I’m often amused at the ability of some in the ‘elite media’ to presume that everyone in the general population are white trash rednecks who attend church every Sunday and discuss recent Elvis sightings the rest of the week.

The ‘disconnect’ between the traditional mass media and the average American is never so apparent as it is when the JFK or RFK assassination is mentioned. It goes without saying among the ‘intelligentsia’ that Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan are lone assassins. Yet poll after poll places the belief that there were conspiracies involved as high as 90% of the American population. Are 9 out of 10 people simply stupid?

What’s truly fascinating is to see those who believe in the Warren Commission Report attempt to defend the theory that Oswald was the lone assassin… I invite anyone interested to go to the newsgroup – alt.conspiracy.jfk It can be accessed via Google Groups, or many other free news forum access points on the net.

Some might ask – what does this have to do with me? After all, it happened over 40 years ago. Yet the pervasiveness of the governmental cover-up is almost beyond belief, and if you’re interested in how our country is governed (as you should be), then an understanding of how the government operates is critical. You can’t fix what you don’t understand is broken.

Some of the rather interesting tidbits that have come out of the study into the JFK assassination is the fact that much of the traditional media is beholden to, and under at least some control of the CIA. Which only makes sense when you think about it – there are two functions of a spy agency – one is to discover the secrets of your opponent, but the other is to mislead others as to your own secrets. That the media has traditionally been in bed with intelligence agencies might prove to be a shock to those who thought that the news was unbiased.

Not too long ago, Gerald Posner, a journalist – wrote a book titled “Case Closed”, that purported to demonstrate that the evidence against Oswald was overwhelming, and that there was no need to further investigate the assassination – that indeed, the ‘case’ was ‘closed.’

However, the book Posner wrote was quickly dissected by JFK assassination researchers, who developed dozens of examples of where Posner misrepresented the evidence, or simply lied about what is known. Quite often, I ask the question, “When is a lie required to support the ‘truth’?” – and I never seem to find a reasonable answer to this rhetorical question.

Those who defend the “Lone Nut” hypothesis are excited that Vincent Bugliosi – famous for his prosecution of Charles Manson, is coming out with a book dedicated to the idea that the Warren Commission got it right. This will be a sad day for Bugliosi’s reputation, for it’s not possible to write a book defending the Warren Commission Report without misrepresentation of the evidence – or even outright lies about the evidence. I’ve made that prediction in the news forum, and I don’t have any fear that I’ll be forced to apologize to Vince Bugliosi. The release date of this book has been touted as far back as 1999, so it’s a complete mystery if it really will be released in May of 2007 as is now being asserted.
[Update: The book has been released, and as predicted, Bugliosi was forced to tell some whoppers to support his theory]

I’d like to point out a truly interesting historical dazzler here: It was Bugliosi who collected the eyewitness statements that proved that more than 8 shots were fired at RFK, and who cross-examined the firearms experts to prove that they couldn’t identify Sirhan Sirhan’s gun as the murder weapon, or discount more than one gun being fired that day… indeed, actually provided very persuasive evidence that Sirhan Sirhan never even fired a bullet that day! (That last will be a shocker to most people who only know what the traditional mass media will tell you…) Bugliosi argued conspiracy in a court case, and is now going to argue (admittedly, in the case of JFK rather than RFK) that there was no conspiracy. I’m sure there’s a good “Lawyer joke” that can be made out of this…

There have been a number of official inquiries into the JFK assassination – most famous were the Warren Commission, the Clark Panel, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Interestingly, all three misrepresented or outright lied about the evidence that they had in front of them. This isn’t in serious dispute, yet no-one can answer why lies were needed to support the “truth.”

It’s interesting to note that there are two major newsgroups dedicated to the topic of the JFK assassination on the Internet (and dozens of lesser known ones):

Alt.Conspiracy.JFK – a wide open forum.
Alt.Assassination.JFK – a “moderated” (read, ‘Censored’) forum.

I’ve often been amused at the idea that those dedicated to the idea that Oswald was the lone assassin congregate in a censored group – where they don’t have to face those willing to point out their lies and misrepresentations of the evidence.

