John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History

4 10 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

Gannett’s USA Today began publishing its daily newspapers in Washington, D.C., and I have always been proud of the publication and have praised it.  I believed it was one of the finest newspapers in the United States, if not the world; and I have been pleased with its success.  I have encouraged friends, business associates, and acquaintances to read it because of what I believed was objective reporting, or certainly very close to it.

However, I was rudely awakened by its recent series of articles about John F. Kennedy and his family, which were a travesty and a lie.[2] Sadly, USA Today has become a participant in the deliberate distortion of history.  There was not merely one isolated article about the Kennedys, but it was an unprecedented series—which made matters far worse and even more irresponsible.  Whoever approved the series should be fired immediately.  Wholesale distortions of history by a mainstream publication such as this one warrant and, in fact, demand nothing less.

John F. Kennedy was a fraud, pure and simple. When he died, his “image” was frozen in time, but the truth is grotesque. To lionize him like USA Today has done is a crime, and unconscionable.  The once-excellent and seemingly objective USA Today has reached new lows by publishing this series about Kennedy—which is the moral equivalent of running a praiseworthy series of articles about Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

USA Today failed to mention that John F. Kennedy was possibly the most morally corrupt and reckless president in American history, who came tragically close to bringing about a “nuclear winter” that might have destroyed the United States and other parts of the world.  Also, he plunged America into the Vietnam war.  USA Today’s entire series would fall like a “house of cards” if the truth about Kennedy and his family had been told, instead of repeating the factual distortions that have been spun since he was assassinated in Dallas.

There have been two outstanding books written about Kennedy and his life, and that of his family: American historian Thomas C. Reeves’ “A Question of Character: A Life of John F. Kennedy”[3] and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh’s “The Dark Side of Camelot.”[4] First published in 1997, Hersh’s book is a companion to Reeves’ equally fine book, which was published in the same year.  To have two truly outstanding books introduced at the same time, on the same subject, is interesting unto itself.

Like Reeves, Hersh laid bare the myth of “Camelot” for all to see. The Kennedy family and its sycophants have attempted to perpetrate that myth since the day Kennedy was shot—as well as myths surrounding the entire family, which is surely the most dysfunctional family ever to achieve significant political power in American history. Indeed, after reading both books, one wonders whether there was anything decent or moral about the family, certainly the male Kennedys.

Unlike Reeves, Hersh does not mention Ted Kennedy’s culpability in the tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969, just as she was about to celebrate her 29th birthday, and the ensuing Kennedy cover-up.  Similarly, Hersh makes scant mention of Marilyn Monroe, with whom both JFK and, after him, Bobby Kennedy had affairs, nor does Hersh discuss the possibility that she was murdered. Instead, he discusses JFK’s long-time relationship with Judith Campbell Exner, as well as his affair with an East German “prostitute” by the name of Ellen Rometsch.

Kennedy’s reckless affairs with women were only outdone by his irresponsible and dangerous relationships with mobsters such as Chicago crime boss Sam Giancana. These two character flaws merged when both Kennedy and Giancana had sexual liaisons with Exner, who was used as their go-between. Indeed, it is doubtful whether Kennedy would have become the president-elect in 1960 if the Mob had not helped him in Illinois and West Virginia—and Giancana claimed credit for that.  Kennedy was the son of a bootlegger, and the apple did not fall far from the tree, with respect to all three Kennedy brothers who entered national politics.

The thread that runs through the writing of Reeves and Hersh, and through JFK’s life, is utter recklessness—which not only endangered his life, but the lives of those with whom he came into contact, and every American. Perhaps the most vivid example is the “Cuban Missile Crisis” that Hersh documents in considerable detail, which might have been averted if JFK and Bobby had used their back-channel communications effectively with the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev and the Kremlin.

Instead, the two Kennedy brothers turned the crisis into a grand display of American military might—to further JFK’s political ambitions—which constituted recklessness that might have brought about a “nuclear winter.” Hersh states emphatically: “[Jack] Kennedy did not dare tell the full story of the Soviet missiles in Cuba, because it was his policies that brought the weapons there.”[5]

Those Americans who believed in JFK, as yours truly did[6]—and to a lesser extent in Bobby—were deceived and disillusioned with respect to almost every issue. The public perception bears almost no relationship to the actual facts. Indeed, thirty-four years after his death, the American people finally learned the truth about JFK (and his “hatchet man,” Bobby) from these two books and other sources. Even then, as Hersh describes in considerable detail, Kennedy operatives may have destroyed large amounts of historically-important documents.

Vast numbers of documents are still held by the Kennedy Library with respect to both JFK and Bobby, which have never been made available to the public.  This is a scandal unto itself.  Not the least of these are medical records about JFK’s health, which have only been reviewed by a handful of Kennedy “sycophant-like” writers.  Almost 50 years after Kennedy’s death, the full extent of his life-long medical problems is still being withheld from the American people and conservative scholars, and Reeves recounts many of those problems.

The failed “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba, where Fidel Castro humiliated JFK and “the Kennedys,” led to almost 50 years of enslavement for the Cuban people, and repeated attempts by the two Kennedy brothers to have Castro assassinated. This fiasco has potential relevance today—with respect to the presidency of Barack Obama—because, as Hersh describes, there was a “prevailing sense that Kennedy could do no wrong.”[7] In fact, the Kennedy brothers ignored advice from the CIA and the military; and like Lyndon Johnson vis-à-vis later stages of the Vietnam war, they ran the “show” themselves and then tried to blame others when it failed colossally.

Ample mention has been made of JFK’s perpetual “thirst” for women.  Indeed, the three Kennedy brothers, Jack, Bobby and Ted, trashed what was sacred in their Catholic religion, such as the sanctity of marriages.  For them, nothing seemed sacred, ever.  Hersh uses statements from Secret Service agents to describe the president’s penchant for prostitutes, and how they and other women were “procured” by Dave Powers and some of Kennedy’s other “New Frontiersmen.” Jackie Kennedy’s travels were carefully monitored so that she would not return to find the president and women “frolicking” in the White House swimming pool or in the family quarters.

What went on in hotels and private homes, wherever JFK traveled, is described as well. The book also discusses JFK’s venereal disease(s)[8]; and the risks that he and Powers took by cavorting with women who had been waived through routine Secret Service checks without prior clearances, and who might have carried weapons, listening devices, drugs or something similar.

There is no question that Kennedy launched this nation into Vietnam; and his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, was the architect of that lost war and the enormous suffering that it produced. Almost 60,000 brave Americans died, some of whom were my friends; and it impaled this nation’s honor on the horns of a tragedy that still haunts policy makers and citizens alike. What was not known generally until Hersh’s book is that JFK “had a chance in 1961 to disengage from an American involvement in South Vietnam.”[9] Instead, he chose to go to war, and to spend the blood of young Americans. Hersh states, again emphatically: “Whatever Jack Kennedy’s intentions were, Vietnam was his war, even after his death.”[10]

Hersh describes the constant pressure especially on CIA operatives, which was brought by JFK and Bobby, to have foreign leaders such as Castro killed.  Mob operatives were used with Bobby’s knowledge and involvement, even though as the U.S. Attorney General he was ostensibly prosecuting the Mob. The family patriarch Joseph P. Kennedy’s ties to the Mob are detailed, as well as his ruthlessness and penchant for women.  JFK’s first marriage to Durie Malcolm is also described, and his father’s efforts to expunge the record.

Hersh discusses how Bobby and Jackie believed that JFK was struck down by a “domestic conspiracy,” probably involving Mob boss Giancana or others.[11] However, Hersh states: “Robert Kennedy did nothing to pursue the truth behind his brother’s death [in 1963]. . . . The price of a full investigation was much too high: making public the truth about President Kennedy and the Kennedy family. It was this fear, certainly, that kept Robert Kennedy from testifying before the Warren Commission.”[12] Aside from prostitutes and other women, and close Mafioso ties and health issues, and the presidential election in 1960 that was stolen from Richard M. Nixon, Hersh details “cash payments” that JFK requested and received—which monies were ostensibly used to buy Ellen Rometsch’s “silence.”

A footnote in history, perhaps, but a very important one is that JFK hurt his back cavorting in a West Coast swimming pool. He was “forced to wear a stiff brace that stretched from his shoulders to his crotch.” As Hersh concludes: “The brace would keep the president upright for the bullets of Lee Harvey Oswald.”[13] Hence, JFK’s sexual escapades may have contributed to his tragic death.

Today, Kennedy is not someone to look up to, much less deify, as many of us thought when he was president. That conclusion was reached reluctantly by lots of Americans, years ago, with a sense of sadness rather than anger.  Like the potentate in Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the myth about Kennedy and his feet of clay have become clear for all to see with the passage of time.[14]

Greatness is often achieved in times of war, and Kennedy never won the war with Cuba, much less the Vietnam war that he started, nor did he win the Cold War—which Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush won.  Kennedy was a tragic Shakespearean figure who may be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history, in no small part because of the question of character that both Reeves and Hersh described brilliantly in their terrific books.

USA Today’s series of articles extolling the virtues of Kennedy and his family are shameful, and constitute the gross distortion of history.  Indeed, they seem to represent yet another attempt by America’s discredited Left to glorify its politicians, regardless of how corrupt and immoral they may be.

Few young Americans even know who John F. Kennedy was—or care about him—because less than a handful of his positive accomplishments had any lasting significance.  Like former President William McKinley before him, the fact that an assassin cut short Kennedy’s life and presidency might be all that Americans recall about him 50 years from now.[15]

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass).  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see and  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,, and can be contacted directly at

[2] See

[3] See and

[4] See and

[5] See Seymour M. Hersh, “The Dark Side of Camelot,” p. 343.

[6] Although I was not old enough to vote for him, I was in the Los Angeles Coliseum and watched while he delivered his acceptance speech at the close of the Democrats’ convention in 1960.  Also, despite growing up in a “devoutly” Republican family, I registered to vote as a Democrat when I was able to do so, largely because of him.

After law school at Berkeley—where I had walked out of one of my classrooms to learn that he had been shot in Dallas—I spent two years at the Pentagon and had an excellent offer to return thereafter to a wonderful law firm in San Francisco, for which I had worked briefly before entering the Army.  Instead, I went to work on Capitol Hill, in no small part because of Kennedy and the call to government service that his words engendered (e.g., “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country”).

In short, Kennedy had changed the course of my life, which is why the truth about his life—and the fraud that was “Camelot”—needs to be exposed, not covered up or papered over as USA Today has done so irresponsibly.

[7] Id at  202.

[8] Id at 230.

[9] Id at 265.

[10] Id at 437.

I know an outstanding reporter with impeccable, world-class credentials who is based in Washington, D.C.  This person covered the Vietnam war and other wars up to and including the present day.  I admire and respect the person’s experience, opinions and judgment greatly.  In an e-mail message that I received on July 29, 2010, the person wrote:

Tim, [w]e won the Vietnam war – and Congress lost it.

Let me explain.

Last US soldier left Vietnam March 29, 1973.

Saigon fell April 15, 1975.

ARVN – South Vietnamese army – did very well on its own for two years with US military assistance, but no US soldiers, not even as advisers to ARVN.

Then Congress, in its infinite wisdom, cut off all further military aid to Saigon.

ARVN saw no point in continuing to fight, stabbed in the back by the US Congress.

Gen. Giap, in his memoirs, says Hanoi was taken by surprise by what Congress did because they thought that taking Saigon would not be within their reach for two more years.

So Giap improvised an offensive – and Saigon fell without a fight.

I have no reason to believe that this person’s assessment is inaccurate in any respect.  I will not disclose the person’s identity while he or she is alive, certainly without permission to do so.

[11] Id at 450.

[12] Id at 456.

[13] Id at 439.

[14] See, e.g.,’s_New_Clothes

[15] See also Timothy D. Naegele, “Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy: A Question of Character”—



71 responses

4 10 2010

You are correct Timothy, they certainly made Kennedy “King” when they made him president, and they kept the aura after he died. Too bad it took this long for the crown to be taken off, but it’s better late than never.

I hope you take Obama’s “crown” off much quicker.


5 10 2010
Frankie Pintado

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feelings on the guy. As a Cuban-American who was removed from Miami at a fairly young age and integrated with American children in VA and AZ, I was always surprised when people glorified JFK. I had always been told by the Cubans in Miami (who believe very strongly in democracy) that he was a traitor, liar, gangster, and pretty much despicable. His father’s Cocaine trafficking business is still legendary in Miami.


5 10 2010
Frankie Pintado

I am no fan of Obama, and I have mentioned before that his announced withdrawal would be a betrayal to the Iraqi and Afghan people who support Democracy, and are willing to die for it, much like our soldiers. I see some stunning similarities here to JFK’s policies toward Cuba.


5 10 2010

Yes, I agree completely, which is why I wrote the following comments about the failed “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba that appear in the article above:

This fiasco has potential relevance today—with respect to the presidency of Barack Obama—because, as Hersh describes, there was a “prevailing sense that Kennedy could do no wrong.” In fact, the Kennedy brothers ignored advice from the CIA and the military; and like Lyndon Johnson vis-à-vis later stages of the Vietnam war, they ran the “show” themselves and then tried to blame others when it failed colossally.

Unlike John F. Kennedy and Johnson before him, Obama never served in the military, and only actually served in the U.S. Senate for a brief period of time because he was campaigning nonstop for the presidency.

He is a former “community organizer” who has ignored the advice of America’s military leaders and fashioned his own Afghan strategy, which I have been told—by at least one true expert—is tragically doomed to failure. Assuming that happens, he will blame the military and everyone else, or so I believe, even though he will be responsible for the deaths and injuries of countless brave Americans.


14 10 2010

You speak of a deliberate distortion of history concerning JFK; a common but effective way to prepare your audience to accept your own distortion. While no Josef Goebbels, you have learned the technique of the big lie.

I would address your rant item by item, but that would be tedious, and you have supplied a surplus of tedium already. Suffice to say, I have rarely read such an unbalanced, dis-informative, crudely crafted article.

You vilify a man many times your stature, your intelligence, and your courage. As Lloyd Bentsen said to Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate,”You’re no Jack Kennedy”.


14 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks so much, Tom, for your comments.

Needless to say, you have engaged in name calling, but you did not rebut one point contained in the article, because it is impossible to do so. Again, Kennedy is the most despicable president in American history, and is without any peers.


6 11 2010
Col. Bunny

I recently read Hersh’s book and you accurately represent its contents and its import.

Your confidential informant is also quite correct. Frank Snepp’s Decent Interval also makes clear that we achieved a military victory only to have it stolen by the Democrats. Giap apparently persuaded the politburo to allow him to attempt a cross-border operation, from which he assured them he would withdraw if Nixon reacted. He could not and the rest is history. We paid a high price for our national morality play, “Watergate,” and have continued to pay through the nose in the form of the 60s radicals infecting our schools and the Democrat Party.


28 02 2011

Tom, I have read countless books on the Kennedy’s and the Kennedy Presidency throughout my lifetime. Some of the authors no doubt admired Kennedy by way of a close personal relationship and others did not. Nonetheless, from my readings and knowledge, everything that Mr. Naegele has written is true and well documented in other sources. In fact, it’s one of the best summaries of the Kennedy Presidency that I have read.


28 02 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your very kind words.


