Top image: 

While much has been said about how the CIA hired Mafia people to murder President John Kennedy in 1963.And John Kennedy Jr.,was murdered by the CIA in 1999,because he was going to run in the 2000 NewYork Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton for the U.S.Senate seat.And had he become a Senator John Kennedy Jr. would have become President in 2004 or 2008.And a President John Kennedy Jr.,would have withdrawn all the troops from Afghanistan and Iraq by 2005 or 2009.And had John Kennedy Jr. been President COVID-19 wouldn’t’ve happened.There is additional information about the murders of President John Kennedy,John Kennedy Jr.,the alleged feud between President John Kennedy and former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.And how John Kennedy Jr. allegedly didn’t get along with his cousins.
Under this text is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on President John Kennedy’s alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald With my comments explaining everything.
Marine Corps

Oswald as a U.S. Marine in 1956.
Oswald enlisted in the United States Marine Corps on October 24, 1956, just a week after his seventeenth birthday; because of his age, his brother Robert Jr. was required to sign as his legal guardian. Oswald also named his mother and his half-brother John as beneficiaries.[31] Oswald idolized his older brother Robert Jr.,[32] and wore his Marine Corps ring.[33] John Pic (Oswald's half-brother) testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald's enlistment was motivated by wanting "to get from out and under ... the yoke of oppression from my mother".[34]
Oswald's enlistment papers recite that he was 5 feet 8 inches (1.73 meters) tall and weighed 135 pounds (61 kg), with hazel eyes and brown hair.[31] His primary training was in radar operation, which required a security clearance. A May 1957 document stated that he was "granted final clearance to handle classified matter up to and including confidential after careful check of local records had disclosed no derogatory data".[35]
Slightly built, Oswald was nicknamed Ozzie Rabbit after the cartoon character; he was also called Oswaldskovich[41] because he espoused pro-Soviet sentiments. In November 1958, Oswald transferred back to El Toro[42] where his unit's function "was to serveil [sic] for aircraft, but basically to train both enlisted men and officers for later assignment overseas". An officer there said that Oswald was a "very competent" crew chief and was "brighter than most people".[43][44]
While Oswald was in the Marines, he taught himself rudimentary Russian. Although this was an unusual endeavor,(IF IT WAS UNUSUAL FOR A U.S.MARINE TO TEACH HIMSELF RUSSIAN.WHY WAS HE ALLOWED TO DO IT?”) on February 25, 1959, he was invited to take a Marine proficiency exam in written and spoken Russian. His level at the time was rated "poor" in understanding spoken Russian, though he fared rather reasonably for a Marine private at the time in reading and writing.[45] (WHY WAS OSWALD WHILE IN THE MARINES INVITED TO TAKE AN EXAM IN RUSSIAN.UNLESS THE PLAN WAS TO MOVE OSWALD FROM THE MARINES TO THE CIA,WHERE OSWALD WOULD SPY ON RUSSIANS AND JOIN THE FOREIGN SERVICE.)
On September 11, 1959, he received a hardship discharge from active service, claiming his mother needed care. He was placed on the United States Marine Corps Reserve.[21][46][47]
Adult life and early crimes
Defection to the Soviet Union
Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union just before he turned 20 in October 1959. He had taught himself Russian and saved $1,500 of his Marine Corps salary (equivalent to $10,500 in 2019).[n 3] Oswald spent two days with his mother in Fort Worth, then embarked by ship on September 20 from New Orleans to Le Havre, France, and immediately traveled to the United Kingdom. Arriving in Southampton on October 9, he told officials he had $700 and planned to stay for one week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. However, on the same day, he flew to Helsinki. In Helsinki, he checked-in at the Hotel Torni, room 309, then moved to Hotel Klaus Kurki, room 429.[48] He was issued a Soviet visa on October 14. Oswald left Helsinki by train on the following day, crossed the Soviet border at Vainikkala, and arrived in Moscow on October 16.[49] His visa, valid only for a week, was due to expire on October 21.[50]
Almost immediately after arriving, Oswald informed his Intourist guide of his desire to become a Soviet citizen. When asked why by the various Soviet officials he encountered — all of whom, by Oswald's account, found his wish incomprehensible — he said that he was a communist, and gave what he described in his diary as "vauge [sic] answers about 'Great Soviet Union'".[50] (EITHER OSWALD DECIDED HE WAS A COMMUNIST WHO WANTED TO BECOME A CITIZEN OF THE SOVIET UNION OR OSWALD WAS SPYING ON THE RUSSIANS FOR THE CIA.WHICH IS WHY THE RUSSIANS COULDN’T FIGURE OUT WHY OSWALD WANTED TO JOIN THEM.OSWALD WAS STILL A MEMBER OF THE U.S. MILITARY RESERVES)
On October 21, the day his visa was due to expire, he was told that his citizenship application had been refused, and that he had to leave the Soviet Union that evening. Distraught, Oswald inflicted a minor but bloody wound to his left wrist in his hotel room bathtub soon before his Intourist guide was due to arrive to escort him from the country, according to his diary because he wished to kill himself in a way that would shock her.[50]
On October 31, Oswald appeared at the United States embassy in Moscow and declared a desire to renounce his U.S. citizenship.[53][54] "I have made up my mind", he said; "I'm through."[55] He told the U.S. embassy interviewing officer, Richard Edward Snyder, that "he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps and that he had voluntarily stated to unnamed Soviet officials that as a Soviet citizen he would make known to them such information concerning the Marine Corps and his specialty as he possessed. He intimated that he might know something of special interest."[56] Such statements led to Oswald's hardship/honorable military reserve discharge being changed to undesirable.[57] The story of the defection of a former U.S. Marine to the Soviet Union was reported by both the Associated Press and United Press International.[58][59] (DOWNGRADING OSWALD WHO WAS NOW A U.S. MILITARY RESERVE MEMBER TO AN UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGE WOULD CONVINCE THE RUSSIANS HE REALLY WAS ANTI-AMERICAN IF YOU NEED OSWALD TO GO BACK TO RUSSIA AND SPY ON THE RUSSIANS FOR THE CIA.)
Though Oswald had wanted to attend Moscow State University, he was sent to Minsk, Belarus, to work as a lathe operator at the Gorizont Electronics Factory, which produced radios, televisions, and military and space electronics. Stanislau Shushkevich, who later became independent Belarus's first head of state, was also engaged by Gorizont at the time[clarification needed], and was assigned to teach Oswald Russian.[60] Oswald received a government-subsidized, fully furnished studio apartment in a prestigious building and an additional supplement to his factory pay, which allowed him to have a comfortable standard of living by working-class Soviet standards,[61] though he was kept under constant surveillance.[62]
Oswald wrote in his diary in January 1961: "I am starting to reconsider my desire about staying. The work is drab, the money I get has nowhere to be spent. No nightclubs or bowling alleys, no places of recreation except the trade union dances. I have had enough."[84] Shortly afterwards, Oswald (who had never formally renounced his U.S. citizenship) wrote to the Embassy of the United States, Moscow requesting the return of his American passport, and proposing to return to the U.S. if any charges against him would be dropped.[85]
One of Oswald's co-workers, Charles Givens, testified to the Commission that he last saw Oswald on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) at approximately 11:55 a.m., which was 35 minutes before the motorcade entered Dealey Plaza.[n 8] The Commission report stated that Oswald was not seen again "until after the shooting".[173] However, in an FBI report taken the day after the assassination, Givens said that the encounter took place at 11:30 a.m. and that he saw Oswald reading a newspaper in the first floor domino room at 11:50 a.m, 20 minutes later.[174][175] William Shelley, a foreman at the depository, also testified that he saw Oswald making a phone call on the first floor between 11:45 and 11:50 a.m.[176] Janitor Eddie Piper also testified that he spoke to Oswald on the first floor at 12:00 p.m.[177] Another co-worker, Bonnie Ray Williams, was eating his lunch on the sixth floor of the depository and was there until at least 12:10 p.m.[178] He said that during that time, he did not see Oswald, or anyone else, on the sixth floor and thought that he was the only person up there.[179] However, he also said that some boxes in the southeast corner may have prevented him from seeing deep into the "sniper's nest".[180] Carolyn Arnold, the secretary to the Vice President of the TSBD, informed the FBI that as she left the building to watch the motorcade, she caught a glimpse of a man whom she believed to be Oswald standing in the first floor hallway of the building just prior to the assassination.[181][n 9]

As Kennedy's motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza at about 12:30 p.m. on November 22, Oswald fired three rifle shots from the sixth-floor window of the book depository,[182] killing the President and seriously wounding Texas Governor John Connally.