If you’d like to learn more about the evidence for a conspiracy that took the life of JFK, feel free to visit the two forums, and feel free to ask questions. History is something we should all be familiar with. But don’t take anyone’s opinion as fact – look at the primary evidence yourself – much of it is available on the Internet.

 

 

I’ve long viewed U.S. politics in terms of Republicans & Democrats – and as I got older, and learned more, I shifted into viewing people as either liberal or conservative.  JFK, for example; in today’s terms, was far more conservative than the liberal icon he’s supposed to be.  On the other hand, one of the most famous POW’s of all times, U.S. Senator John McCain, although allegedly fitting into the Republican party; is not uncomfortable among Liberals.  It would make far more sense to me if Liebermann and McCain swapped parties…

But then I picked up Bill O’Reilly’s new book, Culture Warrior, and discovered an entirely new way to view the politics of America.  Without going into any great amount of detail, O’Reilly asserts that there is a war in America between ‘Traditionalists’ and ‘Secular-Progressives’.

Traditionalists believe that there is an inherent right and wrong – and largely look to religion as the basis of that distinction.  They believe that America is basically a good and decent country – and does the right thing most of the time – even if there are problems that need to be corrected.  The Bible’s 10 commandments are good.

Secular-Progressives don’t like such clear-cut guidelines, and would insist that everything must be viewed in its own context.  They believe that America is basically a faulty country, inherently bad – and needs a great deal of correction.  They’d like to see America headed in the same direction that many European countries are going.

Bill O’Reilly prints the following as an example of what the Secular-Progressive’s would have as their 10 commandments:

• Thou Shalt Not Make Any Judgement Regarding Most Private Personal Behavior.  Man/Woman Is the Master/Mistress of the Universe and His/Her Gratification Is Paramount.
• Thou Shalt Not Worship or Acknowledge God in the Public Square, for Such an Exposition Could Be Offensive to Humankind.
• Thou Shalt Take from the Rich and Give to the Poor.  No Private Property is Sacrosanct.
• Thou Shalt Circumvent Mother and Father in Personal Issues Such as Abortion and Sex Education in Public Schools.
• Thou Shalt Kill if Necessary to Promote Individual Rights in Cases of Abortion and Euthanasia.
• Thou Shalt Be Allowed to Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor if That Person Stands Against Secular Humanism.
• Thou Shalt Not Wage Preemptive War in Any Circumstances.
• Thou Shalt Not Impede the Free Movement of Any Human Being on Earth.  All Countries Should Be Welcoming Places Without Borders.
• Thou Shalt Not Prohibit Narcotics or Impede Personal Gratification in This Area.
• Thou Shalt Not Limit the Power of Government in Order to Provide “Prosperity” to All.

(Taken from pages 69-70 of his book)

It’s a fascinating book, and regardless of which side you fall out on – should be quite interesting to read.  O’Reilly makes a compelling case, and you may well experience the paradigm shift in political thinking that I did.

 

 

Most people have only the vaguest idea of the differences between the two major political parties in America today, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party. As one author comments:

“The secret ballot was a well-intended democratic innovation designed to provide voters with enough privacy to vote their true convictions without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately it is an innovation that also manifests a concomitant desire to think and even learn about politics in private so as to, again, avoid possible reprisals from a public revelation of political positions and, additionally, the acrimony that often accompanies adversarial democratic politics. With such an attitude, it is no wonder that 60-70% of us don’t know the difference between Democrats and Republicans and that by default we send equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans to Washington where they proceed to divide and grid-lock the governmental process.”

In this post, I’m going to concentrate my efforts on describing the differences between a “Liberal”, and a “Conservative”. Party definitions of what a Republican, or a Democrat are, tend to shift over time, but the underlying political philosophy, which can be described with the terms Liberal and Conservative, stay the same. For example, Republicans were defined as the “Anti-Slavery” party in the 1860’s, but that definition hardly applies today. The underlying philosophy that led to these definitions have not changed.

