JFK: The Smoking Gun Has Too Many Holes

I walked all over Dealey Plaza. Here, the Book Depository is in my background.

I walked all over Dealey Plaza. Here, the Book Depository is in my background.

Last night, Sunday November 3, 2013, the ReelzChannel premiered the first of what are likely to be many JFK Assassination conspiracy documentaries we can expect to see on television this month. And while it provided some very interesting and, dare I say NEW views on who killed and how our 35th president was murdered in Dallas, Texas fifty years ago this month; the show’s conclusions and presentation left too many holes. Doing so will once again lead the conspiracy deniers to stand up for the Warren Commission‘s onerous claim that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy alone, with nobody else involved. And if that proves to be true the ReelzChannel and the producers of JFK: The Smoking Gun did no favors in efforts to find out the truth.

November 22, 1963 stands as the single most tragic day in United States nearly 250-year-old history because our popular elected leader was taken from us under violent and suspicious circumstances while our nation’s safe guards barely trembled a response. Fifty years later nobody has conclusively determined the guilty parties let alone prosecuted any of them. Those responsible went along their merry way, controlling our country and by extension the rest of the world ever since and right up until this day. And while survey’s show most Americans don’t believe the Warren Commission’s conclusions, few care enough to do anything about it, presumably for fear of public backlash for being labelled conspiracy nuts as

Cover of "JFK - Director's Cut (Two-Disc ...

movie Director Oliver Stone was upon the seismic release of his 1991 film JFK.

Texas School Book Depository

Texas School Book Depository

JFK: The Smoking Gun’s most enthralling piece of fact that heretofore has not been widely publicized is so obvious I find it remarkable it’s never been a central theme of ALL other conspiracy theories prior to now. Former Australian police detective Colin McClaren said in the documentary and in his book of the same name that the infamous “Magic Bullet” theory developed by Warren Commission chief inspector Arlen Spector was in fact possible, accurate and likely. Many, including Stone in his movie, scoffed at the idea that a single bullet fired by Oswald’s rifle from the 6th floor corner window of the Texas School Book Depository building passed cleanly through Kennedy’s neck, then through the jump-seat chair in front of him striking Texas Governor John Connelly in the back, shattering a rib bone, exiting his chest and striking and breaking Connelly’s left wrist bone, and ultimately embedding 2 inches deep in the Governor’s thigh. The “full-metal-jacket” bullet was later retrieved in nearly pristine condition from a stretcher in Parkland Hospital where Connelly and Kennedy were taken after the shooting; and where the bullet was presumed to have fallen out of the leg.

McClaren then points out what nearly everyone, including the “Oswald did it crowd”, agrees upon. The fatal head shot that killed Kennedy was NOT a full metal jacket bullet, but was instead a hollow-point or exploding bullet. A Dum-dum bullet explains why Kennedy’s head exploded, and why the bullet itself was never retrieved but bullet fragments were. So here’s the obvious point everyone for 50 years has missed. If the magic bullet was a full metal Jacket, and the head shot bullet was a Dum-dum doesn’t it just make sense that there were two shooters. What sense would it make for a firearm to be loaded with two different types of bullets? Experts agree…such a practice is NEVER done. Therefore the conclusion…two different bullets…two different guns…two different shooters…and by definition we have a conspiracy. 

The John F. Kennedy Assassination

McClaren’s work follows that of author and ballistics expert, the late Howard Donahue. Donahue’s theory that a Secret Service agent in the car behind Kennedy fired the fatal head shot was recounted in his 1992 book Mortal Error. Donahue’s book as with the documentary last night said the shot was fired accidentally by an agent that was retrieving an AR-15 rifle upon hearing the first shots from the Texas School Book Depository. While the theory credibly outlines a believable scenario that the shot came from behind the President at or near ground level, and that Secret Service Agent George Hickey did possess the weapon at or about the time of the head wound, they provided zero information as to why they thought the shot was accidental versus intentional.  Given the massive cover-up that followed a pre-planned assassination involving Hickey and others in the Secret Service is far more believable than a spur-of-the-moment, reactionary but effective cover-up that McClaren and Donahue allege. They would have us believe that after accidentally discharging a rifle and mortally wounding the President of the United States the Secret Service Agents conspired in the car while driving a few, short minutes to Parkland Hospital all that was necessary to keep such a fact a secret. Preposterous!

So rather than latching onto the hard and verifiable facts of the case which include:

2 different bullets used.

At least 10 eye witnesses at ground level claim to smell gun smoke at the scene (impossible if the shots are fired 6 floors up and nearly 100 yards from the crime).

A Secret Service Agent in possession of a weapon and in position to commit the crime.

…and much more.

…those wanting to defend the status quo and keep their heads buried in the sand will just call McClaren and Donahue nuts; and justice will again be denied.

In February 2013 while attending AdvoCare Success School I visited Dealey Plaza, site of the crime of the century, and I walked throughout the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. As I detailed in my blog Lee Harvey Oswald May Not Be Innocent, But He’s Not the Shooter of JFK, Oswald didn’t fire the fatal shot, or any shots that day. Evidence defending that claim includes a lack of Oswald finger prints in the snipers nest or on the weapon itself; a failed paraffin test on Oswald’s hands to determine if he had fired ANY weapon that day (including the alleged killing of Dallas police officer J. D. Tippet), and for me most certainly the impossibility that Oswald could traverse the distance from the snipers nest to the building’s 2nd Floor lunch room in the time necessary before he was seen there, calm, cool and collected, a mere 90-seconds after the last shot was fired.

