Campaigning for a “None of the Above” Option

Two weeks ago, one of my political idols, the no-nonsense, anti-partisan, former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, went on The Joy Behar Show to talk about his new book, 63 Documents the Government Doesn’t Want You to Read, and also the day’s current events. I have long been a fan of his ideologies, even though I despise pro-wrestling and never saw Predator in its entirety. Whenever I hear him speak, I find myself sitting there nodding in agreement with most of what he says. I am a pretty hardcore independent, much like he is, and I am starting to wonder if that is where it came from.

I was never overly enthusiastic with any political party growing up. My father votes for who he thinks is best, party aside, while my mother is so disgusted with politicians in general that she says she will not vote in 2012, regardless of who is up for nomination. That being said, I was never inspired by any family member to lean a certain way. Sometimes I like a Republican candidate, sometimes I like a Democrat. But recently, with the way this country is heading, I too am becoming disgusted with everyone.

Seeing Obama and his contingent running the country in the White House is like watching a blind squirrel trying to find a nut in my backyard. Meanwhile, at the same time, the vehement attacks by Republicans on his every single move are doing nothing to ameliorate this dire situation. When will people put their party aside and help one another for the good of the country? Obama and John Boehner could not agree on the time of day if they both synchronized their watches in unison, and that is what the real problem is with this country.

People blasted George W. Bush day in and day out, and while I do not particularly care for his social views and getting us embroiled in a war overseas that we have no chance of winning, he did not deserve all the criticism he received, though he does deserve more than Obama. We must all remember that Obama inherited this disaster from someone else. We did not wake up one morning out of the blue and find ourselves with high unemployment, an economy in the crapper, and people fearing for the jobs they currently hold. This was building for years, and now Obama is the scapegoat. Not to defend Obama, who has proposed this ludicrous health-care plan that he attempts to ram down our throat every chance he gets, but there are plenty of people out there who act like there were no such thing as taxes before he took office (see: T.E.A Party). I hate to bring race into the equation, but something tells me that if his name was Barry O’Neil, this would not have been added to the situation.

The T.E.A Party, or whatever they decide to call their posse of gun-toting, hate mongering lunatics, goes around the country organizing rallies decrying Obama as the next worst thing since Satan, trying to spread fear and get you to want to join their little movement. Listening in on one of their meetings/speeches sounds like a Nazi rally from the 1930′s (and mirrors the John McCain presidential convention in 2008). These people think they are patriots yet engage in smear tactics to get people to go their way, because they don’t have any substance to what they are saying. People have been crying for lower taxes since they were first created, all to no avail. These nut-jobs are not going to make anything better. This includes trying to prove that Obama is not a U.S citizen, something that even Donald Trump is parading around the country. I actually liked Trump for a moment, when he said he was thinking about running for president in 2012, but after this, I will not, just out of principle. Do we have to stoop so low to try to say someone is not even an American citizen? And if he isn’t, what exactly can we do about it? It is a bush-league move (no pun intended) that just reeks of people having too much time on their hands with nothing better to do. Then again, Sarah Palin is their poster-child, so I would expect nothing less.

Then again, part of me wants Palin to run against Obama in 2012. Could you imagine those two going head to head in a debate? The result would be the first live-television murder since Ruby killed Oswald in 1963.

Here is another thing; I understand that both liberals and democrats have their own share of nuts on both sides, but how come it seems that the conservative ones just come across as more wacky? It is the same people who claim that being a conservative is about limiting government, that when you actually get them talking, find that their motives are completely the opposite. Sounds like a great idea on paper, because who does not want smaller government? Yet, when we get to social issues, they seem to forget what that statement means. I would guess that 90% of conservatives are against gay marriage, with even more than that against abortion. There is also a large percentage against the legalization of marijuana. So, the people who want small government want to have the right to tell consenting adults who they can/cannot fall in love with, tell women what they can/cannot do with their own bodies, and tell people that they cannot smoke something that’s effects are less dangerous than those of alcohol. I just do not get it—hypocrisy in action?

Let’s take another look at social issues, because if you read my blog on a regular basis, you know I very rarely tackle politics, and if I do, it is more than likely about gay marriage. Before I get into an actual candidate for 2012, let me just say that when it comes down to gay marriage, I am once again, disgusted with both parties. The Democrats are usually seen as gay rights supporters, because they love to talk the talk. Yet when it comes time to actually get down to the nitty-gritty, where are they? It’s like they only stick up for gays in public to get votes, then throw that away as soon as they are behind closed doors. At least the Republicans are kind enough to spread their hatred and bigoted beliefs on a national level so that we may all see how backwards they are. Remember what Rick Santorum, who is a 2012 Presidential hopeful, said in 2003?

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual gay sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything…”

He also went on to say that consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy in regards to sexual acts. Okay, so now it’s not just a gay issue, but an everyone issue. He wants the government to be able to come into your bedroom and tell you how to live. Hooray for smaller government!

This almost makes me want to laugh to keep from crying, to think someone this misinformed actually made it to public office. Conservatives seem obsessed with a hatred towards homosexuals, and try to dehumanize them every chance they get. With the economic state this country is in, you would think that Boehner and the GOP would be trying to fix it, yet they are busy hiring lawyers (to be paid with taxpayer money, of course) to defend the “Defense of Marriage Act”, like there isn’t anything more important on the agenda. It all plays on people fearing what they do not understand, and the last time this was taken to heart on a large enough scale, the holocaust happened—perhaps we should all inform ourselves to not buy into propaganda, coming from any party, lest we want to hear the old cliché, “History repeats itself.”

When 2012 rolls around, I do not see myself voting for anyone on a partisan ticket. The only major possibility out there that I would consider would be Ron Paul, but only if he runs as an independent. He would further get my backing if Ventura ran as his Vice President, something he alluded to considering if Paul ran as an independent. Between Ventura’s anti-party politics and Paul’s knowledge of the constitution, I think they would make a formidable team. Should they not run, then I will either write in Mickey Mouse or John Wayne, in what will be the first election I will have been old enough to participate in. (Hey, if Chris Christie ran as an independent, he might get my support too.)

This begs the question, “Why is there no ‘None of the Above’ option on ballots?”. This is something Ventura brought up two weeks ago, and I don’t know if he was joking or not, but it seemed like the most sensible idea I have heard in a long time. How many times have you went into a polling place, torn between which candidate you hate the least, rather than who you like the most? Could you imagine running for office and losing out to a ‘None of the Above’?

I just look at the list of 2012 hopefuls and cringe that this is the best we can do as the supposed “greatest country in the world”. I will surely not be voting for the returning Obama, who I think will win out over whatever loon the GOP throws out there (the lesser of two evils?). If Sarah Palin does find a way to run, then it will probably spell the end of the GOP, knowing if she is the best they can put out there then they must really be hurting.

Then again, what does GOP stand for? “Grand OLD Party”. Do we really want a party whose values are based on archaic laws and ideologies running a country that has been sliding into the dumpster for years? For the people who are supposed to be the patriotic ones (remember, liberals are evil and anti-American; don’t take my word for it, just ask a conservative) they make me more embarrassed to be an American than anyone else. A country should be judged partially by the caliber of the candidates that run for office, and if that were to hold true for America, the caliber would be less powerful than a water gun. America being the leaders of the free world and a beacon of light for humanity is nothing but hundred year old bullshit rhetoric, but we can change it. If just one person at a time decided to really put their country first instead of their party, then we might actually accomplish something.

I want you to think about that next time you head to the polls, prepared to vote for a candidate that you do not entirely agree with. Ask yourself if you are really helping. We should not have to settle for someone, just because we do not like who else is out there, but actually have a choice of good, honest people that we can vote for proudly. That probably will not happen anytime soon, but I can assure you, that should there be a ‘None of the Above’ option placed on polls, not only would people not be hesitant to vote that way, but they would do it with a smile on their face.

If you have time, please check out Jesse Ventura’s new official website. I just love the title: We Ain’t Got Time to Bleed!

Camelot in Smithereens: My Take on the JFK Assassination

Few events in history allow the witnesses to never forget them. Time heals all wounds, and eventually, warps the memory. But for those who were alive and old enough to remember the events of November 22, 1963, the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, the memory lives on. Julie Shutter was an eighth grader in a Catholic School on Staten Island, New York at the time.

She has never forgotten the events. In a personal interview, she said, “We were in music class at the time. The principal of the school came in and said, ‘Boys and girls, the president has been shot.’ They then walked us across the street to the church, to pray for him.” This was what it was like for many, and shortly after, it was revealed that one man, Lee Harvey Oswald, had done the killing. It all seemed cut and dry, and the nation was ready to move on.

However, from 1966 to 1969, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who would later go on to write, On the Trail of the Assassins, would conduct an investigation into the matter, after not being content with the Warren Commission’s version of the story. This would open the door to numerous conspiracy theories, suggesting that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of an elaborate conspiracy to kill the president.

These conspiracies range from the FBI, CIA, Italian Mafia, Russian Mafia, Fidel Castro, Lyndon Johnson, and various other people or organizations that worked in collusion with one another, or alone, to assassinate Kennedy. It will be impossible to pin who exactly did it, but it is not impossible to prove that Oswald was not alone, and if he was not alone, than there was, in fact, a conspiracy.

In, “Was Lee Harvey Oswald the Real Killer of President Kennedy?”, an article by Richard Carter, he goes on to say, “A number of observers have sworn they saw gunmen firing at JFK from different locations. The assassination was captured on film, and in many still photos” (6). The film he is referring to, is the “Zapruder Film”, an amateur recording by Abraham Zapruder who was perched with a perfect angle of the shooting.

This film, which has no audio, clearly shows there being four shots fired, not three, as published in the Warren Commission.  If one watches the film closely, they can see the President stop waving at the sound of the first shot. He then grabs at his throat, after the second shot strikes him there. A third shot would cause him to slump over, into Jackie Kennedy’s arms, and finally, the fourth and fatal shot rips a part of his head off.

The Warren Commission’s response to this was to draw up the “single bullet theory”, which claims that only one shot was responsible for all the wounds leading up to the head shot that killed him. These wounds also include those suffered by Texas Governor William Connally.

The theory claims that the first shot entered Kennedy’s back at a downward angle, then turned upward to exit the throat, then exited forward into Connally’s shoulder, then into Connally’s wrist and hand, and finally, into Connally’s right thigh, before falling out on the floor looking like it was never fired, according to an archive of the photo found on the website 9-11 Research, for an article by Michael Green called, “Besmirching History”.

In the film, JFK, directed by Oliver Stone, the character of Jim Garrison tells a jury about how it can be proved that all those wounds could be inflicted with one bullet, because of testing done in a nuclear physics laboratory. He then remarks, “Physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off the side of a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy. But use your common sense.” The biggest piece of evidence the Commission had also proved to be the most ludicrous.

Taking a closer look at the film also reveals the President, moving back and to the left after getting hit with the final shot. This would prove that the shot came from the front, and was not fired by Oswald at all, who was aiming from behind. In, “The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination”, by Kermit L. Hall, he reinforces this by writing, “…these frames show clearly that Kennedy was struck by bullets in the front of the limousine rather than, as the Warren Commission reported, behind it.” This is obviously common sense, because if the President was shot in the back of the head, he would have moved forward, to the right, and not back, and to the left.

In order to reveal if Lee Harvey Oswald was not alone, the simple way would have been to just ask him. Unfortunately, as portrayed in Stone’s JFK, Oswald was given little to no legal representation at the time of his arrest. In archive footage seen in this film, of the real interview, Oswald claims, “I am just a patsy”. This is the most telling of any quote he ever spoke. If Oswald had done the assassination alone, when challenged, the first thing he would do is claim innocence, and say he did not commit the crime. But by claiming he was just a patsy, he is not only admitting guilt, but alluding to the fact that there were others involved, and he was the fall-guy.

