The American Spectator : John F. Kennedy and Madness of the American Left

Text Size

Political Hay

John F. Kennedy and Madness of the American Left

By Jeffrey Lord on 1.18.11 @ 6:09AM

Fifty years after JFK's inaugural: left-on-left violence, ideological pornography.

"And so my fellow Americans; Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -- President John F. Kennedy in his Inaugural Address on January 20, 1961

"I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush? -- MSNBC Host Chris Matthews on Rush Limbaugh

It was to be the beginning of a new American golden age.

Instead, it ended in a horrifying display of left-on-left violence that set the tone for what can effectively be described as the moment the stage was set for today's liberal media obsession with what amounts to ideological pornography.

The inauguration of John F. Kennedy as the 35th President of the United States took place on a crisp, cold New England-style day fifty years ago this week. So long ago -- yet so memorable to any alive in the moment.

There had been a snow storm the night before, blanketing not only Washington but a considerable portion of the East Coast. The storm had created chaos of a sort in Washington, but by the designated morning of the ceremonial day the Capital was sparkling under a bright blue sky.

American televisions were still broadcasting mostly in black and white. The television series Bonanza, a Western saga about widowed Virginia City rancher Ben Cartwright and his three sons, was one of the audacious new programs broadcast in color for those lucky few who had color TV sets. But most of America tuned into one of the three television networks of the day -- veterans CBS and NBC along with the newer, less viewed ABC -- to see the new president sworn-in in black and white.

Even in black and white the images dazzled. The old president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the hero general of a war still barely fifteen years distant, looked like Norman Rockwell's ideal of the kindly grandfather. The famous big grin that reminded Americans of why they had always liked Ike was still in place. But of a sudden there was a consciousness that, well, he did seem old at that.

That feeling, universal at the time, was accentuated for reasons well beyond the fact that the old president was giving way to the new. What made the event so riveting -- the first of its kind in the television age -- was the inescapable visual of the old man's successor.

John F. Kennedy this January inauguration day was a mere 43 years old. The last time -- the only time -- America had had a president of such visible youth and energy was a full sixty years earlier. Theodore Roosevelt, age 42 when he received word that William McKinley's death at the hands of the left-wing anarchist Leon Czolgosz had elevated him from the vice-presidency to the White House, was now a distant if fond memory. Indeed, TR's daughter Alice Roosevelt Longworth was still a Washington celebrity -- and a Kennedy favorite.

To look back at the images of JFK, hatless and coatless as he took the presidential oath that day, the trademark thatch of chestnut hair to become the model for a generation of politicians, is to be reminded that his youth was -- and is -- very much a part of America's self-image. "I say this country must move again," he had exhorted during the campaign, and this day gave the exhilarating sense the forward motion had begun.

Remembered now for the famous phrase that summoned a generation to "ask what you can do for your country" -- in fact the speech was also significant for what it said about the state of American liberalism of the day.

Kennedy was celebrated by his admirers for his cool, calm rationality. And that very rationality had made of John F. Kennedy a member in good standing of those who were unafraid to look unblinkingly into the eye of the Communist Soviet Union and see, as Ronald Reagan would later say, "an evil empire."

Kennedy had run to the right of the celebrated anti-Communist Richard Nixon in 1960.

In the very first line of his opening statement in the first Kennedy-Nixon debate, Kennedy had made it abundantly clear where he stood.

Page: 1 2 3 > Last ›

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (156) | Leave a comment

Steve in Pittsburgh| 1.18.11 @ 6:52AM

And ever since then, libs and donkeys have been looking for someone like him.

They are still looking; they will never find him.

Hello Kitty| 1.18.11 @ 10:24AM

My name is Hello Kitty,
and I am here to ask you
to please be kind to any trolls
who post here today.

Pretty please?

Tim the Enchanter| 1.18.11 @ 12:34PM

No.

Billy Goat Gruff| 1.18.11 @ 9:40PM

We EAT trolls! (it's the salt....)

Jeani| 1.19.11 @ 1:06PM

My husband is a Troll. I'm a Hag. Will you be nice to me?

Alan Brooks| 1.18.11 @ 6:19PM

But who is the GOP going to run next year?
Mark Sanford for president?

Kato Kaelin for veep?

Alan Brooks| 1.18.11 @ 6:21PM

PS,
is it being a troll to ask what sort of mediocrities you might run for POTUS? is it terribly irrelevant what sort of hacks we can look 'forward' to?

Ab| 1.18.11 @ 7:09PM

Brooks, we are going to draft you since you have the answers.

Occam's Tool| 1.19.11 @ 5:02PM

Republicans of Presidential Timber: Pence, West, Cain, Cantor, Daniels, Thune, Perry, Rubio.

No wusses (Brown), pansies to Terrorism (Paul), trimmers (Romney) in that list. 3/8 of them minorities, 4 if you count Cantor.

That took about 2 minutes.

Curtis Rasmussen| 1.18.11 @ 7:28PM

Here we are again with the troll setting up a new straw man argument, the next Republican challenger. The article concerns left on left violence, not the challengers in the next election.

Dull and predictable. And yes, it is being a troll when obfuscation, lies, and irrelevant arguments from the troll stink up this thread.

Alan Brooks| 1.18.11 @ 7:58PM

No, because you claim the leadership; yet when those you ran for the Executive Branch only about two years ago (McCain & Palin) did not win, you could not deliver. Executive leadership only delivers when you win electorally.
And you did not win.

Curtis Rasmussen| 1.18.11 @ 8:28PM

How many straw men are you going to pull out of your ass today?

Totally irrelevant.

Alan Brooks| 1.18.11 @ 8:45PM

The article itself is trivial.
A 50th anniversary puff piece on a president most at AS dislike because he did alot of in out with a large number of ho's. He wasn't president very long.

The author is attempting to write "In 1961 was when Dems were Dems."

Alan Brooks| 1.18.11 @ 8:47PM

... isn't THAT irrelevant?

Clint| 1.18.11 @ 9:17PM

Brooks seeks Self-Irrelevance.

Alan Brooks| 1.18.11 @ 9:23PM

then so does Jeff Lord.
What is the purpose of a piece at AS that more or less says:
"JFK was a better Democrat."

It is boilerplate; written for the sake of writing an article for the anniversary of JFK's inauguration, and has nothing new to say.

Clint| 1.18.11 @ 10:50PM

Neither do you Brooks.

Clint| 1.18.11 @ 9:20PM

Brooks has mastered Self-Triviality.

Alan Brooks| 1.18.11 @ 9:25PM

Jeff Lord gets paid for it.
It is not a bad article- but it's been done thousands of times since 1963.

David| 1.18.11 @ 9:45PM

Nah. The article wasn't about JFK, though he appears in it. It was about the fifty year slide into madness of the party of the working class. It is now the party of the busybody ruling class, and doesn't give a damn about little guys anymore, except insofar as they can be used as cannon fodder in the furtherance of their overweening ambitions.

Alan Brooks| 1.18.11 @ 10:33PM

"Nah. The article wasn't about JFK, though he appears in it. It was about the fifty year slide into madness of the party of the working class."

Nah, you are romanticizing the past. Maybe it was somewhat better in 1961 than it is in 2011- but not much. Supposedly the mid '50s were better years.

David| 1.19.11 @ 10:11AM

The deal, Alan, is that the Democrat Party doesn't represent us little folks anymore. More and more of us are seeing that.

Clint| 1.18.11 @ 10:52PM

Brooks was done in 1963.

Scot Cerullo| 1.18.11 @ 10:26PM

Gee, Alan. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. :)

Doug| 1.19.11 @ 6:56AM

I'm not sure they can find anyone less relevant or with less substance than the current occupant of the WH, but they will try.

lbrehm| 1.18.11 @ 7:53PM

You're cute by half.

Kevon Dunn| 1.18.11 @ 7:09AM

One thing any student on American politics must notice is the hi-jacking of the word "liberal" to mean leftist when it originally meant a believer in tolerance and minimal government. It is interesting that in Australia the conservative party is still called the Liberal Party - nomenclature that would make no sense in the US now.