It’s easy to dismiss the conspiracy allegations and go along our merry way ignoring the cabal that’s run, or treacherously effected this country in the past 50 years. Everybody does it. But ask yourself this: if you’re willing to ignore the obvious facts pointing to a conspiracy in the death of John F. Kennedy what makes you think those same dark influences aren’t steering this country and your life and life choices to this very day? Why wouldn’t they?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Go to our website, read our story and try some AdvoCare. You won't regret it.

Go to our website, read our story and try some AdvoCare. You won’t regret it.

Related articles

November 4, 2013
Categories: Business, National Politics, Uncategorized . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: 7 Comments

Should Single Young Women Have Sex, Ever?

Today, November 1, 2013, the Federal Food Stamp program is implementing budget cuts necessitated by the budget agreement proposed by President Barrack Obama called Sequester.

 

According to an article in today’s USA Today 47-million Americans will see an average cut of $36 from their average benefit of $668 per month for a family of four. In the article they write, “Two factors are driving the fiscal squeeze. The first is the windup of additional SNAP allocations under President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill. The second is the inability of Congress to agree on a new farm bill.” SNAP is the Federal program administered by the Department of Agriculture that oversees the benefits program.

Born on the 7th of the 8th in 2008. Welcome to...

So…you may ask…what does the headline of this blog have to do with the facts I just shared? I’m glad you asked.

 

When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s to be asked the question Should single young women have sex, ever? The answer from a majority of people on this planet was not “No”. The answer was, “Of course not.” In fact prior to the past 10-20 years there was not a time or place in human history when the answer to that seemingly simple question was anything but negative. In virtually every culture and every religion young ladies were expected to “save themselves” for marriage. Of course, not every woman did. Nor did every young man (BTW- the hypocrisy of society’s views of sexually active single young men versus women is something of which this author is aware. I ask your forgiveness and understanding for not addressing it as a point in this blog). But for women, failing to adhere to society’s established social mores carried derision and rejection and harsh labels should the fact that they had sex outside of marriage become widely known; something that became certain were the woman to become pregnant. And becoming pregnant happened with greater frequency before birth control.

Illustration from below book

But in the past 20 years nobody bats an eye at the thought of young women and young men enjoying sex. And doing it frequently. As a result the number of babies born to unwed mothers in this country is at an all time high of 40.7%. According to a report called,  “Knot Yet: The Benefits and Costs of Delayed Marriage in America.”  by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia (hardly a home for Conservative political thought) 44% of women have given birth by the age of 25, but only 38% of them are married. 

 

And the results are sadly predictable. While the economy slowly improves and poverty levels off a new report in September 2013 showed that poverty is increasing sharply for single-mother households. 4.1 Million are in poverty. And that number is growing. Census demographers said that single motherhood, while on a steady uptick since the 1940s, has accelerated in recent years. The birth rate for unmarried women in 2007 was up 80 percent in the almost three decades since 1980, the report said. But in the previous five years alone, between 2002 and 2007, it was up 20 percent.

 

The report also said Asian women were the least likely to have kids out of wedlock 11%; whites were below the national average too- 29%, Hispanics 43%. 68% of black women recently giving birth were single mothers. Corresponding with this data is the poverty rate by race. Whites and Asians make up the lowest percentage of those in poverty. Blacks and Hispanics along with Native Americans make up the highest. Can anyone really be surprised by this information?

 

I recently engaged in a Facebook comment debate with an unknown woman over the subject of raising the minimum wage (Again a related but separate subject which I won’t discuss here for the purpose of brevity). In the discussion the woman stated that she financially supported her working daughter and two grandchildren. I praised her and pointed out my feelings, that is exactly what family is supposed to do, help loved ones when they need help or get in trouble. The woman went on to write: “I am on a fixed income and it means that I can’t pay for all the things I would like to fix around the house. Helping family is what comes naturally to most people, but I wish she could get paid a decent wage.” What this woman failed to understand was that her daughter’s wage wasn’t what made her poor or at least unable to fully support herself financially. It was being a single mother of two children that made her a financial burden to her family. Based on statements made in the comment-string I learned the woman made too much money to qualify for food stamps. Through pure conjecture I can surmise that the young woman would be financially capable of supporting herself with such an income were she a single woman, or if she were married to the children’s father and he also was bringing in an income.

English: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1...

Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959 to 2009. United States.

2012 Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorium stirred up some controversy when he pointed out a Brookings Institution study that as he put it: “Graduate from high school, work hard, and get married before you have children and the chance you will ever be in poverty is just two percent. Yet if you don’t do these three things you’re 38 times more likely to end up in poverty!” 

 

This all leads me to my question, “Should Single Young Women Have Sex, Ever?” Isn’t the answer obvious? Short of being independently wealthy, or educated and employed with a HIGH income the answer is “absolutely not”. It’s true most religions advocate men and women refrain from sex prior to marriage. But this has nothing to do with religion or morality…other than the morality of being a self-supporting asset to society versus someone feeding from the public trough who selfishly decides to engage in sex when you were financially incapable of dealing with the consequences. It takes discipline. It’s hard. But we would say the same of all worthwhile endeavors.

 

People make mistakes and should always be helped and supported when they do, by family first, and society. We shouldn’t ever negatively label single mothers or condemn them. In fact they should be praised for giving their child life, versus the alternative. But where we can do better for these women, and society as a whole is to call intentional single motherhood what it use to be, a poor decision that should be discouraged and avoided. And the only sure-fire way to avoid it, is to avoid sex out of marriage. Calm down. No one is taking your rights away. Not now, and hopefully not ever. But pointing out better behavior versus behavior that can be destructive is what all of us should be doing at all times for the love of the people we most care about.

 

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

 

 

 

Related articles

November 1, 2013
Categories: National Politics, Uncategorized . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Michael Schuett . Comments: 4 Comments

« Previous Page Next page