JFK Wanted To Pin Vietnam War On The GOP From an eggshell walking CBS News:
Jackie Kennedy: Martin Luther King Jr. "phony"September 12, 2011
NEW YORK — President John F. Kennedy openly scorned the notion of Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson succeeding him in office, according to a book of newly-released interviews with his widow, former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy.
In the interviews, she also called civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. "terrible," "tricky" and "a phony."
"This book shows Jackie Kennedy unplugged," historian and CBS News analyst Douglas Brinkley told "Early Show" co-anchor Erica Hill Monday.
He said, "A lot of the rawness of her feelings, I think, as a young woman — she’s is only in her 30s when she is doing these tapes in 1964 — is very different from the more poised and discrete Jackie Kennedy we got to know in the 1980s and 1990s." …
Yes, she was so young and naïve – she actually spoke the truth.
The book, "Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy," includes a series of interviews the former first lady gave to historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. shortly after her husband was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963.
Over seven sessions, she recalled conversations on topics ranging from her husband’s reading habits to the botched Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba…
JFK’s "reading habits" were not the problem.
Jacqueline Kennedy told Schlesinger in the 1964 interviews that her husband often fretted about the prospect of a Johnson presidency…
Jacqueline Kennedy also indicated that her husband was highly skeptical about victory in Vietnam, a central battleground of the Cold War and the conflict that brought down Johnson’s presidency.
She said JFK, a Democrat, had named Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican he had defeated for a Massachusetts Senate seat in 1952, as U.S. ambassador to Vietnam because JFK was so doubtful of military success there.
"I think he probably did it … rather thinking it might be such a brilliant thing to do because Vietnam was rather hopeless anyway, and put a Republican there," Jacqueline Kennedy said…
Some things never change, do they?
Jacqueline Kennedy spoke skeptically of [Martin Luther] King [Jr].
She called him "tricky" and a "phony" after hearing about FBI tapes of him and a woman in his hotel room, while noting that JFK had urged her not to be judgmental.
We wonder why?
She said King had mocked her husband’s funeral and Cardinal Richard Cushing, who celebrated Mass at the funeral.
"He made fun of Cardinal Cushing and said that he was drunk at it," she said. "And things about they almost dropped the coffin. I just can’t see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, you know, that man’s terrible." …
Blasphemy! She was clearly a racist.
The former first lady, who died in 1994, and Schlesinger, who died in 2007, at times sound like a couple of old friends sharing gossip, ridiculing Richard Nixon’s wife, Pat, or labeling LBJ’s wife, Lady Bird, as so obedient she was like a "trained hunting dog." …
Jacqueline Kennedy, clearly at ease, speaks candidly about her in-laws and about other Kennedy insiders. She marvels at the suspicious nature of her mother-in-law, Rose Kennedy, always wanting to know whether someone was Catholic.
"There seems to be about all these Irish — they always seem to have a sort of persecution thing about them, don’t they?" she asks.
This seems to be true of all Democrat politicians, no matter their ancestry.
She also accuses sister-in-law Eunice Kennedy Shriver of undue personal ambition and says the president was anxious to dump FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover. She confides she didn’t trust the White House aide and speechwriter Theodore Sorensen, believing he encouraged the perception that he had ghostwritten her husband’s Pulitzer Prize-winning "Profiles in Courage."
"You know, Jack forgave so quickly, but I never forgave Ted Sorensen," she said.
Sorensen, who died last year, was widely regarded as devoted to JFK. Jacqueline Kennedy said the president, out of personal fondness, even gave Sorensen the book’s royalties…
Oh, our sides. Sure he did.
[size=1" color="black]really spot write up here by LA times......[/size]
Gun store owner had misgivings about ATF sting When federal agents with Operation Fast and Furious told Andre Howard to sell weapons to illegal purchasers, he complied, but he feared someone would get hurt. Then a border agent was shot.
2nd Arizona crime scene yields guns from ATF sting
EXCLUSIVE: Third Gun Linked to 'Fast and Furious' Identified at Border Agent's Murder Scene By William Lajeunesse Published September 09, 2011 FoxNews.com
" In the aftermath of that terrible day, there was more than just an uptick in retail firearms and ammunition sales. Confidential sources at the time advised this writer about members of Congress who were publicly anti-gun, but privately inquiring around northern Virginia about firearms and self-defense classes. "
no password user name entry needed here, I gotchyoback...
