Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) took dead aim at the infamous Filburn case – this was a Depression-era court case in which a man was fined for producing for his own consumption more wheat than the federal government allowed. Filburn’s argument – which is 100% correct – was that since his wheat was only for his own consumption it wasn’t commerce (interstate or otherwise) and so Congress had no right to regulate his production under the commerce clause. The Supreme Court – by 1938 controlled by FDR loyalists – simply ruled that the clearly written Constitution meant the opposite of what it said. This is the foundation for why the federal government is deeply involved in all aspects of American life (it was also the foundation of the absurd Roe and Obergefell decisions).
It is way past time we revisited these issues – in fact, Lee might have hit upon the most crucial: that is, the federal government’s assertion under the commerce clause that as anything might effect interstate commerce it is covered by federal law. This assertion makes a mockery of even having State and local government. Commerce is a word with meaning – so is interstate. For Uncle Sam to have a say there must be something for sale across State lines. If it isn’t for sale and/or doesn’t cross State lines, the federal government has no power over it under the 10th Amendment which holds that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the States or to the people.
Keep in mind that the federal government’s interference in agriculture was based upon the idea that we must keep food prices high. Think about that. America’s fertile farmland and hard working farmers had done so well that food prices were dropping. Now, this did adversely impact some farmers…no kidding; of course it would. This did result in the heartbreaking fact that a farmer who wasn’t making it was going to lose his farm…perhaps a farm several generations in his family and founded by a hard-bitten pioneer back in the Old West. That was tragic…and some aid should be rendered to any hard working person who is losing out. But to keep food prices high? Why in God’s name would anyone want high food prices?
I guarantee you that farming, as an industry, will never die. People gotta eat – three squares a day, every day. There are 335,893,238 Americans. That is more than a billion meals per day. Every day. We should be producing at maximum capacity to both ensure there’s always more than enough and that it is as inexpensive as possible…not working out ridiculous programs to restrict production and artificially keep prices high so that the least-efficient farms can keep going (spoiler: they didn’t keep going anyway – 100 years ago there were 14 million employed on farms in a much smaller US population, these days it is about 3 million). And don’t get me wrong here – I personally think more people should be in the food production business. I don’t like megacorporations owning vast farm and ranch acreage. I’m ok with tax and regulatory changes which would make it easier – and more profitable – for small, local farms to operate. But to restrict production? That’s just stupid.
Daniel Penny will be attending the Army-Navy game (Go Navy, BTW) as a guest of VP Vance (yes, I know that technically he’s not until 1/20 but its clear that neither Joe nor Kamala are working any longer so we default to Trump and Vance). This has caused some heartache among the Stupid-American Community. Their argument is that it is unsavory for Penny to be there…as if he did something wrong.
And you really need to roll that around in your head. Back in 1912 when the Titanic was sinking, by and large the men aboard swiftly figured out that they were going to have to die if the women and children were going to live. Sure, there were a few cowards but if you, say, roll through the First and Second Class passengers who died, you’ll be in almost all-male company. These were the men with easiest access to the lifeboats – and they were men of social and financial power. They could have mostly got away. They stayed, and died. Because that is what you do. So, too, with Penny. He could have just sat there and pretended he saw nothing…but he saw a threat and he saw innocent people who had no way to defend themselves…and so he placed himself – his life – between the threat and the others. You can never know what will happen once a physical altercation begins. Penny, as a Marine, obviously knows how to take care of himself in a fight but in a fight, the other guy always gets a say. For all Penny knew, he was going to his death…and yet he went anyway. That is just heroism, plain and simple.
And that is what the Left is really complaining about here – not the death, but the heroism. They can’t stand it; they hate it, in fact. They prefer that people sit quietly and accept their fate – no, not themselves. They want to be in privileged communities and transport where such risk will never confront them. But for you, serf, they just want you complacent as they run their little sociological experiments on you. The threat wasn’t a threat – he was a street dancer who needed help! That he was a drug addict who had refused lavish offers of help is simply not mentioned. Because to mention it blows up the whole program. So, Penny had to be brought down…and we all expected a conviction because it is NYC…but we all forgot that the jurors ride the subway, too.
