Firing Line With William F. Buckley- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater: The Future of Conservatism, From 1966

8942

Source: Firing Line With William F. Buckley– Mr. Conservative U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, R. Arizona 

Source: The New Democrat

What I’m going to do with this piece is explain what conservatism is in the political sense which is conservatism at it’s core and what it isn’t. As well as other political factions that use the conservative label and call themselves Conservatives and believe they own the real conservatism. As well as other forms of conservatism like religious conservatism especially Christian Conservatism or cultural conservatism, ( if you prefer ) that might be conservative in a religious or cultural sense, but not in a governmental or constitutional sense.

68065

Source: The National Review– Mr. Conservatives, William F. Buckley & Barry Goldwater 

Cultural or Religious-Conservatives, would like to see the government bigger in some areas, who take anti-conservative pro-statist position on amendment’s like the First and Fourth Amendment’s. And even would like to see the U.S. Constitution amended in some areas like as it relates to the First and Fourth Amendment’s, since the U.S. Supreme Court have consistently ruled against them. Like in areas of speech as it relates to music and other forms of entertainment, pornography. Christian-Conservatives would like to see homosexuality outlawed and for that to happen they need to amend the Fourth Amendment to do that since the U.S. Supreme Court keeps ruling against their anti-homosexuality laws.

36858

Source: AZ Quotes– Mr. Conservative, U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, R. Arizona 

When I’m talking about conservatism, I’m talking about it in a political, constitutional, and governmental sense. The role of government in America based on the U.S. Constitution. Not one’s or others religious and cultural values and believe certain things should be illegal and legal, because of their religious and cultural values, not based on the U.S. Constitution and what the role of government is in a constitutional sense.

20978

Source: Wikipedia– Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater

The American right-wing even before you get to racist groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and others are made into four ideological camps, at least as I see it.

30485

Source: Slide Player– William F. Buckley 

Conservative-Libertarians ( the real Conservatives ) the Barry Goldwater’s of the world. People who I could call the political Conservatives who look at public policy and government through a constitutional sense, not a cultural or religious sense. Who don’t believe their religious and cultural values are so superior over everyone else that their values should be the laws of the land, even if they’re unconstitutional at least with how the Constitution currently reads.

Conservatives are pro-strong national defense, but believe in a limited defense. And don’t believe America can govern and police the world by itself and want to invade other countries because they don’t like who is current in charge of that country. Who believe in fiscal responsibility and that deficits and national debt actually do matter. ( Unlike the current Republican Congress and Administration )

Conservatives believe the U.S. Constitution and fiscal responsibility go together and that one way to keep deficits and the debt from going up is by limiting what government actually tries to do for the people. And doesn’t increase government spending simply because they don’t want to raise taxes or cut spending spending in other areas. And don’t believe borrowing money to meet current political objectives is irresponsible. ( Unlike the current Republican Congress and Administration )

When an actual Conservative like a Barry Goldwater or a Senator Rand Paul or Senator Mike Lee, Senator Jeff Flake, Representative Justin Amash, Representative Adam Kingsinger, and other Republicans in Congress in both chambers, say they believe in individual freedom, you should believe them. They don’t just believe in low taxation and regulations on the wealthy and business’s, religious freedom for Christians, free speech for their political allies.

Conservatives believe in both economic and personal freedom. Believe both in property rights, as well as privacy rights, and free speech and not just political speech, but free speech broadly. That it’s not the job of government to protect people from themselves, even if those actions offends Christian-Conservatives moral and religious values. That people should be free until they hurt innocent people with their freedom.

Conservative-Libertarians obviously don’t represent the entire right-wing in America, just the Center-Right. You have Christian-Conservatives and you even have different factions in the Christian-Conservative movement. You have Christian-Conservatives who are hawkish on defense, believe in low taxation and regulation on business, believe in fiscal responsibility, but also believe that government can be useful and has a role in helping people who are struggling. Both in helping private charities through subsidies and grants, but also through public assistance programs. But who have big government statist positions on social issues. Like free speech as it relates to entertainment, but also sexuality, and other personal choice issues like alcohol and illegal narcotics.

