By peacelf
Published Tuesday, February 5th, 2008, 8:21 pm
Filed under: US Politics

10 Responses to “Kennedy Endorsement of Barack Obama Overrated”

1. Fantastic read!

   I wish it were not down to a mere two choices and that the people had a real voice, and it is of no real joy that we are left with such choices in the end, but until the time comes that we have viable choices in the ballot box I will have to follow my nose… and my nose says anyone but McCain or Romney or Huck (and even HC)… It is a sad reality, but one I feel is in the thros of a much needed reckoning… We the people, I sense, are beginning to rouse from our nearly sixty year slumber…

   Great read! Thank you…

   thepoetryman
   02/5/08 at 11:11 pm
   
2. 

   “JFK is no hero”

   “JFK was still a sayer and not a doer”

   My friend, a man of such royal bloodline like JFK who waltzes (they stole the election) into the presidency at a time when being president still maybe meant half of something, does not get killed in ritualistic pagan fashion because he wasn’t a “doer.”

   Granted, the skeletons in the closet of JFK may rival those who have came before him and after, but let’s be honest — eating babies doesn’t seem to fade even the most open minded political activist these days.

   So let’s examine some of the biggest “doings” of JFK’s 2 year term:

   1). First, for the record, he inherited the Vietnam conflict. It was a war that was basically established by the CIA under Eisenhower in 1959, as the “Second Indochina Operation” after the Korean War. It didn’t become “Vietnam” as we know it from all the archive footage and horror and 80s movies until November 25th 1963 when LBJ drafted the green light memorandum 273 allowing for covert military operations in Vietnam, which led to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was a self imposed attack on U.S warships that was blamed on the VC — much in the same way the current maritime incursions have been implemented in the gulf to spark a war with Iran.

   2). JFK was STOPPING the war in Vietnam. He drafted National Security Action 263 which aimed to bring home the first wave of troops before Christmas of 1963. This memorandum was thwarted and reversed when LBJ signed NSA 273 three days after JFK’s death.

   3). In 1961, JFK drafted National Security Action memos 55, 56, and 57 and presented them to the joint chief’s of staff, mainly General Lemninzter — these documents stated essentially that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be in soul control of any covert para-military action during peace time, thus — essentially — ending the rein of the CIA. This was SHOCKING to the power structure — and came after he FIRED Allen Dulles, Richard Bistle and General Charles Cabal — the guru’s of US counter intelligence since WWII. These memo’s were never fully implemented because it pissed off too many people and soon, JFK was dead and it was all reversed anyway. All of this dramatic change came after the Bay of Pigs (1961) fiasco in which, JFK said he was lied to by the CIA and tricked into going into Cuba — JFK REFUSED to invade! He AVOIDED war!

   4). The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis were two dramatic chess games that were carried out, aimed at forcing an all out U.S. invasion of Cuba. JFK refused BOTH times to give into the Joint Chief’s and CIA and instead — in the case of the Missile Crisis — cut a secret deal with Russian Premiere Krustchev to stand down and agree that there would be no invasion and in turn — peace into the next century. This pissed a lot of people off.

   5). There’s a laundry list of other things that JFK wanted to do, with little or no proof to back them up — one being the switching the U.S. Economy to a NON-INTEREST based system (the same thing Lincoln tried to do with the Greenbacks and we know what happened to ol’ Lincoln.)

   JFK was a DOER. (and I don’t just mean women)

   He spoke truth in what he said in his Inaugural Address. He was the last hope for the United States and this is why he was killed — this and a lot of other reasons.

   Since JFK — there has been no viable candidate of royal bloodline which has even attempted to implement the changes that JFK aimed to make.

   Regarding Barak Obama — I whole heartedly believe, that in this day in age, even with his distant ties to royal bloodlines, any candidate, even Obama, has no chance at even coming close to exerting the power that JFK did. JFK’s assassination turned the President into more of a poster boy than ever before, his death was the last gasp of the American Dream, if there ever really was such a thing. The power structure now is so thick, so compartmentalized, so GLOBALIZED, that it would take an even more dramatic shift at the position of the President to fix/change/shift it — it would take a man willing to literally, put his life on the line… I don’t see Barak Obama being that man.

   And if he wins, I hope I’m wrong. I really do.

   yazo
   02/5/08 at 11:28 pm
   

3. […] by buelahman on February 6, 2008 My buddy Manila Ryce’s blog at The Largest Minority had a post by peacelf that mimcs how I feel about Mr Obama and his message of […]

   Obama: The Same Old, Same Old? « Buelahman’s Redstate Revolt
   02/6/08 at 6:06 am
   

4. Truth and Fact

   Yazo,

   thanks for clarifying the fact of JFK’s inheritance of Vietnam, but that doesn’t diminish the truth of what I’m saying. I have read enough of JFK history to see him through the critical lens of time and space. JFK was a liberal-minded politician, but still part of the status quo, part of the system of white male wealth and power.

   That means he demonstrated ideas and beliefs that perpetuate the current power structure. Case in point is the first example I cite (first being paramount in my argument), the fact that JFK resisted changing the racist Jim Crow system of the south.