The Chicago Tribune on December 19,2007 reported that back in 1933,Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak,was in Miami,Florida visiting with President Elect Franklin Roosevelt.Presidents didn’t take office until March or April backthen.And Cermak while standing by a car with the topdown that Franklin Roosevelt was sitting in,was shot.Cermak was allegedly a Roosevelt enemy.And while the Tribune claims the shot was intended for Roosevelt,only Cermak and someother people were shot.The relatives of Chicago Mafia boss Sam Giancanna,in the 1991 book,”Double Cross”,quote Giancanna as saying the Chicago Mafia killed Cermak for Roosevelt.And since Cermak was shot while standing next to a car with the topdown,while President John Kennedy in 1963 was shot while riding in a car with the top down as gunshots allegedly came from the open window of the Texas school book depository.The Chicago Mafia according to Giancanna shot President Kennedy while riding in a car with the topdown for the CIA.
Since the CIA is mostly Republicans but the one Democratic family that backwhen the CIA was just the OSS put together the plan that lead to Democrat President Harry Truman creating the CIA in 1948,were the Roosevelts.The Roosevelts are a Democratic family that got along with the CIA.
A President of the United States who was a Democrat John Kennedy is murdered the sameway that enemies of fellow Democrat Franklin Roosevelt are murdered,it is bizarre.Under this text is the excerpt from the Chicago Tribune about how Anton Cermak was killed.And the excerpt from Wikipedia about how when Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly fired the gunshots out of an Open window in the Texas School Book Depository,the gunshots hit President John Kennedy who was riding in a car with the topdown,and if that’s not where the gunshots came from in 1963,because of the 1933 shooting of Cermak having Kennedy murdered while riding in a car with the topdown,even if the gunshots came from somewhere else,meant a murder being done that is similar to what they did in 1933.
Anton Cermak, who created Chicago's Democratic machine, is shot while talking with the president-elect. Cermak died within a month.
Two notable immigrants stood in the crowd when President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt emerged from a yacht in Miami on this date after a fishing trip in the Bahamas.One was Chicago Mayor Anton J. Cermak, a Bohemian-born politician who was the master builder of the city's Democratic Party.
The other was Giuseppe Zangara, an Italian immigrant with a ferocious hatred for politicians and their governments.
After a short speech, Roosevelt sat atop the back seat of a convertible and motioned Cermak to his side.
As the two spoke privately, Zangara raised a handgun and began shooting. He was aiming for Roosevelt, but he hit Cermak and four others. The crowd collapsed on Zangara, wrestling the gun from his hands and beating him.
Cermak was helped into Roosevelt's car, which sped to the hospital. During that ride, with Roosevelt at his side, Cermak uttered his famous line: "I am glad it was me instead of you."
One shot apparently missed the presidential limousine entirely, another struck both Kennedy and Connally, and a third bullet struck Kennedy in the head,[183] killing him. Bystander James Tague received a minor facial injury from a small piece of curbstone that had fragmented after it was struck by one of the bullets.
Witness Howard Brennan was sitting across the street from the Texas School Book Depository and watching the motorcade go by. He notified police that he heard a shot come from above and looked up to see a man with a rifle fire another shot from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor. He said he had seen the same man minutes earlier looking through the window.[184] Brennan gave a description of the shooter,[185] and Dallas police subsequently broadcast descriptions at 12:45 p.m., 12:48 p.m., and 12:55 p.m.[186] After the second shot was fired, Brennan recalled, "This man I saw previous[ly] was aiming for his last shot ... and maybe paused for another second as though to assure himself that he had hit his mark."[187]
Why would anyone consider fellow Democrat President John Kennedy to be a Roosevelt enemy?I included in this article Three pictures A picture of President John Kennedy riding in a car with the topdown in Ireland in 1963 before his murder,proof the Secret Service knew how to protect him when he rode in a car with the topdown.And the fact President John Kennedy was in a car with the topdown in Ireland in 1963 and that day he wasn’t shot,means the CIA and the Chicago Mafia people hired by the CIA to kill Kennedy,may have had him ride in a car with the topdown in Ireland,as a chance to assess how easy it would be to shoot Kennedy while in a car with the topdown later in another place.
The picture of Kennedy in Ireland came from a Wikipedia page on President John Kennedy.A picture of Franklin Roosevelt when he was President riding in a car with the topdown along with his wife Eleanor and his daughter Anna.The way Franklin Roosevelt is holding a hat in his hand,the way Eleanor is wearing a hat,besides the fact the Secret Service protected Roosevelt when he rode in a car with the topdown,was Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor Roosevelt signalling on a political enemy.Proof that ever since the 1930's Eleanor Roosevelt signalled on political enemies.This picture of Franklin Roosevelt,Eleanor Roosevelt,and Anna Roosevelt came from a Wikipedia page on Anna Roosevelt.
And a picture of a form that was sent to me by the U.S.Copyright Office in 2010 while I Andy Freedman,Andrew Freedman am alive the form says,"Andrew Michael Freedman Yearborn 1975 Yeardied 2010",this form from the U.S. Copyright Office says I died in 2010 it was sent to me while I was on a list of U.S.Government critics.I then received an E-mail from the U.S.Copyright Office saying they knew I was alive and a mistake had been made and a newform would be sent to me,the new form wasn't sent to me until 6 yearslater in 2010.

In 1929 the U.S.Stockmarket crashed.America was a country with No Childlabor laws,9,10 yearold kids unfortunately manytimes worked in factories.There was no Social Security for the hungry old people.There was apartheid legal segregation against Black people in the South.And under the table segregation with some laws against African-Americans in the North.Women had just 9 years ago gotten the right to vote,because of an amendment that was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1920.
Franklin Roosevelt was elected President of the United States in 1932,Roosevelt took office in 1933.Roosevelt passed a law saying no one could be hired for a job,unless they were at least 16 years of age.And using Federal Government taxmoney every community would have a Public school and every parent could choose to send their kid to a free Public nonreligious school or a private religious school.And every person backthen it was 65 years of age,once they were 65 would get Social Security,today it maybe 66.
Besides passing the necessary Government programs,so America survived as a country and children and Elderly people were not mistreated.Franklin Roosevelt took America to war against Adolph Hitler.
However critics of Franklin Roosevelt say that,while 6 million Jewish people were murdered by Adolph Hitler.Hitler was the head of Germany from 1933-45.Before the Nazi Genocide began,a boatload of German-Jews while Roosevelt was President were sent back to Germany.And segregation against African-Americans continued while Roosevelt was President.
And while Roosevelt,the former Governor of NewYork’s,Presidential retreat from the Washington D.C. Whitehouse was WarmSprings,Georgia.There were lynchings of African-Americans in Georgia while Roosevelt was President.And Japanese-Americans who committed no crime,were unjustly just because they were Asian put in what really were concentration camps in America.Eventhough unlike the Nazi’s America,despite stealing from and unjustly incarcerating Japanese-Americans,did not murder them.
But in the 1984 movie,”The Karate kid”,.The character Mr.Miyagi a man born in Japan,lived in America bravely served in World WarII on the American side.And Mr.Miyagi’s wife and son during childbirth died in a concentration camp for Japanese-Americans in California.Fiction is another way of reporting reality.
But many people believed due to pressure from the Republicans,Democrat Roosevelt had no choice but to sign something that lead to the Japanese-Americans unfortunately being put in concentration camps.And Roosevelt couldn’tve ended segregation against African-Americans because it was the 1930’s and the votes weren’t there to do it.
And besides fighting Hitler,Roosevelt appointed a Jewishman to the U.S.Supreme Court.
And America wouldn’t be a country today,if Roosevelt hadn’t banned child labor and created Social Security.
Joseph P.Kennedy was appointed by Roosevelt to be the ambassador to England.Joseph P.Kennedy offended many people by making what were considered to be Pro-Hitler comments.The Prime Minister of England Winston Churchill hated Joe Kennedy here is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article about Joesph P. Kennedy.