If the Left keeps up with this sort of thing then the world will swiftly come to understand that the real purpose of the police isn’t to protect and serve the honest, but to save the lives of the guilty. We have police so that we, the citizens, don’t have to lynch criminals. A societal decision was made more than a century ago that we would surrender part of our right to self defense in the interests of order and justice (plus as we went along we became a lot more weak-stomached than we used to be). But this only works so long as, by and large, the police keep us safe…and not just safe from rape and murder, but from even being overly harassed as we go about our business. The Left likes to assert that someone ranting and raving on a subway is just something you can ignore…but you can’t. Especially if you’re a youth, or a woman, or an unfit man. That raving lunatic might end up harmless…but you can’t be sure. The whole time he’s there ranting and raving you are in terror. The police are supposed to come and take that man away…and do it so efficiently that only rarely is anyone confronted by someone raving on a subway.
If that deal is broken, then people will reclaim their right to self defense…and the raving nutter won’t be merely restrained by a passenger (this is all Penny did – the man was alive when the police arrived), but he’ll be killed. And nobody saw nothing. The Left doesn’t realize the fire they are playing with here.
UPDATE:
Just so we can all keep up to Social Media speed here, Sidney Sweeney was recently photographed at a pool and to the shock of some, she didn’t look like she does when she’s perfectly made up for the red carpet. They’re calling her mid! Well, we report, you decide (posting bikin-clad pics of Sweeney is NOT engagement farming. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.)
Blogs For Victory 
The Left likes to assert that someone ranting and raving on a subway is just something you can ignore…. But I thought “words are violence”. Isn’t it funny how the words “a man can’t get pregnant” represent violence and a threat but “Ima kill you now” does not?
I keep thinking to myself, when I hear the excuses made by the white Left for black misbehavior, DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF? How am I fighting racism through tacit admissions that certain vile or vicious behaviors are just part of a race’s culture so should be overlooked?
When “The Bluest Eye” was made mandatory reading in Common Core, meaning children as young as 13 (high school freshman) were told they had to read graphic descriptions of the genitals of a young girl, by her father, before he raped her, and objections were raised by outraged parents and communities, the excuse for forcing this filth into our schools was that it was an important look into black culture. That is, they were so focused on forcing pornography onto our children that they blurted out their own belief that “black culture” involves incestuous pedophilia and rape.
So how do they think people should react to a crazed black man threatening to kill them? “Oh, it’s just a black guy. It’s just what they do. We just ignore them.”?
(Back to “The Bluest Eye”…..the apologists also said, in addition to the claim that the book provided an essential look into black culture, that it was important because it taught children how pedophiles think. And they wonder why we think the Left seems to be populated with racist lunatics.)
OK, rant #38591 on the insanity of Hollywood. Admittedly they have not produced a show called Jacqueline Reacher, a spunky young polyracial polyamorous trans vagabond, but till they get that awful there is the fact that in the Joe Pickett TV series (which I have yet to watch because I know they will Longmire it with bad casting and PC script changes) the character of Nate Romanowski, the tall BLOND RUSSIAN falconer, is played by a stocky—you guessed it—–black man.
It was bad enough to see the Longmire books stripped of their humor and character development and the large, physically imposing Henry Standing Bear played by dainty little Lou Diamond Phillips. It was bad enough to see Jack Reacher, described in every single book as big and physically intimidating, having to duck to go through doors, with constant references to his bulk and height, played by little Tom Cruise. But to see a tall blond Russian played by a stocky black man is just…..wrong. So wrong on so many levels. I just hope CJ Box got paid enough to make it worth pimping out his books.
