By “W”
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/09/lew-rockwell/lone-nuts-and-political-reality/
N.S.: I think Rockwell fell apart, by promoting claims where he had no facts, or the known facts contradicted him.
He could have stuck to all the times that presidents have used the cia to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate foreign leaders: many times against Castro (all unsuccessfully, and all by Jack Kennedy, who also condemned the bay of pigs invasion to failure), and the support for the eventual chilean coup on september 11, 1973 led by general Augusto Pinochet against socialist president Salvador Allende (who had declared that he planned to steal foreign businesses, especially U.S.-owned copper companies), a coup which President Nixon and secretary of state Kissinger supported. (Allende committed suicide, rather than be taken prisoner.)
Oh, but that would not have supported Rockwell’s big claims, biggest of all, that the Kennedy brothers were at war with the cia.
I am not aware of any facts supporting the assertion that Bobby Kennedy planned on doing away with the cia.
And if “the company” were at war with the Kennedys, then surely it would have done something to Ted Kennedy, whom I believe was a soviet asset.
If Ted was part of a family hell-bent on destroying the cia, then killing him would have been a given.
Assassinating Ted would also have been a blessing, on general principle, following his killing (either by vehicular manslaughter or, if she was carrying his unborn child, premeditated murder) of Mary-Jo Kopechne. However, there were geopolitical reasons for killing him, as well.
(Why do I suggest Kopechne may have been carrying Kennedy’s unborn child? Because the Kennedy family got the Kopechnes to block the routine procedure of an autopsy being carried out on the victim. Why on earth would they do such a thing?)
In 1983-1985, we provided the west germans with Pershing II Mittelstreckenraketen (middle-range, Pershing II ballistic missiles), to protect them against a potential invasion by the soviets, who had thousands of tanks stationed in the Fulda gap.
At the time, Ted Kennedy led marches in west germany, as part of his “nuclear freeze” movement.
He could have been arrested, under the Logan act, for acting as his own secretary of state, or assassinated, but he was left in peace.
There are people, with Lew Rockwell either one of them, or whom Rockwell is geared towards, who still romanticize the Kennedys. I am not one of them. If you want to romanticize a politician, you’ll get farther with me doing it to President Nixon.
Thus, the idea of the cia being at war with the Kennedy brothers, and having assassinated two but not the one who was the biggest thorn in its side, is ridic.
The notion that the cia began running rogue assassination attempts and actual assassinations (as opposed to the times that sitting presidents ordered “the company” to do so) beginning in the early 1960s, is even more ridic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Hume on miracles). What Lew Rockwell has done, is leapfrog from one baseless conspiracy theory to another, while acting as if the lack of evidence for the one, were proof of the next.
Even if one or more of the successful or attempted rogue assassinations were the products of conspiracies, that would not prove that the cia was behind a single one of them.
The one thing Lew Rockwell got right (as another colleague argued), was in showing the lack of credibility of the anti-conspiracy nuts’ assertion that every assassin was a “lone nut.” But that’s no substitute for a lack of facts for his positive claims.
It’s simpler and more credible to say that the democrat party (which includes the msm) has fomented a climate of hatred against the President, which has issued in a series of assassination attempts against him, going back to 2016.
Were the Kennedys heroes,traitors or just opportunists? Some of all three?Two out of three--the last two?
ReplyDelete--GRA
DOCK STRIKE IMMINENT--AT 12 MIDNIGHT;HERE'S A TIMELINE OF HOW IT WOULD AFFECT FOOD DELIVERY AND PRICES.
ReplyDelete(ZH)What to expect if there's a strike:
As many as 36 ports would have to stop operating if a strike happens, blocking almost half of the cargo going in and out of the U.S. on ships.
If the strike lasts just a day, then it would not be noticeable to a typical consumer. However, businesses of all kinds would no doubt feel the pinch. J.P. Morgan estimates that a strike could cost the U.S. economy $5 billion every day.
Even if only a one-day strike happens, it could take about five days to straighten out the supply chain.
If a strike lasts a week, the results would quickly become apparent to most consumers.
Some shipping companies have already begun to reroute their cargo to the West Coast. Even if there's no strike at all, costs will rise and the warehouses could run out of room.
The effects on everything from bananas and cherries to chocolate, meat, fish and cheese could be severe, and the shipping disruption could also hamper trade in some prescription drugs if the strike lasts at least a week.
If the strike were to last a month or more, supplies needed by factories could be in short supply. Numerous consumer products would not be delivered. Workers would be laid off. U.S. exports, including agricultural ones, might get stuck rather than shipped to their destinations. Inflation might increase again. And there would be a new bout of heightened economic anxiety and uncertainty – along with immense financial losses.
All the while, West Coast ports would face unusually high demand for their services, wreaking havoc on shipping there too.
Yes, we'd have no bananas
My research group's latest work on supply chain disruptions and the effects of various transportation disruptions, including delays, quantifies the impact on the quality of fresh produce. We did a case study on bananas.
This isn't a niche problem.
Bananas are the most-consumed fresh fruit in the U.S.
Many of the bananas sold in the U.S. are grown in Ecuador, Guatemala and Costa Rica. About 75% of them arrive at ports on the East and Gulf coasts.
Although bananas are relatively easy to ship, they require appropriate temperatures and humidity. Even under the best conditions, their quality deteriorates. Long delays will mean shippers will be trying to foist mushy brown bananas on consumers who might reject them.
Alternatively, banana growers may opt to find other markets. It's reasonable to expect to find fewer bananas and much higher prices – possibly of a lower quality. Flying bananas to the U.S. would be too expensive to sustain.
Fresh meat and other refrigerated foods could spoil before they can complete their journeys, and fresh berries, along with other fruits and vegetables, could perish before reaching their destinations.
If there's a port strike, tons of fresh produce, including bananas, that would arrive after Oct. 1 would end up having to be discarded. That is unfortunate, given the rising food insecurity rate in the U.S.
1947 Taft-Hartley Act
More than 170 trade groups are urging the Biden administration to intervene at the last minute to avoid a strike.
The government can invoke the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which allows the president to ask a court to order an 80-day cooling-off period when public health or safety is at risk.
However, President Joe Biden reportedly does not plan to invoke it – even as he urges the two sides to settle their differences.
So if you're planning to bake banana bread or were thinking you might get an early start on your holiday shopping, I'd advise you to make those shopping trips as soon as possible – just in case.
--GRA