Kennedy rejected the belief of Winston Churchill that any compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible. Instead, he supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. Throughout 1938, while the Nazi persecution of the Jews in Germany intensified, Kennedy attempted to arrange a meeting with Adolf Hitler.[40] Shortly before the Nazi bombing of British cities began in September 1940, Kennedy once again sought a personal meeting with Hitler without the approval of the U. S. Department of State, in order to "bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany".[41]
While Joe Kennedy was accused of being Pro-Hitler.John Kennedy who was a college student at Harvard,disagreed with his father views.John Kennedy sometimes visited his fathers ambassador office in England.But despite spending time in the British office of his father,the Pro-Hitler ambassador.John Kennedy wrote a paper at Harvard,saying he felt England should have fought Hitler earlier.Once America finally fought Hitler in 1941,Joe Kennedy had been fired allegedly because Roosevelt was outraged that Joe Kennedy didn’t want to go to war against Hitler.Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on how John Kennedy was always against Hitler.
When Kennedy was an upperclassman at Harvard, he began to take his studies more seriously and developed an interest in political philosophy. He made the dean's list in his junior year.[32] In 1940 Kennedy completed his thesis, "Appeasement in Munich", about British negotiations during the Munich Agreement. The thesis eventually became a bestseller under the title Why England Slept.[33] In addition to addressing Britain's unwillingness to strengthen its military in the lead-up to World War II, the book also called for an Anglo-American alliance against the rising totalitarian powers. Kennedy became increasingly supportive of U.S. intervention in World War II, and his father's isolationist beliefs resulted in the latter's dismissal as ambassador to the United Kingdom. This created a split between the Kennedy and Roosevelt families.
From there while it has been alleged that once Roosevelt took America to war,to cover how Pro-Hitler he had been Joe Kennedy wanted his sons to fight Hitler.Both John and Joe Kennedy Jr.,sincerely fought against and opposed the Nazis.Joe Kennedy Jr. had according to Arthur Schlesinger Jr.,been a member of an Isolationists club at Harvard.But once Joe Jr. joined the military,Joe Jr. disliked Hitler and fought against him.Joe Kennedy Jr. was killed in a planecrash.John Kennedy served in the Navy and fought against the Nazi’s.
And once John Kennedy became President in 1961,a man who agreed with everything Eleanor Roosevelt said about how terrible it was Joe Kennedy Sr.supported Hitler,was President.So since President John Kennedy supported Israel and fought the Nazi’s himself.Other then disliking someone for who their father is,Eleanor Roosevelt the former First lady who was still alive had no reason to dislike John Kennedy.
But writer Gore Vidal said in numerous interviews that Eleanor Roosevelt disliked John Kennedy and Wikipedia said Eleanor Roosevelt supported John Kennedy for President in 1960 with reservations.And since Franklin Roosevelt had passed away back in 1945,Eleanor Roosevelt who served as a United Nations Delegate from 1945-1952,was the former First Lady who’s support a Democratic President needed to be considered,”The next Roosevelt”.
In December 1961 11 months after John Kennedy became President,Joe Kennedy Sr.suffered a stroke and was partially paralyzed.Eleanor Roosevelt had influence on how other Democrats responded to John Kennedy.A Liberal Democrat,who supported Civil Rights for Black people just like Eleanor Roosevelt,supported Israel just like Eleanor Roosevelt,fought the Nazi’s,had Jewish members of his administration and disagreed with his father Joe Kennedy Sr.’s views,was who John Kennedy was.And Eleanor Roosevelt understood that John Kennedy would have to let his father make some money off of his Presidency.So what reason would Eleanor Roosevelt have to dislike John Kennedy?
In 1961 and 1962,everyone knew the unjust segregation against African-Americans would have to end.Some people had the idea that if America had to integrate,while passing Civil Rights legislation,America would go to war in Cuba or Vietnam.And use the war abroad to limit Civil Liberties further at home.This was the racist idea,that if Black people were going to be allowed in the same restaurants as White people,that’s at least limit Civil Liberties in other areas so a society that has to include everyone isn’t so free.
As for the issue of Vietnam.In 1945 the Vietnamese Asians who had been occupied by the French and the Pro-Hitler Japanese Government.The Vietnamese Asians who had fought on the allied side against the Nazis,called for their own National Independence.
Because no one was going to give them money,for the cause of making the French leave there country.According to my Adelphi University Professor Lester Baltimore,the Vietnamese took money from Communist Russia.When Ho Chi Minh the leader of the Vietnamese sent a Vietnamese Declaration of Independence to America in 1945.Someone said the reason why in this document Ho Chi Minh begins by quoting the U.S.Declaration of Independence but then says the other things that he said,is because Ho Chi Minh is signalling that while they are called Communists and they are Russian funded.That if America would help the Vietnamese set up a Democratic Socialist Country.A country with Catholic Churches,Buddhist Temples,Two names on the ballot for President,For profit business’s,but freeland and free money for a bunch of the poor people,that maybe the Independent Vietnam would be on the American side.But while they know they can get along with the Vietnamese they don’t care.They want to eventually if they intervene in Vietnam,set up a NonCommunist dictatorship so they can economically take what they want from the Vietnamese,while not having to give them equalrights an Asian puppet will rule over the Vietnamese.
This meant that once the Vietnam War began.It was a crazy situation where if America won,Vietnam would be a NonCommunist dictatorship with no freedom for the Vietnamese.
If the Vietnamese won,Vietnam would either be a Democratic-Socialist country with Two names on the ballot for President,Catholic Churches, Buddhist Temples,For profit business’s,Private property,Freeland and Free money for the poor people.Or the Vietnamese after winning the war might impose a Communist dictatorship on their own people which would be just as horrible and unfree for the Vietnamese people,but it would be the Vietnamese victimizing themselves.Despite taking Russian money a NonCommunist Vietnam,could get allies so Russia couldn’t do anything about them being NonCommunist,France and England have nuclear weapons.And America despite having it’s soldiers killed fighting them,would want to do business with a NonCommunist Vietnam.So if after winning he wanted to,Ho Chi Minh without another war could make Vietnam,a NonCommunist Democratic-Socialis t country.
President John Kennedy’s idea was the American advisors in Vietnam would be withdrawn.America would offer to help Vietnam set up a NonCommunist Democratic country that really is Democratic-Socialist.And either Vietnam would be a Democracy or if Vietnam turned the offer down and unfortunately set up a Communist dictatorship,Kennedy would then increase America’s defense budget the way Reagan did but not go to war with anyone.And One country Vietnam would unfortunately go Communist,but no other countries would go Communist.
So Vietnam would be how it has been since 1975 the only difference is 60,000 American soldiers wouldn’tve been killed,Cambodia’s NonCommunist Government wouldn’tve been overthrown by the Communist Pol Pot,when the Cambodian people responded to the American bombing of Cambodia.And the Cambodian Genocide under Pol Pot would have been prevented,but unfortunately Vietnam would still be the way it has been since 1975.Under that worst possible scenario it still would have been better for America not to have gone to war in Vietnam.And we ourselves were trying to set up a dictatorship over there also.
As for Civil Rights for Black people.It was while John Kennedy was President,that the National Guard of a Southern state was Federalized to admit African-American students to a University.And while John Kennedy didn’t pass major Civil Rights legislation while alive.
In 1962 John Kennedy went on TV and said that the scriptures of every major religion say that segregation against African-Americans is wrong.This was the First step in Kennedy’s Public relations campaign to convince the American people segregation was immoral.In 1963 while John Kennedy was President the March on Washington D.C. was held.Martin Luther King Jr.,gave his,”I Have a Dream”,speech.And after Dr.King and the other speakers at the march on Washington D.C.,were invited to the Whitehouse. The majority of Americans now supported ending segregation,ending apartheid against African-Americans.
John Kennedy said he had written up a bill to give Black people the right to eat in the same restaurants as White people in the South and everywhere else.But if Kennedy sent it to Congress he would lose the upcoming 1964 election.So after the 1964 election in 1965 he would get the CivilRights bill passed.And he already had his brother the U.S.Attorney General Robert Kennedy advise a Whiteman and a BlackWoman to use the ACLU to file a lawsuit calling for the legalization of Black-White marriage in all 50 states,so the Black-White marriage ban would fall.