That stuff does get annoying – the characters of the Mirrors series are all mash ups of people I’ve known to one degree or another. Celeste is a mix of this black lady I used to work with who was not only brilliant but astonishingly pretty…the other part of her, though, is a white woman I knew (bright but also a little mysterious and with a mix of advanced and old fashioned views)…so, she’s dark skinned but not black. OTOH, secondary character Zenia has very dark skin partially because I wanted to emphasize that Lontarians don’t have racism like here…but this is mostly to contrast that sort of attitude with their bigotries about the Antaki (Zenia was partially made to have a small side romance with a poor boy…who is white). To change the sex or skin color of my characters is to take away some of what I wrote…some of my story. It was all intentional…I’m an author. I think over things and decide how its going to go. A reader can like it or hate it but for goodness sake don’t try to change it.
Gandar is a gigantic black man who doesn’t know he’s a king
Corran is a big, tough sailor-turned-wizard who just happens to be gay…because I once knew a rather large, tough guy who turned out to be gay.
Johnny is also black (and large) and he’s married to the tiny, blonde wizard Tania (because I once knew a couple where the husband probably topped out close to seven feet while his wife was a frickin’ Hobbit).
Bryce is tall, white, handsome, charming, strong, brave…and I made his son a taller copy who’s also a bit of a player and who prefers adventure to responsibility (Bryce would prefer that as well but his wife Rossalyn won’t let him…though she’d rather go on adventures, too; this is emphasizing the calls of duty are paramount).
And, of course, the primary Narrator of the story is Fred…based on a guy I served with in the Navy who as just the most rock-solid sensible man around, and so Fred, per his own description, is a “generic black man”.
But everything is in there because I thought it necessary for the story…even if the necessity was just to have a little fun on the side of the tale as we went along…but even in that, thanks to the glories of ret-conning (that is, going back over what was written to allude to future events), it all is part of the story which is leading to the part I’m writing now: the final conclusion. To have someone come after and “fix” it would just outrage me to heck and gone…either like the story or hate the story but it is my story, dammit!
At least forget about Nate and bring in another character, perhaps a fellow falconer and Special Forces vet, don’t just destroy the original character. You can have two bad ass operatives who are into falconry. It might even be interesting, and every now and then there could be a reference to Nate, off evading the FBI or on a special mission or something.. Not-Nate could be taking care of Nate’s falcons and stepping into Nate’s role as guardian of the Pickett family.
Longmire’s deputy, Victoria Moretti, is a hard-nosed detective from Philadelphia with a penchant for profanity. She is never described as having dark hair, but everything about her and her family screams “Italian” so naturally in the show she is a whitebread blonde. I have only watched part of the first couple of shows, before I got fed up with it and went back to the books and audio books, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that in the show Walt’s daughter is gay.
Hollywood has no respect for the story, for the narrative, for the author’s vision. Their attitude seems to be “once I’ve paid for it I can do anything I want with it”.
Mark, we might get into another discussion about Lee Harvey Oswald. You have echoed the Warren Commission report, that he acted alone and was the JFK assassin, while I have contended that he was working with the CIA, possibly to head off the assassination, which was committed by others.
Now that Trump has said he wants to reveal the entire record of all information held by the government on this I am one of those really looking forward to seeing what shows up.
After learning that Oswald was not a nut but had a top security clearance and even worked on the super-secret U2 spy plane program, I long ago realized that there was a lot more to him than we had been led to believe. And I paid attention to the fact that in the first days of his incarceration he remained calm, never admitted to anything, and kept insisting that the matter was going to be cleared up very shortly. When it finally sank in that he was being hung out to dry he commented that he was just “the fall guy”. None of that was consistent with the government narrative.
The government was typically heavy-handed in its coverup, though it did do a good job of covering up the original report on the rifle found in the book depository that day. It was originally reported, by two officers very familiar with guns, as a 7.55 mm Mauser, a high quality German rifle. Almost immediately that changed to a very different kind of rifle, one that would never be mistaken for a Mauser, a poor quality Italian gun. And so on……
The article even mentions something seldom discussed, that the “Oswald” in Mexico City might have been an imposter. The official narrative never mentions a CIA connection, just the claim that Oswald showed up at the Russian embassy there, made a huge scene as he yelled and pounded on the doors and demanded to be let in, loudly informing everyone of his name.