And then there are the Christian-Nationalists or just plain American Nationalists in America, who are just as conservative as the Conservative-Libertarians on economic policy and national defense, but less interventionist and internationalist than the Conservative-Libertarians, But who are as Far-Right as big government on social and cultural issues. Who believe freedom of religion doesn’t apply to Muslims and perhaps other non-Christians, to use as an example. Who believe the right to privacy doesn’t exist and that homosexuality can be outlawed and you don’t need warrants to pickup suspects, especially if they’re suspected of terrorism.

Nationalists tend to have fascist leanings when it comes to the free press and that government can shut down media outlets that they see as Un-American. We’re currently seeing this with how President Trump and his allies deal with media outlets that are critical of the Trump Administration and have reported negative information about President Trump and his Administration.

Nationalists tend to be anti-immigration, at least anti-non-European immigration and in some cases even anti-non-Northern-European immigration. This is basically the Phyllis Schlafly wing of the Republican Party. The best way to describe Nationalist Republicans, is Ron Paul on economic and foreign policy and Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee, the Christian Coalition on social policy. Pro-small government on economic policy, but pro-big government on social policy.

And there are the Neoconservatives on the Right, people who are actually fairly progressive on economic policy. Things like Welfare To Work from the mid 1990s is actually a very Progressive Republican idea. That we as a country should put low-income non-workers, who are currently on public assistance, to work and to school. So they can make a good life for themselves and no longer need public assistance at all. But Neoconservatives also gave us supply side economics from the late 1970s and early 1980s. That now three President’s have put into law. President Reagan, President George W. Bush, and now President Trump. This idea that deep tax cuts for business’s and wealthy individuals, pay for themselves. Which of course has never been proven to be true.

Neoconservatives also gave us the 2003 War in Iraq and have the belief that regimes that pose a threat not just to us or our allies, but to their own people, should be eliminated and that it’s the job of America wipeout authoritarianism and authoritarian regimes, especially if they also fund terrorism. The George W. Bush Administration, is really the only neoconservative administration that we’ve seen in America.

Neoconservatives are also big believers in the public safety net, as long as it’s used through conservative market principles and used to move people out of poverty and into the self-sufficiency. Welfare To Work is a perfect example of that. Neoconservatives also tend to be racially, ethically, and colorblind, pro-immigration. Things along with their approach to the safety net that I tend to respect. They also tend to be hawkish not just on defense but law enforcement as well and tend not to believe in civil liberties.

To ask what it means to be a Conservative, I almost have to answer that with a question. Are you talking about Constitutional Conservatives, ( the Conservative-Libertarians ) are you talking about Christian-Conservatives who look at public policy and cultural sense through a a conservative religious fundamentalist vantage point, are you talking about Neoconservatives who in some cases actually sound very progressive like as it relates to public assistance?

When I think of Conservatives, I think of political Conservatives who are strict believers in limited government based on the U.S. Constitution ( Conservative-Libertarians, if you will ) people who believe in conserving our Constitution and individual rights. Not forcing their religious and cultural values on the rest of the country through the force of law. People who judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin, or their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality.

Firing Line With William F. Buckley: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- The Future of Conservatism, From 1966

Advertisements
Posted in Firing Line | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dick Morris Reports: ‘How a Communist Almost Became President’- Little Dick Strikes Again!

65546

Source: Dick Morris Reports– The National Enquirer’s Chief Political Analyst Dick Morris 

Source: The New Democrat

You can see why Dick Morris is the chief political analyst for The National Enquirer. Hard to imagine how someone could be more qualified to be the chief political analyst for The Enquirer, as Dick Morris. Hard to imagine someone who is looser with the truth than Dick Morris and if anything views the truth as their enemy, than Dick Morris and The National Enquirer. To take Morris seriously about anything relating to politics and current affairs, you would have to be someone who uses The Onion as their main source for news and information.

93196

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica– Democratic Socialist Henry A. Wallace

Henry Wallace was no Communist. He was softer on the Cold War and fighting communism and other authoritarian regimes around the world than Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, but that could be said about a lot of people even on the Right who were Nationalists and believed that it wasn’t America’s business to fight communism and authoritarianism around the world and we should just worry about what goes on in America. Which is the same foreign policy viewpoint that President Donald Trump and his followers have. Whatever you think of President Trump and his followers, they’re sure as hell no Communists, but right-wing Nationalists instead.