14 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele



As indicated in the article above, the once-fine and seemingly objective USA Today has reached new lows by publishing a series of articles extolling the virtues of John F. Kennedy and his family that are shameful, and constitute the gross distortion of history. Indeed, they appear to represent yet another attempt by America’s discredited Left to exalt the virtues of its politicians, regardless of how corrupt and immoral they may be.

See; see also


14 10 2010

OK, you want rebuttal?

Let’s begin with your assertion that Kennedy “plunged America into the Vietnam War”.

Our involvement in Vietnam began in 1950. Truman sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group to assist the French. In 1951, he authorized 150 million in aid to the French.

In 1960 when Kennedy first took office, he did continue the bi-partisan, anti-communist foreign policies inherited from the administrations of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower. But by 1962, JFK said to Walter Cronkite that the war may be unwinnable, and that it was ultimately a Vietnamese war, not an American war.

Kennedy wanted out of Vietnam. He had planned for a complete withdrawl by 1965. The following is an excerpt from Kennedy’s National Security Action Memorandum 263, ” 2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.”

On November 26, 1963, just 4 days after Kennedy was assassinated. LBJ signed NSAM 273 completely reversing Kennedy’s plan to withdraw American troops from Vietnam, and committing our forces indefinitely.

On August 4, 1964, Johnson claimed that the USS Turner Joy had been fired upon by the North Vietnamese. This prompted retaliatory air strikes, and prompted Congress on August 7, 1964, to pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

This resolution gave LBJ authority, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of military force in Southeast Asia. It authorized the President to do whatever necessary in order to assist “any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective”.

An undated NSA publication declassified in 2005 revealed that there was no attack on 4 August. But LBJ used this non-incident to gain the power to escalate the war in Vietnam without a declaration of war. I see you were a Captain.

On 8 March 1965, 3,500 United States Marines were sent to South Vietnam. By December, the number increased to nearly 200,000. This was the beginning of the American ground war which eventually caused the death of 60,000 troops.

In the beginning of Kennedy’s administration he did continue the U.S. foreign policy of previous administrations in Southeast Asia . This was with the overwhelming support of the American people, who at the time believed in stopping the “Domino Effect” of Communism in the area.

But Kennedy realized we had no business in Vietnam, and he developed an exit plan to be completed by 1965.

Obviously you hate JFK. He had moral failings, to be sure. But don’t we all? Who are you to cast stones? I suspect the cause of your hatred is something you are unwilling to share. I see you served as a Captain in the Army Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon. Kennedy, as you well know, fired Allen Dulles and began dismantling the CIA. It is no secret he was intensely hated by the agency. Could your associations with the intelligence community possibly influence your opinion?

Regardless of why you hate JFK so intensely, (I can’t believe you compare him with Hitler and Stalin), you cannot, in good faith blame him for the national disgrace that was the Vietnam War. You say he is possibly the “most morally corrupt President in American history”?
You have only to look at his successor to find the one deserving that distinction.


14 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Tom, for your comments.

You might wish to read the two outstanding books cited in footnotes 3-4 of the article above. Hersh discusses Vietnam more than Reeves does; however, you might wish to compare your views of history with theirs. Obviously, many other books have been written about that war.

It is pure conjecture as what Kennedy might or might not have done if he had been spared an assassin’s bullets. We will never know for certain. However, we must never forget that his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, was the architect of that lost war and the enormous suffering that it produced. McNamara continued under Johnson, as you know; and together they took the war to new levels.

Please read footnote 10 of the article too.

My feelings about Kennedy, and the origin of such feelings, are set forth in this article and my other article about Reagan and Kennedy, which is cited in footnote 15 above. There are no hidden feelings or agendas. Like many other Americans, I felt betrayed by Kennedy, and still believe strongly that he was a fraud.

My comments about Hitler and Stalin go to the despicable nature of them as human beings, and the suffering that they produced. Kennedy came very close to bringing about a “nuclear winter” because of his recklessness that put the lives of millions of Americans at risk—and potentially the lives of millions of other people elsewhere in the world—which might have equaled or surpassed what Hitler and Stalin did.

None of my work in intelligence has influenced my views, to the best of my knowledge. I was a Kennedy believer who became sadly disillusioned; and this disillusionment has increased over time as more and more of the truth has come out about Kennedy. I have zero doubts that more is to come.

With respect to Johnson, you may not know or recall but there were bumper stickers on cars in Washington, D.C. when I was an Army officer serving at the Pentagon, which said: “Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that we really need him?” He was hated—which is among the reasons why he did not run for reelection in 1968. However, I believe Kennedy was worse, both as a human being and as a demagogue and narcissistic “leader.”


15 10 2010

You have not offered any proof of your assertion that Kennedy was responsible for our tragic involvement in Vietnam. I used verifiable facts to show that 1. Kennedy inherited a long-standing and gradually escalating involvement. 2. Public opinion was in favor of the containment of Communism in Southeast Asia. 3. By 1962 Kennedy realized the blunder of our protracted and hopeless efforts to help the South Vietnamese. 4. He issued NASM 263 which proves his intention and desire to get out of the war. 5. Johnson signed NASM 273 which completely nullified Kennedy’s efforts to withdraw, and committed our forces indefinitely. He did this only FOUR DAYS after Kennedy was assassinated, waiting only for his burial. 6. Johnson used the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a ruse to launch air strikes, and eventually to gain power from Congress to wage a full-on war without any declaration. 7. The ground war started in 1965 when Marines were first sent in.

You criticized me for offering no rebuttal, yet you have not even challenged any of the above assertions, assertions which if true, prove conclusively that your claim of Kennedy ‘s responsibility for the war is unfounded.

Instead of disputing my facts, you suggest I compare my “views of history” by reading two books about what a fraud Kennedy was! Then you try to shift the focus from Kennedy to McNamara. Which one are you blaming now?

Let’s hear some facts to back up your assertion. Tell me which of the seven assertions I made are false.


15 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Tom, for your additional comments.

Again, I respectfully suggest that you read the two books mentioned above, and specifically Hersh’s discussions about Vietnam. He “nails” Kennedy; and both books can be read at your leisure. Also, there is no point in incorporating those discussions in this blog thread, when its readers can refer to the original sources, as you can.

Who was culpable? The two Kennedy brothers, Jack and Bobby; McNamara; Johnson; members of Congress; and others. There was plenty of culpability to go around—which resulted in the deaths of almost 60,000 Americans, some of whom were my friends.


15 10 2010

Mr. Naegele

You are a man of great success and position. I admire men like you who are capable of such accomplishments in life. I believe, however, that you are somewhat disingenuous in your posture as an unbiased presenter of fact and promoter of honest debate.

I am sure you are familiar with the concept that morality dictates theology. You seem to preach only to the choir. You base your statements on two books, both of which support your belief that JFK, a man who made more people proud to be Americans than any President in recent history, was in fact a degenerate and a scoundrel.
I would expect to see plenty of dissent in your blog, given the high esteem in which JFK is held by so many, but all I see are a few brief and ill-reasoned agreeable comments.

When challenged on your facts, you say there is no point in “incorporating those discussions in this blog thread”. Basically, you like to do all the talking and don’t want to be interrupted by questions.

JFK was physically assassinated in 1963. You sir, are conducting a character assassination 47 years later. In doing so, you do not demonstrate the dignity that your resume suggests.


15 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Tom, for your thoughtful comments.

My reasoning was not based simply on two books, which happen to support my positions. I have read extensively about John F. Kennedy and his brothers. In fact, when I worked in the U.S. Senate, our offices were located next to those of Teddy, whom I believed was the best of the Kennedy brothers, notwithstanding his culpability in the tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

You have argued with respect to the origins of the Vietnam war; and I have cited the conclusions of Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh, as set forth in his book “The Dark Side of Camelot.” If you differ with them, I respectfully suggest that you take issue with him. His fine book is extensively researched, and you are free to dispute his sources—some of which you may agree with ultimately.

The Kennedy “myth” has been spun for years, and it does Americans an immense disservice to have it continue. Among other things, there are documents held by the Kennedy Library that should have been released years ago. Other documents were destroyed by the Kennedy “faithful.” My guess is that John F. Kennedy’s “legacy” will only get worse as the years pass, until finally he is largely discredited at least by most scholars.

I wish you well in your quest for the truth.


16 10 2010

Thank you for recognizing that my objective is the truth. I acknowledge that historical truth is often difficult to determine, and sometimes impossible. Time will tell, as they say. Unfortunately it does not always tell us everything. You and I will have to agree to disagree on this subject, at least for now.

I apologize that my tone was often less than gracious. It was never my intention to be insulting or disrespectful. Maybe I am overly passionate about certain subjects, JFK being one of them.

I am angry, not so much that JFK was assassinated, even in such a brazen manner. I am furious at the total lack of honest investigation into the public murder of an American President, and the farce of the Warren Commission’s findings. It leads me to the conclusion that elements of our own government were complicit in his death.

In any murder, motive is the key question. Who stood to gain? In Kennedy’s case, so many powerful and ruthless forces were aligned against him. He fired Allen Dulles and was dismantling the CIA, the Mob wanted him to oust Castro so they could get their casinos back, he was taking the power of fiat currency from the Federal Reserve, and LBJ wanted the Presidency almost as much as he hated Kennedy. If you judge a man by who his enemies are, Kennedy looks like a great President.


16 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Tom, for your thoughtful comments.

Yes, I understand and appreciate your passion. We may never know the truth behind his assassination. My article above describes what apparently Bobby and Jackie thought. It is too bad that Bobby did not testify, but he had his reasons.

What is perhaps most profound, as fate would have it, is that JFK might not have died except for the stiff brace that he was wearing, which held him rigid and upright. I have been to Dallas and the site; and I was struck by how small it is. History was changed that day, as we know.

See also (Testimony Of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht in 1978 before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, disputing the single-bullet theory that is the essence of the Warren Commission report’s conclusions)


18 10 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Gannett logo


As indicated in the article above, the once-fine and seemingly objective USA Today has reached new lows by publishing a series of articles extolling the virtues of John F. Kennedy and his family that are shameful, and constitute the gross distortion of history.

See; see also

The travesty of this series, as well as the gross distortion of history that it represents, have been brought to the attention of the highest echelons of Gannett and USA Today—including Craig A. Dubow, Gannett’s Chairman, President & CEO (who can be reached at, and David Hunke, USA Today’s Publisher (who can be reached at—but the newspaper keeps touting the series on the homepage of its Web site.

See, e.g., (series logo appears in the upper right-hand corner of USA Today’s homepage)

Thus, the series does not merely constitute editorial irresponsibility, but it taints the entire Gannett organization, and demonstrates bias and distorted media coverage on the part of one of the largest media conglomerates globally. The series represents another attempt by America’s discredited Left to exalt the virtues of its politicians, regardless of how corrupt and immoral they may be.

If Americans cannot trust Gannett and USA Today anymore to provide fair and balanced news, they should be boycotted!

Here is a list of Gannett businesses and their addresses (see, as well as a listing of the locations of Gannett daily newspapers and TV stations that should be boycotted (see—certainly until both Gannett and USA Today issue formal written apologies for and retractions of their shameful series of articles, which constitute an irresponsible and gross distortion of history.


11 11 2010
Larry angstadt

Good evening. I am following up on this blog as you have piqued my interest here. Actually, I found your site via your comments on the Air Craft Carrier providing assistance to the Carnival crippled ship. Could not agree with you more……don’t we have better things to do with all this money??

Anyway, just a note here as I went to find the books you have referenced (3 and 4) and found that in fact, the Reeves book was published in 1991 while the Hersh book was in 97 as you state. Hopefully you are not at this point rolling your eyes, but you do make a specific point, commenting “To have two truly outstanding books introduced at the same time, on the same subject, is interesting unto itself.” While it certainly does not in any way change any conclusions one will draw from the books, the timing of those conclusions now is, if nothing else, suspect. Just my opinion.

Love the flame war with Tom. Great entertainment.


11 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Larry, for your comments.

The copyright for the Reeves book states:

Copyright © 1991, 1997 by Thomas C. Reeves

See, e.g.,

The 1997 copyright apparently applies to the “Paperback edition,” while the 1991 copyright applies to the earlier “Hardcover edition.” It is not clear whether there were any differences between the two editions; and if so, exactly what they were. Thus, you are correct; and I am correct too—at least with respect to the “Paperback edition.” :-)


11 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

USA Today logo

Unchastened and unrepentant, and clearly aware of the fact that their series of articles about John F. Kennedy and his family distorts history beyond all recognition, Gannett and USA Today continue to tout the series on the newspaper’s homepage.

See (series logo appears in the upper right-hand corner of USA Today’s homepage)

One single “fabricated” article is not the issue, nor even the whole series of shameless articles, but the repeated touting of this series long after it was published originally compounds the journalistic travesty that Gannett and USA Today are perpetrating on the American people and their readers worldwide.

See also and

Clearly, none of Gannett’s publications nor its flagship USA Today can ever be trusted again. The series represents a pathetic effort to increase readership, and yet another attempt by America’s discredited Left to glorify its politicians, regardless of how corrupt and immoral they may be.


7 12 2010

I’m sorry, and this might be me just picking at loose ends, but Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush won the Cold War? I’m sorry, but the “victory” (which really seems a strange word to apply here) should not be accredited to them. Just because they were Presidents when the U.S.S.R. fell does that mean a thing. The Cold War was won, first and foremost, by the inability of Communism to fundamentally last in an overly Capitalistic world. And I don’t remember many containment projects done by these two fellows, although you could argue that Reagan perpetuated Capitalism by his Reaganomics approach (which I wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole). But still, nothing they did could be argued as “winning” the war. The war was won essentially once the Cuban Missile Crisis ended. After that escalation of nuclear threat and the subsequent backing-down of the two superpowers, it was pretty obvious neither country would “destroy” the other. So by simple logic and knowledge of what is Communism, it was obvious we’d win the war back in the ’60s, not to say we knew it then of course. So please, don’t take a historical article (which I did find intellectually stimulating as I now would like to research more than I already know about JFK) about one time period and shamelessly plug in completely unrelated nonsense to propagate Republican idols. Even though you easily are a right-wing individual, it definitely portrays yourself as less informative and more close-minded and bigoted. But I did enjoy the rest of the article; I do not know more about JFK than the deified president that I was taught briefly in school. It definitely makes me want to learn more about him -objectively of course- and be able to thoroughly understand your article’s main points.


8 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Patrick, for your comments. Every once in a while, a compliment was thrown in, which I appreciate. :-)

First, it is commonly acknowledged that Reagan won the Cold War, inter alia, because his “Star Wars” arms race triggered massive military expenditures that contributed to the country’s collapse. I do not have time to bring up the articles on this subject for you, but a Google or Wikipedia search might prove beneficial.

The Berlin Wall came down, and the country actually collapsed on George H.W. Bush’s watch; and I was in Berlin shortly after the collapse took place. Russian troops were selling their uniforms, and stealing plumbing fixtures from their barracks, which could be sold too. They were going back to “tent cities” in the dead of winter, because there was not adequate housing for them, until the West Germans paid the Soviet Union “reparations”—which may or may not have gone to housing for them.

Second, communism as an economic and social system was decaying for years, as you point out. The “Ten Year” and other plans were pure nonsense, and fabricated to keep the leaders in power.

Third, the Cuban Missile Crisis did not end the risks to America, which still exist today—and have never gone away. They have merely changed forms.