The first attempt for most people is to examine what the dictionary says about “Liberals” and “Conservatives”. From the Random House 1999 Webster’s College Dictionary:

“liberal, adj. 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. [often cap.] designating or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. pertaining to, based on, or having views or policies advocating individual freedom of action and expression.
4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
6. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.; openminded.
7. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts.
8. given freely or abundantly; generous.
9. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
10. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts: a liberal education. — n.
11. a person of liberal principles or views.
12. (often cap.) a member of a liberal political party, esp. the Liberal Party in Great Britain. [1325-75]”

“conservative, adj. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: a conservative suit.
4. (cap.) of or pertaining to a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative Party of Great Britain.
5. of or pertaining to political conservatism.
6. (cap.) conforming to or characteristic of Conservative Judaism.
7. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative. — n.
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (cap.) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative Party of Great Britain.
11. a preservative. [1350-1400]”

This concept of attempting to use just the dictionary meanings can be found in posts by various people, and websites have followed this same path… here’s two examples:

http://www.politicalstrikes.com/thesaurus.html

http://www.thehemperor.net/liberal.html

Here is another rather interesting discussion of the issue.

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000052.html

The dictionary meaning give only the barest outlines of what the basic fundamental philosophy that underlies these two political belief systems. Attempting to rely on the idea that Liberals are “generous, progressive, and reforming” and Conservatives are “cautious and tend to conserve/preserve” is to completely misunderstand the terms as used in today’s political debates.

Somewhat better is to look to a dictionary designed for political definitions. The Harper Collins “American Government & Politics” dictionary provides the following:

“liberal: 1. An advocate of political and social reform, expanding government control of the economy, greater efforts on behalf of the poor, and more laws protecting consumers, the environment, and criminal defendants. (Because of this last concern, it is often said that a liberal is a CONSERVATIVE who has been arrested.) During the 1988 presidential election, the Republican candidate George Bush effectively used what he called “the L word” against Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis, who was trying to avoid political labels and run on the issue of competence. Only toward the end of the campaign, after it was too late to do any good, did Dukakis admit he was a liberal — and proud of it. But by that time the Republicans had effectively insinuated that “liberal” was a dirty word, and Dukakis simply wasn’t competent enough to clean it up. 2. When referring to trade policy, relative freedom of controls or restraints. The most liberal trade is free trade.”

“Conservative: One who believes in conservatism. But conservatives are seldom pure. The new right is a major variant and many conservatives are closet LIBERALS. For example, Republican Representative Trent Lott of Mississippi said: “Americans think of themselves as conservatives; they want government reduced. But in their hearts they’re liberals; they want money for sewers and libraries and all the goodies coming in. It’s a fact” (The New York Times, November 18, 1982). Another Republican Representative, Clay Shaw of Florida, confessed: “Every conservative becomes a liberal when he talks about his own district” (The New York Times, January 18, 1981). Even the nation’s leading conservative officeholder, President George Bush, once admitted that he was “a conservative but… not a nut about it” (The Washington Post, November 3, 1984). The reality is that most Americans, the mainstream of society, have both conservative and liberal inclinations depending upon a given issue and how they perceive their economic circumstances. Purity is to be found only among the LUNATIC FRINGE.”

It can be seen that by using a more specific dictionary, we approach more accurately the meanings of the terms as commonly used in politics. But for the underlying philosophy of each term, it’s necessary to move away from dictionaries and begin a little actual research. Taken from the textbook, “The Challenge of Democracy – Government in America”:

“In popular usage, liberals favor a broader scope of government whereas conservatives would narrow the scope. This distinction applies clearly to government action in providing for public goods. Liberals favor generous government support for education, wildlife protection, public transportation, and so forth. Conservatives favor fewer government programs and smaller government budgets. In particular, conservatives favor free enterprise and oppose government activism in economic matters, such as undertaking major job programs, regulating business operations, and legislating working conditions and wage rates.”

As can be seen, by using textbooks on politics, we are moving away from simplistic “reform” and “preserve” definitions that are commonly found in dictionaries. The textbook “Government by the People” offers these definitions:

“In its modern American usage, Liberalism refers to a belief in the positive uses of government to bring about justice and equality of opportunity. Modern day liberals wish to preserve the rights of the individual and the right to own private property, yet they are willing to have the government intervene in the economy to remedy the defects of capitalism. Contemporary American liberalism has its roots in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, designed to aid the poor and to protect people against unemployment and bank failures. Today liberals seek protection against inadequate or deficient medical assistance and inadequate or deficient housing and education. They generally believe in affirmative action programs, regulations that protect workers’ health and safety, tax rates that rise with income, and the right of unions to organize as well as to strike.”