It is bizarre that there are still things being held secret about it – but, OTOH, Mark Felton in doing his show about the death of Himmler, notes that it appears some British documents related to the event are being kept classified until 2045. He speculates that this is because some of the documents may shed light on any connections between Himmler – or at least Nazis – and members of the Royal Family…if you watch his show, it becomes pretty clear that the Official Narrative – Himmler bit down on a cyanide capsule as he was being examined – just doesn’t hold water. What really happened? Nobody really knows – and even in 2045, I bet we don’t know…any documents which held vital data will be long gone before declassification.
In my view, the forensic data still indicates that Oswald was in the book depository and fired the shots; most notably, it was his gun, his palm prints were on it, he worked there, an eyewitness placed him in the shooting position minutes before the shooting and he had sufficient skills to take the shots. The fact that Oswald shot officer Tippet is another indication that Oswald was the guy…Oswald fitting the description of the JFK shooter, Tippet just stopped to talk with Oswald and he pulled out his gun and shot the cop. As to what events led the man to be there firing shots (at both cops and Presidents), that is where the record gets a little murky. And like the supposedly still held Himmler documents, my bet is that by the time they are released, they’ll be gone if the implicate anyone high up in the Establishment.
And now we see what happened to Trump in Pennsylvania – where the Secret Service seems to have done everything they could to give the shooter his opportunity. Was Dallas something similar? Were both shooters fools induced to do a deed with the tacit cooperation of at least some official persons?
Yet there is conflicting evidence about Oswald having the skills to make the shots, what gun was originally found in the room before the Italian rifle was identified, the quality of the gun and the shoddy scope that needed to be reset after every shot (famed sniper Carlos Hathcock tried and failed to get off three shots in the required time with an identical gun) and lots of conflicting eyewitness testimony about the appearance of the man who shot Tippett. Aside from the Warren Commission I haven’t heard of much to indict Oswald. Actually, nearly all other evidence is the opposite.
The Warren Commission was designed to prove that Oswald was not only the assassin but was the sole assassin involved, worked with no other person, and was a volatile “lone wolf”. It began with these assumptions and, to support them, ignored witnesses and other evidence. When a less biased investigation occurs a lot of evidence is uncovered that simply does not fit into the official State narrative.
Evidence in the form of letters and statements from people who knew Oswald contradicted this. He was described as smart, social, outgoing, engaged, a lover of opera, and of course he had a security clearance due to his work on the highly secret U2 surveillance plane project. At some point in his life he began to act quite differently, which would be consistent with becoming an agent of a government agency and being tasked with specific roles. When the details of of his life beyond that point are examined objectively they make absolutely no sense, except in the context of being an agent of a spy agency actively establishing a cover identity.
He sought attention by actively promoting two antithetical political positions, in the same neighborhood handing out flyers advocating for support of Castro on one street and on the next distributing flyers advocating for the overthrow of Castro. He started trying to get permission to become a Russian citizen, leading to his dismissal from the Marine Corps. Either he or someone who looked somewhat like him went to Mexico City and made very public scenes at the Russian Embassy, loudly identifying himself as Lee Harvey Oswald and demanding to see the embassy head. (I spoke with a former intelligence officer who knew the head of the Russian Embassy at that time, who interviewed Oswald, who said the man was so nearly out of control and volatile he frightened the staff, showed them a gun, and they just wanted to get him out of the building. This is not the behavior of a man who is serious about wanting to impress the Russian government and get permission to return to Russia. It IS, however, how one would act if the intent was to establish the presence of a person in Mexico City at the Russian Embassy at that time.)