See, e.g.,; see also and’s-soviet-holocaust-and-mao’s-chinese-holocaust/

Fourth, I have no interest in “propagat[ing] Republican idols,” nor in doing the same with respect to Democrats. I am an Independent, and proud of it. :-)

Fifth, to the extent that you have been taught that Kennedy was a “deified president,” I assume it was by Leftist professors at schools throughout the country. I am liberal on some issues, and conservative on others, but mostly moderate—or so I believe. Left-wing or right-wing ideologues and fanatics are not my “cup of tea.”


11 01 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

The Travesties And Tragedies Of The Shameful Kennedys Continue Unabated

History Channel logo

The lies and distortions of history continue as members of the Kennedy family work behind the scenes to kill a new eight-part TV miniseries on the History Channel about John F. Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy, which was set to air in the U.S. later this year. Maria Shriver and Caroline Kennedy are reported to have lobbied hard for the History Channel to pull the plug on the series.

See and

In a UK Daily Mail article—which is entitled, “‘It’s the truth': Producer defends JFK mini-series after it’s cancelled ‘due to pressure from Caroline Kennedy'”—it is reported:

Caroline Kennedy reportedly led the bid to axe the multi-million dollar series, which stars Katie Holmes and Greg Kinnear.

. . .

The move came after a leaked script was described as ‘vindictive’ and ‘malicious’ by former Kennedy aide Theodore Sorensen.

The series is said to touch on the former president’s infidelities and the strain in his marriage.

. . .

Canadian media are reporting that family members were especially upset at the script’s portrayal of the former president as a philanderer, and of his father Joe as power hungry.

. . .

[T]he network announced on Friday that it was abruptly pulling it from its line-up, saying it wasn’t ‘a fit for the History brand.’

. . .

The series will still be broadcast in Canada on March 6 and will air in other foreign countries. Cable network Showtime is one of the favourites to pick up the show in the US.


As the article above states clearly and unequivocally, John F. Kennedy was despicable and a fraud; his infidelities with prostitutes and other women trashed his marriage and were often perverted; and his father was every bit as bad if not worse. The History Channel should be boycotted for its actions.

See also (“John F Kennedy’s mistress details their affair in new book“) and (“He took me into Jackie’s room… I was powerless to resist: Ex-White House intern, 19, describes ‘passionate 18-month affair with JFK’“) and (“In [the UK Daily Mail’s] first extract from a memoir that’s shocked America, a former intern reveals the cold-hearted truth about a predatory president who cynically exploited her innocence . . .“) and (“JFK tried to make me have an abortion: How President Kennedy forced a teenage intern to take drugs and feared he’d made her pregnant“)


15 01 2011

You lost all hope for convincing me here with your first sentence about how usa today is anything but a heap of populist, cotton candy trash, with or without the kennedy article. Do you read US weekly too?


15 01 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Chris, for your comments.

I respectfully suggest that you read the rest of the article, as well as my comments beneath it; and I believe you will find that I agree with you—to a large extent. Sadly, this is not what USA Today used to be, or what it should be.


16 01 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Sarah Palin Under Attack

The UK’s Daily Mall is reporting:

‘There has been an incredible increase in death threats against Mrs Palin since the tragedy in Arizona, since she’s been accused of having the blood of those victims on her hands,’ [Sarah Palin’s] aide Rebecca Mansour told USA Today.

. . .

The former vice presidential candidate became a lightning rod for criticism after the Tucson massacre over her aggressive political posturing.

. . .

Sarah Palin has shrugged off suggestions that she should tone down her rhetoric by going ahead with her planned sell-out speech at a marquee gun rights event in Reno, Nevada later this month.

The Safari Club International, a group that calls itself ‘the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and promoting wildlife conservation worldwide’, runs the annual conference.

Mrs Palin is an outspoken advocate of the Second Amendment.

She will address a sold-out crowd of 20,000 people with as speech based on ‘her past hunting experiences and how politics affect the current state of hunting and fishing.’

The former Alaska governor will be closely watched to see if she mentions the Tucson shooting that left six dead and fourteen injured, including Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

. . .

Attacking critics who said the vitriolic political climate contributed to the killings, she spurred more controversy by branding the media’s treatment of her as a ‘blood libel.’

. . .

Fox News host Glenn Beck has already called on Mrs Palin to increase her security in light of the anger against her.

‘An attempt on you could bring the Republic down,’ he said.


The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer was correct: the Tucson massacre was not a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin or anyone else. It was the work of a deranged killer, similar to the men who killed John Lennon in New York City, and Yitzhak Rabin in Tel Aviv.


Also, it is tragic to think that politicians, other public figures, or anyone with whom we might disagree would be targeted by anyone else for death.

In an article of mine entitled, “Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It,” I mentioned the vitriolic climate of hate and personal destruction in Washington today, which is far beyond anything that I dealt with when I worked in the U.S. Senate on Capitol Hill.


I did witness the “politics of personal destruction” though, when senators, congressmen, and their staff members went after political “targets” who were seeking Senate confirmation. There was a conscious effort to find “dirt” on the people and destroy their reputations to prevent the confirmation process from going forward. It was unseemly when I first encountered it; and it is not the American way.

In my article, I referred to Peggy Noonan’s use of the word, “Enraged,” and I described Barack Obama’s detractors and opponents as being “angry, livid, galvanized and motivated.” Also, I wrote:

The handwriting is on the wall—and the blood is in the water—that he is likely to be a one-term president.

And I described Washington as “a corrupt, politically-polarized toxic city.”

Charles Krauthammer is correct: many Americans use the metaphors of war to describe sports, politics and daily discourse in this great country; and rereading my words, I realize that I am just as guilty of this as anyone.

I believe Obama is leading America in the wrong direction, for all of the reasons that I have discussed in my articles; however, I do not wish him ill in terms of his physical safety or that of his family. Quite to the contrary, people often become martyrs when they are struck down, which is what happened to John F. Kennedy who has been “deified”—and wrongly so, in my opinion—since he was assassinated in Dallas just before Thanksgiving in 1963. History has been distorted, and continues to be, right up to this day.

See, e.g.,

I was stunned when Kennedy was shot; and I will always remember when I learned about it, walking from my law school class at Berkeley—before it was announced that he had been killed. People worldwide remember the moments when John Lennon and Yitzhak Rabin were killed too.


24 01 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Finally, Reagan Is Honored—Belatedly And In A Second-Class Fashion

Reagan-USA Today series

After running an entire “special” series of articles for many months now, distorting history with respect to John F. Kennedy and his dysfunctional family—which is still being published online to this day—USA Today has belatedly honored Ronald Reagan as his 100th birthday approaches on February 6, 2011.

Compare with

As I concluded in my article about the two American presidents:

Reagan will be remembered as one of America’s greatest presidents and a man of character. Kennedy was a tragic Shakespearean figure who may be forgotten and consigned to the dustheap of history. Perhaps this contrast between Reagan and Kennedy—this question of character that Thomas C. Reeves described in his terrific book about Kennedy—is what separates the men and underscores their differences, and ultimately will define their respective places in history.


. . .

The boycott of USA Today and other Gannett businesses must continue!

See, e.g., and and


10 03 2011
Kelvin AKA Blomfeld

Hello Timothy … I’ve arrived here from your link regarding our friend Tiger :) The Woods saga is a “comedy” compared to this subject matter … nonetheless, you do manage to “stir the pot” over there with those guys and it’s really fun whenever you post a blog … keep it up ! Anyhow, I have to say that I find your writings about Kennedy to be very interesting and no doubt quite factual. Though I’m younger than yourself (ie: I was only four years old in ’63), I like many others, continue to be fascinated with this period in American history. I don’t know exactly why that is, as we’ve since had the ’70’s, 80’s, 90’s, etc, and all that those decades entailed politically ? Maybe it’s just because of the old black & white TV images ? :) But seriously, no one can deny your assertion that Kennedy created a “sea” of detractors around himself through his various deeds and actions, whether right or wrong. So what I would like to ask you … if I may be so bold … is whether or not you subscribe to the “single bullet” theory ? Do you think it was Oswald acting alone ? … or do you think it was a coup d’etat ? Your response would be of great interest to me and it will be much appreciated … thank you … Kelvin


10 03 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Kelvin, for your nice comments as always.

Yes, you are correct: one of the goals of this blog is to “stir the pot,” and stimulate discussions and debate.

See, e.g.,

With respect to the theories surrounding Kennedy’s death, I remain open-minded and doubt we will ever know the answers definitively. So many people who might have shed light on this are dead now (e.g., Bobby and Jackie Kennedy, who had their theories; mobsters who may have been involved). If someone said that I had to decide, I would choose the “single-bullet” theory.

As to whether Oswald acted alone, I have never reached a definitive conclusion about that either. It would be easy to “shoot from the hip”—no pun intended—and come down on the side of one theory or another, but again I believe we will never know for certain. 2,300 years after the death of Alexander the Great, there are still a variety of theories about what caused his death.



11 03 2011

Thank you Timothy for your reply. I hope that I didn’t put you on the spot here, by asking you about Dealey Plaza, etc ? Regardless, your views are very interesting and much appreciated. You’re correct in pointing out that so many have now passed who could have shed light on this subject … not to mention the many documents still being withheld, including autopsy reports, military briefs, etc. Personally, I lean towards the coup d’etat theory. This is based purely on the laws of motion and physics, as seen in the Zapruder footage. But as you say, we will likely never know the truth, even though future generations one day might. What happened that day happened … and nothing we do today will ever change that. But getting back to your argument that “Camelot” was a contrived notion, etc … I’m compelled to reiterate that many people fail to remember that the stationing of US missiles in Turkey in 1958, is what precipitated Kennedy’s so-called Cuban Missile Crisis … what followed must have indeed been a game of Russian Roulette … and thank god that nothing happened ! You’ve also referenced the “decency” of Ronald Reagan … a man who was then viewed as a hawk, but ultimately proved to be the greatest dove in recent memory. Do you know that he was reputed to have “never” removed his jacket while working in the Oval Office, due to his reverence for the office that he held ? Take care and please know that I’m now reading through your various articles with great interest.


11 03 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Kelvin, for your comments.

You are correct about the amount of documents that were destroyed already, and those that are still withheld by the Kennedy Library, which should have its federal funding terminated. As my article above stated:

Vast numbers of documents are still held by the Kennedy Library with respect to both JFK and Bobby, which have never been made available to the public. This is a scandal unto itself. Not the least of these are medical records about JFK’s health, which have only been reviewed by a handful of Kennedy “sycophant-like” writers. Almost 50 years after Kennedy’s death, the full extent of his life-long medical problems is still being withheld from the American people and conservative scholars, and Reeves recounts many of those problems.

This is a travesty, which needs to be corrected. Also, as I mentioned above, 2,300 years have passed since Alexander’s death, and we still do not know the truth. Thus, the passage of time may not clarify the facts surrounding Kennedy’s death at all.

Thank you for the rest of your comments, with which I agree; and thanks again for your very kind remarks.


15 03 2011
Richard P Sinay

Your argument about Kennedy being responsible for the Vietnam War is bogus, since Lyndon Johnson made up the nonsense about the Gulf of Tonkin. It is the same bogus made-up Weapons of Mass Destruction argument by the bush Administration. It will be a cold day in hell if you can ever convince me of the responsibility of Kennedy for the Vietnam War. This was a country just itching to get into another war–so we made up some bogus reasons just to run our war machine–just like we did in Iraq. You can find plenty of people who might historically argue that Kennedy was responsible, but I was right there when it happened, right there when history was happening, so it will be difficult to pull the wool over my eyes.


15 03 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments, Richard.

First, I suggest that you read the two books that are cited, which are terrific, as well as the sources cited in my article’s footnotes and the comments beneath it. The books are well written and researched; and the authors’ credentials are impeccable. Among other things, Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winner.

Second, as he states, Kennedy “had a chance in 1961 to disengage from an American involvement in South Vietnam,” but didn’t. Hersh adds emphatically: “Whatever Jack Kennedy’s intentions were, Vietnam was his war, even after his death.”

However, as I wrote in the article:

Robert McNamara, was the architect of that lost war and the enormous suffering that it produced. Almost 60,000 brave Americans died, some of whom were my friends. . . .

I blamed Johnson, as you do; and I ceased to be a Democrat because of him—and the war.

Lastly, you have your opinions and I have mine. Plenty of people agree with each of us.


15 03 2011
Richard Sinay

Johnson wasn’t a Democrat–he was a Republican by today’s standards. I lost plenty of my friends in that war as well. If you are looking for original cause, then you have to go back to Eisenhower and Truman, both supporting the Vietnamese situation. I think you want to put the blame on Kennedy because of your moral judgment of him. I’ve read your comments about him, and you are going to have to take that moral judgment to the door of all the presidents who exercised infidelity. Unfortunately, that includes several significant presidents.


15 03 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Richard, for your comments.

Like you, I was a Kennedy “believer,” as my article states. Like you, I lost friends in that war, and I blame Johnson and McNamara more than I blame Kennedy. They kept it going, and expanded it beyond all reason.

As I stated in a comment above relating to Johnson:

[T]here were bumper stickers on cars in Washington, D.C. when I was an Army officer serving at the Pentagon, which said: “Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that we really need him?” He was hated—which is among the reasons why he did not run for reelection in 1968.


I respectfully disagree: Johnson was very much a Democrat. In fact, he embodied his party. He had been a leader in the House, and a “disciple” of Speaker Sam Rayburn; and he was its leader in the Senate. He was every bit as much of a hard-line, thoroughly-partisan Democrat as Nancy Pelosi is today.

Next, the article and my comments beneath it summarize my views about Kennedy. He was a fraud and, yes, despicable; and my views do not turn on his infidelities.


15 03 2011

Kennedy would have NEVER left Vietnam because there were over a million fellow Catholics there. Do you think that blue collar Catholic democrats would have voted for him, knowing that he left them to be murdered by the Communists? That was an issue coming up in 1964. Would the US leave Catholics to be killled by the Reds? Would the Vatican have stayed silent? It seems that in all the lies about Kennedy “getting out of Vietnam” this is the biggest! So Kennedy had no plans to leave, and the myth of him leaving has endured to this day!


15 03 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Frank, for your comments.

Yes, I recall that point of view too. You may be correct.


20 10 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

The Kennedy Curse

This is what Greek shipping heiress Christina Onassis believed John F. Kennedy’s widow Jacqueline brought to the Onassis family when her father Aristotle married the widow.

The UK’s Daily Mail has added:

Aristotle’s son, Alexander, was killed in a plane crash in 1973 when he was just 24. He was close to his sister, Christina, but it is believed that they never accepted Jacquie Kennedy as their stepmother. . . .

When Alexander died[,] she reportedly convinced Onassis that Jacquie had brought the curse of the Kennedys to their family after having witnessed John and Robert Kennedy’s assassinations.

Soon after the couple broke up and, two years after his son’s death, Aristotle passed away.



20 04 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

JFK’s Mistress Killed?

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

The suspicious death of one of President John F. Kennedy’s mistresses just months after his death has sparked numerous conspiracy theories.

The latest version posits that socialite Mary Pinchot Meyer, a beautiful divorcee who was close friends with the Kennedys and is widely known for having a lengthy affair with the playboy President, was shot in a cover-up operation by the CIA.

A new book alleges that, in her preoccupation with her lover’s assassination and ensuing personal investigation, she may have gotten so close to the ‘truth’ that the CIA found her to be a threat.

As a result, agency operatives staged a shooting to make it look like she died due to a sexual assault that turned violent.

. . .