   Secondly, JFK’s policies on the Soviet Union, Cuba and Indochina further demonstrate his desire to preserve american Capitalism and imperial dominance in the world.

   Third, the political philosophy of Liberalism is not about democracy in the radical form I profess. Indeed, liberals, for the most part, believe in the current system of governance. Liberals think that the system just needs tweaking here and there. In that sense, JFK was not about change. He did not challenge that systematic power structure. Moreover, neo-liberals like Obama and Clinton are right of center politicians, making them even less a part of genuine change that will empower citizens and lead to a more perfect democracy.

   peace

   peacelf
   02/6/08 at 9:07 am
   
5. 

   @ elf

   Good for you and your research Elf. But hubris may be your undoing. Everything I said DOES diminish what you said — and you made the mistake of saying it again…

   “Secondly, JFK’s policies on the Soviet Union, Cuba and Indochina further demonstrate his desire to preserve American Capitalism and imperial dominance in the world.” — YOU

   Again, read my first post.

   1). He DIDN’T go into Cuba
   2). He made PEACE with the Russians
   3). He drafted the memorandum to bring the first wave of troops home from Vietnam, then was killed
   4). He called off the moon race in favor of cooperation with the Soviets
   5). He aimed to ban nuclear testing

   I don’t see how any of this adds up to “establishing American capitalistic dominance.”

   P.S. I won’t even get into the absolute nonsense of labeling things as liberal, conservative or especially “neo-liberal!” or “right of center” — HA! Spend one day in D.C. with a “space and time” perspective and watch these dividing labels go right out the ol’ window… I hope I don’t have to tell my tales of my old lobbying days and the zodiac emblems on the door handle of most of the “important” buildings…

   yazo
   02/6/08 at 11:02 am
   

6. yazo,

   You and I are talking about two different things. Tell me how he improved democracy? How did he empower people? When did he challenge white patriarchal supremacy in not only U.S. foreign policy but domestic policy. My argument stands.

   As for your “facts” of JFK’s policy and actions–Cuba, Soviet peace, bringing troops home–were those indeed his intentions, or are these interpretations designed to create another white male model of political heroism and hope for white male dominated history textbooks? In other words, what’s your source? I’d be happy to read it/them. Forgive my cynicism, but it comes from years of deconstructing history and literature texts.

   So, what about my comments about JFK’s attitude toward the Civil Rights movement? Was I wrong about that? And, how does that fit into the question of Kennedy’s belief in democracy or empowering citizens?

   As for my “hubris,” I’m deconstructing an icon of the sixties: how is that hubris? Or, is it that you want to believe in something or someone? I understand that, but please don’t resort to name calling. I have no power other than my words. Please don’t take it personally.

   I am all for a dialogue on this issue and then let the readers decide.

   peace

   peacelf
   02/6/08 at 12:22 pm
   
7. 

   @ elf

   I’m surprised someone so educated still believes in governments. Government is a 6000 year old pyramid paradigm that basically hasn’t changed in 6000 years. Revolution and improvements and impowerment always start in one place — the streets — not through the “powers that be.”

   Have you read Sitchin? If you have, I’m sure you realize the dramatic implications of what his discoveries present regarding the 6000 year old political paradigm that’s gripped the world since Sumer and Babylon.

   yazo
   02/6/08 at 2:03 pm
   

8. What can be said is that the Kennedy name and the Kennedy legacy are not nearly as important as they might think it is, or the MSM might want it to be.

   Ted Kennedy has a tremendous amount of baggage and is just as polarizing a figure as Hillary Clinton.

   And as previous comments have pointed out, the JFK legacy is ambivalent at best. Even when he was in office, he was a polarizing voice. It is only after his election that this mystique surrounding him sprung up.

   The truth of the matter is that I will not allow myself to grow so cynical that I feel as though government is irrevocably flawed to the point that my vote means nothing. I have my doubts about Obama, but I know that change comes from within the system, not chucking clods at it from the outside.

   Comrade Kevin
   02/6/08 at 5:58 pm
   

9. Yazo,

   As the great philospher George Carlin said, Government is a reflection of ourselves. We had an opportunity in the sixties to turn this shit around, but instead, the hippies grew older, more conservative, opened coffee shops, started internet companies and created Snapple teas. They took to heart what Churchill said, that if you’re still a liberal in your forties, something’s wrong with you. Government is best that governs least, but only when people will be humans again.

   I believe in people. I have hope, but not the same hope Obama audaciously writes about. I have hope that people will change, then our government will change with them. The People haven’t yet had their fill, but they’re getting close.

   Candidates like Dennis Kucinich give me hope. His ideas for change are a huge leap forward, not an end though. Just a step forward. First, so called liberals and progressives have to let go whatever-it-is they’re-holding-onto and vote for change. They all need to drop some LSd, Liberating, Small “d” democracy.

   peace

   peacelf
   02/6/08 at 9:27 pm
   

10. Verdict is in! Yazo wins the debate!!!!

    nodramavoteobama
    08/28/08 at 1:58 pm
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>