Henry Wallace was the George McGovern or Bernie Sanders of his time. Very democratic ( small d ) with his politics, but social democratic/democratic socialist with his politics. Big believer in big centralized big government and that it was the job of the national government to see to it that everyone’s needs were met in society, but not someone looking to nationalize American industries and to wipeout private media especially opposition media that opposes the socialist administration. ( If we were to ever have Socialists running the government in America )

The only things that Dick Morris gets correct in his little video is that Henry Wallace worked for President Franklin Roosevelt. First as Secretary of Agriculture, later Secretary of Commerce, and later Vice President of the United States. As well as being the Progressive Party’s nominee for President in 1948. And Morris is right that the Progressive Party were Far-Left and socialist even and perhaps even had some Communists in it and I would add not very progressive at all.

But Wallace was no Communist and to label Wallace a Communist, would mean that right-wing Nationalists, who were also soft when it came to communism and authoritarianism, because they believe it wasn’t America’s business to be involved in other countries as far as what form of government they have, were then and now also Communists.

Posted in New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Night of The Trailers: Chapter Two 1979- Starring James Caan & Marsha Mason

76807

Source: Night of The Trailers– George Schneider ( played by James Caan ) with a big call

Source: The New Democrat

Chapter Two is becoming one of my favorite movies for several reasons. It stars one of my favorite actors in James Caan and one of my favorite actresses Marsha Mason. I’m also a big fan of Joe Bologna and Valerie Harper. But also because it’s one of those comedies that is also serious. It’s basically a dramatic comedy with some soap opera aspects in it. It’s one of those movies with a lot smart wisecracks but done in a way to get people to think and not just make fun of the situation or people involved, but using critical humor in a very intelligent way. It’s a Neal Simon movie, so you should expect humor like that in it.

92108

Source: Alamy Stock Photo– Hollywood Goddess Marsha Mason & actor James Caan

The whole plot and when the movie comes out, where it takes place, it’s just all great. 1978-79 New York ( depending on when the movie was shot and made ) when divorce and getting restarted romantically in America was becoming a major and mainstream issue for lots of Americans. Where either Americans are getting divorced like in Jennie MacLaine’s case ( played by Marsha Mason ) or losing the love of your life to a premature death in George Schneider’s case ( played by James Caan ) and then trying to figure out how to live single again and what life was like before you were married and then trying to figure out if you want to get involved romantically again.

22856

Source: Alamy Stock Photo– Hollywood Goddess Marsha Mason & actor James Caan

Do you even want to date again and get seriously involved with one person, or even just date several people with several first dates. With your friends putting pressure on you to get back in the dating game ( so to speak ) because they don’t want you to be lonely. Or perhaps as well don’t want to be friends with someone who isn’t seeing anyone, or is even dating. Chapter Two has all of that. Two people who were once married and are now single, but for different reasons, who are put together by their best friends.

34143

Source: The Film Experience– Hollywood Goddess Marsha Mason & actor James Caan

Just the whole scene where Jennie and George start dating again and going out with several people ( not all at once ) is funny and very well-done. Jennie goes out with a guy who his 6’9. Which must of been like blue jay on a date with a golden retriever. The size and height difference is undeniable and unavoidable. Marsha Mason in real-life and in that movie is only 5’2. Which is one of the reasons why she’s so adorable, along with her personality, baby face, and still is. She might have felt the need to stand on a stool when trying to talk to this 6’9 basketball player, just so she could see him and he could hear her. George goes out with a woman who literally wears an electric dress that flashes. Must of been like dating a scoreboard at a football game.

But then the movie gets real good and real when George is put up by his brother of all people, to call and talk to Jennie. They have like three funny phone calls before they even have a pre-date ( as they called it ) where George goes over to Jennie’s apartment just so they can meet and look at each other and talk for a while, which is where George proposes. And if you’re thinking he proposes to marry her, you would be wrong and understandably so, but he proposes to take her out on an actual date. The first hour of this movie is a very good romantic comedy with a lot of great writing and wisecracks. The second hour after they’re married and get back from their honeymoon is very dramatic and heavily emotional.