In an interview shortly before his death in 2001, [her ex-husband, Cord Meyer, who was a CIA agent himself] said that ‘the same sons of b****es that killed John F. Kennedy’ killed his ex-wife.

See (“Book claims JFK’s mistress was assassinated by the CIA ‘because she knew too much about his assassination'”); see also (The Curse of the Kennedys Continues: “Kennedys at war! RFK Jr wins court battle over ex-wife’s body as her family sues to prevent burial ahead of funeral taking place today”) and (“John F Kennedy’s top generals were . . . bad-mouthing him behind his back”)


27 12 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Fifty years ago—just months before his assassination—John F. Kennedy celebrated his final Christmas with a mistress in the wings

In a UK Telegraph article, Sarah Bradford—who is author of “America’s Queen: The Life of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis”—has written:

At the end of the first week of December [1962], instead of joining Jackie and the children at their rented Virginia house, Glen Ora, Kennedy went to a spectacular weekend orgy organised by his brother-in-law, the Rat Pack actor Peter Lawford, at Bing Crosby’s estate near Palm Springs. Among the women there was Jack’s latest fling, the former White House intern, Mimi Beardsley, now a 20-year-old college sophomore, who had flown out to Palm Springs on one of the air force’s “back up” planes. She would reveal details of her relationship with Kennedy in a sensational memoir, which was published last year.

Reverting to his presidential role—but with Mimi Beardsley once again in discreet and carefully concealed attendance—Kennedy then flew to Nassau in the Bahamas to meet Harold Macmillan, the British prime minister. The luxurious Lyford Cay Club was the location for a vital discussion on nuclear defence, with the pre-Christmas conference resulting in the Americans offering the Polaris missile to the Royal Navy for use on specially constructed submarines. From Nassau, Kennedy left to join Jackie and his family for a two-week break over Christmas in Palm Beach.


As I have written in the article above:

John F. Kennedy was possibly the most morally corrupt and reckless president in American history, who came tragically close to bringing about a “nuclear winter” that might have destroyed the United States and other parts of the world.


19 01 2013
Robert Morrow

I have read the “Dark Side of Camelot” and I consider it an excellent book. Note 2 things: 1) how LBJ blackmailed and strongarmed his way onto the 1960 Demo ticket 2) how RFK was on the verge of destroying LBJ with a Senate Rules investigation into LBJ’s corruption, as well as a coordinated media campaign (the latter not reported by Hersh).

Ok – Now read these books/articles relating to the JFK assassination:

1) LBJ: Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination by Phillip Nelson
2) JFK and the Unspeakable:Why He Died and Why it Matters by James Douglass
3) Brothers: the Hidden History of the Kennedy Years by David Talbot
4) The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh
5) Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty by Russ Baker
6) Power Beyond Reason: The Mental Collapse of Lyndon Johnson by Jablow Hershman
7) Operation Cyanide: Why the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III by Peter Hounam (LBJ engineered the attack on the USS Liberty)
8) Inside the Assassinations Records Review Board Volume 5, by Doug Horne
9) Watch “The Men Who Killed Kennedy – the Guilty Men – episode 9″ at YouTube –
best video ever on the JFK assassination; covers well Lyndon Johnson’s role
10) Google the essay “LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK” by Robert Morrow
11) Google “National Security State and the Assassination of JFK by Andrew Gavin Marshall.”
12) Google “Chip Tatum Pegasus.” Intimidation of Ross Perot 1992
13) Google “Vincent Salandria False Mystery Speech.” Read every book & essay Vincent Salandria ever wrote.
14) Google “Unanswered Questions as Obama Annoints HW Bush” by Russ Baker
16) Google “Did the Bushes Help to Kill JFK” by Wim Dankbaar
17) Google “The Holy Grail of the JFK story” by Jefferson Morley
18) Google “The CIA and the Media” by Carl Bernstein
19) Google “CIA Instruction to Media Assets 4/1/67″
20) Google “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence” Harry Truman on 12/22/63
19) Google “Dwight Eisenhower Farewell Address” on 1/17/61
20) Google “Jerry Policoff NY Times.” Read everything Jerry Policoff ever wrote about the CIA media cover up of the JFK assassination.


19 01 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Needless to say, this is a “mouthful.”

The logical question, Robert, is what have you concluded about the JFK assassination, after distilling all of the findings from these sources?


19 01 2013
Robert Morrow

In sum, Lyndon Johnson and his Texas oil executive inner circle used their CIA/military connections to murder John Kennedy for many reasons both personal & ideological. Cuba policy was a major factor in the JFK assassination, much more so than Vietnam. Btw, I happen to be somewhat of an expert on the sex lifes of JFK, LBJ & Bill Clinton. They were all equally sexually unhinged. And I can tell you some dark things about GHW Bush as well.

Back to LBJ. Lyndon Johnson was a completely depraved man and a murderous psychopath with the exact same mentality and “behavior” as Adoph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Kennedy was an angelic choir boy compared to LBJ. Eventually I will give you all my files on the JFK assassination and Lyndon Johnson, but I don’t want to overload you right now.

LBJ also engineered the Israeli attack on the USS LIberty on June 8, 1967 … but that is a story for another day.


15 02 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

JFK Was A Smooth Criminal

In a UK Daily Mail article—entitled “JFK secretly freed rapists, drug dealers and Mafia hitmen to kill Castro and curb threat of Communism, claims explosive new book”—it is noted:

President John F. Kennedy secretly endorsed the release of hardened criminals to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro to curb the Communist threat, a new book has claimed.

At the height of tensions between America and neighbouring Communist Cuba in the early 1960s, JFK was implicit in the freeing of rapists, drug dealers, and Mafia hitmen through CIA in a bid to recruit ‘untraceable’ spies willing to risk their lives on dangerous missions rather than go back to jail, a new book sensationally claims.

Desperate to remove Castro from power, the president resorted to using dangerous criminals as operatives—rather than CIA agents—to ‘do America’s dirty work’ as they couldn’t be linked back to his administration, it is claimed.

In one failed plot, an ex con was smuggled into Cuba in 1962 to pose as a waiter in Castro’s favourite restaurant where he would drop poison tablets into the revolutionary leader’s soup.

The explosive claims come in a new book by veteran American Journalist and author William Deane, who claims specially-recruited criminals became ‘untouchable’ and were allowed to embark on ‘crime sprees’ in the US without fear of prosecution.

Deane, former assignment editor at American news networks ABC and CBS, says he uncovered the programme—which he believes is still in operation today—after following the ‘trail of destruction’ left by one such operative.

. . .

‘For over 50 years, the CIA and American government has been systematically releasing dangerous criminals back into society to work for them on secret missions overseas,’ said Deane, whose new book Smooth Criminal details the life of alleged CIA operative and ‘one-man American crime wave’ Dave Riley.

‘The programme started during the Kennedy administration at the start of the 1960s as a clandestine means of dealing with the Communist threat of Castro, and was given the seal of approval by JFK—who was still smarting following the political embarrassment of the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba in 1961.

‘Criminals were ideal operatives as they were ruthless and willing to risk their lives during missions rather than be sent back to prison. They also couldn’t be officially connected with the CIA so it didn’t matter if they were captured—there was no risk of America’s shady policies being exposed.

‘Riley was a typical recruit. Highly intelligent, ambitious and with no morals. The CIA sent him on many missions abroad, including to Cuba to assassinate Castro,’ added Deane.

‘Between missions he was allowed to do what he liked—which generally consisted of embezzlement, fraud, gunrunning and drug dealing—without fear of being arrested or prosecuted.’

. . .

‘Riley confessed that he’d been recruited by the intelligence agency while in prison for extortion of a public official back in 1960, and had been sent to Cuba to carry out a number of assignments—including one to assassinate Castro.

‘He had posed as a waiter at one of Castro’s favourite restaurants and been supplied with Botulinum tablets—an untraceable poison—by the CIA to drop into his soup, but Castro must have got wind of the plan as he suddenly stopped eating there.’



8 09 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

It Runs In The Family: RFK, Jr., Like His Grandfather Joseph P., His Father Bobby, And His Uncles Jack And Teddy.

In an article entitled, “RFK Jr’s secret sex diary: Serial philander’s journal includes scorecard of conquests and his Catholic guilt over cheating on wife Mary,” the UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

A 2001 diary belonging to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been unearthed that gives a stunning insight into the number of affairs he carried out during the same year that wife Mary gave birth to their fourth child.

Kennedy used a section at the back of his diary, headed ‘cash accounts,’ to list the first names of women he had cavorted with and gave each a mark out of ten.

The list contains the names of 37 women, 16 of whom have the number ten beside them—which is believed to have signified that they had full intercourse.

Alongside more prosaic details of Kennedy’s political activism and family life, there are startling admissions of his own feelings of guilt and remorse at repeatedly cheating on his wife.

Time and again he writes of how he feels tortured by his ‘lust demons’ as he describes them.

On days when he doesn’t cheat, Kennedy writes ‘victory’ to signify that he resisted sexual temptation.

‘I’m like Adam and live in Eden, and I can have everything but the fruit. But the fruit is all I want,’ he wrote on Nov. 5, 2001.

The thick, red journal was found at one stage by his wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy, who, distraught over their impending divorce and her husband’s serial philandering, hanged herself in May 2012.

The diary has since found its way into the hands of the New York Post.

When a Post reporter questioned Kennedy on Friday about the diary they were first met with a stunned silence before he denied having kept a diary during that year.

‘I don’t think there is any way you could have a diary or journal of mine from 2001,’ said Kennedy. ‘I don’t have any comment on it. I have no diary from 2001.’

At the start of the journal the 59-year-old son of the assassinated U.S. senator announces that his wife was pregnant with their fourth child.

But soon Kennedy was writing about far seedier matters. He often writes as if he is the victim of the incidents and uses the word ‘mugged’ as shorthand for being seduced.

‘I narrowly escaped being mugged by a double team of [two women]. It was tempting but I prayed and God gave me the strength to say no,’ he writes on February 6.

On May 21, he wrote that after hosting dinner for Leonardo DiCaprio, he drove the actor into Manhattan and met up with someone. He noted that he ‘got mugged on my way home,’ recording a 10 with the name of a woman next to it.

‘I’ve got to do better,’ he adds.

In another entry, he said he needed to ‘avoid the company of women. You have not the strength to resist their charms’ and to ‘be humble like a monk. Keep your hands to yourself. Avert your eyes.’

. . .

‘I have been given everything that I coveted—a beautiful wife and kids and loving family, wealth, education, good health and a job I love yet always on the lookout for something I can’t have. I want it all,’ he writes.
‘No matter how much I have—I want more.’

November 2001 was an especially busy month for infidelities and he lists at least one woman’s name on 22 different dates, including on 13 consecutive days.

Three dalliances even occur on the same day—one is marked a ten—when he attended a black-tie fund-raiser at the Waldorf-Astoria on Nov. 13 for Christopher Reeve’s charity.


Women have died because of their recklessness (e.g., Marilyn Monroe, Mary Kennedy). They are detestable, at the very least!


8 09 2013
Robert Morrow

Bobby Kennedy’s Love Affair with Jackie Kennedy, post JFK assassination, is one big reason RFK kept publicly silent about the his beliefs on who murdered JFK

Another big reason would be the death threats he kept getting after he would press the FBI and CIA for information.

[David Heymann, Bobby and Jackie: a Love Story, pp. 117-118]

Over lunch that afternoon, Smathers asked Bobby why he’d aborted his personal investigation into his brother’s assassination.

“Because every time I pump the FBI or CIA for information,” RFK responded, “I end up with a death threat in the mail. So does Teddy. I don’t care about my own life, but I do care about my brother’s. My using the CIA in conjunction with the Mafia to go after Castro may have led to Jack’s death. One in the family is enough.”

For his part, Smathers supported the theory that there had been a conspiratorial plot between organized crime and the CIA, or, more accurately, a renegade faction of the CIA. Smathers had little faith in the findings of the Warren Commission. “Gerald Ford, the future president, was an FBI mole,” said Smathers. “He was on the commission but reported back to J. Edgar Hoover.” Despite the FBI director’s disdain for the Kennedys, Smathers firmly believed that it was the CIA – and not the FBI – that had worked with the syndicate to assassinate Kennedy. “In 1957 JFK and I spent a few days in Havanna,” continued Smathers. While there, they were introduced to crime figures Meyer Lansky and Santos Trafficante, both of whom controlled Cuba’s hotels, casinos, and nightclubs, creating an exhuberant after-hours atmosphere. “Trafficante set us up in a hotel suite with several choice ladies of the night. Only later did I realize how stupid we’d been. It wouldn’t have surprised me to learn that we’d been filmed through a one-way guest-room mirror. The opportunity for blackmail, particularly after Jack became president, pointed to the foolishness of our little adventure. Jack could never resist temptation. His name cropped up in 1963 in connection with the so-called Profumo debacle, in which an international vice ring nearly brought down the British government. He’d been linked to one of the women involved in the case. Had he lived, Jack would’ve been dragged through the mud. And there was the matter of Mary Pinchot Meyer, his last mistress, who was murdered in 1964 while walking along the towpath in Georgetown. Had he been alive, that case also would have come back to haunt Jack.”

RFK, long his brother’s bagman, almost certainly knew of the meeting in pre-Castro Cuba between Jack and Trafficante, as well as all the rest of JFK’s sordid dealings. Ultimately, according to Smathers, Bobby’s decision to discontinue his investigation into his brother’s assassination probably had less to do with the Mafia and more to do with his and Jackie Kennedy’s madcap affair following Jack’s death.

“At least, that’s what Ted Kennedy told me,” noted Smathers. “One of Bobby’s fears was that somebody would eventually leak information on the affair to the press. Too many people were in on the secret. Exposure in the media would have ruined any chance Bobby might have had of following in Jack’s presidential footsteps. Frankly, between the CIA and Bobby’s interlude with Jackie, it’s a wonder that none of it had already been exposed in the press.”

[David Heymann, Bobby and Jackie: a Love Story, pp. 117-118] (emphasis added)


8 09 2013
Robert Morrow

Former Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent Howard Diller on Robert Kennedy: his FBN participation, his drug use, his taking advantage of women busted for drugs for sex, his use of hookers (and not paying them)

[C. David Heymann, “RFK,” pp. 99-101]

Knocking down doors would become the least madcap of Bobby’s antics. “Robert Kennedy went along for more than just the ride,” recalled Diller. “Pretty soon, he began participating in some of the more illicit aspects of the drug busts, which might involve opium, heroin, hashish and/or cocaine. Other agents who hung out with Bobby, fellows named Jimmy Ceburi and Arthur Krueger, would purportedly come back with reports of him seizing bags of coke for his own use or, more probably, for distribution among his buddies [….]

Most of the people we busted were drug abusers, in places like Harlem and South Bronx. During the raids, the men would be taken to one room of the apartment, the women to another. It wasn’t uncommon for an agent to indulge in sex with one of the women, sometimes more than one. In exchange for their sexual favors, the women were often let go and not carted off to jail. Bobby caught on fast. I think he enjoyed the anonymous sex, because that way he really wasn’t cheating on Ethel – or at least that’s how he could [rationalize] it. Bobby thought nothing of fondling these women or having intercourse with them. Or he’d force them to engage in fellatio. Then afterward, he’d brag about it, just like the agents. […]

Amazingly, nobody has ever mentioned or even written about RFK’s close ties to the Bureau of Narcotics. What is truly ironic about his secret activities with the bureau is that soon thereafter he was named the attorney general of the United States, the top law-enforcement officer in the country. Yet here’s a man who raped and pillaged and stole, a man who presumably took drugs. Bobby loved the James Bond bullshit, the 007-type of stuff, and all the dirt that went with it. He struck me as basically schizophrenic, a man capable of great good and, at the same time, incredible evil. The Roman emperor Caligula seemed mild by comparison.” […]

I also saw Bobby take advantage of hookers. He loved hookers, he loved the New York City street life. He screwed the women for nothing by threatening to run them in if they didn’t come across, and that’s something he did until the day he died. Robert Kennedy was a strange admixture. He’d also pick up bums on the street and buy meals for them at that restaurant his father co-owned, La Caravelle.