“In contrast to liberals, conservatives want to keep government small, except in the area of national defense. However, because conservatives take a more pessimistic view of human nature than liberals do, they maintain that people need strong leadership institutions, firm laws, and strict moral codes to keep their appetites under control. Government, they think, needs to ensure order… Conservatives are also inclined to believe that those who fail in life are in some way the architects of their own misfortune and thus must bear the main responsibility for solving their own problems.”

The textbook “American Government – People, Institution, and Policies” comments that:

“Conservatism and Liberalism. To make our discussion of these two leading ideologies as clear as possible, let us begin with the extremes. A person who takes conservative stances across the board would oppose government intervention into the economy, oppose social programs, and favor governmental intervention to uphold morality. He or she would want a strong military and be willing to use force to obtain desired ends in foreign policy. A person who took across-the-board liberal stands would favor government intervention into markets, favor social program to help the needy, oppose governmental restrictions on morals and private activities, and oppose military expansion. Liberalism and conservatism are ideologies because each links together positions across a variety of issues.”

This textbook also includes an interesting chart that shows the inter-relationships and ideology:

More Government ————————————— Less Government
Socialism ———— Liberalism —– Conservatism —– Libertarianism

Values:
Guarantee equal —– Freedom ——- Freedom ——— Individual
Distribution of —— and Political —– and Order ——– liberty;
Wealth, social ——– Equality ——————————— Laissez
Equality —————————————————————- Faire
—————————————————————————– Economy

While this is good, certainly every text I’ve seen agrees when it comes to government, this book lists “Values”, and it seems that there may be an alternative that is preferable. In “Are You a Republican or a Democrat” by O’Leary and Kamber, the statement is offered that:

“Whether you’re a liberal of a conservative has a lot to do with how you view human nature. Liberal philosophers like Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that people were naturally good and only corrupted by the evil world. Therefore, a government that protected and developed that natural goodness was necessary. Conservative philosophers like Thomas Hobbes believed that it was human nature to be subdued by evil and that government should be used to protect people from each other.”

This immediately makes understandable the differences on many issues between Liberals and Conservatives… for example, Liberals don’t believe in the death penalty… why would you offer the supreme punishment to a good man who was corrupted by forces beyond his control? Rather, let us attempt to control those forces that led him to his crime, such as poverty, child neglect, poor education, and so on. Conservatives, on the other hand, see crime as a moral issue, and believe that transgressions against society must be paid for. This explains why Conservatives are for the death penalty.

On almost any issue, it becomes apparent why the Liberal/Conservative takes the position he does, once you understand these two underlying philosophical differences… how one views human nature, and what the purpose of government is.

(Just a side note here: Interesting to point out that Christians are more often found among Conservatives, for as Romans 3:23 points out, “For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God”. This is the Conservative view of human nature. And while you don’t have to be religious to be Conservative, it’s a fact that a large fraction of those who consider themselves conservative also consider themselves religious.)

Another example that becomes clear [once the philosophy is understood] is the favor Conservatives appear to show to the “rich”, vice the disdain of the Liberals. Conservatives believe that individuals are responsible for their own actions, and applaud those who have, through their own hard work, achieved wealth. Liberals, believing that all men are equally good, see no reason for one person to so dramatically achieve wealth above others, and will tend to assume criminal behavior. And, as all people are equally good, will prefer to “level the playing field” by inordinately taxing the wealthy.

There can be a greater divide between two people of the same party than between two of opposing parties… for example, Pat Buchanan, who is rather to the right of most Republicans, and John McCain, who would fit so easily in the Democratic Party that no-one would complain of any conservative streak. So it can be difficult to label people on the basis of their professed political party. But there’s no doubt in people’s minds that Pat Buchanan is Conservative, and John McCain is Liberal. This explains why it can sometimes be more accurate to use the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative”, rather than Democrat or Republican.