Who Let The Guns Walk? - Enemy At The Gates by Claire Wolfe in the October 2011 issue The details are as obscure as Charles Schumer’s soul. But the basics of Project Gunwalker are clear.
In October 2009, reversing a longstanding policy, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) began authorizing firearm dealers in the southwest to complete large illegal straw-man purchases. That is, the buyers had the legal right to purchase for themselves, but their suspected intent was to deliver the guns to Mexican drug cartels. The gun dealers knew it and contacted ATF. ATF officials knew it—and insisted that the hesitant dealers complete the sales.
Previously, ATF policy was to confiscate such guns and make arrests before the weapons crossed the border into the hands of Mexico’s infamously murderous thugs. Now, after okaying the sales, agents stood back and allowed the guns to “walk” across the border. At least 1,700 firearms went to gangsters, all with the consent of the U.S. federal government.
Why? Well, that’s the $64,000 question.
The plan was called Operation Fast and Furious, a part of Project Gunrunner. Gun blogger David Codrea (who, along with fellow blogger Mike Vanderboegh, ultimately exposed the scandal) satirically dubbed it Project Gunwalker.
Within a year, the scheme blew up catastrophically. Afterward, the ATF tried to justify its actions by claiming the “walking” was done in an effort to trace the weapons and track down big traders linked to the cartels. But that’s absurd. ATF lost track of them even before the guns traveled across the border. Nobody from ATF or the Justice Department notified Mexican officials of the scheme, which they surely would have done if the intent had been to follow the guns. They did this over the fervent protests of the ATF’s own attaché in Mexico City, whom they proceeded to leave out of the loop.
“Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals, this was the plan.” Thus testified Special Agent John Dodson of ATF’s Phoenix Field Division, one of the first to speak out. “It was so mandated.”
ATF waited until the firearms were used in crimes in the U.S. or Mexico. Etrace, a computer system used by officials on both sides of the border, verified the origin of confiscated weapons. (According to congressional testimony, the ATF official in charge, David Voth, crowed as American firearms turned up at Mexican crime scenes.)
ATF field agents kept meticulous track of how many of the walked guns were used in crimes and regularly relayed that information to their superiors in D.C. Then the Obama administration and the usual suspects in Congress (Feinstein, Schumer, et al.) could tsk tsk about the shocking problem of U.S. guns getting into the hands of murderous Mexicans.
For a while, the media ate it up: Dirty Mexican bandits are getting American guns because the federal government doesn’t have enough power to stop it! We need tighter laws. More money and power for the ATF.
Then in December 2010, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered. Two of the walked weapons were found at the crime scene. One can only imagine the chaos in the Phoenix, Arizona, ATF office (home of Fast and Furious) and in Washington, D.C., as top agents and executives scrambled to cover their backsides.
Matters got worse in February when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jaime Zapata was murdered in Mexico. Walked guns were again implicated. Mexican officials also believe that ATF’s Fast and Furious weapons have been used to murder several hundred Mexican citizens, and possibly to bring down one military helicopter. Yes, you can imagine how desperate officials are to keep their fiasco quiet.
But in this age of the Internet, coverups aren’t so easy.
From the get-go, a core of ATF agents had objected to Operation Fast and Furious. As word of Terry’s death spread through the ranks, posters aired their concerns at CleanUpATF.org, a website established by conscientious agents to report on and rectify management waste, abuse, corruption and fraud. Gun bloggers Codrea and Vanderboegh, whose blogs frequently cover ATF abuses, have monitored that site for a long time. They also have their own sources within the agency.
As rumors resolved into facts, the bloggers contacted members of Congress, seeking to ensure whistleblower protection for the honest agents, first from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), then Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA). They also blogged the developing story, pushed the mainstream media to cover it—and waited. Anxiously.
Finally, in June 2011, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee issued a report and held hearings. The Justice Department continued to stonewall. It ignored multiple letters and subpoenas from the committee. As of this writing, both Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF head Kenneth Melson have refused to testify before the committee despite repeated invitations to do so.