Eleanor Roosevelt passed away on November 7, 1962.Eleanor Roosevelt was at the time on a Presidential commission on the status of Women that President John Kennedy appointed her to.In 1998 when I was at Adelphi University my History Professor David Rubenstein,wanted us to write a paper on a Historical figure.
Because of the belief I had backthen that President John Kennedy supported CivilRights for Black people in the early 1960’s.But it was John Kennedy’s brother U.S.Attorney General Robert Kennedy,who I believed when he became the U.S.Senator from NewYork in 1964 and ran for President in 1968,was the major supporter of CivilRights for African-Americans,ending poverty,and ending a war Vietnam,that his brother opposed.I did my report on Robert Kennedy using Jack Newfield’s book,”Robert Kennedy a Memoir”,as a source.Professor Rubenstein said something other people had said before.Professor Rubenstein said that Eleanor Roosevelt had a Lesbian relationship with another Woman.
Because Eleanor Roosevelt had been involved in Lesbian relationships ever since the 1930’s.And Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed as a U.N. ambassador in the 1940’s and 1950’s,even if people weren’t perfect,no one would have done anything to Eleanor Roosevelt just because she was a Lesbian.So the onlyway anyone did anything to Eleanor Roosevelt.The only way Marilyn Monroe who was having an affair with President Kennedy,would have been used to do anything to Eleanor Roosevelt,is if Eleanor Roosevelt was doing One of Two things.
1)Because while he was right,President John Kennedy’s decision not to go to war in Vietnam may have been based on the fact there is Oil under the ground in Vietnam and Kennedy had financial stockmarket investments.So Eleanor Roosevelt was doing things that would be considered attacks and threats at a U.S.President to try and force him to go to war in Vietnam.Eleanor Roosevelt despite the idea she was supposed to be a Liberal,wanted to go to war in Vietnam and set up a dictatorship in Vietnam.
2)Eleanor Roosevelt wanted President Kennedy instead of just passing CivilRights legislation to give Black people equalrights.To also go to war in Vietnam and besides the military draft, have a Mandatory National Service program where adults who haven’t been drafted by the military or convicted of a crime can be forced to do labor for the state.This would mean other adults who haven’t been drafted by the military or convicted of a crime can also be forced to do labor for the state.
The amendment to the U.S. Constitution that banned slavery would be reduced to nothing.And while it wouldn’t be based on skincolor,because African-Americans would be allowed to eat in the same restaurants as White people,live nextdoor to White people and marry White people.Some people as long as there are Black and White people in the group,could be forced by the Government to do labor.So it would be a form of a dictatorship and it is a form of racism to say in exchange for giving African-Americans the samerights everyone else has,you can limit rights in another area.
Unless Eleanor Roosevelt was doing One of those Two things,no one did anything to her.And if anything happened to Eleanor Roosevelt it was not because she was a Lesbian.I believe it is very likely Eleanor Roosevelt was a Liberal who wasn’t doing those things.
In 1999 from the Adelphi University Computer room in Gardencity,NewYork.I applied to the “George Washington University Summer Semester in Washington”,program for the Summer of 1999.It was a Summer program for Undergraduate college students from other Universities who would spend the Summer in Washington D.C. taking classes in Political management at George Washington University.Then after taking these Summer classes,they would return to whatever University they were attending and after graduating college from a University other then George Washington University,get jobs on political campaigns.
Since I was using a Public Computer,unless I logged into my E-mail address box First,I don’t think the Pop up from George Washington University,was because I had in 1997 gone up to Columbia University and asked Gary Webb whether George Bush Sr. and Colin Powell knew about the Crack Cocaine the CIA brought into the African-American community.And when President Kennedy’s former Press Secretary Pierre Salinger visited Adelphi.I stood in front of the microphone and asked Pierre Salinger whether he believed the Warren Commission report on President Kennedy’s murder.
I applied to George Washington University’s Summer program.As I sat in my College dormroom in GardenCity,NewYork.I received a Phonecall from my father back in Illinois.A letter had been sent to my parents house in Deerfield,Illinois saying I had been accepted into George Washington University’s Summer Semester in Washington program.For the Summer of 1999,I was in D.C.
Oneday in 1998 when I was in the Adelphi University University Center,an African-American Woman who I sometimes spoke to,said to me that the singer Aaliyah.Who’s fullname was Aaliyah Haughton’s brother Rashad attended the other University near Adelphi,Hofstra University.She said it like she wanted to know whether I knew something about Aaliyah,this was after I had asked Gary Webb about CIA and Drugs.I had been accepted to Hofstra also.I visted Hofstra and had been on their campus a couple times.I had never been in the same place as Rashad.I said to this Black Woman I was speaking to,that Aaliyah is fine and pretty.And it is cool that her brother Rashad goes to the other University near us.
Once I got down to D.C. for the Summer of 1999,my roommate was a Whiteguy who said he was the brother in law of Republican Florida Congressman Charles Canady.That his own name was Sam Houghton.Since he was White and spelled it differently then Aaliyah,I am sure that Sam Houghton is not related to Aaliyah Haughton.
While there was a Woman who I brought back to my room,at times when the roommate wasn’t there.Sam Houghton invited me to an event at a private park that is usually only for Military families,since his brother in law was a Republican Congressman.While I explained I was a Democrat,Sam said his Brother in law was involved in impeaching Clinton.Besides having a Republican Congressman’s nephew as my roommate.Despite the fact that my Professor was Jewish Democrat and former Carter administration official Mark Siegel,the floor I was put on was filled with members of,”Campus Crusade for Christ.” I had spoken to Siegel and when he asked everyone whether they were Democrats or Republicans,I repeated my Liberal views but said I was an Independent.I never explained why I said that.
When Coretta King said on TV that a Democratic President Lyndon Johnson despite the fact he finished the job Kennedy started and passed Civil Rights legislation,had been involved in Martin Luther King Jr.’s murder(The TV interviewer in 1997 asked Coretta King whether Lyndon Johnson was involved in Martin Luther King Jr.’s murder.And Coretta said,”He had to have known”.)This got me focused on the idea that all Democrats maybe weren’t Democrats the way I was.And plus Dexter King Martin Luther King Jr.’s son,had called for a South African style,truth and reconciliation commission to investigate Martin Luther King Jr.’s murder.And the Clinton administration hadn’t responded.
Since all I said was I was an Independent,Siegel asked me some questions about my positions on some policy issues.And after I answered the questions,Siegel said,”Andy you really are a Democrat.” But somehow I was rooming with the Brother in law of the Republican Congressman who voted to impeache Clinton.As I rode in the car passenger side with Sam Houghton and his girlfriend,he played Kenny Rogers music on the radio.And a car that said,”Al Gore”,on the license plate passed by us before we stopped at this park in Maryland or Virginia,it only was me and people he knew from,”Campus Crusade for Christ”,in the park.There was water,boats.A man told me because Sam’s brother in law was a U.S.Congressman he got personal use of this private park.After riding in a boat,I was given a ride back by a Woman who made sure to let me know she wasn’t against Jewish people.While taking Siegel’s class I was placed in a volunteers position,at Amnesty Internationals Washington D.C. office.
While I was there I met a man named Rudy Brewington.Rudy Brewington had won a Robert Kennedy award.Rudy Brewington had won a Robert Kennedy award,was in the Navy,was in the Amnesty International Office,and was a friend of the Clinton’s.While I was in D.C.,John Kennedy Jr.’s planecrashed.At a moment when John Kennedy Jr,had allegedly been flying to his cousin Rory Kennedy’s wedding in Massachusetts from NewJersey.At a moment when John Kennedy Jr.’s plane and John Kennedy Jr.’s body were in the water,Rudy Brewington said he had received a phonecall from the U.S.Pentagon.The Pentagon asked Brewington not to go on TV and tell anyone that there were boats in the water trying to locate the body.
I asked Rudy Brewington in the Amnesty International office in D.C.,why the Pentagon would care if he went on TV and said they sent boats to try and locate John Kennedy Jr.’s body.Since the whole country likes John Kennedy Jr.Rudy Brewington said the Pentagon was just “Supersensitive”.Later at night I was walking the streets of Washington D.C.,a Blackman approached me and said to me,”You are a college student,want to change the world huh?”.I figured out he either knew who I was or because I was looking at a newspaper machine with a headline about John Kennedy Jr.’s plane that just crashed,he figured out from the way I was looking at the paper that I had John Kennedy Jr. on the brain.It said in the article no boats had been sent,Brewington really didn’t talk to the Pentagon.The man said to me,”They could have blown up the fucking plane for all you know.Joe Kennedy was like Al Capone.The Irish just like other Ethnics did things when they came to America.” He seemed to want to know if I knew something about Joe Kennedy Sr.