George has never gotten over losing his first wife and taking his second wife Jennie to the same place he took his first wife for their honeymoon brings back all sorts of memories that his first wife is gone and that he’s never gotten over that and has never been able to express how he feels about losing her. And takes all of that anger and frustration out on Jennie. Basically acts like she’s in his way and doesn’t want her around. Very mean and cruel to her, but not in the sense that he’s violent or throws a lot of horrible insults at her, but just cold and standoffish, aloof in his demeanor with her. But she doesn’t want to lose him and tries to get him to open up. George is an author and he gets his current book done and realizes that he still loves his second wife Jennie and that is where he opens up comes back to life and they live happily ever after. ( As the cliche goes )

This is not a cookie-cutter romantic comedy that became common in the 1990s which still hasn’t gone away where you have a movie that is built around the personalities of the two hot young actors in the movie. The lead actor and actress, where the movie is built around sitcom one-liners and pop culture catch phrases. Chapter Two is an original comedy because it’s creative and clever. With one of the best actors who has ever lived in James Caan and one of the best actresses at least of her generation in Marsha Mason, from one of the best screenplay writers who has ever lived in Neil Simon. Which makes it a great romantic comedy.

Night of The Trailers: Chapter Two 1979- Trailer

Posted in Classic Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

John Birch Society: John W. McManus- ‘Martin Luther King Doesn’t Deserve Adulation’

15efed85-1983-45aa-8d64-b93523eef7f1

Source: Inside JBS– Dr. Martin L. King’s 1963 March on Washington 

Source: The New Democrat Plus

This is how the Far-Right in America who perhaps today would be called the Alt-Right, what I and others call the New-Right of Far-Right right-wing Nationalists and tribalist’s in America who view themselves as the real Americans and everyone else who doesn’t share their cultural, religious, and nationalist views, as the Un-Americans and people who are immoral and in some cases should be in jail, like a lot of Donald Trump’s supporters do, this is how they feel about the great and unfortunately late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King.

From The John Birch Society

“Earlier this month, a flood of reminders about the death of Martin Luther King as all elements of the mass media told Americans about the anniversary of a gunman killing this paragon of virtue and bravery on April 4, 1968. The reports insisted that King was the nation’s most eminent apostle of nonviolence, a heroic advocate of peace in our nation’s racially turbulent era, and an exponent of all virtues. The truth is that King was a highly flawed individual whose actual strategy for change wasn’t peace. The strategy he relied on consisted mainly of a process he had learned from known communists, whose indisputable goal was the destruction of our nation. Mrs. Julia Brown, who went undercover for the FBI for more than nine years as a member of the Communist Party in Cleveland, Ohio, gives a testament to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s connection to the Communist Party:

I learned many surprising things while I served in the Communist Party for the FBI. Communist leaders told us about the demonstrations that would be started, the protest marches, the demands that would be made for massive federal intervention.

… Wherever we went and whatever we did, we were to promote race consciousness and resentment, because the Communists know that the technique of divide and conquer really works.

We were also told to promote Martin Luther King, to unite Negroes and whites behind him, and to turn him into some sort of national hero.”

J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI believed the same things about Dr. King, or that’s what they claimed that Dr. King’s movement was being infiltrated by Communists as part of Communist Party USA. That this wasn’t about an equal and civil rights movement for African-Americans, but about some Communist conspiracy to take over the U.S. Government and replace it with a Communist State. That they were supporters of Fidel Castro, instead of young Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, who were simply trying to defeat racism under law. And create a society where all Americans constitutional rights are enforced equally regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.

The Far-Right in America and that includes groups like The John Birch Society and the militant violent factions of that movement like the Ku Klux Klan, are smart enough today that if the debate becomes about whether non-European-Americans should have the same rights as European-Americans, of course they will lose that debate and were already starting to lose that debate by the mid 1960s.

But if they can make the debate about good guys meaning them the real Americans, against criminals and terrorists and Communists who are supposed to be the civil rights marchers and activists, they might win that debate and seem like the reasonable people in that debate. And argue, “that the civil rights activists don’t want civil rights and equal rights, they want communism instead. So of course the FBI and other law enforcement agencies should monitor and arrest these people and even use violence agains them, because they’re Communists.”

This line of Far-Right thinking ( if you want to be generous and call it thinking ) has already been debunked. There were Communists that were part of the civil rights movement, but they were just Communist ideologues, not activists looking to overthrow the U.S. Government, but instead people who had Communist beliefs but were marching for civil rights for African-Americans and other minorities in America who were discriminated against. To say that the civil rights movement was really a Communist movement in disguise, is an old Joe McCarthy tactic from the 1950s known as guilt by association. “That if you know Communists, or have even had one conversation with them, you must be a Communist yourself.” Which is simply a form of right-wing fascism.