Even with the stonewalling, we’ve learned certain facts. One of those is that Fast and Furious resulted from a decision at the highest levels of Justice. It began in late 2009, just weeks after Deputy Attorney General David Ogden issued a memo demanding a change of tactics.
According to The Daily Beast: “The memo was prepared in connection with a previously unknown high-level Justice Department meeting in which representatives of key law enforcement agencies on the front lines of the border wars were summoned to discuss a new approach to combating border violence, according to government officials familiar with the document. Within days, the memo from Ogden’s office was being distributed inside the ATF office in Phoenix, where supervisors quickly launched Operation Fast and Furious.”
Ogden’s boss, Eric Holder, and Obama have taken the “What, me worry?” position. They saw nothing, heard nothing, ordered nothing and knew nothing. Predictably, they’re blaming underlings.
As I write this, Ken Melson, the latest of the ATF’s revolving-door acting directors, is being set up as a scapegoat and pressured to resign. But—whoops!—he’s resisting and says he’s now eager to testify on Project Gunwalker (which he would be free to do once he was no longer under Holder’s command). Since he was clearly not the top dog in the operation, his testimony could lead to major embarrassment, and perhaps even indictments, up the ladder. That remains to be seen.
In its traditional style, ATF has also—despite promises and despite warnings from Issa—started retaliating against honest agents who brought the scandal to light. Agent Vince Cefalu was given notice of termination proceedings against him after being forced to spend months on “an assignment to do nothing.” He was one of the first to come forward to complain about ATF mismanagement.
Also, just before the hearings, Congress’s usual suspects came out with a report blaming the U.S.-guns-in-Mexico problem squarely on the mythical “gun-show loophole,” demanding a new “assault weapons” ban and other restrictions, and heartily praising ATF for trying to stop the trafficking.So far, it appears that the good guys aren’t winning, despite the damning details that have been brought to light. But there is some progress. Previously, anti-gunners in government had sworn (and their pet media had repeated) that 70 or 90% (these “facts” change at will) of guns used by Mexican drug thugs came from the U.S. civilian market, mostly from licensed dealers. Sen. Grassley has now revealed that the figure is more like 8%, with a significant proportion of that being made up—irony of ironies—of the ATF’s deliberately walked guns.
So now the Feinstein-Schumer crew has crept back to blaming unlicensed, unrecorded “gun-show loophole” sales (along with a new charge that U.S. gun sales have become “a militarized bazaar”). And it may be a complete coincidence, but within weeks of the Issa hearings, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence, resigned his post with no better explanation than “exhaustion.”
Yes, it’s definitely exhausting supporting a position that’s based on lies, myths and complicity with murder.
Many details remain hidden in bureaucratic mud. But one thing is obvious to anybody who looks: Project Gunwalker had nothing to do with stopping crime and everything to do with juicing statistics to justify more national “gun control” and more power and money for the ATF.
As I write this, the Gunwalker story is developing faster than a pustule on a politician’s privates. To learn the latest, go to Codrea (www.waronguns.com) and Vanderboegh’s blogs (www.sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com).
A lot of questions remain, and the Obama administration is doing its best to avoid giving answers. There are two that every gun-rights advocate should ask: Who ultimately authorized “walking” the guns? And why does the ATF—one of the most inept, brutal, arbitrary, perpetually mismanaged, and anti-freedom excretions of the federal government—still exist?
If followed to its logical conclusion, the Gunwalker scandal could end the careers of Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama. It could also blow the deadly, deceiving “gun control” movement off the map.
[Special thanks to Mike Vanderboegh and David Codrea, who not only brought the scandal to light, but fact-checked this article with diligence, chivalry and charm. Any errors are my own.]
Citizen Directs Traffic Since Cops Won't—And Gets a TicketDid you notice the traffic jam at Fair Oaks Avenue and Huntington Drive Thursday?
Longview Longshoremen Drama: Add Carjacking to the List of HorriblesLongview Longshoremen and their bused in band of thugs pulled a near-Reginald Denney on guard car at the EGT company during their rampage on Thursday.
Longshoreman Flak Jokes About Longview Guard Hostage Taking
Bank of America will cut 30,000 jobs in next few years
"they were animals"
yes, welcome to sharia lady...now go warn some libs it ain't the peaceful non-threat they portray
CNN Journalists Attacked By Cairo Mob During Protests – Car Stoned Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, September 12, 2011, 4:36 AM
[size=3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sharia Lobby Shifts into Fifth Gear[/size]
[size=4" face="Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Slow down, moving too fast, got to make the U.S. last...[/size]
Alyssa A. Lappen
Sharia advocates desperately want to convince legislators and the public that Islamic law is plain vanilla --- and totally nonthreatening to existing U.S. legal codes. Notwithstanding a nationwide Muslim Brotherhood-backed pro-sharia push, nothing could be further from the truth.
“There are many unpleasant doctrines within Islam,” including its “repugnant” criminal code, honor killings, female genital cutting, and a Quranic verse Muslim clerics often cite, proclaiming “wives as a tilth unto you” (2:223), to deny the existence of marital rape. 
So allowed sharia professor Sadiq Reza at an Aug. 25-26 New York Law School (NYLS) conference. Any attempt to enforce its criminal code, he added, “would violate Constitutional law.” He insisted, though, that western Muslims don't “favor” these aspects of Islam and none seek to impose them. Evidence that they do abounds (here, here, here, here, here) but Reza said his broad web search found none.
Northwestern University Islamic law professor Kristen Stilt, too, disdained sharia criticism as “lunacy.” And University of Toronto Islamic law professor Mohammed Fadel referred the audience to a glossy, Soros-funded condemnation of skeptics, breathlessly entitled “Fear, Inc.” to persuade the gullible.
Soon afterward, journalist Joseph Klein recalled some points of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood “scholar” Yusuf Qaradawi, revered by the Islamic world --- and “Fear, Inc.” co-author Wajahat Ali. Qaradawi identifies fully with sharia as described by former CIA director R. James Woolsey and fellow so-called hate mongers headed by Center for Security Policy CEO Frank Gaffney, not Ali and his co-detractors. Qaradawi considers charity “jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money,” as I noted in fall 2007. Like the MB-backed Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Qaradawi also seeks to internationally criminalize insults to Islam or Mohammed.
CSP's sharia description is quite correct --- not the “hate” or “lunacy” that Reza, Ali, Stilt and Fadel call it. Sharia is indeed a
“complete way of life” (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law… Shariah is, moreover, a doctrine that mandates the rule of Allah over all aspects of society.”
Despite all sharia's sobering negatives, orchestrated campaigns to hype it and smear its critics --- with Reza in a vocal role --- have worked their expected magic. Days after NYLS's pro-sharia confab, in a Sept. 2 New York Times op-ed, Yale assistant professor Eliyahu Stern dutifully parroted the line of former Harvard Custodian of Two Holy Mosques prof. Frank Vogel, who thinks sharia “quite brilliant.” (On Sept. 3, its shine likewise compelled an unasked Dutch cleric, to “invite” Queen Beatrix to Islam.)
One might think a Yale assistant professor or the Times would check their facts prior to publication. One would be wrong. True enough, over 12 U.S. states are currently considering legislation that would outlaw using laws alien to U.S. foundational precepts in American courts. But Stern misspoke. A “bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote 'the destruction of the national existence of the United States',” he incorrectly groused.
Stern cited the summary of a proposed Tennessee bill version not actually passed into law. The real banana, Material Support to Designated Entities Act of 2011 (House Bill No. 1353), signed into Tennessee law Jun. 16, 2011 to amend its criminal code on terrorism, never once mentions the words “sharia,” “Muslim,” “Islam,” or “Islamic law.” Nor does American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts, House Bill No. 3768, signed into Tennessee Public Chapter 983 in May 2010, to address foreign laws containing discriminatory or unequal precepts or clauses otherwise alien to U.S. and state civil, criminal and Constitutional laws and public policies.Yet --- evidently, without any independent study of sharia --- Stern admonished its U.S. critics to forgo their Constitutional rights to free speech, and worse, allow and accept U.S. court recognition of Islamic law.
But also on Sept. 2, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (ALIC) endorsed Michigan's proposed HB4769 version of American Laws for American Courts.