Joe Kennedy Jr. backwhen Joe Kennedy Sr. was alive had of course died in a planecrash himself.Back at the Amnesty International Office in D.C.A woman who was Jewish like me said,”Hitler was considered to be very organized.” I said back to her.
”Being organized and morality are Two different things.Hitler was the evilest dictator ever and Hitler was very organized.John Kennedy was our greatest American President and John Kennedy was late for everything because being organized has nothing to do with being a good person.” I said that because I like John Kennedy and I am late for things.
A woman in the Amnesty International Office in Washington D.C.,after John Kennedy Jr.’s planecrashed and I said that the Government had killed President John Kennedy,asked me whether the planecrash John Kennedy Jr. was just in,was similar to the one that killed Joe Kennedy Jr.,why that question?From there my plane from Washington D.C. to Chicago was delayed.Me and all the other passengers were put up in a hotel right by the Pentagon building.When I was in the hotel lobby before going to my room,coincidental ly as I was getting something to eat.A man approached me he told me there was an organization called the,”James Madison Fellowship”,it was set up by Ted Kennedy,President Kennedy’s brother and John Kennedy Jr.’s Uncle,and Orin Hatch.It was a foundation that gave money to college students who after they graduate college want to become school teachers,who teach the U.S.Constitution,they get graduate school money or money to get certified as U.S. Constitution social studies teachers.Somehow the guy knew I was a College History major and coincidentally Ted Kennedy along with Orin Hatch set this foundation up.
Upon returning to Chicago it was reported on the Fox News channel that John Kennedy Jr. was getting ready to run against Hillary Clinton in the 2000 NewYork Democratic Primary.The son of JFK versus the new Eleanor Roosevelt in a NewYork Democratic primary.
From there since George Bush Sr.,according to Anthony Sutton’s ,”America’s Secret Establishment an Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones”,joined Skull and Bones in 1948 as a Junior at Yale.Skull and Bones allegedly is what people join at Yale as a Junior to become CIA by the time they graduate college.Under this text is an excerpt from an archived 1988 NewYork Times article about how George Bush Sr. allegedly worked for the CIA at the time of President John Kennedy’s murder.And 7 days after John Kennedy’s murder George Bush Sr.,was briefed on the reaction of anti-Castro Cuban exiles,people who didn’t get a war in Cuba from Kennedy,to Kennedy being killed for refusing to go to war in Vietnam.
The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
July 11, 1988, Section A, Page 15Buy Reprints
New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine—view over 150 years of New York Times journalism, as it originally appeared.
*Does not include Crossword-only or Cooking-only subscribers.
About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.
Vice President George Bush may have worked for the Central Intelligence Agency in 1963, more than a decade before becoming its Director, according to a magazine article that cites a recently discovered Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum.
Mr. Bush denied the report through a spokesman.
The Nation magazine, in its current issue, quotes a memo of Nov. 29, 1963, from J. Edgar Hoover, the bureau's Director at the time, to the State Department about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
In the memo, according to the magazine, Mr. Hoover stated that the bureau had briefed ''Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency'' on the reaction of Cuban exiles in Miami to the assassination.
The magazine article, written by Joseph McBride, also quoted an unidentified source ''with close connections to the intelligence community'' as saying Mr. Bush ''started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961, using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities.''
Despite the Hoover memo George Bush Sr.,has always claimed he never worked for the CIA until they made him the Director of the agency in the 1970’s.Since this is difficult believe considering the NewYork Times article and Bush’s membership in Skull and Bones.Someone after John Kennedy Jr.’s death in 1999 set up a website titled,”KillingGeorgeBush.Com”,this website mixed in truth and lies,the old trick of telling the truth but adding in some lies to discredit anyone who repeats the truths you say.
The author of the website sarcastically makes fun of Folksinger Woodie Guthrie by using the Woody quote about how nothing is Copyrighted and anyone can use this information.Since KillingGeorgeBush.Com mixed truth and lies,besides stating the truth that George Bush Sr. was involved in President Kennedy’s murder,the website makes the probably true allegation that George W.Bush joined others in going along with John Kennedy Jr.’s murder.And besides killing of George W.Bush a year before George W.Bush ran for President,the website has these true facts about John Kennedy Jr.’s murder.
John Kennedy Jr. was a pilot he flew.John Kennedy Jr. had Two logbooks,One book had the hours he flew from 1982-98 and the Second book had the hours he flew from 1998-99.This website alleged and because it gave a link to the NTSB’s Government website it did say on the NTSB’s website that John Kennedy Jr.’s logbook from 1982-98 was located after the planecrashed.But John Kennedy’s logbook from 1998-99 could not be located.This means we don’t know whether John Kennedy Jr. was the inexperienced pilot the media claims he is.And we don’t know if a flight instructor was flying this plane that John Kennedy Jr.,his pregnant wife and his sister in law were on.The NTSB beginning on January8,2001 moved accident synopses to an interactive query.So it is more difficult to locate the information I previously did about John Kennedy Jr.’s death.
The website says that the Boston Herald on July20,1999 reported and I went there back in 2000 and located the article the website is correct the Boston Herald reported on July20,1999 that 141/2 hours after John Kennedy Jr.’s planecrashed in the water boats were sent out to try and locate the body.Unless Brewington is telling me the truth and the boats were there earlier doing something we are not supposed to know about.Also on the truth and lies combined website KillingGeorgeBush.Com in 1999,it was said that an Arab-Muslim pilot had been hypnotized to crash an Airplane and John Kennedy Jr. had a flight instructor on board who was hypnotized like an Arab-Muslim so John Kennedy Jr.’s flight instructor crashed the plane with John Kennedy Jr.,his wife and his sister in law on board.This was posted in 1999,Two years after Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote the book,”The GrandChess Board”,calling for America to attack itself and invade Afghanistan and Iraq.And Two years before 9/11.Victor Pribanic an Attorney visiting Martha’s Vineyeard and John DiNardo an Internet investigator both heard an explosion as they stood on Martha’s Vineyeard in Massachusetts before John Kennedy Jr.’s planecrashed,proof that a bomb was put on the plane or the plane was shotdown.
What would it have meant to have had John Kennedy Jr.become the Democratic Senator from NewYork in 2000 and President of the U.S. in 2004 or 2008?A President John Kennedy Jr. in 2005 or 2009 would have signed the Executive Order withdrawing all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.
The city of Chicago in 2003 passed a Half an Hour and out loitering law that said no one can be in a store for Half an Hour or more without the storeowners permission,a law that 70% of stores chose not to enforce from 2003-2008,so fortunately people hungout like it was 1986 in 70% of stores in Chicago from 2003-2008.But you couldn’t hangout in the WaterTower mall like it was 1986 without security threatening to call the cops on you in 2003.By 2009 for 12 years you haven’t been able to hangout anywhere.Because the city of Chicago and other cities couldn’tve passed these loitering laws,without wars abroad and a wartime economy.So the withdraw of all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq by 2005 or 2009,would mean ever since 2009 all the things that happened that never happened to anyone in America before,wouldn’tve happened.
And since America would have been off of war footing by 2005 or 2009,COVID-19 never would have happened and rightnow I would have the freedom to go wherever I want.
Instead I can’t go anywhere in the city of Chicago without a mask on my face,while Illinois Governor JB Pritzker said the mask mandate is going away,the signs are still up on Chicago stores saying people need to wear masks and everyone in there is wearing a mask.Gary Matsumoto in his 2004 book,”Vaccine A”,wrote that the U.S. Military sold Saddam Hussein Anthrax in 1986 back when Iraq was an American ally.
In 1997 when I was at Adelphi University the talkshow host Rolanda who’s show was taped in NewYork City had a show where she interviewed a 7 yearold girl,who allegedly had AIDS.Obviously if someone simply sits in the audience while Rolanda discusses different drugs that allegedly will help the girl with her AIDS,whether they are on TV or not,they are H.I.V. negative and have perfect health,since all they did is sit in the audience.A bunch of Adelphi students went to the show and sat in the audience.
And John Solomon in a 2005 AP Article wrote about AIDS drugs that were unapproved being tested on fostercare kids who allegedly already had H.I.V.So I knew by 2005 that the U.S. Government can create diseases and unleash them on American soil.So now the CIA has unleashed COVID-19 on American soil.
Back in the 1970’s something was added into the Federal Voting Rights Act that said in some communities ballots can also be printed in Spanish for Latino voters.This was backwhen America was 80%White 15%Black and 5%Latino.
Some people allege that back in 2012 while Obama was running for reelection,despite what Martin Luther King Jr. said about the Civil Rights movement having it’s Independence from either political party.(Eventhough in 1960 Martin Luther King Jr.’s father Martin Luther King Sr. endorsed Democrat John Kennedy for President.And by 1964 Martin Luther King Jr. encouraged Black people to be Democrats.Martin Luther King Jr. got his father Martin Luther King Sr. to leave the Republicans and become a Democrats.Eventhough Martin Luther King Jr. in 1967 wanted to run for President as a Third Party Candidate in 1968),in some towns in the South Black,Latino,and White voters showed up to vote.The Black and Latino voters were allowed to vote.
But unlike Chicago which prints ballots in English and Spanish,the Mexican-American voters had to use an English language ballot to vote.And while no one was stopped from voting,allegedly the Republicans were hoping that having English only ballots would lead to less Latino voters showing up since Latinos vote Democrat.But every Latino and every Black person who showed up was allowed to vote.Since no one was stopped from voting for being Mexican or Black I don’t know whether this is a voting violation,I don’t know if all communities have to print the ballots in Spanish or if as long as they let everyone vote,they can give Latinos the same English language ballot as African-Americans and Whites in some communities.
Allegedly and I am not sure if this is true some people made this allegation on the website Facebook.Com,a lawsuit was filed by the Obama administration Justice Department in 2012 saying that all ballots needed to be printed in Spanish,which is linking Black and Latino Civil Rights to the goal of reelecting a candidate for Public Office,which evenwhen the candidate is Black and most African-Americans are Democrats you are not supposed to do.
And since ever since 1997 America has been 60%White 25%Latino and 15%African-American. Latinos of Mexican,Puerto Rican,and other backgrounds are America’s largest minority group.This may have been something White Democrats wanted done to increase Latino turnout in the South before the 2012 election.
Allegedly this lead to the terrible 2013 U.S.Supreme Court Decision that what the Southern states were required by the Federal Government to do from 1965-2012 were requirements for a different era and therefore unless new requirements that only address the current cases of discrimination are drafted,then America just won’t have a Federal Voting Rights Act.
I said in 2013 that I had voted for Obama in 2008.Because I figured Black people would keep their CivilRights no matter who won in 2012,after somethings that happened to me.And at a moment when Whitney Houston a singer I liked, passed away in 2012.The sameway Aaliyah died in 2001,I took a Republican primary ballot for Ron Paul in 2012.Eventhough I am not really a Republican.And in the General Obama vs Romney election I voted for Democrats for Congress but a Third Party candidate a Libertarian for President.I never expect in 2012 when I didn’t vote for Obama that the U.S. Supreme Court would make this terrible decision concerning Voting Rights in 2013.
Because this Supreme Court decision is such a disaster I suggested Obama agree to give up all of his Climate Change legislation in exchange for the Republicans passing a bill giving Black people the same Federal Voting Rights that they had in 1982,when Ronald Reagan renewed the Federal Voting Rights Act.I assume that a bill that has everything that the 1982 renewal of the Federal Voting Rights Act has in it,would make sure that Latino’s could vote in all 50 states.
What I have needed to know since 2013,is do we have a Federal Voting Rights Act?Did Obama sign an Executive Order requiring the Southern states and other states to follow the necessary procedures and allow the necessary Federal Government supervision so that African-Americans and Latinos and Asians and White-Jewish and White-Italian people are able to vote in all 50 states without unjust discrimination?If an Executive Order was signed by Obama,then everyone should be informed that we still have a Federal Voting Rights Act.
I read on a Facebook page the allegation that discussing whether an Executive Order was signed might lead to a discussion about Redistricting.
Because the U.S. SupremeCourt already said you can have Redistricting letting everyone know whether we have a Federal Voting Rights Act that protects the rights of African-American, Latino,Asian,White-Jewish,and White-Italian voters,will not take away from the amount of African-American members of the U.S.Congress we have.If Obama didn’t sign an Executive Order,then we need a Federal Voting Rights Act that makes sure that in all 50 states people have the same right to vote that they did in 1997 and in 2002 and after the Federal Voting Rights Act was renewed in 2005 in 2012.
On CNN Wolf Blitzer said to Bernie Sanders that Republicans in the U.S.Congress offered to help pass a bill called,”The John Lewis VotingRights Act”,since Republican Ronald Reagan renewed the Voting Rights Act in 1982,with what the Democrats wanted in it.I am not sure if this bill named after John Lewis has what is needed so no one is stopped from voting for their Ethnicbackground in any state in America.
I don’t know if we already have a Voting Rights Act due to an Executive Order.Wolf Blitzer said to Bernie Sanders,”Something is better then nothing will you support the John Lewis bill from the Republicans?”.Bernie Sanders claims he wants something else in a Voting Rights bill,if we don’t already have a Voting RightsAct due to an Executive Order.
In 2020 because I couldn’t go anywhere in the city of Chicago or the state of Illinois without a mask on my face.The idea I came up with,was if African-Americans,Latinos,Asians,anyone who showed up could vote in all 50 states.Anyone who sent in an absentee ballot in all 50 states had their vote counted.But a group that consists of White people,Black people,Latinos,Asians,so it’s not discrimination had their,”Mail in ballots”,tossed out.Donald Trump would be declared the winner.Trump because of pressure from his supporters would end all COVID-19 CivilLiberties restrictions,in all 50 states people would be free to go wherever they want without a mask,the troops would leave Afghanistan and Iraq.And while Black people would keep their CivilRights we would focus on whether we have a Federal Voting Rights Act from an Executive Order.Or whether we need to pass a newone.So since I belong to the use Government to make people free not to limit people’s rights wing of the Democratic Party,I sent a message to the Conservative Website Turning Point USA,asking them to file a lawsuit to throw out the Mail in ballots.
Joe Biden who I hope kicked off his campaign in WarmSprings,Georgia Franklin Roosevelt’s old place away from the Whitehouse because Biden wants to help financially struggling Americans the way Roosevelt did.Not because he’s signalling anything about Asians who are being blamed for COVID-19.So I want there to be a Federal Voting Rights Act if it was Executive Ordered by Obama great,if not we need a bill.I want to make sure that every Latino just like every African-American is able to vote.I am not sure whether all communities will have to have Spanish language ballots,but in all 50 states Latinos will be able to vote.
Because the Liberal idea is that when the Federal Government passes a law saying that since the U.S. Constitution ever since 1866 has said that there is no slavery and no one is to be discriminated against for their Ethnic background.The Federal Government can take measures to make sure African-Americans and Latinos can vote in all 50 states that is using Government for the Public good to increase freedom.
When the U.S. Congress the Federal Government passes a Federal Government law saying that restaurants and other business’s that are open to the Public in all 50 states,must let anyone who can afford a meal sitdown in the same section as everyone else,whatever there Ethnic background that increases freedom.When the Federal Government since people who make over a certain amount of money,must pay income taxes eitherway,uses collected Taxmoney to give foodstamps to hungry people,that is using Government in a way that besides being humane increases freedom,since if people aren’t hungry they can’t be forced to do certain things.
But when a restaurant that let’s Black,White,Latino,and Asian people sit next to eachother and enjoy a meal,is told that they must force the customers to wear a mask on their face.That is using Government in a way that limits freedom.So it is an aggravation when while masking the country,they call themselves,”Liberal”,since they don’t understand the Liberal idea of Government being used for goodthings and not badthings.
Franklin Roosevelt either was a believer in only using Government for goodthings like banning childlabor.Or other people who were nicer then Roosevelt made sure he only used Government for certain things.And it is a frightening idea that maybe Joe Kennedy Sr.,who’s ideas President John Kennedy disagreed with,was serving as an under the table Roosevelt mouthpiece,when Joe Kennedy Sr. reached out to Hitler before WorldWarII.
Richard Blow in his book,”American Son”,says that while he felt John Kennedy Jr. was defending his cousins in the George Magazine article that John Kennedy Jr.wrote.In August 1997,Dan Rather and a bunch of other TV,Newspaper,and Magazine reporters alleged that John Kennedy Jr. was in fact criticizing his cousins in the George Magazine article that John Kennedy Jr. wrote.And that John Kennedy Jr. did not get along with Robert Kennedy’s children his cousins.The SanJose Mercury News,the NewYork Daily news,and the Boston Globe all said they believed John Kennedy Jr. was criticizing his cousins eventhough Richard Blow the author of this books believes John Kennedy Jr. was defending his cousins.Pasted underneath this text is what CNN had on their website in 1997 about what John Kennedy Jr. allegedly said about his cousins,eventhough Richard Blow says this is defending his cousins.And an archived 1997 LA Times article on the LosAngeles Times archived website with what the LosAngles Times said in 1997 about John Kennedy Jr. being critical of his Cousins.
By George, JFK Jr. Bares A Lot
A story of men behaving badly
NEW YORK (AllPolitics, Aug. 11) -- John F. Kennedy Jr., one of the nation's most eligible bachelors until his 1996 marriage, poses nude in the September issue of George magazine and bares his face, chest and thoughts on recent Kennedy family scandals.
In a signed piece in the publication that he founded and edits, "John-John" expounds on the trials and tribulations of two of his cousins, Michael and Massachusetts Rep. Joe, saying they "became poster boys for bad behavior."
John Jr. says Michael Kennedy, who was accused of an affair with an underaged baby sitter, "was looking for a hedge against mortality."
Considering sex with a person under 16 is considered statuatory rape in Massachusetts, there is the legality of the situation to consider as well. The 39-year-old Michael "fell in love with youth and surrendered his judgment in the process," John Jr. writes.
Added to Michael's escapades, John Jr. says cousin Rep. Joe Kennedy's request from his ex-wife, Sheila Rausch, for an annulment of their marriage for purely political reasons indicate both men "chased an idealized alternative to their life."
About himself, JFK Jr., who is shown contemplating an apple dangling above his head in the revealing photo, writes, "I've learned a lot about temptation recently, but that doesn't make me desire any less." He doesn't elaborate.
Normally the Kennedy family hangs together, running interference in the face of scandals that have plagued its members for years. It's unheard of for someone to break ranks and offer public criticism.
JFK Jr. seems to have set his sights on the Kennedys of the '90s. He is mute in the article about his father's suspected fling with Marilyn Monroe or his grandfather Joseph Kennedy Sr.'s affair with actress Gloria Swanson.
By George, JFK Jr. Breaks the Code of Silence
AUG. 12, 1997 12 AM PT
John F. Kennedy Jr. tackles the controversies surrounding his cousins Joseph and Michael Kennedy in the new issue of his monthly political magazine George, saying they became “poster boys for bad behavior.”
Writing about temptation in the editor’s letter in the September issue of George, Kennedy said the two men had “chased an idealized alternative to their life” and “perhaps . . . should have known better.”
His words were unusual in that Kennedy family members rarely speak out publicly about one another, especially in scandals and other controversies.
John F. Kennedy Jr. is the only son of the late president, and Joseph and Michael Kennedy are sons of the president’s late brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy.
Joseph Kennedy, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from Massachusetts, had his 12-year marriage to Sheila Rauch Kennedy annulled last year. The move prompted her to write a book, “Shattered Faith” (Pantheon), opposing the Roman Catholic Church’s annulment process.
Joseph’s younger brother Michael allegedly had a five-year affair with a teenage baby sitter, but authorities have not filed charges because the alleged victim would not cooperate.
For an issue listing “the 20 most fascinating women in politics,” John Kennedy Jr. commented on the view that leading a respectable life leads to temptation, but conformity produces a suffocating life.
“I’ve seen the cycle up close in the past year. Two members of my family chased an idealized alternative to their life. One left behind an embittered wife, and another, in what looked to be a hedge against mortality, fell in love with youth and surrendered his judgment in the process. Both became poster boys for bad behavior.
“Perhaps they deserved it. Perhaps they should have known better. To whom much is given, much is expected, right? The interesting thing was the ferocious condemnation of their excursions beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. Since when does someone need to apologize on television for getting divorced?
“But perhaps there was some comfort in watching the necessary order assert itself. The discontents of civilized life look positively benign when compared with the holy terror visited upon the brave and stupid.”
In the fall of 1999,while I was still upset over John Kennedy Jr.’s death,Robert Kennedy Jr. came to Adelphi to speak.I sat there in the audience after Robert Kennedy Jr.’s speech was over I walked over to where he was.Because Adelphi students sometimes had jobs working security.An African-American Woman who was an Adelphi student and security person for the event said to me,”Andy Ghetto Superstar.” I laughed outloud and said back to her,”Yeah Kianna there’s that movie with Warren Beatty.”
Robert Kennedy Sr.,just like President John Kennedy had been born in the Boston,Massachusetts area.While President John Kennedy had been the U.S.Senator from Massachusetts and became an American President who said that while he was ending segregation against African-Americans in the South he felt there also was unfair racism in his Northern hometown of Boston,Massachusetts.
Robert Kennedy Sr.served as his brothers Attorney General.And because Ted Kennedy the other Kennedy brother had become the U.S Senator from Massachusetts,Robert Kennedy Sr.,who despite his Boston accent,had lived in NewYork city for One year as a kid,while Joe Kennedy Sr.was the head of the SEC,became the U.S. Senator from NewYork in 1964.
Warren Beatty in the 1998 movie,”Bullworth”, plays a U.S. Senator who hires an assassin to kill himself he’s suicidal.And then he decides he wants to live.Once he decides he wants to live,Beatty when he is in mostly Black neighborhoods in L.A. is supposed to be the way Robert Kennedy Sr.was when Robert Kennedy Sr.ran for President in 1968.I figured calling me “Ghetto Superstar”,because there is a rap song from the movie Bullworth,”Ghetto Superstar”,about the White Senator who discovers the truth about people being mistreated and speaks out against it.Was a Black Woman calling me a Whiteguy who supported CivilRights.
And also comparing me to a movie character who was similar to Robert Kennedy Sr.,who I admired.It actually flew over my head that Bullworth hired an assassin to kill himself.Plus I figured Warren Beatty was a Kennedy family friend,so the movie couldn’t be anti-Kennedy.
So I laughed after the Woman called me ,”Andy Ghetto Superstar”,and said,”Yeah Kianna there’s that movie with Warren Beatty.”
From there I approached Robert Kennedy Jr.,who had heard my conversation with Kianna and was standing next to Adelphi’s intern President Steve Isenberg.I had a piece of paper and a pen in my hand,Robert Kennedy must have known what I wanted.Robert Kennedy Jr. took the piece of paper and pen from me.While Robert Kennedy Jr.,signed an autograph for me.Robert Kennedy Jr.,did it in an abrupt way that startled me.
In 2004 I was a volunteer on John Kerry’s Illinois Presidential campaign.There was an event that Ted and Caroline Kennedy would be at.Caroline Kennedy is John Kennedy Jr.’s sister.Carolyn Kennedy was John Kennedy Jr.’s wife.I showed up and I spoke to a Blackwoman,the bartender after she poured me a Coke,I discussed how I felt what George W.Bush did to the Black voters in Florida was wrong.
I actually wore a suit for this.When Ted Kennedy spoke he told a joke about a kid,it was supposed to be a joke so I laughed but no one else did.Caroline Kennedy then spoke she said that her father President Kennedy used to sit at the table with her mother and her and say had it not been for a couple votes Richard Nixon would’ve been elected President in 1960.
(I don’t know if she was referring to the rumor that people in Chicago helped John Kennedy win in 1960,if they did since they wanted the Vietnam War and a dictatorship he was right and they were wrong.)
From there Caroline Kennedy said that her father President John Kennedy supported CivilRights for African-Americans and it was President Lyndon Johnson who got CivilRights legislation passed.Caroline made a joke and I assumed that she likes her father President Kennedy and she was joking the way you do when you like your father so I laughed.
I was the only one who laughed at Caroline and Ted’s jokes.After I spoke to a man who said the 2004 Kerry campaign,”Couldn’t’ve gotten out of Iowa without Ted Kennedy.”
I approached Caroline I said to her,”Nice speech”,and I extended my hand.She said “Thanks”,in a tone of voice people don’t usually use.Caroline shook my hand.
In 2000 Hillary Clinton came to Adelphi.I wasn’t sure whether Hillary Clinton was involved in John Kennedy Jr.’s murder.A Vietnam veteran who was older then all of us,who was taking classes at Adelphi,said that he had been married to an Asian Woman he lived in Arkansas and Bill and Hillary Clinton didn’t care that crosses were burned on his lawn.I said because the Clinton’s were Democrats with a good Civil Rights record,I didn’t believe it.So when I met Hillary I didn’t mention Army veterans or John Kennedy Jr.,I said I’d be willing to vote for her and extended my hand.This was after a man in plain clothes spoke to me in an odd tone of voice.Hillary wouldn’t shake my hand.But Caroline Kennedy shook my hand,From there after I shook Caroline’s hand a man said,”That’s Caroline Kennedy”,.
I then approached Ted,a man said to Ted,”I am a Chester.” And then I said to Ted nice speech,Ted shook my hand and didn’t say a word.Later on there was a Blackman he had an accent he said he was from an African country I began to joke around with him,I was giving him Five slapping his hands and the African was laughing.
Since President John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy Sr. both always got along with Black people there shouldn’t’ve been a problem,while I was giving the African Five for whatever reason Ted Kennedy who was walking by with Caroline glanced at me in what seemed like an oddway.I figured maybe Ted was just tired.

In 2005 AP reporter John Solomon reported that back in the 1990’s,fostercare kids who allegedly already had H.I.V.,had unapproved drugs tested on them.And one of the states this happened in was Maryland.I knew that one of Robert Kennedy Sr.’s daughters was the Lieutenant Governor of Maryland,when I e-mailed the Liberal website CounterPunch I wrote criticizing what had happened,something happened where when it got posted I was quoting on the website,as saying things about how as an admirer of Robert Kennedy Sr.,I was disappointed Maryland a state where Robert Kennedy’s daughter was Lieutant Governor was one of the places where this happened.
From there while I was born in 1975,I reread the 1967 Robert Kennedy Sr.book “To seek a newer World”.Since Robert Kennedy Sr.,ran for President in 1968 on a platform of ending the Vietnam War,a war that his brother President Kennedy opposed.And the relatives of Chicago Mafia boss Sam Giancanna in the 1991 book,”Double Cross”,allege that the CIA hired the Chicago Mafia to kill Robert Kennedy also.
And while an Arab gunman Sirhan Sirhan,on TV shot Robert Kennedy after Robert Kennedy won the 1968 California Democratic primary and was close to getting nominated for President.There could have been another gunman outside of the camera range.And the way Sirhan Sirhan like a man in a trance,has said in repeated interviews he doesn’t remember anything from that night.That a Woman in a Polka dot dress showed up and her prescence triggered something in him.The way that Sirhan in all the pictures has that glazed look in his eyes,that allegedly hypnotized CIA patsies always have,makes you feel that the relatives of Sam Giancanna and it was the CIA and Chicago Mafia.
Of course you assume that if Robert Kennedy Sr.,was murdered by the CIA it must be because he planned on ending the Vietnam War.If Robert Kennedy was going to go back on his campaign promise and keep the war going,logically Robert Kennedy never would have been murdered.Well in his 1967 book,”To seek a Newer World.” Robert Kennedy says that America is trying to prop up a dictatorship in Vietnam that that is wrong and America should end the war.
But the Dictatorship America supports in Vietnam is more humane according to Robert Kennedy Sr.then the Dictatorship the Vietnamese Communists want to impose.Robert Kennedy Sr. of all people,then makes the allegation that in SouthVietnam Vietnamese Communists have beheaded people.While today they are a bad Dictatorship,I don’t know if the VietCong ever beheaded anyone.And why would Robert Kennedy call for ending a war against the Vietnamese while accusing them in South Vietnam of beheading people eventhough the war at the moment was in NorthVietnam.This is a bizarre way for Robert Kennedy Sr.to oppose the Vietnam War.Robert Kennedy Sr. also while I don’t think it was meant to be provocative pointed out that 1out of every 4 people are Chinese.Which as a Whiteguy I figured out actually means the Asians are a worldwide majority.
President John Kennedy in 1963 before his death,appointed Franklin Roosevelt Jr.,to a new Government position and reached out to Anna Roosevelt.Pasted under this text is the 1945 Vietnamese Declaration of Independence so you can decide for yourself if a deal could’ve been negotiated without a war,where Vietnam would have been Democratic and NonCommunist.And Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1967 speech criticizing the Vietnam War.I googled the Vietnamese declaration of Independence and this came up the link to the University website it came from maynot have pasted into this document,the website I got the Martin Luther King Jr. speech from is

Declaration of Independence, Democratic Republic of Vietnam* Ho Chi Minh (SEPTEMBER 2, 1945) "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free. The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights." Those are undeniable truths. Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice. In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty. They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center and the South of Vietnam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united. They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots- they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood. They have fettered public opinion; they have practised obscurantism against our people. To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol. In the fields of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people, and devastated our land. They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolised the issuing of bank-notes and the export trade. Vietnamese Declaration of Independence, p. 2 They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty. They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers. In the autumn of 1940, when the Japanese Fascists violated Indochina's territory to establish new bases in their fight against the Allies, the French imperialists went down on their bended knees and handed over our country to them. Thus, from that date, our people were subjected to the double yoke of the French and the Japanese. Their sufferings and miseries increased. The result was that from the end of last year to the beginning of this year, from Quang Tri province to the North of Vietnam, more than two million of our fellow-citizens died from starvation. On March 9, the French troops were disarmed by the Japanese. The French colonialists either fled or surrendered, showing that not only were they incapable of "protecting" us, but that, in the span of five years, they had twice sold our country to the Japanese. On several occasions before March 9, the Vietminh League urged the French to ally themselves with it against the Japanese. Instead of agreeing to this proposal, the French colonialists so intensified their terrorist activities against the Vietminh members that before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners detained at Yen Bay and Cao Bang. Not withstanding all this, our fellow-citizens have always manifested toward the French a tolerant and humane attitude. Even after the Japanese putsch of March 1945, the Vietminh League helped many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued some of them from Japanese jails, and protected French lives and property. From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to be a French colony and had become a Japanese possession. After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bao Dai has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the Fatherland. Our people at the same time have overthrown the monarchic regime that has reigned supreme for dozens of centuries. In its place has been established the present Democratic Republic. For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government, representing the whole Vietnamese people, declare that from now on we break off all relations of a colonial character with France; we repeal all the international obligation that France has so far subscribed to on behalf of Vietnam and we abolish all the special rights the French have unlawfully acquired in our Fatherland.Vietnamese Declaration of Independence, p. 3 The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer their country. We are convinced that the Allied nations which at Tehran and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge the independence of Vietnam. A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the Fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent. For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, solemnly declare to the world that Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent country and in fact it is so already. The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty. Source: Ho Chi Minh, Selected Works (Hanoi, 1960-1962), Vol. 3, pp. 17-21. • Note, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam has been renamed The Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence
Delivered 4 April 1967, Riverside Church, New York City

[Photo Credit: John C. Goodwin]

[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio. (2)]
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, and some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it’s always good to come back to Riverside church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit.
I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I'm in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.
And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?" "Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people," they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.
In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.
Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.
Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.
Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:
O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!
Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be -- are -- are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954;1 and I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.
This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954 -- in 1945 rather -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.
For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.
After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States' influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.
The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.
So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing -- in the crushing of the nation's only non-Communist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.
Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon, the only solid -- solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.
Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?
Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.
Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.
Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred -- rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak of the -- for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:
Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.
I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do [immediately] to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.
Part of our ongoing -- Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary. Meanwhile -- Meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.
As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality...and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala -- Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.
And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.
It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.
This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light."2 We in the West must support these revolutions.
It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."3
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing -- embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate -- ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us."4 Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says:
Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word (unquote).
We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on."
We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message -- of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.
As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:
Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever ‘twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet ‘tis truth alone is strong
Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when "justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."5

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.