Posted in New Right | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AHC: Mafia’s Greatest Hits- Sam Giancana

b6db5207-12aa-4c02-8c69-6f954dcb8bf6

Source: AHC– John F. Kennedy

Source: The New Democrat

Sam Giancana to me at least was a real life Hollywood gangster. He is the gangster that we see in a lot of the Hollywood Italian Mafia movies the gangster in charge who made all the decisions as it related to his crime family the one guy you couldn’t afford to have on your case because it meant your life would literally be on the line. Whether you were a gangster yourself who even worked for his crime family, an associate who did business with his crime family. And of course any law enforcement agent of investigator who was trying to bring Giancana and his family down. Or a politician who was somewhat crooked at least in the sense that they relied on organize crime family power and influence to get reelected or elected to the next office.

The Kennedy Family especially Joe sr. is a perfect example of that. Joe’s son Jack, doesn’t get elected President in 1960 had he not just won Illinois but Chicago as well. Which is a big reason why Sam Giancana and his crime family hated the Kennedy Administration so much when they came into power in the early 1960s, especially Attorney General Bob Kennedy but his brother President Jack Kennedy, because Giancana felt betrayed by The Kennedy’s when the U.S. Justice Department started their war on organized crime led by Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General in the early 1960s. Since Giancana had a major role in seeing that Jack Kennedy won Chicago and Illinois in 1960. He felt the The Kennedy’s owed him and would say out of his way and let him run his crime business.

Sam Giancana was more than just a Hollywood gangster in the sense that he looked like the gangster that we tend to see in gangster movies. Similar to Benjamin Bugsy Siegel the famous Jewish gangster who had a big role in Las Vegas being what it is today, Giancana had friends in Hollywood. Frank Sinatra, Joe Kennedy who was a major investor in Hollywood films. Giancana liked being around entertainers especially Hollywood entertainers and wanted to party with them and hang out with them. As ruthless a killer that Giancana was Phyllis McGuire who was a Hollywood actress, was one of Giancan’s girlfriends. She was a gorgeous Hollywood actress and Giancana was a gangster and a killer, a little man in stature and yet they fell for each other.

Sam Giancana and his crime family, also represent the best and perhaps only legitimate alternative theory to Lee H. Oswald being the lone killer and conspirator in the JFK assassination. Because they had the access, influence, and all the motives in the world to assassinate President Kennedy because of what President Kennedy’s Justice Department led by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, were doing to bring down organized crime in America with Giancana being one of their major targets. Giancana was no John Gotti. So much smarter and more powerful than Gotti. Giancana was a survivor who never served much time at all in prison and had one of the longest and most powerful carriers in organized crime.

AHC: Mafia’s Greatest Hits- Sam Giancana

Posted in Organized Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Charlemagne Dumdum Calotes: Race For The White House- Richard Nixon vs John Kennedy 1960

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

1960 between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, was one of the last presidential elections in America that was about ideas, vision, experience, and qualifications. Instead of having two unlikable candidates who know they’re unlikable and unpopular and use that to defeat their opponents. Going back to really 1996 and perhaps 1992, American presidential elections have been about destroying the other side instead of winning the election. And telling American voters, “we know you don’t like us, but you should hate our opponents more and this is why.” Where winning presidential elections has become about and has been about for a generation now negative adverting and campaigning. The campaign that runs the best negative ads and makes the best negative arguments agains their opponent, tends to win.

Instead of winning elections because your opponent is more qualified, has better experience, better ideas, better vision, more forward looking, more likable as an individual. In 1960 America had two great choices. Two very bright well-educated presidential candidates, who both wanted to be President and both knew why. Both had something positive to offer Americans. And of course there was negative advertising and campaigning between Dick Nixon and Jack Kennedy. but that wasn’t what their campaigns was about.

Vice President Nixon offered American four more years of what was already working from the Eisenhower Administration. Senator Kennedy was offering Americans a new generation of leadership and new way of thinking. That the U.S. Government needed to new leadership to deal with the challenges of the 1960s. Americans had a real choice of either sticking with what was working ( according to the Eisenhower Administration ) or move in a different direction and deal with issues like civil rights for all Americans, health care for senior citizens, and other issues.

