspects' in the Secret Government Apparatus]. One small flicker of hope struck my heart when in his speech last night he paraphrased MLK. I think back to the day, aged 13, when I stood by the Lincoln Memorial at MLK's March On Washington and how far we have come. I remember the moments my heart stopped hearing that JFK had died, MLK had died, RFK had died (and many others). A lot of loony Americans now fear that their country has as President-elect a Muslim terrorist and Socialist [which the last were true!]. The Deep Political Structure is still there and will read [if they have not yet] the 'riot act' to Obama and have him surrounded by their minions. At least we now have an intelligent and articulate person as President who is, I believe, open to change and open to being moved by the People. He will also face pressure from the Secret Government. Who wins will determine both Obama's fate and that of the USA. I don't think my Nation has much more time if we don't get through the next Adminstration a without complete reversal of the last 8 years, and moving on to tackle things like the assassinations and facing our true history - totally supressed to the majority by the Corporate Media, Propaganda Machine and Deep Political Cabal.

Ultimately, the election of 2008 was a referendum on the last eight years of American history, and which candidate mirrored the hopes and aspiration of the American people. The historical parallel that comes to mind is the Presidency of Herbert Hoover, who was succeeded by President Franklin D Roosevelt, who, despite political pronouncements to the contrary, was a much beloved figure by a great majority of the American people of that era.

Although the politics of cynicism are in vogue these days, and it is not hard to understand why, the main impression that has stayed with me over the last 72 hours, is the realization of just how out of touch the Republican Party is with the American people. Just last night, one of the Republican politicians, was speaking of the future horror's of an Obama Presidency, the first item he cited was the fact that the minimum wage would be raised, as if the thought itself, was a tragedy of epic proportions....

Ask the American people if that would be a tragedy for America.

As a reminder of how dark the idea of Sarah Palin as Vice-President of America would be, irrespectively of whether she was serious or joking, were her comments on Saturday Night Live regarding the future of the NBC Television network if SNL continued its political nod to the left. To those who may have missed it this link should clarify matters.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag...-palin-thr.html

Although, she was more than likely joking, the fact that this was construed as good stuff for consumption is revelatory of being out of touch, although it may have been just as much Lorne Michael's fault.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Robert Howard

[Ron Ecker]

If Barack Obama now orders the release of CIA and FBI files on the three assassinations, we might well be in a good position to have a fuller understanding of US history since the election of JFK in 1960.

I think that's wishful thinking. I was reminded how the powerful in DC protect each other when Bush took office in 2001. I naively hoped, with the Republicans in power, that there would be some real investigations and prosecutions for the crime wave of the Clinton years. Ha ha ha ha ha. The Bush regime was too interested in moving forward with crimes of its own. I realized that it was simply one crime family turning the reigns over to another. Even crime families protect each other (at least when mafiosi aren't busy killing each other). "Change" is a good campaign slogan, and it's what people voted for. But I didn't see the resolution of political assassinations and other high treason anywhere on the people's priority lists.

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Don’t discount the possibility - I have believed for a while now that if Obama with his seemingly close links to the Kennedy’s and MLK would open up new avenues in all three assassinations if elected president.

I still sincerely believe this; although it will not be on the priority list.

Steve

If Barack Obama now orders the release of CIA and FBI files on the three assassinations, we might well be in a good position to have a fuller understanding of US history since the election of JFK in 1960.

I think that's wishful thinking. I was reminded how the powerful in DC protect each other when Bush took office in 2001. I naively hoped, with the Republicans in power, that there would be some real investigations and prosecutions for the crime wave of the Clinton years. Ha ha ha ha ha. The Bush regime was too interested in moving forward with crimes of its own. I realized that it was simply one crime family turning the reigns over to another. Even crime families protect each other (at least when mafiosi aren't busy killing each other). "Change" is a good campaign slogan, and it's what people voted for. But I didn't see the resolution of political assassinations and other high treason anywhere on the people's priority lists.

[Terry Adams]

"his seemingly close links to the Kennedy’s"

Steve,

We can only hope that president-elect Obama will open the files and even call for a new investigation. But, the mere fact of what you mentioned above about his ties with the Kennedys will probably keep a status quo on the government position pertaining to the assassinations. As we have read many times, the patriarch of the Kennedy clan, Senator Ted Kennedy, has indicated that he accepts the findings of the Warren Commission. Robert Kennedy Jr. has said that he believes that that it could have been possible there was a second gunman in his uncle's murder, but he too, has indicated that there probably does not need to be further investigations, at least as to his father's killing.

Terry

[William Kelly]

Barry O'Bama's position paper and platform on open government records.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/191311/Barack-Obama-08-Taking-Back-Our-Government-Back-Final-Fact-Sheet

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/TakingBackO...alFactSheet.pdf

Edited November 5, 2008 by William Kelly

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi Terry,

Yes I appreciate your comments, but saying one thing if you have a chance to do another thing are totally different. I believe the Kennedy’s have always been biding their time, it’s an Irish thing and as an example I will tell you a true story.

Two Irish families have been fighting each other for generations and the feud started so long ago that hardly anyone knows what the original cause was. Anyhow, both families end up in front of the magistrate again and the magistrate asks the two patriarchs how old they are you. One says he is in his 70’s and the other one states a similar age, so the magistrate then asks:

“Why don't you both just forget about this feud and shake hands, after all you’re in the latter stages of life and this can’t go on forever”

“Why can’t it go on forever?” one of them asks.

“Well to put it bluntly you will both probably be dead in the next 10-20 years” the magistrate replies.

“But don't we have son’s” one of them retorts

“And don't they have son’s” the other adds.

For a moment it even appeared that the two men were pleased with each other as they looked first at the dumbstruck magistrate and then at each other.

That feud is still going on to this day and although they don’t go at it every time they see each other, it is a buried deep and I suspect it will never be forgotten.

Steve

"his seemingly close links to the Kennedy’s"

Steve,

We can only hope that president-elect Obama will open the files and even call for a new investigation. But, the mere fact of what you mentioned above about his ties with the Kennedys will probably keep a status quo on the government position pertaining to the assassinations. As we have read many times, the patriarch of the Kennedy clan, Senator Ted Kennedy, has indicated that he accepts the findings of the Warren Commission. Robert Kennedy Jr. has said that he believes that that it could have been possible there was a second gunman in his uncle's murder, but he too, has indicated that there probably does not need to be further investigations, at least as to his father's killing.

Terry

[William Kelly]

Barry O'Bama's position paper and platform on open government records.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/191311/Barack-Obama-08-Taking-Back-Our-Government-Back-Final-Fact-Sheet

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/TakingBackO...alFactSheet.pdf

(3) RESTORE MEANING TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: The Americanpeople deserve to know what their government does and why. Ours is an opengovernment, and our ability to understand our government at work--the freedom ofinformation we enjoy--has been copied by other countries around the world. TheFreedom of Information Act is a pillar of our open government. Unfortunately, in recent years our government has failed to keep the American people informed about what it was doing and why, and it has refused to provide Americans with information they are entitled to by law. Turning our tradition of free information upside down, the Bush administration has instructed agencies to presume citizens are not entitled to information unless they are willing to sue for it. Barack Obama would restore the tradition of free information by issuing an Executive Order that information should be released unless an agency reasonably foresees harm to a protected interest.

(5) MAKING WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC: Barack Obama would amend Executive Order 12866 to ensure that communications about regulatory policy making between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public. The Obama White House would invoke its executive privilege to protect the confidentiality of communications concerning national security and similar traditionally sensitive matters, not to withhold information about private interests’ communication on regulatory policy. There are communications that should be kept private because disclosure could endanger the public. But the White House is the people’s house and the people have a right to know who visits.

(6) RELEASING PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS: Under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records are supposed to be released to the public 12 years after the end of a presidential administration. In November 2001, President Bush issued an order that gave current and former presidents and vice presidents broad authority to withhold presidential records or delay their release indefinitely. As president, Barack Obama will nullify the Bush order and establish procedures to ensure the timely release of presidential records.

[Steve Mcdonagh]

I was just retiring to bed when I found this article:

"Obama's national security team is another priority as the country fights wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It could also be an area where he goes outside his party for an appointee.

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and current Defense Secretary Robert Gates are among the names floating around for that team.

Hagel, who was elected to the Senate in 1996 and is a Vietnam veteran, has been a fierce critic of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war.

advertisement

Gates has served in Bush's cabinet for almost two years. He worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for 27 years, serving as its director from 1991 through 1993. He also served as deputy national security adviser under President George H. W. Bush."

What is the 'spread' on Gates getting this post (or any post) in Barack Obama's Admininstration? And if he got it, would it be a plus or a minus on new information re: JFF/MLK/RFK turning up?

[Jim Root]

John

I don't think that American politics are as shallow as you seem to suggest.

If you look at the election returns carefully you will find that the results are similiar to the arguments that the framers of the Constitution had to deal with ..... rural States vs urban States. When you check....almost accross the board ... Obama won in the population centers of each State (accross the board) and McCain won in the rural areas, nationwide with a few exceptions.

I do not believe it would be safe to suggest that the rural areas of Oregon, for instance, which voted overwelmingly for McCain did so because they are filled with either white racist or Christian fundamentalists. The common bond, one that was the reason for our bi-cameral legislature is rural vs urban.

This election seems to reflect ecconomic conditions in the United States rather than racial reactions to whom was running.

Jim Root

[Jack White]

John

I don't think that American politics are as shallow as you seem to suggest.

If you look at the election returns carefully you will find that the results are similiar to the arguments that the framers of the Constitution had to deal with ..... rural States vs urban States. When you check....almost accross the board ... Obama won in the population centers of each State (accross the board) and McCain won in the rural areas, nationwide with a few exceptions.

I do not believe it would be safe to suggest that the rural areas of Oregon, for instance, which voted overwelmingly for McCain did so because they are filled with either white racist or Christian fundamentalists. The common bond, one that was the reason for our bi-cameral legislature is rural vs urban.

This election seems to reflect ecconomic conditions in the United States rather than racial reactions to whom was running.

Jim Root

I disagree. About a third of the population was DISENFRANCHISED in this election by the TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.

Many people I know voted AGAINST a party or candidate rather than FOR. There was NO candidate to vote FOR,

so I abstained, as did many people I know. A viable third party would have made for a much different outcome.

Remember Ross Perot got over 20 percent of the vote when he ran. Had RON PAUL been on the ballot, I know

many people who would have voted for him instead of the candidate they voted AGAINST. I think he would

have outpolled Perot.

People of color predictably and blindly voted almost unanimously on the basis of race. This skewed the results

wildly. So did the absence of a viable middle of the road candidate. Had people of color voted like the expected

average voter, the results would have been different. Some reports I saw said blacks turned out in RECORD

numbers and voted more than 90 percent for the "black candidate".

David Rockefeller could not lose. He was behind BOTH candidates. The result was predetermined by the

Bilderbergers.

Jack

[Guest]

John I don't think that American politics are as shallow as you seem to suggest.

Possibly not, but some observations here have been about as fatuous as could be imagined - the quote below is a good example

The result was predetermined by the Bilderbergers.

Let us not even begin to attempt to unpack the disturbing psychological origins of comments posted here about the voting behaviour of "people of colour" - suffice to say a pattern has emerged.

[Christopher Hall]

John

I don't think that American politics are as shallow as you seem to suggest.

If you look at the election returns carefully you will find that the results are similiar to the arguments that the framers of the Constitution had to deal with ..... rural States vs urban States. When you check....almost accross the board ... Obama won in the population centers of each State (accross the board) and McCain won in the rural areas, nationwide with a few exceptions.

I do not believe it would be safe to suggest that the rural areas of Oregon, for instance, which voted overwelmingly for McCain did so because they are filled with either white racist or Christian fundamentalists. The common bond, one that was the reason for our bi-cameral legislature is rural vs urban.

This election seems to reflect ecconomic conditions in the United States rather than racial reactions to whom was running.

Jim Root

This is a very astute observation, Jim, that is easy to forget.

[Christopher Hall]

John

I don't think that American politics are as shallow as you seem to suggest.

If you look at the election returns carefully you will find that the results are similiar to the arguments that the framers of the Constitution had to deal with ..... rural States vs urban States. When you check....almost accross the board ... Obama won in the population centers of each State (accross the board) and McCain won in the rural areas, nationwide with a few exceptions.

I do not believe it would be safe to suggest that the rural areas of Oregon, for instance, which voted overwelmingly for McCain did so because they are filled with either white racist or Christian fundamentalists. The common bond, one that was the reason for our bi-cameral legislature is rural vs urban.

This election seems to reflect ecconomic conditions in the United States rather than racial reactions to whom was running.

Jim Root

I disagree. About a third of the population was DISENFRANCHISED in this election by the TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.

Many people I know voted AGAINST a party or candidate rather than FOR. There was NO candidate to vote FOR,

so I abstained, as did many people I know. A viable third party would have made for a much different outcome.

Remember Ross Perot got over 20 percent of the vote when he ran. Had RON PAUL been on the ballot, I know

many people who would have voted for him instead of the candidate they voted AGAINST. I think he would

have outpolled Perot.

People of color predictably and blindly voted almost unanimously on the basis of race. This skewed the results

wildly. So did the absence of a viable middle of the road candidate. Had people of color voted like the expected

average voter, the results would have been different. Some reports I saw said blacks turned out in RECORD

numbers and voted more than 90 percent for the "black candidate".

David Rockefeller could not lose. He was behind BOTH candidates. The result was predetermined by the

Bilderbergers.

Jack

I agree with you, Jack, and I admire you for declining to hold you nose and vote.

I view alternate parties as the future salvation of our political system.

I certainly felt disenfranchised.

Everytime I saw McCain's face, Bob Dole immediately came to mind.

And that's certainly not a good thing.

Chris