Then there are the Russia questions. How did he get a visa, after this kind of behavior? Why did Russia accept him as an American expatriate? How, as a low-level immigrant, did he meet the niece of a high-ranking KGB official and be allowed to marry her? Why, in an era of Russians being forcibly taken back to Russia after jumping off ships into New York Harbor and cultural ambassadors like the Bolshoi Ballet performers being shadowed by 24/7 guards to keep them from escaping, did Russia allow this relative of a KGB officer to just move to the United States? Why did she hide the fact that she was fluent in English, setting up the cover story that she moved in with a woman interested in learning Russian, Ruth Paine, who then acted as her “interpreter” although her own Russian was very poor, helping hide the fact that she spoke good English? How and why did Ruth Paine then provide an unsolicited request to the manager at the Texas Book Depository to hire, sight unseen, Lee Oswald? Did she withhold the fact that a message offering him a better job for more money had been left with whoever answered the phone at her home, ensure that he would remain in the book depository job?
These are only some of the dozens of questions never addressed or even acknowledged by the Warren Commission.
Without the predetermined identification of Oswald as the sole killer, and the need to do so, one can examine the other events with a clearer eye. And without that predetermined outcome and its official imprimatur, the other things show a distinct pattern. That is of a formerly liked and respected and competent Marine suddenly assuming the persona of an oddball “lone wolf” who sets up a “less than honorable” discharge from the Marines by applying for citizenship in the USSR, sets up membership in competing political movements and calls attention to himself by actively and publicly supporting both, suddenly becomes so “incompetent” that he is fired from at least one low-level job, manages to be accepted as an immigrant to the USSR where he somehow manages to meet and marry the niece of a high-ranking KGB official and then somehow manages to get permission for her to move to the United States where she goes undercover as someone who does not speak English and needs a translator which explains her/their association with a woman thought to be a spy. Of all of these events the only one that is not supported by documents and evidence is the speculation that Ruth Paine was an agent for some intelligence agency, but it turns out that the main if only connection between Oswald and the attempted assassination of Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker is a note in a book Paine turned over to the FBI, which she said was Marina’s.
About a week after the assassination, Ruth turned over a Russian book of Marina’s that hadn’t been taken in searches of the Paine home. In that book, the Secret Service found a note that became the premiere piece of evidence to accuse Oswald of having earlier taken a shot at prominent right-winger Maj. Gen. Edwin Walker.
The Warren Commission and establishment historians ever since have cited the Walker shooting ad nauseum as a precedent demonstrating Oswald’s propensity for violence and assassination.
The Kostin letter involves an even more damning incident — a curious interchange between Ruth and Oswald. What we know of this incident comes from the testimony of Ruth herself. About 10 days before the assassination, Oswald borrowed her Cyrillic-alphabet typewriter and began typing out a letter to the Soviet Embassy.
Ruth says that Oswald acted suspiciously while typing and that she later took a rough draft of the letter that he left sitting on the desk. She copied the letter, and held on to it with the intention of handing it over to the FBI the next time she saw them. The FBI had in fact visited the Paine home twice before in the months preceding the assassination. Oswald wasn’t there either time but Ruth had spoken to the FBI about him. As a prior defector to the Soviet Union, Oswald was under close scrutiny by the authorities.
Ruth did hand the letter over to the FBI on November 23, after failing to disclose it to the Dallas police who had searched her home on the 22nd. The contents of the Kostin letter were used to tie Oswald to a visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, where he allegedly met with a KGB assassination specialist.
The problem with this spectacular information is that the CIA’s own photographic and audio surveillance of the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City revealed that the “Oswald” who supposedly conferred with the KGB agent at the embassy was being impersonated by another individual. We know this because J. Edgar Hoover discussed it with Lyndon Johnson the day after the assassination.
The Soviets themselves called the Kostin letter a “provocation” and believed the US forged it to use as a pretext for starting a war with Russia or Cuba — or both.
In a secret internal memo from a collection of previously withheld KGB documents, the Soviet ambassador to the US, Anatoly Dobrynin, wrote the following:
One gets the definite impression that the letter was concocted by those who, judging from everything, are involved in the president’s assassination. It is possible that Oswald himself wrote the letter as it was dictated to him, in return for some promises, and then, as we know, he was simply bumped off after his usefulness had ended.
Thus, we have Ruth admitting that she was essentially informing on Oswald to the FBI and handing over one of the most controversial and explosive pieces of evidence in the entire case.
[“For sake of argument, suppose Ruth was not a naive housewife but some kind of intelligence agent (whether formally or informally). This leads to the unavoidable question: If there was indeed a conspiracy to murder JFK and blame Oswald, was Ruth a witting participant? Or just an intelligence asset who was duped into playing a role in a masterfully clever plot that the Warren Commission entirely missed? “] The role played by Ruth Paine has never been fully examined by anyone except people arrogantly dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” yet it turns out that she was central to the most important narratives of the entire story, including her and her husband’s ongoing support for the image of Oswald “… as a pathetic waif with homicidal tendencies — despite their very limited interactions with him..”
None of this addresses the discovery that the mystery fingerprint found on a box at the Texas School Book Depository was finally, years later, identified as that of “Mac” Wallace, known fixer for LBJ. Or the fact that three different witnesses saw a man who looked like Oswald get picked up by either a dark Latino or a black man driving a pastel station wagon, two of whom were the victims of repeated attempts on their lives and one of whom eventually died of “suicide”—the hard kind, involving shooting himself in the chest with a rifle.
The Warren Commission simply ignored any testimony or witness statement that did not support its preordained conclusion. If the theory that LBJ was behind the killing (as hinted at by Mac Wallace’s fingerprint being found on a box next to the “sniper’s nest” on the 6th floor along with witnesses who saw a man in a tan or brown jacket, wearing dark-rimmed glasses, through the window of that floor when the shots were fired) then his demand that the Commission find a theory immediately would make sense. What does not make sense is the refusal these days to examine the contradictory evidence that disputes the Commission’s official finding.
I admit that there are a lot of wild-eyed crackpot theories out there. As someone who has done a deep dive into writings on the event, I have seen plenty of them. And I have seen a lot of what I think is normal, average, memory quirks by eyewitnesses that don’t indicate a desire to deceive, just what happens in any circumstance like this. The only time things line up perfectly is in movie scripts—or when there is a compelling need to make them appear to line up, to meet an objective.
The witness testimony in the Tippit murder case is so confusing and contradictory that it tends to exonerate Lee Oswald as much as it implicates him. Most witnesses were either too far away or had only a fleeting glimpse of the killer to make a solid identification. Oswald was wearing a long-sleeved brown shirt that day, which no one in the vicinity of 10th & Patton remembered seeing. When we factor in the tainted police lineups as well as the seemingly impossible time element in getting Oswald to the crime scene in time to be the shooter, the case against the 24-year-old tends to fall apart. The Dallas Police Report had the killer walking west, not east, as did all that day’s witnesses except for the roundly discredited Mrs. Markham. Someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald almost assuredly killed Officer Tippit.
There can be little doubt that a person or persons unknown impersonated Lee Oswald leading up to the murders on November 22, 1963. How can anyone be positive that Lee Oswald shot Tippit at just after 1 p.m. when so many factors argue against it?
Meanwhile, two credible witnesses at the Texas Theater put the real Lee Oswald in the movie theater at the time J.D. Tippit was being slain several blocks to the east. We know the real Lee Oswald was in the movie theater because he was soon arrested there. Patron Jack Davis said Oswald was there at about the time the 1:15 movie began, and was oddly moving from seat to seat, as if looking for someone. He even briefly sat next to Davis. Theater manager and ticket-taker “Butch Burroughs” said Oswald came in between 1:00 and 1:07 p.m., and that he sold popcorn to Lee Oswald at nearly 1:15 p.m. If true, how could Lee Oswald have murdered J.D. Tippit?
About the book The Final Analysis: “… medical expert Dr. David W. Mantik and New York Times bestselling author Jerome R. Corsi definitively validate the observations of the physicians at Parkland Hospital, who recognized immediately that the wound in JFK’s throat and the massive, avulsed blow-out in the back of his head both involved frontal shots.
What distinguishes this book from the myriad of books written on the JFK assassination is that Dr. Mantik’s optical density measurements of the JFK skull X-rays in the National Archives leave no doubt the X-rays were altered to disguise evidence of the two frontal shots. With over four decades of experience reading X-rays, Dr. Mantik has examined the JFK assassination materials more than anyone else.
Mantik and Corsi present overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence that proves the Bethesda surgeons performed pre-autopsy surgery on JFK’s head to remove evidence of the forehead bullet, as well as to gain access to his brain and thus “sanitize the crime scene” by removing bullet fragments and bullet tracks in the brain tissue.
“The world is starving for objective science. This book contains objective forensic science for which the world will never be ready. If the X-rays were doctored, the CIA, the FBI, and the US Secret Service have some questions to answer.
Oh, from what I understand his fellow Marines used to joke about his statements lauding the Soviet Union. OTOH, one of the jokes we liked to pull on the XO was to be reading the English-language Pravda in the radio shack while Radio Moscow blared over the speakers. At this late a date with almost everyone involved dead, there’s just not much we can do to go back and look over what might have caused this or that alleged action or statement by Oswald – all I say is that what forensics we have point to him as the shooter. As to why he’d shoot, haven’t a clue – it could range from just being nuts to being somebody’s operative.
In the end, I don’t think we’ll ever get a resolution. From what I’ve read, once Nixon got back into office in 1969 he ordered all JFK files sent to him – and everyone produced a lot of stuff but Nixon – highly intelligent and knowledgeable – was certain the documents were incomplete. Bobby also appears to have been sure there was something fishy about the event even though he publicly accepted the Warren Report. But as to Johnson’s alleged involvement…I’d mostly lean towards “no” on that on the simple grounds that he kept Bobby as AG until September of 1964. Bobby, as AG, could have opened up all sorts of cans of worms and it was well-known that Bobby and LBJ didn’t like each other. Of course, when you have a standoff between people like Bobby and LBJ, failure to act might just reflect a Mutually Assured Destruction compact between them…LBJ and the Kennedy family were both hip deep in dirt so they might have just agreed to leave each other alone. Leaning towards an LBJ involvement is the fact that there was simply no other way he was going to become President – absent Dallas, the 1968 Democrat nomination would almost certainly have gone to Bobby or, at worst, a staunch Kennedy-family ally as a placeholder for Bobby to run in 1972 or 1976.
Here’s a thing, though – Bobby’s son is famously skeptical of the government, as such, and this does seem to stem from his father’s instruction…Bobby lost all faith in our institutions after Dallas and that is why he went hard Left on Vietnam after JFK was killed…keeping in mind that this was a renunciation of his much-beloved brother’s policy. Bobby, of course, got it wrong in a “deep tides of destiny” sense on Vietnam…but he was right in holding that the political and military conduct of the war was asinine and doomed to failure. And that gets us to just why Bobby got shot…he was certain to be the Democrat nominee but it was also certain, by that point, that Wallace would run Third Party – and that dynamic was going to play out in 1968 pretty much as it did. Would Bobby have been able to pull back to the Dems the voters they were bleeding to Wallace? There’s no way to know…but if someone thought it likely and it would result in the narrow election of a Bobby committed to both ending the war and looking a bit more deeply into everything that had gone on?
Not trying to harangue Warren Committee aficionados, just giving examples of how far the State will go to advance the theories it feels must be accepted.
Democrats will not stop until they “fundamentally transform” this country, as their Black Jesus promised back in 2008. Here’s the latest effort, and the most dangerous. The Electoral College is the very foundation of a Representative Republic. Our fight is not over. These people need to go.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/12/developing-senate-democrats-introduce-bill-abolish-electoral-college/
It’s just one admission after another that the Left can’t win if we run the country according to its Constitution.