Showing posts with label assassination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assassination. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Podcast Review: The Other Kennedy Assassination



When you hear the phrase, “the Kennedy assassination,” your mind automatically jumps to Dealey Plaza in Dallas, home of the Texas School Book Depository and workplace of a mousy little communist named Lee Harvey Oswald. Given the outsized place that the death of John F. Kennedy holds in American history, it is not surprising that the assassination of his brother Robert Kennedy is all but forgotten.

For those of you who, like me, are not well acquainted with the murder of RFK, a new podcast provides a fascinating look at the crime, the criminal and the possibility of a conspiracy. The podcast is called the “RFK Tapes” and features an investigation by Zac Stuart Pontier and Bill Klaber into the assassination of JFK’s younger brother.

On June 5, 1968, Robert Kennedy, who had served as JFK’s attorney general, was the junior senator from New York and he seemed to be on top of the world. That day he clinched the Democratic nomination for president with twin primary victories in California and South Dakota. Afterward, he went to a celebration at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. A few hours later, he was dead.

The assassin was Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Arab who was born in Jerusalem to a Christian family. Sirhan was a Jordanian citizen who had come to the US with his family as a child, 12 years before he killed Kennedy. He spent his early years in the West Bank where he was traumatized by violence, including the death of his older brother, from the Arab-Israeli wars. His early years left Sirhan with a deep dislike for Israel that became a motive for the assassination.

There is little doubt that Sirhan was involved in the assassination. Witnesses saw him fire his .22 pistol at Kennedy in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel. He was apprehended at the scene by onlookers, who disarmed him after he had emptied his gun. A journal was found at his house where Sirhan had written that “RFK must die” because of his support for Israel. Sirhan even confessed to the police after his arrest and asked to plead guilty to the murder.

Similar to the assassination of JFK, the question became whether Sirhan was the sole perpetrator or whether there was a conspiracy. The main evidence for a conspiracy is the possibility that more than eight bullets were fired during the melee in the hotel kitchen when Sirhan’s gun only had an eight-round capacity. There is also the mysterious “girl in the polka dot dress” who several witnesses claim to have seen. Finally, there are questions about ballistics such as whether Sirhan was close enough to account for powder burns on Kennedy’s body and whether the angle of bullet entry matches Sirhan’s position in the kitchen.

Some episodes of the podcast present seemingly bizarre theories, such as the idea that Sirhan was the victim of hypnosis and mind control. Proponents of this theory argue that it explains why Sirhan today claims that he cannot remember the killing. Sirhan boosted this theory in 2011 when he claimed that the “girl in the polka dot dress” triggered a posthypnotic suggestion that made him draw his pistol and begin firing. The podcast investigates the evidence both for an against a conspiracy and presents an objectively to the listener.

In the wake of Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony about Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it is interesting to see how eyewitness testimony changes over the years. When a story changes over the course of 30 or 50 years, is it because memories are not perfect and our minds play tricks or is there a more sinister reason? Especially after several decades, eyewitness testimony cannot be considered reliable without supporting evidence.

Although I remain a skeptic, I have to admit that the evidence for a conspiracy in the RFK assassination is more compelling than it is in the case of JFK. On the question of how many bullets were fired, we will never know the truth for sure because the LAPD destroyed key evidence that may – or may not – have proved that there were two guns. More than eight bullets would be de facto proof of a conspiracy.

Also curious is the way that the LAPD discarded the reports of the “girl in the polka dot dress.” Featured in the podcast are audio recordings of LAPD Sgt. Hank Hernandez browbeating witnesses into recanting their claims of seeing the girl. One is left with the feeling that Hernandez was less interested in finding the truth than in eliminating loose ends.

Whether you’re a skeptic or a true believer, the “RFK Tapes” is a gripping look back at a pivotal time in American history. If Kennedy had lived to become the Democratic nominee, Richard Nixon might never have become president and the latter three decades of the 20th century might look entirely different. As with the death of JFK, it is humbling to think that the course of history could turn on the actions of a single aggrieved gunman. As Rand Paul recently warned, it could easily happen in the current political environment as well.

[If you’re unfamiliar with podcasts, you are missing out. Over the past few years, I have become an avid listener of podcasts, first through my iPod and then with my smartphone. To understand what a podcast is, think of it as an audiobook or a radio serial available on your phone. Podcasts are available through a variety of apps such as Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify or Stitcher and are available on a variety of topics.]

[Photo: Robert F. Kennedy lies mortally wounded on the floor immediately after the shooting. Kneeling beside him is 17-year-old busboy Juan Romero, who was shaking Kennedy's hand when Sirhan Sirhan fired the shots


Originally published on the Resurgent

Rand Paul On Political Violence

“I fear that there's going to be an assassination,” Rand Paul told a Kentucky radio show this week. “I really worry that somebody is going to be killed and that those who are ratcheting up the conversation ... they have to realize they bear some responsibility if this elevates to violence.”

I don’t always agree with Senator Paul, but I think that he’s absolutely correct here. It really isn’t a stretch to think that the current powder keg-like political climate could spark an act of violence that could result in bloodshed. It isn’t farfetched at all because it has already happened.

It was only last year that a crazed Bernie Sanders supporter attacked the congressional Republican baseball team as they practiced at a Virginia ballpark. The attack left Louisiana Republican Steve Scalise badly wounded but alive.

Even before the baseball attack, the leftist Antifa movement held violent protests in several cities around the country. During the 2016 campaign, Trump campaign rallies were the scene of leftist mob violence.

Not all the violence is on the left, however. In August 2017, an alt-right militant drove his car into a group of counter-protesters during a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, murdering 32-year-old Heather Heyer. In August, a Trump supporter from California was charged with threatening to shoot Boston Globe employees because the newspaper was an “enemy of the people.” In 2016, supporters of Ammon Bundy took up arms against the federal government when they seized a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon. The incident could easily have become a bloodbath, but Republicans cheered when the conspirators were acquitted.

Rand Paul has even had personal experience with violence. When a neighbor attacked Paul in January 2018, fracturing five of the senator’s ribs, there was speculation that the assault might have been politically motivated. In a plea deal, the neighbor admitted to the attack but said that he was motivated by Paul dumping brush on his property rather than by politics.

If we haven’t experienced a political assassination in recent times, it isn’t for lack of desire. Even before a leftist called for the assassination of Brett Kavanaugh, a British man in the US illegally tried to pull a police officer’s gun at a June 2016 rally to kill Donald Trump. Barack Obama was the target of no less than four assassination attempts at the hands of everyone from white supremacists to ISIS to someone who thought he was the antichrist. Sooner or later, a would-be assassin is going to get it right and the odds are about 50-50 as to which side of the political spectrum will be at fault.

Paul went on to blame inflammatory rhetoric for planting the seeds of violence. “When people like Cory Booker say get up in their face … What he doesn’t realize is that for every 1,000 persons who want to get up in your face, one of them is going to be unstable enough to commit violence,” Paul said.

Recalling previous attacks, Paul said, “When I was at the ball field and Steve Scalise was nearly killed, the guy shooting up the ballfield, and shooting I think five or six people, he was yelling, ‘This is for health care. When I was attacked in my yard and had six of my ribs broken, and pneumonia, lung contusion, all that — these are people that are unstable, we don’t want to encourage them.”

Paul is correct that mentally unstable people don’t need to be encouraged to commit violence but stopped short of criticizing his own side’s words. There is a direct link between President Trump’s rhetorical attacks on the press and the threats against the Boston Globe. When people on the right say that liberals and Democrats are traitors who are trying to destroy America, no one should be surprised when someone commits a violent act against them. Perhaps the biggest surprise is how little violence there has been so far given the heat of rhetoric from both sides.

It’s easy for those of us on the right to criticize people like Corey Booker and Maxine Waters when they call for confrontation. It is much more difficult to call out those on our own side who incite or commit violence. The problem is with radicals on both sides, however, and both sides should police their own.


Originally published on The Resurgent

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Trump's election drives left beyond bounds of decency and civility

Twitter post of the "Rape Melania" sign (screenshot by David Thornton)


The election of the Donald Trump seems to have pushed many in the liberal left over the brink of sanity and common decency. First came the protests and violence. Ironically, this was the same sort of violence that some had expected of Trump supporters in the then-likely event that Hillary Clinton won the election. Even as the protests continue, the leftist response among many non-rioting leftists ranges from the irrational to loathsome.

In one bizarre case, Rachel Zarrell of MTV News tweeted a threat to mail Mike Pence a “monthly bag of period blood” if he “tries to regulate my uterus.” The tweet, posted on Daily Wire, was an apparent reference to Pence’s pro-life views, although another Twitter user answered Zarrell and pointed out her confusion. “Clearly you're ignorant of biology,” DC MCallister wrote. “A uterus and a fetus are two different entities. Saving the latter isn't ‘regulating’ the former.”

Zarrell may also be confused about Mike Pence’s role in the federal government. Laws are passed by Congress and Mike Pence, as the incoming vice president, will have a primarily ceremonial role in Congress. The vice president has very little control over anything. John Nance Garner, vice president to Franklin Roosevelt, famously observed that “the vice presidency is not worth a bucket of warm spit.”

Speaking of containers of bodily fluids, Zarrell might also want check into the Post Office regulations on shipping organic matter. Blood can be considered a biohazard and subject to hazardous materials regulations.

If Zarrell’s tweet was bizarre and disgusting, another anti-Trump protester’s message was, well, deplorable. The message on a protest sign spotted at a Washington, DC rally read, “Rape Melania.” This sign was all the more ironic and reprehensible in light of the campaign issue of Donald Trump and Bill Clinton’s treatment of women.

As the husband of a victim of sexual assault, let me just say that any call to rape or sexually assault anyone has no place in civilized discourse. Even in jest, the suggestion that someone would think that raping a candidate’s wife is an appropriate response to the democratic will of the people is morally bankrupt and indefensible.

Thankfully, as Heat Street pointed out, an associated #RapeMelania hashtag on Twitter was primarily used to condemn the sign.

If rape weren’t bad enough, some online leftists have openly called for and speculated about the assassination of Trump. The New York Post reported that the CEO of a California cybersecurity firm was forced to resign after tweeting a “flawed joke” about killing Trump with a sniper rifle. WCSH News reported that an Ohio man had actually been arrested for tweeting his intention to kill Donald Trump.

Opponents of Donald Trump have the freedom to criticize and protest his election, but should remember that words have meaning. Some words go beyond the bounds of civility and decency and cross the line to criminal behavior.


Voice your opposition, but watch what you say. The Secret Service will.      

Originally published on The Resurgent