Unfortunately, two days later, Oswald himself was killed on his way to being transported to another jail, by a well known mobster Jack Ruby, according to the article on Crime Magazine titled, “Why Jack Ruby Killed Lee Harvey Oswald”, by Mel Ayton. From the quote collection website, ThinkExist, Ruby claims his reasoning was, “Someone had to do it. That son of a bitch killed my president.” However, his interrogation as published in the Warren Commission says differently.

Ruby states, “I would like to be able to get a lie detector test or truth serum of what motivated me to do what I did at that particular time, and it seems as you get further into something, even though you know what you did, it operates against you somehow, brain washes you, that you are weak in what you want to tell the truth about and what you want to say which is the truth” (808). Here, Ruby is admitting that now he cannot remember why he murdered Oswald. There is no sense of patriotism here, but confusion. This begs the question to be asked, just why exactly did Ruby kill Oswald? Was it to keep him from telling something that Ruby’s branch of the mob did not want out?

It was a well known secret in Washington in the early 1960’s that the CIA used various outlets of the mob to try and kill Fidel Castro, after Cuba became a threat to the United States. Simon Tisdall, a writer for the British website, Guardian, writes in his article, “CIA Conspired with Mob to Kill Castro”, that the CIA tried, “…in a bungled 1960 attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba’s communist revolution, according to classified documents published by the agency yesterday.” Since Castro obviously did not die, it could be led to believe that relations between the mob and the CIA soured towards Kennedy, who ordered the agency to carry out the assassination.

This is where Jack Ruby’s name really comes into play. Ayton later writes, “It was Ruby’s relationships with unsavory mob-linked characters throughout his life that led to a great deal of speculation that he was controlled by organized crime. The Warren Commission’s investigation into his background failed to dispel this notion because the commission – which basically relied on hundreds of FBI interviews of Ruby’s known associates – did not fully investigate his alleged Mafia connections and his trips to Cuba.” That establishes the Ruby-Cuba connection, which Earl Warren chose not to investigate. The decision not to investigate further only deepens the mystery.

Ruby would be convicted of Oswald’s murder, and would not have the chance to speak the truth, as he said during his interrogation. According to the website Goochinfo, Ruby was granted a re-trial in 1967, a year after being convicted. But it just so happens that Ruby would die mysteriously of cancer just four months after a re-trial was announced, although there were no signs of this cancer manifesting itself before that. The website also goes on to say, “On January 3, 1967, Jack Ruby died from the effects of galloping lung cancer before his second trial could begin. He claimed that he had been injected with cancer.” This supposed injection is depicted in a deleted scene on the DVD version of JFK, after Ruby was told it was a routine flu shot.

Lastly, in order to tie together Oswald, the mob, and the CIA, there must be some evidence suggesting that Oswald was involved with the CIA. The website, Rense, features a photograph of a confirmed CIA memorandum dated March 3, 1964. It states, “Oswald subject was trained by this agency, under cover of the Office of Naval Intelligence for Soviet assignments.” It is this same Office of Naval Intelligence that was housed in New Orleans, which was where Jim Garrison was district attorney. In his book, On the Trail of the Assassins, he says that this was one of the sparks that pushed him to investigate further. Because Oswald can now be tied to the CIA, and the CIA to the mob, it can therefore be established that he was not alone in the murder.

Lee Harvey Oswald was not some “lone nut assassin” as the government made him out to be. Notice that whenever someone wants to try and establish that only one man killed someone, they use all three of his names. John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln, but was part of a vast conspiracy that also targeted Andrew Johnson and William Seward. Yet the textbooks that the children of America are reading from only talk about Booth, and not the eight others. The same can be said for the assassination of Martin Luther King, who was killed by James Earl Ray.

As stated earlier, it will be impossible to tell who hatched the idea for the assassination, and who covered it up, but none of that is nearly as important as simply proving that Oswald was not alone. One must just use their own common sense, and they can see that what the government’s story of what happened just does not make sense. Was it possible that Oswald was alone? Yes, but not likely. One must open their eyes and dig deeper, because the great part of America is the right to free speech, and the right to seek the truth. The government has lied to the people since day one, and it is about time the people stop falling for it.

With questions or comments, or to request a complete list of works cited, please email the author at nyr1199@comcast.net.