Though apparently oblivious, in assuming a pro-sharia position, Stern effectively accepted a 7th century sharia dictate intended to suppress second class, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis): Islamic rule prohibits non-Muslims especially, at dire risk, from criticizing Mohammed, Islam or sharia, what most Muslims project as divine, perfect, immutable --- and indivisible --- laws. (Several conference speakers unwittingly echoed Qaradawi and, while lauding sharia, also noted Islam's total ban on its criticism.)
Put another way, the professors want American non-Muslim critics to comply with sharia and shut up.
Many women suffer real “oppression” in Muslim majority lands, for example, especially rape victims living under zina (extra-marital sex) or other sharia statutes, U. of Wisconsin law professor Asifa Quraishi admitted. Yet at every opportunity, including the NYLS conference, Quraishi has pushed hard to integrate sharia for Muslims into U.S. courts. Meanwhile, she's advised international women's rights advocates in Muslim majority countries that they would serve best “not to mention Islamic law at all.”
Quraishi blamed overseas human rights opposition to “sharia legislation (and sharia in general)” for exacerbating the plight of Muslim women. They “created an unwinnable and unnecessary war, of 'sharia vs. women’s rights'.” That again said Muslims will not adapt, and infidels must follow sharia.
Here is the 7th century dictate to second class, non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis), write large: non-Muslims' criticism of Mohammed, Islam or sharia equals blasphemy. Such efforts to silence legitimate discussion render exceedingly troubling any consideration of separate and unequal sharia practices for use in U.S. courts. Already, too many U.S. Muslims ask and expect fellow citizens to censor themselves on sharia-related questions --- or suffer bullying, and name calling best limited to pre-schoolers.
In 19th century Europe, Stern wrote, both political elites and philosophers embraced “fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty.” Immanuel Kant “argued that the particularistic nature of 'Jewish legislation' made Jews 'hostile to all other peoples',” Friedrich Hegel opposed Jewish dietary and other Mosaic laws as limits on an ability to identify with “fellow Prussians” or provide dutiful civil service and Bruno Bauer demanded that Jews renounce private religious rules in exchange for “full legal rights” and citizenship.
However, European Jewish history offers no logical reason for U.S. sharia critics to forgo their “full legal” and Constitutional rights to free speech or to allow Islamic law in secular courts. All citizens, including Muslims, already hold full rights, which no one seeks to revoke. Freedom requires no fixing.
To Muslims, sharia means justice, we're told. Ironically, accepting such law in U.S. courts would create injustice, by making American Muslims more equal than others. They'd get exclusive rights, namely civil court access to religious cannon, not allowed to anyone else. This would substantially differ from the right to privately adhere (within the law) to religious cannon, which America has always allowed. Reinforcing this truth, the courageous U.S. men and women of AILC have clearly enumerated,
“the law should treat people of all faiths equally, while protecting Muslims and non-Muslims alike from extremist attempts to use the legal instrument of shari‘ah (also known as Islamic jurisprudence, or fiqh) to incubate, within the West, a highly politicized and dangerous understanding of Islam that is generally known as “Islamism,” or “radical Islam.”
“We see no evidence that statutes like HB 4769 will adversely impact the free exercise of our personal pietistic observance of Islam, which is not in conflict with the U.S. or Michigan constitutions. We recognize that not only Muslims, but also Jews, Christians and all people of faith need the government to protect their right to peaceful assembly, mediation and arbitration free of coercion, ... within the bounds of American constitutional principles. Therefore, we stand together as a diverse coalition in support of any legislation that serves to protect and integrate our communities into the fabric of this great nation, by strengthening our accountability to the laws of the land, and the constitutions of the various states in which we live.”
If sharia were advanced, progressive, wonderful and “brilliant,” its truth and beauty could withstand all criticism and questions. But sharia raises a major reg flag, in banning free speech and inquiry. How it would play out in the U.S. is perhaps best examined by looks at Britain and Germany, where all sharia's ills stand fully exposed. One needs no PhD or LD to realize that officially accepting any part of a legal system so often demonstrably at odds with our own would, yes, prescribe genuine national disaster.
If anything, intense pressure from closet Muslim radicals for U.S. sanction of sharia should push every state that can to pass its own bill as quickly as possible.
|Liveleak on Facebook|