1960 to me is what presidential elections should be about, at least within the two-party system. Putting the two best candidates that America has to offer, or at least the best Democrat and Republican against each other. With both candidates offering why they should be President, instead of arguing why their opponent shouldn’t be President. And because America is so divided not just politically, but culturally, and now even ethnically and racially, having a positive presidential election doesn’t seem possible anymore. At least not with the two-party system.

Charlemagne Dumdum Calotes: Race For The White House- John Kennedy vs Richard Nixon 1960

Posted in Richard Nixon | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mob Video Vault: Jacob Leonard Rubenstein- Jack Ruby: Conspiracy

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

There all sorts of wild eye conspiracy theories ranging from the Far-Left people who think either Vice President Lyndon Johnson or the CIA, perhaps Far-Rightists in Dallas who hated President John Kennedy because of his stances on civil rights, as well as people on the fringe Libertarian-Right who believe the CIA murdered President Kennedy, to people on the Far-Right who believed multiple Communists including Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy. Conspiracies that sound like they’re not just from out of this planet, but from a different universe. Perhaps aliens from Planet Zolkon of whatever the hell sic-fi fictional planet would be called, looking down on Planet Earth and seeing what’s going on in Dallas, Texas in America in 1963 when President Kennedy is assassinated, with their own wild eye conspiracy theories.

Some of these crazy conspiracy theories are from crazy people, or at least people who lost touch with Planet Earth and are now doing their thinking on other planets. But some of these conspiracy theories are simply just made up in order to profit from them. Sell books, articles, documentaries, movies, etc. And I’m thinking of Roger Stone on the Libertarian-Right who has floated the conspiracy theory that Vice President Lyndon Johnson, ordered the assassination of President Kennedy. To the Oliver Stone’s of the world on the Far-Left, who claim the JFK assassination was an inside job conducted by the National Security State either the CIA or FBI, was behind the assassination of President Kennedy. As well as people on the Far-Left who believe that racist Southern right-wingers in Texas, were responsible for President Kennedy’s assassination.

The only alternative theory to the official U.S. Government theory being that Lee Harvey Oswald was not only the killer and assassinated President Kennedy, but he was all by himself and had absolutely no help, is the theory that organized crime especially the Italian Mafia in Dallas and perhaps Chicago as well, Chicago especially who hated President Kennedy and the Kennedy’s Administration’s crackdown on organized crime in America led by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, were behind the assassination of President Kennedy. That if they didn’t take President Kennedy out, they could be out of business all together in the 1960s because the Justice Department would put them out of business. Bob Kennedy and his Justice Department, deserves a lot of credit for putting the Italian Mafia out of business in America. Not completely but they’re no longer powerful in America. They’re also responsible thanks to the FBI, for the Ku Klux Klan being as weak as they are now as well.

The best alternative theory out there is that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin in the JFK assassination and wanted President Kennedy dead because Kennedy as a Liberal Democrat was a strong anti-communist. But that since the Italian Mafia also wanted Kennedy dead not because they were Communists because of course they weren’t, that they worked with Lee Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy. And that perhaps there was a freak out once the assassination was completed either from Lee Oswald who is now in jail at this point because of his crime and it’s now sinking into him what he actually had done, or the mob is now freaking out because they’re worried that Oswald will talk and implicate the Dallas Mafia and perhaps Chicago Mafia’s into the JFK assassination as well.

Jack Ruby who was a Dallas nightclub owner and businessman, but who had ties to the Italian Mafia in Dallas and perhaps Chicago as well, murdered Lee Oswald just days after President Kennedy is assassinated. He murders Lee Oswald and is arrested for it literally right after he kills Oswald and was literally able to just walk up to Oswald and shoot him in the chest. Why was he able to do that? Why was the Dallas PD security so weak when attempting to move the loan suspect in the JFK assassination from the Dallas jail to the court house. Jack Ruby had connections not just with the mob , but with cops on the Dallas PD. So maybe he’s able to pull this murder off because his friends on the police force let him in to get the clearance to shoot Oswald. Whether this is true or not we of course don’t no, but it is a reasonable theory and alternative to the official theory that Lee Oswald was all by himself in assassinating President Kennedy.

Mob Video Vault: Jacob Leonard Rubenstein- Jack Ruby: Conspiracy

Posted in JFK Assassination | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment