Sunday, October 2, 2016
Wow, that is breathtaking, that depiction of Giuliani. What he really said was that "wouldn't Trump be better for the US than a woman, for whom the only thing she has ever produced is a lot of work for the FBI checking out her emails."
How should he have put that? Should he have said "person" instead of "woman"? His point was not that Trump is a man; Hillary is a woman; make that the basis for your vote, and vote for the man. His point was that Trump has built things; he has produced things; he has created- a lot; whereas Hillary has been a political hack her whole life who hasn't created anything except scandals. That was his point, not that Trump deserves your vote for being male.
This is really cheap shot on the part of the media. It's really low. And, the irony is that previously the media treated Giuliani as a hero. Wasn't he "America's mayor"? Wasn't he one of heroes of 9/11? That's all ancient history now. All forgotten. And all because he supports Trump.
But, with that thought in mind, just imagine if Robert Kennedy had stood up to the cabal after the assassination. Just imagine that he stated publicly that he doesn't accept the official story, and he suspects that powerful people, highly placed in the government, were behind his brother's murder, and he aims to find out who they are and bring them to justice. Can you imagine what they would have done to him?
What would they have done? They would vilified him 100X worse than they are vilifying Giuliani. And they would have done more than that. Johnson would have fired him. That's for sure because the Attorney General is powerful; the head of the Justice Department.
So, how could LBJ have left RFK there if he thought he had a vendetta against him?
So, they would have had to fire him for sure. But, they wouldn't have said that they were firing him over that. They would have drummed up something unrelated. For instance, there are allegations that the Kennedy brothers broke US laws in their secret. off-the-record negotiations with the Soviets, which RFK was very much a part of. They could have "trumped" that up into criminal charges. Now, how was Robert Kennedy going to investigate his brother's murder if he was facing criminal charges himself? They would have kept him busy with that. And they would have dragged him through the mud like no one has been dragged through the mud. It would probably have been the worst vilification ever. He would have been tarred and feathers and drug over the coals- figuratively speaking. And he knew it. The truth is that HE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO GO ROGUE. It was too high a price. He just had to suck it up. Becoming President himself- that would be his revenge.
A lot of people assume that, if elected, he would have reopened his brother's murder investigation and turned the tables on the plotters. But, I am not at all convinced of that- even though they killed him for that very reason. They killed him because they just couldn't take the chance. But, why really assume he would have done that? He wasn't saying a word about it during his campaign. He was not running on that platform. And in the end, if he was elected, I think he would have let it slide. I really don't think he would have gone there. He would have been advised not to- and I mean by his own closest advisors. He would have been told that it would cause too much turmoil in the country, with political, social, and economic consequences that were all bad. "Jack is gone. We can't bring him back. We just have to accept it." How certain am I that it would have gone that way if RFK was elected President? Let's say 90%.
There are different degrees of political incorrectness, but the most politically incorrect things are things like 9/11 truth and JFK truth. That's going rogue in spades. They call out the dogs for that. The reservoir dogs. Like these guys.