SonOfSam| 1.18.11 @ 11:53AM

and that is why, Kevon, that I refer to the Krugmans, Rev Wrights,Nancy Pelosis, Chris Matthews, Dick Durbins, Alan Graysons, Barney Franks, Joe Bidens and the Obamas themselves, and other America haters, as ObamaNazis. They are decidedly NOT liberals, at least not in the sense that my Democrat registered wife is a liberal. They promote hatred of America and American history in their wikileaks papers such as the NYT, and their tax funded propaganda arm called NPR, as well American soldiers doing their duty and defending our great nation, and patriots in the media, academia, politics and in just plain everyday life. They routinely use the fascist Big Lie technique; they demonize opponents as being not just wrong, but immoral; they are doing their level best to shut down free speech using the "Fairness" doctrine and net "neutrality"; they are doing their utmost through their policies to keep our economy in the tank and people out of work, so as to exploit their suffering; they are practicing fascism in medicine by declaring that we the people have no choice but to buy a product of a billion dollar insurance company, or they, the trillion dollar government will crush us with fines, IRS audits and the threat of jail.

Sure as hell sounds like fascism to me, not liberalism

Richard Ong| 1.20.11 @ 2:04PM

Good one.

Stefanie| 1.27.11 @ 3:59PM

This is a side note about what you call the "tax funded propaganda arm called NPR". I think you need to go back and do some research. The only tax funding that goes to NPR is through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In 2009, CPB grants were a mere 1.5% of NPR's budget. Even that is indirect funding because it doesn't fund NPR's operational budget. So if I understand correctly, that that funding goes to allowing public radio stations and tv stations to exist, not to the programming.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.18.11 @ 7:39AM

A well written article.

The only thing you left out is that JFK would be to the right of many RINO's currently sitting in the U.S. Congress.

Jeremiah| 1.18.11 @ 10:26AM

To the right of many RINOS?! Shoot, JFK would be to the right of a good chunk of many Tea Partiers. Pro-life, believer in a robust American exceptionalism that exported democracy, believer in cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth. On the big issues, JFK was usually right - and was wearying of his 'new left' team of 'best and brightest' bu the time he was killed. There may indeed have been some new JFKs that have tried to rise among Democrats, but anyone espousing his beliefs would be chased out of the party as a right-wing nut, fomenter of hatred, opposed to justice. So they certainly won't get what they would immediately tear apart if the reality, rather than the memory, of it rose again. He was the last real Democratic champion of liberty.

Deborah D| 1.18.11 @ 2:51PM

Your JFK description sounds a lot like one Sarah Palin, and look how they're constantly and viciously attacking her. A frightening bunch. Too bad the Democrats allowed themselves to be taken over by the Communists JFK so hated.

Mike E| 1.19.11 @ 2:27PM

KUDOS Deborah D. You didn't need a big hammer to hit that nail on the head did you! Palin for pres 2012

Mr ED| 1.18.11 @ 7:52AM

Whether in 1963 or today, it is the Liberal /Leftist attack machine doing what it does best, engaging in the politics of personal destruction and and promoting grand, false myths but not just on a personal scale that we are now very familiar with but a grand scale that encompases ever larger swaths of the public at large. The self-righteous Liberals screech incessant demands for the accused to confess their presumed complicity (through the witchcraft of conservatism) in the murderous attack by a deranged psychotic or face more torturous lies and accusations by the Leftist mob. Each Leftists is secure in the knowledge that there is virtually no chance they themselves will be called to account for their reckless libels and slanders because their Leftist bretheren control most of the media and infotainment machine.

That is the same machine that turns a complete fabrication like double super-secret agent Valerie Plame supposedly being outed by nefarious elements in the White House into a movie that closely follows the malicious Leftist lie and totally ignores the truth, even when that truth is an easily verified by the now public record. Leftists ALWAYS tell the story as they want it to be or to have been, just as children do. In fact, Leftists are nothing more than self-deluded adult children that are totally invested in a grand myth that puts them at the heart of all that is good and innocent in the universe. They just can't understand why the little people don't worship at their "enlightened" feet and eagerly follow their every proscription when doing so would lead to the "perfect" world.

SonOfSam| 1.18.11 @ 12:23PM

And lest we forget who is at the head of this vicious attack machine, and why I will continue to refer to his Kool-Aid swilling followers as ObamaNazis:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Barack Obama
September 18, 2008

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,"
Sen. Barack Obama
Radnor Middle School in Wayne, Pa., Saturday, June 14, 2008. (AP)

"A Republican majority in Congress would mean "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy,"
President Barack Obama, October 6, 2010

"We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."
President Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010

"I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!"
President Barack Obama March 2010

"We talk to these folks so I know whose ass to kick."
President Barack Obama
June 2010

"Punish your enemies"
President Barack Obama
October 26, 2010

"I’m itching for a fight"
President Barack Obama
December 7, 2010

Mike E| 1.19.11 @ 2:33PM

Wow those comments by Barack (Osama) Obama look like something a Jihadist would say!

jstwndring| 1.19.11 @ 11:52PM

A Kenyan jihadist? ;)

JP| 1.18.11 @ 7:53AM

JFK more than FDR began the phenomenon of modern political bombast. We remember Jack, not for what he accomplished, but for what he uttered. FDR, while giving many memorable speeches, had a Depression to deal with (followed by a World War). This phenomena continues to the present day. The Left loves Obama because of his Progressive bombast; the conservatives love Palin because of hers. Obama, not satisfied with hurling missives in public squares, wrote two auto-biographies before he was 45. Normally, political biographies were reserved for those elderly statesmen who actually did something.

Today, pols line up giving canned speeches written by pollsters and operatives. From Jindal to Palin, the line of young underachieving hotshots bombard us with thier mediocrity. Fox is filled with them. They are not children of Reagan. But they are the bastard step children of JFK.

In the meantime, the Left is about to explode. If the Right invites mediocrity, the Left encourages the insane. These over credentialed, highly trained, and very wealthy professional overseers and would be nannies are furious; but thier fury is not the same fury of the old Proletariat. These coddeled, pampered misfits are programmed to be furious. One day soon, they will all get together in one place, and the kinetic energy of thier passions will cause thier heads to explode. And then, maybe we can return to the days of Silent Cal.

MOS was 71331| 1.18.11 @ 1:40PM

"From Jindal to Palin, the line of young underachieving hotshots bombard us with thier mediocrity."

Gee, JP, I wish I was as underachieving a hotshot as Sarah Palin: Starting and running a successful business with my spouse, being elected a mayor of a small town, being appointed to a significant position in a state government, exposing fraud in the operation of that state government, and then being overwhelmingly elected governor of that state.

If I were similarly underachieving, perhaps I could bombard you with my (as opposed to "thier") mediocrity. By the way, stupid, the word you wanted was "their."

JP| 1.18.11 @ 1:58PM

Palin accomplished little as govenor. Exposing fraud is the job of the state AG, not the govenor. She confuse facts with talking points. Palin's popularity as govenor was due mainly to her ability to redistribute hundreds of millions of oil company profits to the citizens of her state. Her governance wasn't bad, it was just uneventful.
Pass around the candy enough and everyone will like you.

You Palin groupies are a wierd bunch. You are so in need of a leader that you ignore obvious flaws. There isn't one GOP contender out there who is qualified to be President. Not one.

Palin may be a good cheerleader. She may say things that tickle your ears. But there is nothing in her resume that points to the Oval Office. We elected one unqualified man to sit there. Let's not make the same mistake twice.

SonOfSam| 1.18.11 @ 3:40PM

yes JP, and you've accomplished wonderful things yourself. Just like the TelePrompter in Chief, who's been a "community organizer", a scumbag lawyer for ACORN, and a political non-entity sucking off the taxpayers and voting present. And oh yes, he's now proceeding to piss all over the American dream.

Palin can run rings around either of you

VBMax| 1.18.11 @ 4:15PM

Sarah Palin has 2 important qualifications to be a leader: Courage and honesty

Liberty or Death| 1.18.11 @ 7:14PM

@JP
Gotta say I agree with you. I am from the great state of AK, and there are many of us who are struck stupid by the insane following Palin has accumulated. I know a lot of it has to do with the horrible attacks on her character (all baseless in my summation), and the conservative talking-heads undying support.

Ask a conservative up here what he/she really thinks of Palin. Google, "AGIA" (Alaska Gasline Inducement Act), or, "ACES" (Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share), and read about her "pro-growth" energy policies against the oil companies just for a start.

Don't get me wrong, Palin has strong, social-conservative standards, which are admirable; however, her much-lauded appreciation for fiscally conservative views, leaves me in a state of wonderment. How anyone can claim to be a conservative, and then level one of the largest tax hikes on Big Oil, in an "oil producing" state, is beyond comprehension?

I've made the comparison between her, and The One, on many occasions. They both pour sweet honey in your ear, albeit from opposite sides of the spectrum, and in the end, present a vapid prospect. They both have style over substance in my view.

Do we REALLY want someone who dropped out of her obligation to public service (quit a governorship), to go on a book tour, become a FoxNews commentator, and star in a reality show, as our president?

In my opinion, Palin, as our nominee, would hand us His Majesty for a second term. I'm not arguing qualifications here, because Palin was FAR more qualified than Prince Fluffy Pants could ever hope to have been. He spent most of his senate term running for president for crying out loud!

And if it came down to the 2 of them in the general, I'd support her... but I'd much rather have someone to vote for, than the former.

Ask yourself this, how many people would make that choice though?

David Davies| 1.18.11 @ 9:56PM

I like Sarah, but I would much prefer to see John Bolton in the Oval Office. I'll vote for whoever the GOP runs though. The Democrat brand will never sell me anything as long as I live.

As for Sarah 'quitting', I offer this. Palin is still fighting, so it should be obvious that she didn’t ‘quit’. General Lee didn’t quit after Gettysburg. He disengaged, and continued fighting. ‘Quitting’ is what General Lee did at Appomattox. Has she thrown in the towel? No! Palin disengaged from a losing battle, shifted her position, found the enemy flank, and renewed her attack. Her resignation of the governor’s office was brilliant strategy, very much like Admiral Spruance’s turn east the night after Midway.
What so many do not understand is that to her, the success of the mission is paramount. She isn’t in it for self-glorification, and the left just can’t understand that. It isn't about her 'career', it's about the mission.

Liberty or Death| 1.19.11 @ 1:26PM

@David

Respectfully, I'll have to disagree with you about your statement that she did not quit. The people of Alaska elected her to do a job. Even if she was neck-deep in made up, "ethics violations," and legal battles, unable to perform her duties, she made a commitment to the people to serve out her term.

By walking away, whether she continues to "fight" on the national stage, or not, shows me she has no follow through. When times get tough, that's when you need to stick it out the most, not run away... whatever her excuse is.

Would the presidency be any easier? Would the pressure be any less than the governorship of Alaska? To the contrary, it would be more.

She is an opportunist. She saw the chance at celebrity and took it. Is that so wrong? Not really... But it certainly does not look good on her political resume. It does not give me confidence in her as a leader, who is committed to the job at hand.

But hey, that's just my take.

David Davies| 1.19.11 @ 11:23PM

Respectfully, you have no data to back up your opinion. I do. It's in her book. Read it. She considered her options, and decided her cause was better served by resigning. I have no reason not to believe her. I have no reason to believe any of her detractors.

Why would anyone who is no longer able to do the job they were hired to do hang onto the position? You may have been hired by the Cowboys to be their ace quarterback for the season, but a head injury that causes you to lose your vision sort of means that you should let someone else take over that job, dontcha think?

Liberty or Death| 1.20.11 @ 7:01PM

Great! You read HER book! That's not going to slant in her direction at all...

I just gave you a pile of facts dude. Dispute what I wrote? Did she resign? Yes. Did she inact job-destroying (PC you know) tax legislation that stiffled oil business in Alaska? Yes. Did she offer TransCanada, a company that cannot afford to actually build a gas pipeline on its own, a $500 million taxpayer subsidy? Yes.

What are you talking about?

David Davies| 1.22.11 @ 9:29PM

Yep. She resigned. That is your one and only indisputable fact. All the rest is opinion, conjecture, or spin. Your opinion as to why she resigned. Your opinion as to whether it was a good move for her, or for Alaska. Your opinion as to the wisdom of the renegotiation of the arrangement by which all Alaskans profit from oil production. Your spin as to whether inducements to TransCanada can rightly be termed a 'subsidy'. We have a long history, you know, of government support of private enterprise efforts, the star of the show being the land-grant railroads in the 19th century. Yes, railroad companies got government land. No, it wasn't free, but had to be paid for by the actual construction of a railroad, and decades of half-rate fares for all government business, both freight and passenger. Was that a 'subsidy'?

When considering Palin's motives for her resignation, I think it wise to hear her out and give more weight to her words than to anyone else. I listen carefully. And again, I have no reason to disbelieve her, and no reason to believe you.

Y'all have an excellent day.

David Davies| 1.22.11 @ 9:30PM

And by the way, it is 'enact', not 'inact'.

Gaffe Prices| 1.20.11 @ 11:17AM

Sarah Palin stood up for herself, the Tea Party, and you and I, when we were slandered and blood libeled by the Left and their media organs, following the murders in Tuscon. Newt Gingrich? Coward. Barbour? Coward. Mitt? Coward. Sarah Palin was the only person who represented me when that storm of libel was going down, the others considered their own position politically and decided it wasn't worth the bother to defend us. It is irrelevant, until this time next year, who's running for president. When the primaries start, which weak republican whose not Sarah Palin will win the nomination, and then go on to lose in the general election in November? Tim Pawlenty is the only one so far to make a gutsy stand, but I very much appreciate Sarah Palin making a stand against blood libel when the others wouldn't

pantheist| 1.20.11 @ 6:07PM

Thank You Jp for an insightful balanced review of what is really going on. It is truely pleasant to hear your pespective . . . without the usual polemic and vitriolic responses . . . from BOTH sides:}

Gaffe Prices| 1.20.11 @ 6:51PM

I want someone who will stand up to the lies and slander campaigns of the Left. You're trying to wear your moral equivalence argument as a hairshirt, and I for one, am not buying it.

Gaffe Prices| 1.20.11 @ 11:07PM

To be more clear: I reject the false premise of moral equivalence regarding left and right- the nastiness is all originates in Moscow, or should I say ORIGINATED in moscow, through its fifth column agitprop tactics, and is now on autopilot, moscow having demoralized and degenerated the culture, and hence the political culture, through it's underground sources, to the point where it is now provided by the most reliable fifth column agitprop "legitimate" source, [now provided by] the the corruption of the chicago machine. Thanks but no tanks.

Nukes Now!| 1.18.11 @ 9:49PM

Should be able to harness all that fury and use it to generate electricity or something useful....

Judester| 1.18.11 @ 8:00AM

JFK was the first President I voted for after my honorable discharge from the Navy. I remember it all and it looks like we are going to go through it again with the way things are stacking up.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 1.18.11 @ 8:02AM

50 years gone by already, and you’d swear that we haven’t fixed a damn thing yet!! Where (or should I say when?) will we ever find the finish line, when the Left keeps moving the goalposts, and changing the rules?

As fast as you fix one thing (with Taxpayers money, or course), they’ve broken another thing that needs to be fixed too. We’re stuck in a trap (that the Left created), a circular trap that keeps bringing us back to where we were before, and when we find ourselves back at the beginning of a cycle, we do it all over again (with Taxpayers money involved again, of course).

I hate to be such a pessimist (and I try not to be), but I think this decade is going to be a repeat of the 60’s, with all the riots, the looting, the killing, the violence that went along with that disastrous decade, but this time around with updated technology (so they’ll be better organized when they start destroying things). We’ve got to stop playing their game, stop playing by their rules, hell, let’s just stop playing with them “all together”. “Hell, let’s just stop playing with them”. Ask not wheat your Country can do for you, ask what you can do to stop the Democratic Party.

JimP| 1.18.11 @ 10:51AM

"50 years gone by." Good point. How many years does is take to fix all, or even one, these "problems"? After half a century of 'effort' and trillions spent, we still have 'poverty', people stuck on welfare, education still sucks, etc. Obviously, the Feds can't do the job. (I know you all know this, but I wanted to vent a little. Thanks for your patience)

gypsy| 1.18.11 @ 11:57AM

Kind of makes you wonder why these ObamaNazi assclowns NEVER have to answer when the "war on poverty" is going to be won, doesn't it?

jstwndring| 1.20.11 @ 12:04AM

The Republican party gave up on stopping left-wing policies about 60 or 70 years ago and began a policy of damage limitation. We went on defense. Instead, we need to elect brave men and women who will get aggressive with our desire for limited government by absolutely gutting every-single-piece of Democrat-authored, state-empowering legislation that has been written for the last six, or, even seven decades. Slash and burn the federal government. I mean, if the Dims get to be aggressive with their agenda, why can't we? We have the Constitution on our side. The Dims don't.