One of the most unusual men I’ve ever known.

[C. David Heymann, “RFK,” pp. 99-101]


8 09 2013
Robert Morrow

RFK and his “sexual insatiability” when running for president 1968

“Faced with an ever-expanding list of Hollywood stellars who supposedly had been involved with JFK- Grace Kelly, Janet Leigh, Rhonda Fleming, Arlene Dahl and Monique Van Vooren were among the most recently cited – RFK made certain that his own conquests were of a lesser note. Langdon Marvin, who had been an aide to JFK, and who had procured numerous women for his boss, recalled doing the same for Bobby. “He was running for president, and while he evidently had a steady lover or two,” said Marvin, “he suddenly became as sexually insatiable as Jack had been. I provided a gaggle of women – airline hostesses, starlets, secretaries, and others. RFK had a penchant for nymphettes – underdeveloped women with unformed personalities. I called them the Kennedy Pack, after Frank Sinatra’s Rat Pack. Once, when Bobby stayed at the Carlyle, I sent him three fifteen-year-old private high school girls. ‘That’s the best present anybody ever gave me,’ he said. Afterward, he told me he’d watched the girls having sex among themselves.”

“Bobby’s faithful little coterie of followers wanted the world to believe that he was pure as snow, but RFK was a good old ‘chippie-chaser.’ One by one, he dated almost all of the ‘boiler-room’ girls, the entourage of young women who worked for him on the campaign trail.

“In January 1964, not long after Jack’s death, RFK asked me out to Hickory Hill. There, he handed me a packet of letters – maybe a dozen or so- and told me to ‘get rid of them.’ I should have saved them but I didn’t. I didn’t even read them. He admitted to me later that they were long missives both he and Jack had received from Marilyn Monroe.”

[David Heymann, “RFK,” pp. 473-474]


8 09 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Robert, for your three sets of comments.

Yes, I have heard all of the information before; and it is consistent with what I know.

As indicated in my comments about RFK, Jr., immediately above yours, the recklessness continues. Among other things, perhaps they have (and have had) death wishes—for themselves and others.


8 09 2013
Robert Morrow

And by the way, Lyndon Johnson was more of a demented freak than all the Kennedys put together. And as you know, I know my Kennedy dirt.

Buy Roger Stone’s new book:

Sy Hersh’s book was important not just because it details how sexually unhinged JFK was, but also the war going on between the Kennedys and LBJ which ultimately led to the JFK assassination.


8 09 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you again, Robert, for your comments.

Yes, I am well aware of Lyndon Johnson’s “evils.” He and his Vietnam War are the reasons why I ceased to be a Democrat, and have almost never voted for a Democrat since. Several of my friends died because of them.


19 10 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

More About The Despicable John F. Kennedy

In an article entitled, “All the president’s women: Virgin interns. Prostitutes. White House pool sex sessions. 50 years after the murder of JFK, the jaw-dropping truth of the betrayal of Jackie,” the UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

It is half a century since Lee Harvey Oswald aimed his rifle through a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository and fired a shot which would echo round the world. In the days following John Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, his widow Jackie’s grace and dignity defined her in the eyes of millions around the world. At JFK’s funeral, where she held the hands of their two small children, she became an icon, burdened until the day she died with the dreams and expectations of millions of strangers.

To mark the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s assassination, British author Sarah Bradford has updated her acclaimed biography of Jacqueline Kennedy and sheds new light on her complex relationship with the sexually voracious JFK and her sometimes waspish views of the major world figures she rubbed shoulders with…

It was Jackie’s state visit to Paris in 1961 that made her an international superstar. She was, as one reporter put it, ‘news 24 hours a day’. The fashion journal Women’s Wear Daily could have been re-christened What Jackie Wears Daily.

The ‘Jackie look’ was a regular selling point on Seventh Avenue. Even behind the Iron Curtain a Leningrad fashion magazine carried advertisements for ‘Jackie look’ clothes, and the Polish magazine Swait wrote that she had ‘entered the group of a few women in the world who set the style and tone of their epoch’.

It was at this point that Kennedy’s Chief of Protocol, the worldly Angier Biddle Duke, told his future wife, Robin, ‘The deck has shifted’. Indeed, the balance of power had tilted subtly towards Jackie, both in the eyes of her husband (which was all important to her) and the Kennedy entourage. If Jack was the Sun King, Jackie was by now most definitely America’s Queen.

Gore Vidal recalls that Jackie had said: ‘I never saw Jack until we got to the White House. He was always away and gone.’

Vidal added: ‘I don’t even think he thought anything about her until he began to see pictures of her in the paper, this glamorous woman who happened to be married to him.

‘And he started calling her “the sex symbol”—as in “Will you tell the sex symbol lunch is ready?”.

He found that pretty funny and I think it awakened his interest.’

However, their relationship remained complex.

Jack was becoming like Jackie’s idealised father ‘Black’ Jack Bouvier—the dashing womaniser who still came home to envelop his family with love. The birth of JFK’s children had awakened a strong paternal streak in him, But he would not, and could not, give up his sexual habits; nor did he feel the least bit guilty about them.

As Jackie’s sister Lee Radziwill was to tell Cecil Beaton in June 1968: ‘Jack used to play around and I knew exactly what he was up to and would tell him so. And he’d have absolutely no guilty conscience. He said, “I love her deeply and have done everything for her. I’ve no feeling of letting her down because I’ve put her foremost in everything”.’

Jack had anticipated that the Presidency would limit his sexual adventures but, instead, high office meant that he could have virtually any woman he wanted and Jackie’s frequent absences gave him plenty of opportunity.

Secret Service logs show that Jackie spent a great deal more time away from the White House than at the White House. She spent almost all the steamy summer months out of Washington and, even when she was there, regularly left on Friday afternoon for their rented Virginia horse farm Glen Ora, or to go to the Kennedy family seat at Hyannis Port in Cape Cod, and did not return until Monday or later.

Jack never left the White House until Saturday.

Jackie was a rebel and a free spirit at heart, and the White House seemed claustrophobic.

Furthermore, she could close her eyes to what Jack was up to when she was not with him.

‘It’s amazing—he used to do it in front of her,’ said a well-known New York debutante several years younger than Jackie.

‘In New York a great friend, one of his ex-girls, organised an after-theatre party. He had obviously said to her, “Can you get me a bunch of young nice girls?”‘

‘I was invited and another great friend of mine was asked. The two of us were riveted so we both went. There were about four or five other friends, single girls we knew also. One by one, each of us was told, “The President would like to speak to you”, and we were led over for about ten minutes.

‘I wasn’t as enamoured of him as other people were. I didn’t think he was this great sex symbol. But what fascinated us all was that Jackie was sitting there and he actually said, ”I’ll take that one.”‘

‘I know exactly who won. She shall be nameless. This was a very shy, divine girl, Very pretty, very tall. The next time I saw Jackie was when they asked me to a party at the White House. It was the last party before he was killed.

‘She was waltzing around, and he would dance with a girl for five minutes and then they would disappear up in the lift and then they’d be back in 20 minutes. We just sat there watching, my friend and I.

‘I was astounded. And Jackie paid no attention.

‘Life with Kennedy must have been total hell because he never stopped, none of those [Kennedy] boys do. And they have to have every woman in the room.

‘I remember when Kennedy was assassinated—I had this tiny flat just off Fifth Avenue and 80th Street. And the day after he was killed and everybody was watching the funeral I had four what you’d call ”widows” in my tiny sitting room—all married—because they couldn’t cry their eyes out in front of their husbands, all of whom thought they had been the only one.

‘I swear to you, and this is absolutely true, at this point it was more chic not to have slept with the President than to have slept with him. Every time Jackie walked into a room she must have known that half the women there had slept with him.

‘One of the ”widows” who was in my apartment talked about it the whole time to anyone who would listen. She was snuck into the White House in the boot of a car, and she was taken down to the swimming pool and he would join her for a swim.

‘Then there was the famous Angie Dickinson who used to go up and down in the lift at the Carlyle Hotel, you know, at the back, the service lift. And there was Marilyn Monroe. What I couldn’t understand about all these women was that they must have known that they were the lollipop for the day and who wants to be used as a lollipop?’

People thought that Jackie did not mind Jack’s infidelities because she showed no signs of doing so.

Indeed, the President’s notorious swimming-pool frolics with the two secretaries known as ‘Fiddle’ and ‘Faddle’ did not worry her, but his sleeping with her friends and women in her circle, did.

As Robin Biddle Duke, who married Angie in May 1962, said: ‘She had a lot of reasons to be fragile and to feel fragile because it hurts.

‘She marries Jack and he is the love of her life and he really does like, you know, fiddling around with other girls. I felt very sorry for her because public humiliation is devastating. Everybody knew that Jack was naughty. I mean, it was something that wasn’t talked about but I think this woman was put through a very great deal.

‘I think she loved JFK and she always thought he loved her. In his way he did, but his love had certain reservations and hers was total.

‘Deep down Jack Kennedy would probably have liked to have been as good a husband to Jackie as he was a father to Caroline and John and in his own way he tried. When asked by a friend why he played around, he replied seriously: I can’t help it.’

He shocked the eminently respectable, self-controlled British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, by confessing to him that if he didn’t have sex at least once a day, he had a headache.

To the far less respectable Bobby Baker, secretary to the Senate Democrats and provider of favours for senators, he said, according to Baker, ‘I get a migraine headache if I don’t get a strange piece of a** every day.’

To Jack, easily bored in this as in everything else, variety was the spice of life: he not only liked different women but three-in-a-bed sessions, sometimes with hookers. According to the Secret Service logs, appointments with women were made through Jack’s old friend and closest personal aide, Dave Powers, whose name appeared in the official record. When Teddy Kennedy was being publicly unfaithful, Jackie told his disconsolate wife Joan, ‘All Kennedy men are like that.’

‘He just couldn’t resist a girl with a little bit of Social Register in her background,’ recalled one of JFK’s young lovers, Marion ‘Mimi’ Beardsley. She was a tall, slender and beautiful 19-year-old at Jackie’s old school, Miss Porter’s, Farmington, when she wrote to the White House requesting an interview with Jackie for her college newspaper.

A year later, Mimi was invited to join the White House staff as an intern. Within days she was introduced to the President over cocktails. ‘Would you like a tour of the residence, Mimi?’ he asked and proceeded to the bedroom he shared with Jackie where, without apparent compunction, he took the 20-year-old’s virginity on Jackie’s bed.

‘The midday swim in the overheated pool was an inviolable part of his routine, and so it became part of my routine as well,’ Mimi wrote.

‘I would swim with the President at noon or near the end of the work day, race back to my desk, and then wait for a call to come upstairs in the evening.

‘The governing factor behind these calls… was the presence—or, more accurately, the absence, of Mrs Kennedy in the White House.’

Like other people who knew JFK, Mimi talked of his ‘genius at compartmentalising’ his life, placing Jackie on a pedestal to keep her apart from all the other women in his life.

Jackie, however, kept hoping he would calm down, as she confessed to her friend Adlai Stevenson. ‘I don’t care how many girls [Jack sleeps with] as long as I know he knows it’s wrong and I think he does now,’ she said.

The death (at two days old) of his youngest son, Patrick, in August 1963 was an unbearable blow for Jack.

Mimi wrote: ‘I had never seen real grief until I saw the President when he returned to the White House while Mrs Kennedy recovered for a few more days in hospital. He invited me upstairs and we sat outside on the balcony in the soft summer evening air.

‘There was a stack of condolence letters on the floor next to his chair, and he picked each one up and read it aloud to me.

‘Some were from friends, others from strangers, but they were all heartfelt and deeply moving. Occasionally, tears rolling down his cheeks, he would write something on one of the letters . . . but mostly he just read them and cried.’

See (emphasis in original); see also (“Jackie Kennedy ‘had an affair with ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev and so did Bobby Kennedy’“) and (“The mythmakers who claim that a leader is beyond fault are ultimately seeking to shield a whole political class, and not just one individual, from the public scrutiny upon which democracy depends”)

John F. Kennedy was a fraud, pure and simple. When he died, his “image” was frozen in time, but the truth is grotesque. To lionize him is a crime, and unconscionable.

Kennedy was possibly the most morally corrupt and reckless president in American history, who came tragically close to bringing about a “nuclear winter” that might have destroyed the United States and other parts of the world. Also, he plunged America into the Vietnam War.

The thread that runs through Kennedy’s life is utter recklessness—which not only endangered his life, but the lives of those with whom he came into contact, including every American.


11 09 2014


Timothy you haven’t read 1 Kings 11:1-11 or Judges 19:25-26.
JFK was an adulterer – LBJ was a murderer:

When one of Mrs. Kennedy’s entourage suggested to the young widow that she should change her blood-stained clothes before the flight back to Washington with the Johnson party already installed on Air Force One, Jacqueline Kennedy fiercely resisted. No, she was not going to change, she replied,

“So they can see what they’ve done.”

Lee Harvey Oswald was not aboard Air Force One!


24 11 2013
Chris Pipes

It is very refreshing to read one’s own thoughts about the Kennedys echoed in such a convincing and well informed way.

I thank God that Khrushchev did the sensible thing and withdrew his missiles from Cuba, with the actions of the US Navy being tantamount to piracy prior to this event. It was the Russian who saved the world from nuclear obliteration, not the drug addled Kennedy, with his frequent visits from Dr “Feelgood”.

The morals of the Kennedy clan were a disgrace to the US in particular and civilisation in general. No stable system is ever built upon the serial sexual abuse of women, willing though those women may be. To take advantage of such women is to display a moral shallowness to the point of total transparency.

The “curse of the Kennedys” is entirely home grown.


24 11 2013
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Chris, for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate them, and agree with you.

The “curse of the Kennedys” began with the old man, Joseph P. Kennedy; and it has continued to the present day. They are a “star-crossed” family, and probably the most dysfunctional family to occupy higher political office in American history.

What is most fascinating is that the Kennedy Library in Cambridge, Massachusetts still refuses to allow conservative scholars access to its records, despite the fact that many records were destroyed and never reached the library. To a large extent, the library’s records were “sanitized” by the Kennedy faithful, to perpetuate the total myth of “Camelot.”

American media is still “lionizing” JFK on the anniversary of his assassination, which I assume will continue until the last of the true Kennedy sycophants is dead and buried.


22 03 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

As Long As A Democrat Sits In The White House, America Will Become A Much More Dangerous Place

This is the conclusion of conservative pundit Ann Coulter:

It’s pointless to pay attention to foreign policy when a Democrat is president, unless you enjoy having your stomach in a knot. As long as a Democrat sits in the White House, America will be repeatedly humiliated, the world will become a much more dangerous place—and there’s absolutely nothing anybody can do about it. (Though this information might come in handy when voting for president, America!)

The following stroll down memory lane is but the briefest of summaries. . . . John F. Kennedy was in the White House for less than three years and, if you think he screwed a lot of hookers, just look what he did to our foreign policy.

Six months after becoming president, JFK had his calamitous meeting with Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna—a meeting The New York Times described as “one of the more self-destructive American actions of the Cold War, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.” (The Times admitted that a half-century later. At the time, the Newspaper of Record lied about the meeting.)

For two days, Khrushchev batted Kennedy around, leaving the president’s own advisers white-faced and shaken. Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Nitze called the meeting “just a disaster.”

Khrushchev was delighted to discover that the U.S. president was so “weak.” A Russian aide said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.”

Seeing he was dealing with a naif, Khrushchev promptly sent missiles to Cuba. The Kennedy Myth Machine has somehow turned JFK’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis into a brilliant foreign policy coup. The truth is: (1) Russia would never have dared move missiles to Cuba had Khrushchev not realized that JFK was a nincompoop; and (2) it wasn’t a victory.

In exchange for Russia’s laughably empty threats about Cuba, JFK removed our missiles from Turkey—a major retreat. As Khrushchev put it in his memoirs: “It would have been ridiculous for us to go to war over Cuba—for a country 12,000 miles away. For us, war was unthinkable. We ended up getting exactly what we’d wanted all along, security for Fidel Castro’s regime and American missiles removed from Turkey.”

– LBJ:

Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, famously escalated the war in Vietnam simply to prove that the Democrats could be trusted with national security.

As historian David Halberstam describes it, LBJ “would talk to his closest political aides about the McCarthy days, of how Truman lost China and then the Congress and the White House and how, by God, Johnson was not going to be the president who lost Vietnam and then the Congress and the White House.”

LBJ’s incompetent handling of that war allowed liberals to spend the next half-century denouncing every use of American military force as “another Vietnam.”


Jimmy Carter warned Americans about their “inordinate fear of communism”. . . .

His most inspired strategic move was to abandon the Shah of Iran, a loyal U.S. ally, which gave rise to the global Islamofascist movement we’re still dealing with today. By allowing the Shah to be overthrown by the Ayatollah Khomeini in February 1979, Carter handed Islamic crazies their first state.

Before the end of the year, the Islamic lunatics had taken 52 Americans hostage in Tehran, where they remained for 444 days.

The hostages were released only minutes after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration for reasons succinctly captured in a Jeff MacNelly cartoon. It shows Khomeini reading a telegram aloud: “It’s from Ronald Reagan. It must be about one of the Americans in the Den of Spies, but I don’t recognize the name. It says ‘Remember Hiroshima.’”


Bill Clinton’s masterful handling of foreign policy was such a catastrophe that he had to deploy his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to steal classified documents from the National Archives in 2003 to avoid their discovery by the 9/11 commission.

Twice, when Clinton was president, Sudan had offered to turn over bin Laden to the U.S. But, unfortunately, these offers came in early 1996 when Clinton was busy ejaculating on White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton rebuffed Sudan’s offers.

According to Michael Scheuer, who ran the bin Laden unit at the CIA for many years, Clinton was given eight to 10 chances to kill or capture bin Laden but refused to act, despite bin Laden’s having murdered hundreds of Americans in terrorist attacks around the world. Would that one of those opportunities had arisen on the day of Clinton’s scheduled impeachment! Instead of pointlessly bombing Iraq, he might have finally taken out bin Laden.


When Obama took office, al Qaida had been routed in Iraq—from Fallujah, Sadr City and Basra. Muqtada al-Sadr—the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism—had waddled off in retreat to Iran. The Iraqis had a democracy, a miracle on the order of flush toilets in Afghanistan.

By Bush’s last year in office, monthly casualties in Iraq were coming in slightly below a weekend with Justin Bieber. In 2008, there were more than three times as many homicides in Chicago as U.S. troop deaths in the Iraq War. (Chicago: 509; Iraq: 155).

On May 30, The Washington Post reported: “CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays (al-Qaida) as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world. . . .” Even hysterics at The New York Times admitted that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups had nearly disappeared from Southeast Asia by 2008.

A few short years into Obama’s presidency—and al-Qaida is back! For purely political reasons, as soon as he became president, Obama removed every last troop from Iraq, despite there being Americans troops deployed in dozens of countries around the world.

In 2004, nearly 100 soldiers, mostly Marines, died in the battle to take Fallujah from al-Qaida. Today, al-Qaida’s black flag flies above Fallujah.

Bush won the war, and Obama gave it back.

Obama couldn’t be bothered with preserving America’s victory in Iraq. He was busy helping to topple a strong American ally in Egypt and a slavish American minion in Libya—in order to install the Muslim Brotherhood in those countries instead. (That didn’t work out so well for U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans murdered in Benghazi.)

So now, another Russian leader is playing cat-and-mouse with an American president—and guess who’s the mouse? Putin has taunted Obama in Iran, in Syria and with Edward Snowden. By now, Obama has become such an object for Putin’s amusement that the fastest way to get the Russians out of Crimea would be for Obama to call on Putin to invade Ukraine.

See (emphasis added); see also (“John F. Kennedy: The Most Despicable President In American History”)

However, to be absolutely fair, the Republicans are not blameless either.

We have been through two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American people are “bone tired” of wars, and rightly so. Our economic and human treasures have been spent in those wars; and we have led when no other country in the world was capable of leading.

I opposed the war in Iraq because, like so many others, I believed Saddam had WMDs that would be used against our brilliant and courageous military forces, like he had used them against Iran and the Kurds. I did not believe the cost was worth it.

In Afghanistan, we should have destroyed the poppy crops from Day One, which give rise to Heroin trafficking that funds the brutal Taliban. What the Taliban have done to women and young girls has been nothing less than savagery.

In the case of Putin, he is an “old school” Stalinist who learned his trade well as a KGB operative. He must be viewed in this context, not as some Westernized Russian democrat, which he is not.

He only understands raw power; and the niceties of diplomacy are a sign of weakness for him. Like Hitler and Stalin before him, he preys on weakness. To him, Barack Obama is a coward, who can be cowed.

Perhaps Putin has misjudged Obama; and finally Obama may rise to the occasion. Certainly, we have the capabilities to do so.

See, e.g.,; see also (“The Defining Hour For Barack Obama And His Presidency“)


28 05 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

With Additional Sordid Disclosures, The Totally Dysfunctional Kennedy Saga Continues

Jackie Kennedy hair

As if there were not enough evidence above, more disclosures have just come forth. The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

The public Jackie Kennedy was elegant, charming, graceful—and aloof. But beneath that icy surface was a passionate woman who needed the closeness of men every bit as much as her philandering husband Jack Kennedy needed other women, reveals a blockbuster new biography.

And while it was widely reported that Jackie had an affair with Bobby Kennedy following Jack’s assassination in 1963, now it is disclosed for the first time that Teddy was having clandestine trysts with Jackie before and after Bobby was murdered.

The Kennedys were keeping it all in the family, according to the shocking new book: Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, A Life Beyond Her Wildest Dreams by Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince, authors of 20 celebrity exposes, to be published by Blood Moon Productions June 7.

‘Teddy stood by Jackie through one crisis after another, becoming the one man in her life she could depend on’, write the authors.

‘I’ve always been in love with Jackie, right from the beginning’, Teddy was quoted telling David Powers, Special Assistant to JFK. ‘When Jack died, I knew she was seeing Bobby, too, but that didn’t stop me. Bobby couldn’t always be with her’.

And[,] Jackie—not to be outdone by her husband—had her own movie star seductions—including Warren Beatty, Peter Lawford, Paul Newman, Gregory Peck, Frank Sinatra and a torrid affair with handsome actors William Holden and Marlon Brando.

In the first draft of Marlon Brando’s 1999 autobiography, Songs My Mother Taught Me, the movie icon wrote that after a night of heavy drinking at the Jockey Club in Washington, D.C. in 1964, the press descended on them, forcing them to escape out the back door and back to Jackie’s house for a quick dinner of omelets prepared by Brando.

Jackie turned down the lights and put on Wayne Newton’s rendition of ‘Danke Schoen’. Jackie danced close to Marlon ‘pressing her thighs against me’—he wrote in his memoir. He then joined Jackie on the sofa where they made out passionately.

‘She kept waiting for me to try to get her into bed. When I failed to make a move, she took matters into her own hands and popped the magic question, ‘Would you like to spend the night’? I said, ‘I thought you’d never ask’.

‘She and Jack both loved gossip and could go on talking endlessly about other people’s sex lives, but I always got the distinct impression that she was very interested in sex the same way that Jack was very interested in sex’, Jackie’s close friend, writer Gore Vidal revealed in his memoirs.

‘It was a game for them, and they both played it’.

Jackie came out to society as ‘Debutante of the Year’ in Newport, Rhode Island in 1947 and the event inspired the Bouvier sisters—Jackie and her younger sister, Lee Bouvier[—]to set out to lure beaux [] but only if they were rich.

Jackie was hot to follow in the footsteps of her younger sister who had already lost her virginity.

Jackie’s first car, a 1947 black Mercury convertible, spelled freedom for the new debutante. ‘I plan to lure many a beau in the back seat of my car’, she boasted to Gore Vidal, her distant relative by marriage.

Bored with being at Vassar College in the small Hudson Valley town of Poughkeepsie in upstate New York, Jackie lobbied her father to allow her to study abroad at the Sorbonne in Paris for her junior year and she was accepted in the Smith College Junior Year Abroad.

It marked Jackie’s entrée into an international arena of dashing, sophisticated European princes, decadent millionaires, occasional politicians, writers, artists and dancers—la crème of international society.

In Paris, Jackie had her ritual daily cocktail at the bar of the Ritz Hotel where Princess Diana spent her last night. Smoking her trademark Gauloise cigarettes at the time, Jackie was ‘always accompanied by an ever-changing beau de jour, many from the Sorbonne itself’.

She was absolutely mad for the celebrated novelist and art theorist, Andre Malraux whom she found terribly exciting, and dangerously exhilarating—but for fear of getting pregnant, she would not sleep with him. ‘He’s the only Frenchman I’ve met that I truly wanted to marry’, she said.

In Paris, after having too many Grasshoppers, her favorite summer cocktail, part crème de menthe, crème de cacao, fresh cream and vodka, at a smoky Parisian boite named the White Elephant, she was hot to trot.

Her beau de jour was John P. Marquand, son of the famous novelist and Pulitzer Prize winning biographer, John Marquand, Sr. known for his commercially successful stories about the Japanese detective, ‘Mr. Moto’.

The pair wandered the Left Bank together after tossing back the creamy Grasshoppers and headed back to Marquand’s flat. But Jackie couldn’t wait to get upstairs inside the apartment and allowed Marquand to seduce her in the creaky French elevator.

She was in Marquand’s arms, her skirt bunched above her hips, the backs of her thighs pressed against the decorative open grillwork. When the elevator jolted to a stop, she was no longer a demi-vierge’, a partial virgin, the authors quote biographer Ed Klein.

The pair played around Europe together during her breaks from school and the affair lasted until Jackie returned to America. Janet Auchincloss, Jackie’s mother disapproved of Marquand. ‘Writers are always poor as church mice’. She was adamant that her girls marry rich men.

‘Virginity was something Jackie wanted to get rid of as soon as possible’, Jackie’s gossipy friend, author Truman Capote said. ‘If my calculations are correct, she went to bed with at least five guys before Jack sampled the honeypot’.

Back in the U.S. after her year of study and in Paris, Jackie enrolled in George Washington University in Washington, DC for her senior year. ‘Her dating continued at an accelerated pace, and she made promises to young men she could not possibly keep’, write the authors.

In June, 1951, the Bouvier sisters, an 18-year old Lee, and 22-year old Jacqueline, took their first European trip together. ‘It will be a round of men, men and more men’, Gore Vidal predicted. On board the oceanliner, the sisters danced and partied every night.

They made the rounds of society parties in Paris, Madrid, Rome and Venice before crossing back across the ocean to America where they moved into a mansion in Merrywood, Virginia, on the banks of the Potomac River, where Janet Auchincloss now lived with her second husband, Hughdie Auchincloss, a stockbroker and lawyer.

It was at Merrywood that Jackie met Arthur Krock, chief of the New York Times Washington Bureau, who was also close friends with Joseph P. Kennedy, as well as Frank Waldrop, editor of the now defunct Washington-Herald newspaper. Waldrop hired Jackie as an inquiring photographer whose duties also included interviewing her subject.

Jackie dated many men before being introduced to John Kennedy, a young Senator at the time. One of her beaus was John Husted, Jr., son of a banking family from Hartford, CT. He put an engagement ring on her finger that she returned later by slyly dropping it in his coat pocket.

‘I found out why Jackie had really called off the wedding. She’d taken up with this whore-mongering, red-haired Irish politician from Boston’, Husted stated.

Another beau at the time was Ormande de Kay, a young American she had walked along the banks of the Seine with in Paris and agreed to wed him on his return from the Korean War. She wrote him a ‘Dear John’ letter in 1952 before he returned home.

‘I want you to be the first to know that I’ve found the love of my life, the man I want to marry. I am now engaged to John F. Kennedy.

Jack’s courting of Jackie took place in the back seat of JFK’s car, a 1950 two-door Plymouth, according to his close friend, Lem Billing.

‘He would take Jackie back there to neck. One night, a trooper drove up and got out of his patrol car, shining his flashlight into the back seat. Jack had removed Jackie’s bra and was playing with her t**s. When the trooper recognized Jack, he apologized and said, ‘Carry on, Senator’.

The couple married on September 12 1953, surrounded by three Kennedy brothers. ‘Call it Brotherly Love. Three handsome Irish-American brothers were destined to fall in love with Jackie. In very different ways, she would love all three of them’, write Porter and Prince.

But Jackie was not satisfied with just the Kennedys. Sparks flew with William Holden when she attended a dinner party at the Los Angeles home of producer Charlie Feldman. The married Holden invited Jackie to go horseback riding the following day and launched a week-long affair with the future First Lady.

According to Jackie’s close friend, artist Bill Walton, the fling was ‘primarily driven by Jackie’s desire to seek revenge on Jack’ for his cheating.

A drunken Holden later told Feldman, ‘I had to teach Jackie how to [have oral sex]. She told me that Jack had never insisted on that. At first she was very reluctant, but once she got the rhythm of it she couldn’t get enough. If she goes back to Washington and works her magic with Kennedy, he will owe me one’.

Jackie would later tell her sister Lee, ‘I’ve gone to bed with men who have had a problem with hygiene. Not so Bill Holden. He was a compulsive bather before and after sex. He told me he took four showers a day’ during their week-long affair.

Life with Jack wasn’t easy. He never gave up his long nights out and constant infidelities. His constant womanizing deeply wounded Jackie. Marilyn Monroe, Betty Grable, Sophia Loren, Jean Simmons, Lee Remick, Pamela Turnure, Mary Pinchot Meyer were all lovers—to name only a few.

‘I knew that women didn’t find him a great lover’, Jackie confided. ‘He certainly wasn’t. He wanted a quickie and then he was back on the phone talking with some silly politician. When he did have sex with me, he would turn over and go to sleep right away. There I was listening to his snoring and almost crying at my lack of fulfillment as a woman’.

Her resentment built up to one night in 1957 when Jack came home late to their P Street, Georgetown house after a night of partying. Jackie was up waiting, wearing a slip and a bit drunk. A fight ensued with Jackie running out in the street.

Jack went after her, brought her back inside and promptly called for an ambulance service to drive a sedated Jackie to the Valleyhead Clinic in Carlisle, Massachusetts. She was subjected to three barbaric electroshock treatments for depression before being released within the week. When she returned home to an empty house, she felt more depressed and contemplated suicide.

‘Having been through two failed pregnancies, I didn’t feel loved. I didn’t feel life was worth living. Even if Jack became president, imagine the scandal that would be uncovered about his past life, about me. I didn’t think I could live through it’, she said. She considered cutting her wrists.

In November 1957, Jackie gave birth to a baby girl, Caroline and three years later, John. Her children changed her life and brought her great joy. She still needed to escape from her husband and went off on her own adventures and affairs leaving the children with their nanny, Maude Smith.

In 1962, shortly after Marilyn Monroe sang her sexy rendition of ‘happy Birthday Mr. President’ to JFK, the First Lady took an extended vacation from the White House and visited Fiat Czar Gianni Agnelli on the Amalfi Coast for an affair in Southern Italy.

That same year she had a brief fling at her home in the countryside of Virginia with Andre Malraux, her ‘dream man’, the French Minister of Culture. It made no difference to Jack who was having not-so-private affairs with movie stars.

In November 1963, the game was over. Jack was dead from an assassin’s bullet and Bobby moved in to care for the grieving widow. Every night they were together at Jackie’s Georgetown house at 3017 N Street while Ethel was left alone with the children at Hickory Hill.

‘Jackie and Bobby were definitely having an affair’, her close friend, Nancy Dickerson confirmed.

They carried on like lovebirds, even in public. The Kennedy brothers passed women on to each other. ‘Bobby had taken over the affair with Marilyn Monroe after Jack broke it off. Even their father, Joseph Kennedy passed women on to his sons’.

After Bobby’s announcement of his candidacy for President, Jackie told Capote, ‘I’m in love with two men at the same time, both Bobby and Teddy’, she allegedly confessed.

In the middle of those liaisons, Jackie had a clandestine one-night affair with actor Paul Newman in 1968 at New York’s Carlyle Hotel. She set up a meeting to urge the star to shift his political allegiance to Senator Robert Kennedy. Newman didn’t change his allegiance.

Truman Capote revealed that Jackie was not the beleaguered widow that night but ‘a flirtatious and attractive woman with a mischievous gleam in her eyes’.

She pointed out a man sitting a few tables away, the Secret Service agent guarding her and told Newman, ‘He’s also my lover’.

Newman gave Jackie a porcelain rose and listened to Jackie’s pitch to back Bobby after confessing that she thought Jack had lived, he would not have been re-elected.

According to Capote, Jackie told Newman that she had never been able to satisfy her husband sexually.

‘It was the most amazing thing’, she later confessed to Capote. ‘Paul and Jack have an identical penis. It was like getting seduced by my husband all over again. It was eerie’.

For one night, the former First Lady may have persuaded the actor to switch his political allegiance but by the morning, he was still in McCarthy’s camp. It would become a moot point because Bobby would be assassinated in LA in June 1968.

Teddy amped up his sexual relationship with Jackie after Bobby was murdered.

Teddy and Jackie made a bond sealed not with blood, but with something even more personal … sex’, Gore Vidal claimed. ‘I call it the Devil’s Pact. It involved the ongoing promotion of the Legend of Camelot, not the reality of the Kennedy administration.’ And ongoing sex.

But Jackie was being courted by Greek shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis too.

Teddy tried to talk Jackie out of marrying Onassis and was shocked when she made the announcement but agreed to fly to Athens and help negotiate the details of the pre-nuptial agreement with ‘the world’s toughest negotiator’.

On the second day of the trip, under the guise of discussing Kennedy business, Teddy and Jackie sailed to an uninhabited offshore island where they found a spot on the white sands of its most secluded cove.

Lying together nude on a blanket, they kissed each other passionately. The guards who were to protect[] them[] reported what they had seen back to Onassis who knew she had an affair with Bobby but this was the first time he learned about her affair with Teddy.

‘I’ve always been in love with Jackie’, Teddy told Dave Powers. ‘In fact, he told me that the reason he married Joan was that she had some of Jackie’s qualities.’

One night at Hickory Hill, ‘Ethel and Bobby were inside the house, Jackie and Teddy were high on daiquiris. With the band playing, she was seen dancing close to Teddy, pressing her crotch against his’, Chuck Spalding, JFK’s investment banker friend is quoted.

Teddy was smitten when JFK first brought Jackie to Hyannis Port in the early 1950s. He was at Harvard and having troubles in his study. Jackie offered to write a paper for him on art history.

In 1961, he noted in a diary his passion for Jackie and his intention to seduce her one day. Those diaries were made public in 2010 when the FBI released previously sealed files.

Teddy was willing to bide his time. In 1965, celebrating her 36th birthday at Hyannis Port, Teddy drove her down to Provincetown at the outer tip of Cape Cod. They stopped for eight hours at Bunny Mellon’s house on the Cape in Osterville, one town over.

Gore Vidal thought this was the first time Jackie slept with Teddy and it was payback to Bobby for sleeping with another movie star. But Jackie was also attracted to Teddy, and Bobby soon ended their illicit affair for fear it might damage his hopes for the Presidency’.

Staff at the Hyannis Port house first spread rumours about Teddy leaving Jackie’s Cape house at early morning hours.

The couple slipped under the radar from the press in those early years but when Jackie called on him more and more, the rumors gained traction.

They shared many intimated moments together in the 1960s and 1970s in Washington, Hyannis Port, New York, on a Greek Island or Palm Beach.

Jackie realized Teddy was a womanizer and she began secretly dating Aristotle Onassis while still seeing Teddy.

Jackie married the Greek shipping magnate, Aristotle Onassis in 1968 and they had an open marriage until his death in 1975.

‘In the years immediately after Onassis’ death, Jackie’s name was linked as usual to a number of men, some of the lovers, some just friends. Even the occasional one night stand. Jackie moved with the times, doing exactly as she pleased in matters of sex’, British historian Sarah Bradford said.

Throughout the years, Jackie seduced or was seduced by Charles Addams, the American cartoonist; Dr. Christian Barnard, the first surgeon to perform a heart transplant on a human being; the brilliant English comedian, actor and satirist Peter Cook; Roswell Gilpatric, Deputy Director of Defense in the Kennedy Administration who played a pivotal part in the Cuban Missile Crisis. In his divorce, Jackie was cited as ‘the other woman’.

She also dated American journalist, novelist Pete Hamill, who was Shirley MacLaine’s boyfriend; Lord Harlech; poet Robert Lowell, FDR Jr.—to name only a few.

It was a life beyond her wildest dreams.

See (“EXCLUSIVE – ‘She couldn’t wait and allowed him to seduce her in a creaky French elevator': Bombshell book reveals Jackie Kennedy’s secret lovers, her revenge on JFK with William Holden, her steamy night with Brando and her forbidden affairs with Bobby AND Teddy”) (emphasis added)

On a personal note, I used to attend point-to-point races and other horsing events in the beautiful Virginia countryside west of Washington, D.C., with the ex-wife of an old friend of mine. She would show her horses, and compete at times, and I was along for the ride, purely as a friend.

One day I was walking alone through the crowd, and I came face to face with Jackie. She could not have been more than three feet away from me. I have been around lots of celebrities and famous people, having grown up in the shadow of Hollywood, and then working in Washington. But this time was different.

It was as though time had frozen in place, for Jackie looked just like she had on the day of JFK’s death. Her hair was almost exactly the same. She was walking alone too, and had no guards around her; and everyone seemed to be leaving her alone, which is what I did as well.


31 05 2014

Hello…..I’ve been “googling” for a while here and I just came to realize, that it seems to me, Joseph P Kennedy DID NOT attend his son John F Kennedy’s funeral? I see no evidence that he did.

Did he or did he not?


31 05 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments and question.

On December 19, 1961—well before JFK’s death—the father suffered a massive stroke; and his health deteriorated thereafter until he died.

See, e.g.,,_Sr.#Illness_and_death


31 05 2014
Robert Morrow

In terms of pure evil and personal depravity goes, Lyndon Johnson was far, far more depraved than John Kennedy. It is not even close. LBJ was a psychopathic serial murderer (Sam Smithwick 1952, Henry Marshall 1961, John Kennedy 1963 and numerous other victims of LBJ’s personal hit man Malcolm Wallace). Not to mention LBJ orchestrating the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty – read the book Operation Cyanide for that. Then there is LBJ stealing 6 million troy ounces of gold from Victorio Peak in 1969 – first thing he did in retirement. Read the Gold House trilogy of books by John Clarence and Tom Whitten for that. As far as sexual depravity was concerned, LBJ and Bobby Baker were enabling so much “whoring around” that they owned an abortion clinic in Puerto Rico for that – see Roger Stone’s second edition of his “LBJ Did It” book.

Unlike serial rapist and CIA drug smuggler Bill Clinton – I don’t think JFK did anything like that. As for LBJ, his assaults on scores of secretaries were functional rapes.

So the bottom line is the author’s original post on the “most despicable president” in US history is not even close. It was Lyndon Johnson, with all the other criminals running a second by a country mile.

I request that that blog owner approve my post. I am expert on the JFK assassination and the politics of that era.

By the way, I know much dirt on the Kennedys, but they do not hold a candle to Lyndon Johnson.

– Robert Morrow


31 05 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your comments.

There is no myth about LBJ today, as there is about JFK and the Kennedys. Johnson was and is hated by many for Vietnam, and the American deaths and injuries for which he was responsible.

I remember bumper stickers in Washington, D.C., toward the end of his presidency, which said:


The myth of “Camelot” still endures in some quarters, despite the true facts—which are sordid to say the least.


3 06 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

More About The Totally Immoral Kennedys

Jackie and Jack

The UK’s Daily Mail has reported:

Jackie Kennedy’s marriage to JFK was headed to a divorce when his life was cut short by an assassin’s bullet in November 1963. She was about to become the only First Lady to divorce a sitting president.

That’s the shocking bombshell in a new book Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis: A life Beyond Her Wildest Dreams by Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince from Blue Moon Productions publisher.

Jackie had had enough. Fed up with his constant womanizing, and having her own dalliances that fueled the fire of her desire for liberation, Jackie told her confidantes that she wanted out. Her anger amped up after Marilyn Monroe’s humiliating ‘Happy Birthday Mr. President’ performance[.]

And it wasn’t the first time Jackie threatened to divorce Jack.

By the late 1950s, Jackie was too demoralized by Jack’s sexual philandering to continue the public charade. Her father-in-law, Joe Kennedy knew all too well the profound problems and stepped in to warn her. ‘There is danger facing you as a divorced Catholic woman’, he told her. ‘I suggest you put divorce out of your mind’, according to the revelatory new book.

Kennedy scion Joe Kennedy offered his daughter-in-law a check for one million dollars to stay in the union. Jackie allegedly told him that the cost of her staying with JFK would rise to twenty million dollars ‘if he brings home any venereal disease from any of his sluts’, according to the authors.

If Jackie had divorced Jack while he was a U.S. Senator, the old man’s dreams of having a son in the White House would have gone unfulfilled. And he was more concerned about those political ambitions then he was about Jackie being ostracized by the Catholic Church.

Jackie didn’t know what she was getting into when she first met the dashing senator from Massachusetts.

Single Jackie returned to Washington, DC in the early 1950s, leaving a string of lovers behind after a whirlwind trip to Europe, and she was hired as an ‘Inquiring Photographer’ for the now-defunct Washington Times-Herald.

By night, in her little apartment, she was writing a screenplay on Dolley Madison, the 4th U.S. President’s wife, who reportedly was a snuff tobacco addict.

No film studio showed interested in Jackie’s writing efforts, so she abandoned that to pursue finding a rich husband.

‘I don’t plan to marry a reporter, but perhaps through their connections, I might meet a beau who’s rich,’ she said.

Charles Bartlett, a journalist who started the D.C newspaper bureau of the Chattanooga Times, is credited with setting up a blind date with Jack and Jackie after dating her himself.

‘I became a historical footnote as the man who brought Jack and Jackie together as the 20th Century’s most famous couple. But first I tried to score with Jackie myself.

‘She was very cute, very sweet and unsullied—or so I thought at the time’, he is quoted by the authors.

Before hooking up with Kennedy, Jackie also dated John White, employed by the State Department and once madly in love with Kick Kennedy, Jack’s younger sister who tragically lost her life in a 1948 airplane disaster.

‘When I first dated her [Jackie], she decided she was the reincarnation of Madame Recamier’, a famous French socialite and hostess of salons for the great and near-great in politics and the arts.

That dream quickly faded and Jackie confessed she now just wanted to marry a rich and powerful man, and be the power behind the throne. ‘I prefer him to be American, but I would settle for a British man, perhaps even a Frenchman. If a Brit, I would want him to look like Prince Philip’, Jackie is quoted as telling White.

Bartlett knew that Jack was a skirt chaser and he also knew that Jack had to settle down if he wanted to become president. Jackie just might be the one to do it.

‘They did seem to like each other, but it was so very casual. At least, Jack was intrigued enough to walk her out to her car which was parked outside my house’, Bartlett said.

Jackie was secretly dating John Husted, Jr., a stockbroker from a banking family. But Husted knew he wasn’t rich enough to fulfill her desires, despite being locked in each other’s arms for months. He did propose and she accepted—until she started dating Kennedy.

She surreptitiously slipped the ring in his coat pocket and said good night and goodbye.

At the time, Jack had been seeing Inga Arvad, nicknamed ‘Inga-Binga,’ a reporter for the Washington Times Herald who wrote the gossip column on movers and shakers in D.C. She was rumored to have had a lusty affair with Hitler’s Reichmarschall, Hermann Goring.

‘From the beds of Berlin, the brilliantly multilingual Inga had migrated to the mattresses of Washington’, write Porter and Prince. Powerful men fell in love with the Mata Hari of Washington.

It was the first of a long list of Jack Kennedy’s scandalous affairs Jackie would learn about, and not an auspicious beginning for the couple who married in 1953.

On Jackie’s introduction to the Kennedy clan in Hyannis Port, she wrote in her diary, ‘Jack is no Burt Lancaster. He has a funny body, skinny, with toothpick legs. His best feature is his handsome face.

‘Actually, Bobby seems to show more romantic interest in me than Jack does . . . and Teddy lusts after me like a lovesick puppy dog. So far I have avoided being alone with Bobby. I think if I went out alone on a boat with him, he’d rape me’.

‘Old Joe was the only one with table manners’, she said. ‘The rest of the Kennedys are like pigs. Teddy almost cried when he claimed that Bobby took more than his share of the mashed potatoes’.

She viewed the clan as being bourgeois.

Jack courted Jackie in the backseat of his 1950 two door Plymouth. One evening, Kennedy friend and Cape Cod neighbor, TV comic, Morton Downey Jr., snuck up on Jack’s car thinking he’d catch Jack and Jackie necking.

‘With her panties down, Jackie was lying on her back . . . her left leg slung across the seat back and her dress riding high above her waist’, according to the authors.

Their engagement in the late spring of 1953, a headlined story in the New York Daily News, ‘Senator Loses Bachelorhood to Camera Gal’, read: ‘Hopeful debutantes from Washington to Boston, from Palm Beach to Hollywood, can begin unpacking their hope chests’.
Nothing was farther from the truth.

Before they were even married, Jackie confessed in her diary, “Jack and I had a few romantic moments. He has never yet told me that he loves me. As for his family, they are a pack of barbarians except for Joe’.

Jack bought the engagement ring for Jackie—a 2 carat, twinned, square cut diamond and emerald band at Van Cleef & Arpels in Manhattan. His wedding gift was a $10,000 diamond bracelet.

‘Jack and Jackie, at least in the press, became one of the most written about romantic couples of the 1950s’, said Kennedy friend, Chuck Spalding. ‘Little did they know what was in store for them’.

On their wedding night, Jackie slipped into a sexy, see-through French negligee. Jack stripped off his clothes and headed into the bathroom where he stayed for a long time. Finally back in bed, he plopped down and complained of a terrible pain at the base of his spine so she would have to get on top. The lovemaking didn’t last long. He turned over and said, ‘I’ve got to get some sleep’.

The honeymoon in Acapulco wasn’t much better—quick passionate sex finishing early.

It was in Mexico that Jack told her about his Addison’s disease—a rare, chronic endocrine disorder causing the adrenal glands to produce insufficient steroid hormones resulting in abdominal pain and weakness. His condition required constant injections.

Kennedy also suffered from prostatitis that caused chronic pelvic pain and urinary infections.

But the worst was Chlamydia, a sexually transmitted infection of the urethra that had never been cured. And there was the slim possibility that he could transmit it to her—a daunting thought that was a turnoff in bed. She was glad his lovemaking was so quick.

The following night when Jack told her he was meeting with business associates of the Mexican President, he was actually with the exotic and glamorous Anglo-Indian screen legend, Merle Oberon, who had starred with Laurence Olivier in Wuthering Heights.

‘Because of my father, I was used to infidelities, but Jack’s womanizing hurt me greatly’, Jackie told William Walton.

From Mexico, the newlyweds flew to Los Angeles for three nights. Jack took off and drove to Palm Springs to spend the weekend with Marilyn Monroe saying he had to meet with business associates of his father.

Santa Barbara was the couple’s next stop but Jack was clearly bored and called his brother, Bobby to admit it. During dinner, Jack read the Atlantic Monthly while Jackie picked at her food and stared into space.

Paul Fay, a buddy of Jack’s from their Navy days during World War II and later Under Secretary of the Navy, wrote in a book proposal that he predicted the couple would be talking divorce by 1954, one year later.

‘Of course, Papa Joe will do anything, pay out anything to keep her married to Jack. Divorce would destroy Jack’s chance of moving on to a higher office’.

Fay’s prediction came true.

Back in their home in Georgetown, Jackie was not adapting well to married life. She couldn’t cook and she hated Jack’s friends just dropping in at any time. Her new husband was rarely home. He had a habit of leaving her at parties, and his friend, Lem Billings had to drive her home.

Lem told Jackie she had married a compulsive womanizer. ‘No one woman can ever satisfy Jack’, were his exact words to me,’ the authors quote Jackie.

One day Jackie decided to surprise her husband at his Senate office and take him to lunch. She entered without knocking to see a look of panic on his face. He was getting oral sex from a woman under his desk. It was Peggy Ashe, an office temp employed in the Senate Office Building who later tried to sell an expose to Confidential magazine for $500.

They weren’t buying. In her proposal, she claimed that Jack was a ‘fast shooter and had an average size, uncircumcised penis with a crooked slant to the left’.

Orgies in Kennedy’s suite at the nearby Mayflower Hotel continued where he allegedly bedded film stars Audrey Hepburn, Betty Grable and Marlene Dietrich.

Until Jackie became pregnant in early 1956, she talked about a divorce, write the authors.

Attending the Democractic Nominating Convention in Chicago in August 1956, when Jack was campaigning for Vice President on the Democratic ticket with Adlai Stevenson, Jackie was very pregnant and expecting the next month.

He and Stevenson were defeated and an enraged Kennedy took off on a sailing expedition with Teddy. Jackie went to stay with her mother in Newport, Rhode Island, and told her that she was still seriously considering a divorce.

‘I just can’t see myself spending the rest of my life with Jack Kennedy. It’s not going to happen’, she confessed, write the authors.

In Newport, Jackie collapsed hemorrhaging and was rushed to the hospital. The baby was stillborn, a girl they named Arabella. Jack could not be reached because he had avoided giving Jackie the transatlantic phone number. He didn’t want her to call him.

While in the hospital, a crazed fellow had planted four sticks of dynamite outside her window of the room that was on the ground floor. A gardener luckily spotted him and hit the would-be assassin over the head with a shovel, knocking him out. He was carted off to jail.

Jackie woke up in the hospital to see Bobby Kennedy standing by her bedside, holding her hand. He had been there for hours. He leaned over and kissed her lips. He handled all the arrangements for the infant’s burial. Jack arrived home two days later.

Jackie and Jack had been living at Hickory Hill, the Virginia mansion overlooking the Potomac R[i]ver bought for them by Joe. But she had no interest in returning. She couldn’t face the baby’s nursery that she had decorated.

Instead, she flew to New York to see her sister and meet with the family patriarch Joe at Le Pavillion in the Ritz Tower Hotel in Manhattan. She wanted out of the marriage. She told her father-in-law that she wasn’t like Ethel knocking out babies and she didn’t like football.

Here he made his famous one million dollar offer to her to stay in the marriage that was reported in Time Magazine. He also agreed to get the couple a house in Georgetown and move Ethel and Bobby into Hickory Hill.

But the move did not change Jack’s nearby hotel seductions and on arriving home one night, Jackie ignited a fight that fell out into the street. Jack had her committed to Valleyhead Clinic in Carlisle, Massachusetts where she underwent three barbaric electroshock treatments.

Chuck Spalding, Jack’s friend drove her home. It had not altered her depression over the state of their marriage. She considered suicide as a way out.

Paul Mathias, New York correspondent for Paris-Match said at the time, ‘From the beginning of her relationship with Jack, she knew about his other women. It pained her a great deal. It sinks into me more and more, just how irreversibly unhappy she is’.

Caroline was born on November 27, 1957 bringing joy into their lives. But Jack’s required use of cortisone for his Addison’s increased his libido and didn’t stop his sexual infidelities. He was hanging with Frank Sinatra and Peter Lawford, who basically functioned as his pimps.

Film and TV actress Lee Remick, starring in Anatomy of a Murder and Days of Wine and Roses, was sleeping with Peter Lawford, before moving on to Bobby and Jack to follow.

Pamela Turnure, a Georgetown dubutante, who had dated Prince Aly Kahn once married to screen goddess Rita Hayworth, often received Kennedy late at night at her Washington apartment. Her landlady recognized him and was intent on exposing the senator.

She photographed him and mailed it to every newspaper in the city. Only the Washington Star made a reference to it. Jackie selected Turnure her as her press secretary when she became First Lady in 1960 so she could keep an eye on her, she told friends.

Ravishing and sexy film actress Hedy Lamarr stated she had sex in a bathtub with JFK. He always liked the woman to be on top because of his bad back. ‘In an impulsive move, he pushed me backward. My head was under water, and I felt I was drowning. This caused a vaginal spasm. But he had his orgasm’, she told her literary agent Jay Garon. She refused to speak to Kennedy ever again.

Lem Billings, a school friend of Jack’s from early days at the private boarding Choate School for boys in Connecticut in 1933, described Jack and Jackie as withdrawn, bitter people.

Jackie confessed to Lem they were like icebergs. She never wanted to confront her husband about his adultery and Jack hated confrontation.

When John was born prematurely on November 25, 1960 at Georgetown University Hospital, Kennedy was in Palm Beach with Lem Billings. He flew back to Washington when he heard Jackie had given birth.

Jack’s brothers were around Jackie more than he was during critical times.

During Jack’s campaign for President, ‘Teddy confessed to Jackie that he’d always been in love with her ever since that day she’d arrived on JFK’s arm at Hyannis Port’, the authors write. She was in the early stages of her pregnancy with John and had campaigned with Teddy in Wisconsin.

The only Kennedy who wasn’t paying her much attention was her own husband.

Jack had hooked up with Dr. Feelgood, German-born physician Max Jacobson, in the summer of 1960 for his infamous injected cocktails of steroids and amphetamines that made Jack’s back pain disappear, but also sent him to the moon with soaring energy and sexual desires.

Jackie, a chainsmoker all her life, continued the habit out of the public’s eye—temporarily alleviating her own anxiety over the state of her marriage. Jack claimed it contributed to her miscarriages. She hated being a politician’s wife and was slowly coming unglued.

It was all over when the shots rang out in Dallas in November 1963.

In the wake of JFK’s assassination, Jackie contemplated suicide one more time, according to Richard McSorley, a Jesuit professor of theology at Georgetown University. He had become Jackie’s confidante and recorded details of their meetings in his diary that would be leaked to the press after his private papers were donated to University following his death in 2002.

Initially she told the priest that she wanted to be with her husband in death. He advised her to live for the sake of her children. ‘Don’t mourn the dead, but get on with the living’.

On their last meeting, she stated she was still contemplating suicide but would give it serious thought before making such a rash decision. In a subsequent phone call to McSorley, Jackie confessed she was better because ‘love had entered my life in a way I never expected’. ‘It isn’t a love of which the Catholic Church would approve. In fact, the love I’m experiencing now would be called ungodly in the eyes of the Church. I wouldn’t even dare to confess it to you’, she is quoted by Porter & Prince.

‘At that point in her life, she was seeing Bobby Kennedy almost every day’.

See (“Jackie Kennedy wanted to divorce her philandering husband and was given $1m to stay—but then came Marilyn Monroe and she was the last straw, claims sensational new book”) (emphasis added); see also (“With Additional Sordid Disclosures, The Totally Dysfunctional Kennedy Saga Continues”) and (“RFK Jr had ‘affair with celebrity plastic surgeon’s wife behind fiancée Cheryl Hines’ back’—because she wanted to ‘trade up’ to a Kennedy”) and (“RFK Jr’s wife ‘discovered he kept a list of more than 40 suspected mistresses on his cell phone including bride-to-be Cheryl Hines just weeks before she killed herself'”) and (“Haunted by gory flashbacks of JFK’s assassination Jackie Kennedy sought solace in vodka… and then she slept with the architect who designed her husband’s tombstone, sensational new book reveals”)

As I concluded in the article above:

Like former President William McKinley before him, the fact that an assassin cut short Kennedy’s life and presidency might be all that Americans recall about him 50 years from now.

. . . except for his depravity and utter recklessness.

The Kennedys have been and continue to be America’s most disgusting and immoral family.


29 08 2014

Neither JFK or RFK (or any other Kennedy) actually gave a damn about the USA or its people except for how it served their interest. “social justice” was just cynical pandering to blacks. Black and poor rural whites votes were cynically bought with welfare. I really get sick of the Kennedys portrayed as some sort of Christ-like figures. They were just hard-core, cut-throat, power hungry politicians. Period. And their deaths DID “idealize and enlarge them beyond what they were in life” to paraphrase Teddy.

In fact, Teddy’s eulogy was written by political aids that sought to use the eulogy for the very purpose of perpetuating and enhancing the myth of the Kennedys as “selfless public servants”. The only meaning of the word “servant” they knew were the servants that worked in their homes and their sycophantic political staffs filled with young, stupid liberals. JFK was a disaster and if RFK had become president, nothing of consequence would have changed for the better. In fact, he would have been a weak president like his brother- with a divided party that was crumbling. Ironically, only their deaths bailed them out of the realities of their weaknesses, and gave their admirers the luxury and [license] to assign greatness to them simply for “what could have been”.


29 08 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Mike, for your comments. I agree completely.

I would only add to what you have written:

They were just hard-core, cut-throat, power hungry [and totally immoral] politicians [and human beings].


29 08 2014
Robert Morrow

As I have stated before, I disagree with the premise of this blog post condemning John Kennedy as the most despicable president in USA history. I think that is absurd based on what we know about Lyndon Johnson now. LBJ had a personal hitman Malcolm Wallace (google him) and he as wiping out folks in Texas long before he became president. LBJ orchestrated the murder of Ag official Henry Marshall in June, 1961 while LBJ was vice president. LBJ murdered John Kennedy – I suggest reading the second edition of Roger Stone’s blockbuster book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ. LBJ pushed the escalation button at every step and drove and unwilling nation into Vietnam, something Kennedy was loathe to do. Most historians have finally come around to the belief that JFK probably would not have gone into Vietnam in the way LBJ did. LBJ also orchestrated the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in June 1967- an act that murdered 34 American sailors and wounded another 171 and puts LBJ in the Hitler/Stalin category. LBJ also stole 2 million troy ounces of gold from Victorio Peak in spring 1969 after he left office – read John Clarence’s Gold House for that.

Roger Stone hates the Kennedys as much as you do and he will tell you Lyndon Johnson was the lowest form of human excrement ever to be in the White House. I agree with Stone.

Btw, Lee Harvey Oswald was US intelligence, an FBI informer and he shot no one on 11/22/63.

And also, LBJ, the Kennedys and Richard Nixon all had deep mob connections. And LBJ was every bit the deranged man-whore that JFK and Bill Clinton were. Many people, McGeorge Bundy, Bill Moyers, Richard Goodwin, the Secret Service have all commented on Lyndon Johnson’s scary mental instabilities – he really was a functional lunatic – something John Kennedy was not.

Without offering any defense of the Kennedys, I say Lyndon Johnson beats them by a country mile in the depravity department. Not even close.

Liked by 1 person

21 07 2014

I’ve been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or weblog posts in this sort of house .
Exploring in Yahoo I at last stumbled upon this site.
Studying this info So i am satisfied to show that I have an incredibly
good uncanny feeling I found out just what I needed.
I so much unquestionably will make certain to don?t disregard this web site and provides it a
glance on a constant basis.


21 07 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you for your kind words . . . from Germany. :-)


4 10 2014

Timothy D. Naegele…Point 1. JFK gave his life literally to America- the very country which betrayed him and cut him down in such a brutal manner. Regardless of policies you disliked or actions taken behind closed doors such as the infidelity, he died trying to make your country better. He was a man…we all make mistakes bar you of course Naegele it would appear. Point 2. Why the hatred and what is the point? Jfk never got to see his children grow up or say goodbye or realise his dreams and here are you destroying his legacy after death? You’re a disgrace. I suspect that when you die very few will notice or care. I find your hatred of the Kennedys very interesting? Your views and obsession with everything anti Kennedy speaks volumes. I have read numerous books both for and against the Kennedys and you can’t deny the facts. I have zero allegiance to the kennedys being British, particularly after joe kennedys views on us but I am fascinated by history and amazed that the murder of one your best presidents remains covered up by your people/government. It’s a disgrace and a tragedy. The vast American public are still asleep. JFK was a very clever, astute man who threatened all that you appear to stand for based on your attack..profit, profit and more profit. He was making changes which would have changed America for ever- for the better might I add but clearly it couldn’t be allowed. Why don’t you waste your time writing about how Bush junior the ultimate embarrassment to your country and forever a smudge on your history, fixed his votes for election, sent Americans to their death in Iraq, and provided hours and hours of laughter to the world instead? How about you take shots at his cocaine and alcohol abuse? No….you’re writing instead about a man who stopped nuclear war by making up his own mind instead of listening to the military industrial complex who wanted to make dollars….you’re slating the very man who took on the corrupt ‘morally bankrupt’, institutes of America and paid the ultimate price. Your motivation for the utter ