Greg, you display a graceful ability to frame your question(s) in the precise rhetorical cadence of one of two presidents deemed unacceptable by the dark matter of power, the second, John F. Kennedy, the first, Abraham Lincoln, each of whom might have led the nation into a wholeness of spirit, striking the weapons of hate from those who resisted history.
Revisiting the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis we see at every turn our generals and admirals demanded an attack and invasion which would have shovelled us all into the furnace.
At the time--and to this day--that military, with its intelligence counterpart, all the players of the U.S. projection (see Thy Will Be Done, Colby & Dennett, 1994) sought to blast him from the stage.
The quibble of bullets and trajectories was dismissed by Judge with his "from the Pentagon" final punctuation.
It does not end in Dallas, nor did it begin there. Dulles & Dulles and other facilitators scuttling across the sea bed on behalf of clients unknown.
Unknown the reasons for The Arab Spring, the arming of yesterday's War on Terror enemies for tomorrow's contention in the Orwellian quadrilateral.
He was a man of peace with a restless intellect and a talent to lead despite a ready life of liesure.
He saw a duty, an obligation.
As I've said, I was a member of Young Americans for Freedom that William F. Buckley organization, and I went to the organization's convention in New York City under our regional organizer Dick Allen http://www.firstprin...ticle=886&loc=r to draft Barry Goldwater.
I had foreseen a series of Kennedy-Goldwater debates akin to the Lincoln-Douglas events in which the people would experience the clash of ideas within the concept of limits, a term of my later political science department head Dr. George A. Lipsky.
I learned with the assassination--and in the instant of the (painted blob) outrage of Abraham Zapruder there was no concept of limits.
Cutting to the chase, we are at war--Charles states it periodically in eloquent fashion. I simply understand the world of the political science seminar cannot explain or account for the assassination of the 35th president, followed by those of Malcolm Little later Malik al-Shabazz, Reverand Dr. Martin Luther King, Senator and likely president Robert F. Kennedy.
As Sibel Edmond (Confidential Woman) notes, partisanism is a delusion and our freedom is in jeopardy from a treasonous and corrupt cancer consuming the federal government.
I repeatedly observe a government-media-academe device suppressing truth and promoting the propaganda of a ruthless cognoscenti powered by pervasive technology and unfettered thanks to sweeping national security legislation based on serial false-flag operations.
John F. Kennedy is well explained vis-a-vis defense by Doug Horne, and foreign policy especially Third World nations by Jim DiEugenio on that subject--the president was against the grain of the military-intelligence-corporate business model.
More importantly, he encouraged a freeing of the human spirit from the constraints of poverty, famine, thirst, disease--hence those who wished to keep energy dear and population low despised him.
He sought to reach behind the Iron Curtain and converse with the Khrushchev who sought slightly less guns and more butter--and certainly no further dangerous brushes with Midnight.
Those who crave power need fear and hate comity. They require chaos, strife, riot, brushfire war, arms trade, drug trade, and eternal battle for oil.
Let us refuse to allow his agency for human understanding to be cast as unrealistic, our demand for justice some romantic pursuit.
Most of all he was a man of reason and compassion, not first reacting with force but rather persuasion.
The enemy is vulnerable to truth, to logic, to demonstrable hypothesis.
Such a dark and vile agency will always take the low road.
It cannot bear the light of actual circumstance.
Slander and deceit are its stock in trade.
Which makes it ridiculously fragile.
While it sweeps through
strewing its chaff
we stand and