SC Mike| 1.18.11 @ 8:04AM

Gore, Kerry, and Edwards almost made it.

I think I need a drink to ward off the chill.

Curly Smith| 1.18.11 @ 8:18AM

The Marxist left killed JFK and the Marxist left killed RFK so is it any surprise that the "courageous" politicians pander to the Marxist left? The Dems always tell you who they're afraid of and they're deathly afraid of their Marxist base... and for good reason. They don't want any debate because they then have to take a position and that position may literally put them in the crosshairs. A legitimate two-party system might make them an endangered species. Take a look at our foreign policy - who gets respect? The peaceful democracies or the thug states? That doesn't mean that there isn't any courage in DC, after all people from the hinterlands do visit from time to time.

gypsy| 1.18.11 @ 11:58AM

They fear the wikileaks nutcases in their midst the same way "moderate" Muslims" fear their bomb throwing cousins

John| 1.18.11 @ 8:21AM

The left has been very successful in interpreting events in order to smear the right. Even "conservatives" condemn Senator Joseph McCarthy for his work on the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. They were somewhat less successful in portraying Oswald as a right winger. Things have changed. Previously Dan Rather's Bush memo would have been accepted. Now where is Dan Rather? The difference is glasnost. The same factor that brought down the Soviet Union. The left must close down the internet if it is to survive.

Old Joe| 1.18.11 @ 8:55AM

John,

I am going to pick a nit here. Senator McCarthy did NO work on the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. And by the way, those that he accused of being Commies turned out to actually be Commies. America owes his memory an apology.

Nick| 1.18.11 @ 9:32AM

Old Joe,

I, too, will pick a nit.

Actually, it was the House Select Committee on un-American Activities. Started by liberal democrats, in the '30s, to go after "supposed" fascist sympathizers.

John| 1.18.11 @ 9:41AM

Sorry Joe. I should have made myself a little clearer. Senators obviously do not work on House Committees as Ann Coulter informed Bill O'Reily. Senator McCarthy was a great American. My only criticism of him would be that he underestimated the communist threat.

Bob Miller| 1.18.11 @ 4:13PM

The Communist Party itself created the character-assassination playbook that Joe McCarthy used rather clumsily later on. Every method attributed to McCarthy was standard practice in intra-left infighting.

Doctor Right| 1.18.11 @ 8:23AM

As a kid growing up in the 70's, I was always perplexed by my father's lack-of-enthusiasm for anything Kennedy. I couldn't understand how he could dislike the Kennedys, especially the dead one who had been President; didn't Dad realize that our country, indeed our entire world would have been a better place had John Kennedy lived??? At least that's what the TV and newspapers always said...

Of course, I'm now older than my father was then, a little more politically astute, and I get it. Completely.

Jack Kennedy was a media-created myth, and even the parts that weren't created were carefully "massaged" to make this deeply flawed man seem God-like in his wisdom and his virtue. Reality had no place in Camelot, at least as far as the public was concerned, and the media did their best to prop-up this story. The handsome (adulterous, philandering) husband, the glamorous (estranged, detached, snobbish) wife, the cutesy-pie (camera fodder) kids, the extended (lecherous, debauched) family, the lies, the deceit, the political maneuvering, the back-door, back-stabbing deals...all white-washed for a public that lapped it up for almost 40 years until Talk Radio and the internet challenged the public view of "The Kennedys", and in so doing, incurred the ire of love-sick Kennedy sycophants (like Arthur Schlesinger) everywhere.

JFK was in office barely 1,000 days, and was in serious danger of losing the election that Mayor Daley likely stole for him in Chicago in 1960. In those 3 years, Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs invasion, began the action in Southeast Asia that would come to be known as Vietnam, and shafted our Turkish allies in the Cuban missile crisis.

Had Kennedy not died that fateful day in Texas, and had he managed to get re-elected, he would have morphed into another big-government Democrat. Instead, he lives on in myth, a "conservative democrat" to some, but a Democrat nonetheless (and a Kennedy first and foremost).

This new Congress marks the first time in 50 years that a Kennedy has NOT polluted the halls of Congress. The death of Fat Teddy caused a power drainage from which the remaining idiot grandsons and granddaughters do not seem able to navigate.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

owyheewine| 1.18.11 @ 9:07AM

Amen.
Too few people today understand what a morally deficient human JFK was. His daddy helped steal the 1960 election, and his tradition of sleazy Dem politics lives to this day.

Ted| 1.18.11 @ 1:02PM

"Too few people today understand what a morally deficient human JFK was."

Indeed, that apple fell very close to the paternal tree.... He learned moral deficiency at Poppa Joe's knee.

JmsA| 1.18.11 @ 9:14AM

Thank you! Thank you! and Thank you, Dr. Right.

Stormzeye| 1.18.11 @ 10:18AM

You left out one important piece of JFK's legacy. He was the Father of the Public Service Union. By executive order he allowed for collective bargaining on behalf of government workers.

MOS was 71331| 1.18.11 @ 2:00PM

Well said, Dr Right. When I heard JFK had been assassinated on the way to my next class at college, my first thought was that Madame Nhu had somehow struck back for JFK's arranged murder a few weeks earlier of her brother-in-law, Ngo Dinh Diem, president of South Vietnam. Had she done so, I would have sympathized with her.

My second thought was that Barry Goldwater, whose public approval was then increasing rapidly, would probably lose against Johnson in 1964. Not realizing at the time how low the Johnson campaign would stoop, I just expected that residual sympathy for the fallen JFK would assure Johnson's victory.

josil| 1.27.11 @ 3:30PM

I did not vote for JFK, but let me put in a good word for him. In great contrast to the current POTUS, Kennedy did not take himself as seriously as his fawning followers. He thought Camelot was a joke. If he was still around, he would probably be equally amused by Veep Biden...another joke.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.18.11 @ 8:41AM

Lullabys,
I hear you, sir.
I some times feel as if we are marching in ankle deep sand while the nuts do cartwheels down by the water on the firm wet sand. (I know that you have marched in both.)

I never cease to be amazed at how many people go for the bait time and time again, (Gore, Kerry, and Edwards).
I think your pessimism is reflective of a lot of fine men in our armed forces who see first hand the results Of the nutters...but more importantly the millions of dupes wandering around behind them, and voting for them.

Bud, I do believe the tide is coming in again to wash the nutters away.
Stand strong at the gates, and we will try to cover your backs. Pass the word.

W| 1.18.11 @ 8:48AM

Great article, Mr. Lord. It is about time that the truth about the violent left is told. We have allowed the left to dominate the media with the result that many people believe the Mafia,or the CIA, or the FBI, or Lyndon Johnson, or take your pick, killed Kennedy. How many know Oswald was a commie, or that Sirhan was a radical muslim?
Most of the political violence has always come from the left. Leftists are worse than religious fanatics, they wish to remake us, and if they cannot, they they will kill you, as they did in China, Cambodia, Cuba, USSR,etc., over one hundred million deaths last century., and still counting.

PolishKnight| 1.18.11 @ 8:52PM

No, W, it's worse than that. They won't kill you if they can't remake you. They'll kill you just for the fun of it.

Leftists love to hate the right. They love to hate the right more than they love any portion of their claimed agenda such as helping the poor, environmentalism, or ending racism. They realize, at a subconscious level, that their utopia is unattainable both logically and realistically and besides, it's all about being a superior person so who cares whether the dogma makes sense or not.

This analysis helps me to derive a simple way of dealing with their psychosis. Since they crave self-importance, ignoring them is like throwing a brat into a room and telling them to timeout. I simply inform them that their dogma doesn't matter. They only care about themselves and there are numerous examples of their ideology not working out. They then try to focus blame upon the right for it not working out and I say that's the point: They only care about blame and self-importance, not their own agenda. This generally frightens them and they run off. That's right: They actually run off.

W| 1.19.11 @ 7:54AM

well done, polish knight

John Navratil| 1.19.11 @ 9:12AM

Polish Knight,

How right you are! The reason is simple. Comparing left and right governments, the right one provides greater individual freedom, opportunity and wealth. Populations within the left governments will always gravitate to that of the right. Compare Canadian immigration to the U.S. to the reverse and while you see, per capita, the more Canadians want to head south. Economic migration into the U.S. remains strong, but not so strong into Europe unless you are coming from someplace even worse. It seems the world prefers what Mr. Churchill called the unequal sharing of wealth to the equal sharing of misery.

Thus the mere existence of the right portends the death of the left. On the other hand, does the right really care is Europe is Socialist?

(I await the inevitable remonstrations about right-wing U.S. hegemony)

Lazy Jack| 1.18.11 @ 9:07AM

Compare the two below:

Al Qaeda is still a threat. We cannot pretend somehow that because Barack Hussein Obama got elected as president, suddenly everything is going to be OK.
Barack Obama

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
John F. Kennedy

What a difference fifty years makes. Ugh.

For more:

http://thanksforthelaughs.word.....eadership/

Lazy Jack

Redstateboy| 1.18.11 @ 9:25AM

And of course, step three in all this is that "reform" of X translates into a hardened bureaucracy, a bureaucracy quickly unionized, highly paid and declared off-limits from taxpayers across the country who are being bled dry financially by the same philosophy with their state and local governments. American states are now headed to bankruptcy precisely because they have followed the thinking Krugman advocates. And, in turn, this has birthed the Tea Party.

Well stated.. our cities are teaming with Dependent - reliable Democrat Storm Troopers and they Will become more violent then they are already.

Lazy Jack| 1.18.11 @ 10:04AM

Another difference in focus and responsibility.

I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.
Barack Obama

Why can’t I just eat my waffle?
Barack Obama

Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.
John F. Kennedy

Lazy Jack

www.thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com

Bob Cotten| 1.18.11 @ 10:15AM

Leftism in all its forms is the intense hatred of anything perceived as being good, including fairness and justice. If you love making people miserable you're probably a leftist.

MACON| 1.18.11 @ 10:33AM

Excellent thought provoking article. Even before the assasination there existed the idea of sacrificing the innocent for "the Cause" as so clearly stated in Witness by Whittaker Chambers.
While Kennedy did run as a conservative and in fact was a supply sider in regards to economics he was also unsure of what to do with his presidency as detailed in "Kennedy, The Man and The myth".

RichTex| 1.18.11 @ 10:42AM

The Left’s excuse of, approval of, even enthusiastic endorsement of, the use of violence to achieve its aims goes much further back than what we have seen following the assignation of President Kennedy. Remember what was said by the Left intelligentsia in reaction to Joseph Stalin’s extermination of his political opponents in the 30’s: “In order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.”

loulou| 1.18.11 @ 10:49AM

I am sick of the Kennedys.
JFK was the Obama of his day--except he knew who his parents were. He was as shallow and narcissistic as Obama. But he did have a mysterious, beautiful wife-- unlike Obama's beastly amazon.
I'm not conned by all this "Camelot" nonsense. I see the Kennedys for what they were and are--thugs, crooks and sociopaths.

Yosemeti Sam| 1.18.11 @ 12:32PM

And one of 'them' actually ran into a tree while skiing and one of 'them' actually, sadly, tragically, tried piloting a plane over the Atlantic with a busted foot yet.

Strange people - 'them'.

Anthony| 1.18.11 @ 10:53AM

Make no mistake, the American left are delusional. Krugman and Matthews are but just the tip of the insanity that passes for leftist discourse.
It has never ceased to amaze me how an entire segment of our population can be content with lies, distortion, and just plain hoaxes as the foundation of their political philosophy.
It has been said that the left never recovered from the reality that John Kennedy was killed by a hard core Russian Communist, rather than the murky sinister" right wing of Dallas", that they cling to so desperately in their warped minds.
Same with Bobby, who was killed by an Middle Eastern, anti Israeli, who also had nothing to do with the '60s "right wing of hate", as feverishly believed, and still to this day, by the left.
The Kennedy myth was carefully crafted, and still to this day, the clan pust pressure on any attempt at the actual truth of these reprobates that make up the Kennedy men.
In addition to the Kennedy myth, today's desperate delusions of the left can be found in the steadfast belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming, despite all evidence to the contrary, which has been hidden by the left, as if it was Obama's birth certificate.
Same with Obama's and the left's insistance on Keysanian ecomomics, as the crushing debt and deficit spending sends America into 3rd world status.
So, it's no wonder that folks on the left, like Krugman and Matthews, resort to the most vile of accusations and slanders in their desperate desire to cling to their failed beliefs.
At some level they must know, however, their arrogance and elitist attitudes continue to lead these lemings over the cliff. There is no stopping them and there is no reasoning with people such as these, which is why the lame, trite, gesture of sitting together at the State of the Union is so pathetic.
It's up to us, the conservatives, to keep America from going over the cliff with the left. We can't count on Washington to do the job, they just aren't up to the task.

Louis Jenkins| 1.18.11 @ 12:45PM

Teddy was killed by a gun slinging right wing bottle of booze, hanging out with harlots, and spending the taxpayers money without reserve. In fact, he made a drunken sailor look honest.

My apologies, Anthony, may JFK sleep with his fathers, but we've got important work here to do. The USA is now a third world state, only, like a turtle with its head cut off, we don't know it yet. Unemployment, the deficit, the treasury, health care (?) you name it. Ask not what you can do for your country? First, we need to get rid of Obama, that is the hard part, then maybe we can begin to make sense of this run down nation, and re-build. Instead the Kennedys are built up to be mega-heroes. We've got plenty of heroes, we need people who will get the job done.

Anthony| 1.18.11 @ 3:39PM

I think I said that.

Redstateboy| 1.18.11 @ 11:06AM

When posting comments with those on the Left, say, at USA Today, one is struck by their refusal to debate facts or employ logic. The Left is consumed in a fanatical belief in NeverNever Land.

SonOfSam| 1.18.11 @ 12:02PM

Trying to debate an ObamaNazi is like trying to play volleyball with a goldfish: they don't get it, they can't do it, its a waste of your time

JayPitsby| 1.18.11 @ 11:12AM

I read these things and wonder why all the fuss and then I remember that no one knows these things because education has become a mouthpiece of the left.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.18.11 @ 11:15AM

Forgive me, Mr. Lord.
I posted this on Quin's blog, but wanted it read by more people since blogs disappear too soon here.
Quin,

I always get a chuckle out of you...may I say "straining at gnats" RE Sarah.

I won't ask you who you would like to see elected President in 2012. First of all, it would cause you endless grief. Second, it would put you in someone's "camp".
As a columnist, that puts you in an awkward position vs a vis your readers.

Having said all of that, I have made my affection and admiration for the woman pretty clear over time.
Yes, she stumbled in two "gotcha" interviews; the only times I ever saw her loose her temper.
She admitted as much later when asked about the interviews.
(One question of course a bout "the Bush doctrine". The other of course about if she read anything.)
If I had been in those interviews and asked those questions, I might have gone off like a roman candle.
My "should have saids" would have gone something like these:
"Why would you ask such a dumb-ass question ?"
or
"What particular 'Bush doctrine' are you interested in...dumb-ass! The man has been in office eight long years."

Instead, as she later wrote in her first book, "Going Rogue", she had been muzzled to the pap the McCain campaign was spouting.

She was "admonished" to be a good girl and not to rock the boat.
I was frustrated watching her do her slow burn during those interviews.
As I have gotten to watch her more over time, I have learned her "eye-flash" means..."Look-out! I'm ready to hoist you on your own petard, Stupid!"

OK, Sarah. I'm speaking to you, now. The very best trick when a "gotcha" question or a truly dumb question is asked of you: "Ask the questioner to re-state the question!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let the audience have a chance to sorta' catch up to what is going on, and how shallow...or mean the question truly is as the case may be.

Quin,
You know?
I again state my hope and my prayers that the woman will run.
I would not blame her if she did not, but she has stated MANY times that she is NOT going to sit down and shut up, regardless. With four children at home she might not want to leave them orphans.
I would point out to you and any other reader that should she run, she will get some Secret Service protection...and they are the best in the world.

In a sense, she is right these days in the
"Garden of Gethsemane".....praying "Not my will Father, but Thy will...be done".

Let's talk about the "negative poll numbers" a minute. I think we can safely say that Jesus Christ seemed to have "negative poll numbers" in relation to Barabas. Barabas was voted to go free, and his zealot faction led to the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora of the Jews for two thousand years.
Quin,
we have read a LOT about a "polarized country".
I agree.
My take on that is that the forces of good and evil are aligning and dressing ranks.

On the one side, the communist atheists, (pardon the shorthand), and the atheist Islamists who are promised 72 mutilated virgins for a PRIZE for murdering innocents...

On the other side, are those of us who are for truth and justice, and agape'.
"Choose ye therefore whom you will serve!"

Bob Grant| 1.18.11 @ 8:40PM

Tex, I like the idea of having the interviewer repeat a dumb question . Not bad.

The mainstream did a number of Sarah last week. No question. When, however, does Sarah transform from being a victim of the media to someone citizens can visualize as our president?

Sure, her reality show (excuse me, travelogue) illustrates what a nice gal she is but at what point does she act like a potential leader of the nation?

Temperament, judgement, leadership abilities.

Richard Baker| 1.18.11 @ 11:18AM

Redstateboy:
Agree with your sentiments. I am always struck by the fact that the lefties imagine a world that spawns the resentments and angers of this world into chaos as a perfectly normal state of affairs. The other idea that I've always had is that they advocate a world from which they would exempt themselves but demand for the rest of us.

Richard| 1.18.11 @ 11:23AM

The lie that "Hate" killed JFK was started, I recall, by Dan Rather who claimed that bigoted and racist Dallas killed JFK even though he had in his possession a Gallup poll showing that the people of Dallas were far from being bigots and racists. Dan Rather began lying then and continued until he was deposed after lying about GW Bush's military service.

Deborah D| 1.18.11 @ 3:19PM

Great observation, Richard. I had forgotten about Rather's wickedness from day one of his appearance on the national stage. What a lying jerk. Oh, but journalism was so much better back then. Yeah, right! Samey-same.

Howard| 1.18.11 @ 11:36AM

Excellent article. The Romanian defector Gen. Pacepa indicated that the KGB swung into action immediately after JFK's assassination. They started the myth that the real killers were; The CIA, or right-wing extremists, etc. This deception was carried on by liberals/leftists; eventually venturing into a universe of conspiracy theories, each more bizarre than the previous ones.

The Left is like a religion. Their "god" is the State. Hence, the need for more "gifts", i.e. taxes for their deity. So, while Congress can sit side by side, the truth is that the Left will always try to destroy conservatives and other opponents of the endless State.

Bob Miller| 1.18.11 @ 4:17PM

In the US, people like Carl Oglesby did their level best to spread this KGB line around.

Bob Miller| 1.18.11 @ 4:17PM

In the US, people like Carl Oglesby did their level best to spread this KGB line around.

Petronius| 1.18.11 @ 12:03PM

The day that JFK was assassinated was the day I decided never to marry and have a family. We were not Free then. We are serfs now. And the only reason the Demonist left doesn't send their private thug army to kill all the affluent and wealthy suburbanites is that nobody would be left to tax to support their illegitimate offspring.
I've said before on this site, the only way to beat these filthy parasitic despots is to starve them. I call once more for a national lockout. All those who own and run businesses should lay in food and provisions for a year. Then lay off your employees, lock your doors and gates, go home and just wait. The government bureaucrats and their lowlife clientele must both be taught that the productive citizens of this country do not owe them a living!

Oldefarte| 1.18.11 @ 12:40PM

Jeffrey Lord's editorial is simply [and accurately]outstanding. There is nothing that I or anyone else needs to add or to comment concerning this piece of literature!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**posttenebraslux**| 1.18.11 @ 12:40PM

Romney..............chicken; Gingrich...........RINO............Huckabee.......eehh?...........Barbour...............scared

Sarah.......................priceless.

Louis Jenkins| 1.18.11 @ 12:55PM

(off topic)

post*tenebras*lux:

Mrs. Palin is not afraid to wade in and call a spade a spade. Romney and Barbour are scared, and Gingrich, well, you are correct. Huckabee? He seems to come off a little like a country bumkin. If we were to grade a candidate on personal courage Mrs. Palin would have to be the first, something all others seem to be lacking. Sounds like I'm tooting on Mrs. Palin's horn, but that is not needed. She can do that on her own.

Jullou| 1.18.11 @ 12:50PM

Sadly, the Democrats have been taken over by leftists/liberals/progressives/statists that are followers of "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. You can read this Democrat rule book by doing an internet search. Conseratives/Republicans need to point this out when having a political confrontation with libs.

The following rules are obviously being used right now.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
(pps.127-134)

Jullou| 1.18.11 @ 12:55PM

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." (Rules for Radicals, p.10)

Jullou| 1.18.11 @ 1:03PM

"Obama helped fund 'Alinsky Academy': "The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy.... Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.... 'Midwest describes itself as 'one of the nation's oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.'... Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing."

Jullou| 1.18.11 @ 1:09PM

Alinsky's tactics were based, not on Stalin's revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci's transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.

Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins's wrath by suggesting that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:

"By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible.... Gramsci's master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity's transcendent God."

jstwndring| 1.20.11 @ 12:43AM

Too bad for them that God cannot be checkmated. Christianity is back on the rise in America, as well as in many other countries around the world. This has Satan scared and flailing about, hence the rise in the level of lunacy we see displayed by those who don't believe in God. Ha!

Gaffe Prices| 1.20.11 @ 10:54PM

"The rights of man come not by the generosity of the state, but by the hand of God!"
-John Fitzgerald Kennedy

George S| 1.18.11 @ 1:23PM

I think there is another parallel to the Left's descent into violence after JFK's assassination. While it's true that Oswald was a professed Marxist, I do not think that fact alone is what got the left's ire. I think it has more to do with what JFK represented. Here is the young, smart, and handsome President, ushering in a new generation of so much hope and promise. Add to that a beautiful wife and young children -- a royal Camelot. The ideal front man for advancing liberalism -- and who appeals to the right with his pro-military America-first determination to contain Soviet expansionism.

Then, just like that, he's gone. Not fair, this is not what is supposed to happen. And to top it off, it is discovered that it was all shattered by a lone gunman. That cannot possibly be; there have to be more sinister forces at work. So, naturally, there were grand conspiracies at play. The Zapruder film "clearly" showed it was impossible for Oswald to act alone. Oswald could have not possibly operated the mechanics of that rifle in a few seconds, and so on. The mafia, the CIA, the military, the right wingers... anybody except a single lunatic with a mail order rifle was a more plausible explanation. We simply just had to believe that because a larger than life JFK cannot possibly be undone by a common man acting alone. Then, there was Jack Ruby -- conveniently closing out and tying the conspiracy into a neat little bow.

Ever since then, the Left has seen the destruction of its political dreams as the victim of a grand conspiracy. The plain and simple truth is not believable. More votes? The voting machines were tampered. Political opposition to health care? A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. A shooting in Tucson? The Tea Party, naturally.

I think that in addition to Oswald being a Marxist, it had more to do with his acting alone. In a crazy way, it symbolized to the left that the lone individual has a lot of power to change government. Whether by rifle or whether by a vote.

RCV| 1.18.11 @ 1:34PM

Just as many liberals like to invoke the memory of Ronald Reagan, even though they did not support him at the time, so conservatives are fond of invoking JFK in a positive way even though they reviled him in his lifetime and in private thereafter. They like to cherry-pick his legacy to try to fashion a psuedo-conservative to fit their needs of the moment.

Kennedy was a true progressive Democrat. He came into office determined to stir the imagination of young people to confront the problems of their nation and the world. He directly set the tone that led thousands of young men and women, myself included, to fight for civil rights and end segregation. He inspired young Americans to go out into the world and use their skills in the Peace Corps, a move that played no small part in empowering people around the globe. He successfully fought for the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He was a strong friend of organized labor.

On every single one of these fronts, conservatives fought him. His mantle is not theirs to take up.

W| 1.18.11 @ 2:16PM

I liked Kennedy, but he was no progressive democrat in today's term. Kennedy cut taxes, sent 15,000 troops to Vietnam, attempted to assassinate Castro, and approved the assasination of Diem in Vietnam. At best his record is spotty. He was viewed as weak by the USSR after he failed to suppport the Bay of Pigs invasion, he did nothing in April 1961 when the Russians put up the Berlin Wall. As for labor unions, he did not pass any law to help unions, his brother Bobby hounded Jimmy Hoffa, president of the Teamsters.
He campaigned on a "missile gap" with the Russians, which was a lie. He actually said Ike let down our defense!
On the other hand, he was good looking, gave great speeches, and had great speechwriters, one of whom wrote his Pulitzer prize book Profiles in Courage.
It is nice he inspired you, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passedby LBJ witht the votes from the northern democrats and most of the republicans. The first Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed by the Republicans with no help from JFK or LBJ.

Clint| 1.18.11 @ 5:11PM

Neither was it Bobby's, Teddy's or any of the other Kennedy Clan Clowns, but that didn't stop them.

Hypocritimus !

jstwndring| 1.20.11 @ 12:54AM

You are right on everything except the civil rights front. If it wasn't for Republicans and their civil rights legislation that had been forced to collect dust by Democrats no less, the Act wouldn't have passed. The Democrat party successfully killed civil rights legislation proposed by the Republican party in the 1950's twice, just as they had done in the past. At least Kennedy pushed for it, and, with the help of the Republican party, it passed. Good. But Kennedy's own party initially oppossed it. Over 80% of the initial opposition to it in the Senate was from Democrats. When the final vote came down, about 83% of Republicans voted for it, while only about 62% of Democrats did. So, in fact, Republicans have every right to claim that rather large part of the mantle along with him, although most of his own party, may not.

Derek Leaberry| 1.18.11 @ 2:03PM

The Left made the long march through the institutions and won the culture wars. The Left has so overwhelmingly won that many on the right- name the issue: homosexual marriage, affirmative action, easy divorce, abortion, open homosexuality in the military, promiscuous sex, open borders immigration- support the policies of the 60s Left. Many who call themselves "conservative" are part of the madness that Mr. Lord describes.

MOS was 71331| 1.18.11 @ 2:07PM

Another example of liberal thinking wasn't mentioned by author Lord: Jackie, herself.

I recall that Mrs Kennedy expressed disappointment that her husband hadn't been shot by some right wing extremist. It took her quite a while to accept that the assassin had been a committed communist.

William Woodford| 1.18.11 @ 3:13PM

Mr. Lord omits the fact that by running on the promise to abandon Indochina to the Communists RFK had become the George McGovern of 1968. No “bear any burden” for him. Younger brother Teddy also became communist-tolerant before the Sixties were over. At best, JFK was the anti-Communist front man for a party riddled with communist-tolerant progressives, a fact carefully hidden from the American people in 1960. Also carefully hidden was the fact that he wanted to wage the Cold War on the political cheap so as to build the welfare state, leading to disasters such as the cession of the Laotian highlands, the failure to depose Castro with the Bay of Pigs, letting Khrushchev lecture him like a schoolboy in Vienna, the coup to depose our own client in South Vietnam, and the Cuban missile crisis.

Joe Morgan’s “Reds” reports that RFK knew that Martin Luther King was Communist-influenced (Stanley David Levison, et al.) in 1961, so JFK has to have known as well. Despite this, the Kennedys continued to support the civil rights movement, which became a major factor in the highpoint of the Communist campaign to win the Cold War in the Third World, i.e., the Communist victory in Indochina.

Has Mr. Lord not noticed that contemporary blacks are the country’s most communist-tolerant ethnic group? The W.E.B. Du Bois and Paul Robeson postage stamps in the Black Heritage series make this clear. If communism is slavery as Mr. Lord says, this makes blacks the American ethnic group most tolerant of slavery.

RCV| 1.18.11 @ 4:42PM

Much better I suppose, Mr. Woodford, that Blacks should have continued to be held in subjugation in the South, denied their right to vote, rights to education, lynched and humiliated. The Kennedys' support of the Civil Rights movement remains for most of us a badge of honor for them, not something to be ashamed of.

Clint| 1.18.11 @ 5:22PM

Much better that Blacks get off Your Liberal Democrat Plantation.

RCV| 1.18.11 @ 8:52PM

I think they're able to make that decision for themselves without any help from you, Timmie boy.

Clint| 1.18.11 @ 9:10PM

That's the whole point ObamaBoy RCV,they don't need some condescending Whitey LawBoy, like You speaking for them either.

RCV| 1.18.11 @ 10:34PM

I don't speak for them. They speak for themselves at the ballot box.

Clint| 1.18.11 @ 10:54PM

Then shut your pie hole, Whitey LawBoy.

RCV| 1.19.11 @ 12:13AM

Tim, only people still in junior high school use the term " pie hole".

Clint| 1.19.11 @ 5:30AM

ObamaBoy RCV, only junior high school negative attention cravers such as yourself, need to be told to shut their "pie hole".

Occam's Tool| 1.19.11 @ 5:15PM

My Dear RCV,

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed because Republicans supported it. The Democratic party was badly split, and the Dixiecrats oppsed it, hard.

But let me grant you civil rights as your great issue, just for grins.

Let's review what the Dems have pooftered: The Cold War, won by Reagan; The War on Islamofascism, opposed by Dems; Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill, mangled by the ACLU; the banking crisis, courtesy of Dodd and Franks; the spread of VD through oral sex among American teens, courtesy of his Bubbitude; and I could go on. "Piss Christ" was not Conservative.

So yes, thanks to the Republicans, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed over the spirited opposition of the Dixiecrats (Woodrow Wilson, by the way, was another venomous bigot), but it's all been downhill since Kennedy for the Dems. Not one decent Democratic President that you would trust to babysit your kids.

RCV| 1.19.11 @ 11:14PM

Those despicable Dixiecrats you refer to, Occam, quit the Democratic Party over its support for civil rights, and followed their leader Strom Thurmond into your Republican Party. And those great, great Republicans of the sixties whom I so admired for their fight for civil rights -- the Rockefellers, Javits, Keating, Case, Scranton,Kuchel, Hatfield, Dirksen, Brooke, what we used to call "liberal Republicans" --wouldn't be welcome in your Republican Party of today. The GOP has taken up the "states rights" mantle of the Dixiecrats. It's not the party of Lincoln anymore.

jstwndring| 1.20.11 @ 1:18AM

That's a bit of a historical white-wash don't you think? Strom joined the Republican party because he had turned his back (supposedly) on his previously racist ways. Whether or not that's true doesn't matter so much as he joined the party that had always supported civil liberties for all races. The Republican party was started as part of the abolitionist movement by Christians. The Dixiecrats weren't Christians, and what became the Democrat party still isn't. Non-Christians, by-in-large, do not put much value in individual liberty, or, in human life in general. I'm not accusing you of this, just that your party seems to be consistently and persistently in favor of the power of the state and the collective good, as opposed to freedom for individuals.

As far as it not being the party of Lincoln anymore, if true, just means that we have veered to the left in terms of our party leadership. Hence, the power starts swinging back to the state as opposed to the people. Don't mistake the socialist Republicans that have taken over the party to be an indicator of the general attitude of the electorate. Many people vote blindly for a name they recognize. Period. But, that's partly why the Tea Party has been formed. We clean out the collectivists in our midst. Then we start shrinking govenrment. (Yay!)

Intelligent Design| 1.18.11 @ 3:18PM

The United States is far weaker now than it was 50 years ago, when our national debt was two cents and government was not yet involved in every aspect of our daily lives. We need a return to free enterprise and adherence to the principles set forth in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Federal spending should be cut by $2 trillion.

MarkR| 1.18.11 @ 3:51PM

The left did descend on that day- and has ever since been post modern in thought. They believe facts are irrelevant. Ever think about how the left consistently refuses to acknowledge certain facts concerning events of momentous import such as JFK, Vietnam (TET was a loss for us)/Nixon was a devil and didnt end the war (he did and blew it with Watergate)/ Church committee hearings and the denuding of CIA/ Killing fields after Saigon fell and our prescence was gone/ Carter and his denial of Soviet evil intent/ Nuclear disarming and cruise missles in Europe/Reagans "failed" policies which all worked/ The Gulf War/Clarence Thomas/ 1994 Republican Contract and Clinton's move right to republican positions and Clinton's criminalizing Al Queda/ Bush 9/11- I mean the list is endless. The problem is this republican party are a group of wimps (sitting together in the chamber to avoid appearing disunited?-Give me a break- what if it were turned around-think the dems would go along?) No the dems and leftists play HARDBALL and our guys TALK hardball. Only Palin makes any sense to me.

MarkR| 1.18.11 @ 3:56PM

When I said TET was a loss for us- I meant that was their view- it was a victory and was portrayed as a major loss.

CGP| 1.18.11 @ 5:30PM

"...a determined Marxist who in fact was acting in the violent traditions of his decidedly 'leftist political faith.'" Now there's an oxymoron, if I ever saw one...along the lines of "Public Education" and "Left-wing Intellectual." As is generally otherwise pointed out by Mr. Lord, Leftism is an OBSESSION, acted out by a compulsion for control. "Faith" has nothing to do with it. "Stupidity" describes the psychic (anti-spiritual) process.

mames| 1.18.11 @ 5:34PM

He was a mediocre President with a Texas hood as VP. He was pumped full of muscle relaxers and pain pills and yet remained as randy as a prep school boy. He was in short an immoral, daddy's boy substitute - his story is a very very sad one.

CGP| 1.18.11 @ 5:34PM

Hey MarkR;
You're EXACTLY correct. Part and parcal of the Left's modus is pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory!

CGP| 1.18.11 @ 5:41PM

mames;
Yep! ...And you might as well be describing Bill "B.J." Clinton, except that "B.J." is a mama's boy with a dumb-as-a-post knot-head for a VP...and a shrew for a boss. That said, we all better behave ourselves or, when we die, we'll all go straight to Hillary!

John Boehner| 1.18.11 @ 8:20PM

The left is so mean and angry when they're fighting for fair and equal treatment of all Americans. All I ever wanted to do is to make me and my buddies rich. :( I think I'm going to cry. Again.

jstwndring| 1.20.11 @ 1:35AM

Excuse me, Mr. Obama, but identity theft is very serious. You shouldn't play around like that!

As far as making you and your buddies rich, yes, of course that is quite the scam you have/had(?) going with the head of GE sitting on your economic advisory board pushing green energy. The fact that GE owns around 75 to 80% of the green energy technology in this country will make both of you very rich indeed if you ever get Cap and Trade legislation passed. Or, failing that, use the EPA to bully us into submission. Nice little scam Mr. President.

Got anything else cute to say smart ass? Sorry, all the actual greedy conspiracies seem to be with the left, not the right. I hope your wit hasn't reached its zenith with this post.

Trimegistus| 1.18.11 @ 9:55PM

The Democrats have become the party of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Deborah D| 1.19.11 @ 6:20AM

Wow. Great statement, and unfortunately, so true. The mainstream media is just the same -- as Rush calls them "the drive-by media." They drive by, shoot and then move on leaving destruction.

Shauna| 1.18.11 @ 9:58PM

The way to predict what the left will do next is what they accuse the right of. They predicted violence... guess what. A leftist got violent. This is not a coincidence. They know their audience is barely in touch with reality and likely to break....

The delusions of the left are becoming extremely dangerous. All of the violence is on the left, it always has been.

Even the famous McVey worshiped Hitler who had the exact goals as the current American left. Control of others is leftist philosophy.

We are the only ones who can stand against the delusional left. They want to turn our freedom into power for themselves and they have enough brain slaves to come close if we aren't always vigilant.

elect| 1.18.11 @ 11:47PM

Many who call themselves "conservative" are part of the madness that Mr. Lord describes.

jstwndring| 1.20.11 @ 1:48AM

Yes, of course. There are many specific examples too. Right? Such as.................well, I mean there's, um................Oh! I know, um, old what's-his-name from that one state way back in the days of..................well, you know who I mean. Right? Yeah, lots of conservatives. Names, dates, specific events just jump out at you, don't they? They do? Could you give some? Thanks.

Steven| 1.19.11 @ 10:51AM

Anybody,and I mean anybody that we have to run for president on the Republican ticket would be a far far far cry better than this P.O.S. that is president now.What a joke.And really,are you serious,or are you just a troll?

Shar| 1.19.11 @ 2:55PM

President Kennedy made a big mistake with his executive order #11110. He went up against the big bad fed. He paid big for that, I believe. Look around. Who is running the show? Did we vote for Bernanke? No. Did we vote for tax-cheater, Geithner? No. But they are ruling all of us. The Bilderbergers are running the show, too. The Secrets of the Federal REserve on the Library of Congress website is a good place to start. The Fed is FLOODING money - but to whom???? When Congressman Grayson asked Coale, the IG for the Fed - where did it go??? She doesn't know!!!!! Wow. They are keeping the interest rate low to the BIG CENTRAL banks and to entities that signed up as banks, lol, like Goldman etc., but the every day American can get nothing on a CD - but this cheap money is sold to us in the form of loans at a big price!! This country is upside down. We need to pray, really. B.O. needs to be voted out NOW. Yesterday. We need to rescind all of his executive orders ( like he did to Bush). We need to get rid of all of these czars - that we are paying for with our taxes!!! B.O. thinks he is pushing everything through by E.O., regulation, recess appointments, back door deals, etc. - but Americans are on to him and to this sleazy Fed. We should all be supporting Ron Paul and auditing the fed - sooner than later. I hope these fresh faces in D.C. can take the heat because it is probably going to get hot. I just hope they don't melt or cave in!!

Sir2You| 1.19.11 @ 7:11PM

If we had a legitimate Supreme Court, they would consider it first priority to remove the illegal alien terrorist who is pretending to be president. We would then have none of his appointments, none of his signed bills, none of his cowtowing to other despots. I have a little hope, I also recently bought a lottery ticket...

Rich Rostrom| 1.19.11 @ 11:28PM

"...the third time a president of the United States had been shot to death by a leftist..."???
The assassination of McKinley by the anarchist Czolgosz would be one other occasion, but what was the third? John Wilkes Booth was no leftist. Neither was Charles Guiteau, the assassin of Garfield. If anything, he was a "Stalwart" Republican - that is, a member of Senator Roscoe Conkling's faction.

And James Earl Ray was no leftist either.

The assertion that Oswald would now be an icon of the left is way over the top. Sirhan Sirhan remains in prison, and aside from a salute from Bill Ayers in the latter's most extreme period, has gotten no plaudits.

Palooka| 1.20.11 @ 2:03PM

I so want to live in the same false reality that you righties live in.

Danny| 1.20.11 @ 6:33PM

I'm still waiting for them to find the WMD's. LOL, Bush did such a good job in destroying America. From Greenspan letting the housing bubble grow then explode to getting us into another Vietnam. Yep, I'm proud of the GOP!

Marc Jeric| 1.20.11 @ 6:51PM

To call Krugman a liberal is the offense to the word. He is a criminal communist - and I should know them - I escaped from a communist hell.

bhan999| 1.21.11 @ 1:09AM

At least twice the author said that Oswald tried to defect to the Soviet Union. I believe he actually did defect while he was a member of our armed forces stationed in Europe. He also renounced his US citizenship. He married a beautiful Russian woman who happened to be the daughter of a high-ranking member of the KGB - the Soviet Secret Police. And after all of that, when he applied for readmission to the US, someone in the State Department okayed his return. Why? At the time of the assassination he was a member of the pro-Communist Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

I believe that some leftists claim that he was nothing more than an FBI plant and informer in the FPCC. What a crock!

Timothy D. Naegele| 1.23.11 @ 2:16PM

Kennedy was a fraud, pure and simple, as I have discussed in an article entitled, "John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History."

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.c.....n-history/

The problem is that the Kennedy family members and sycophants have been burying the truth since his assassination, and it needs to be told. When he died, his “image” was frozen in time, but the truth is grotesque. To lionize him like his sycophants have done is a crime, and unconscionable.

The latest travesty is Caroline Kennedy's successful distortion of the truth by forcing the History Channel to drop its already-completed min-series about Kennedy and his wife, starring Katie Holmes and Greg Kinnear.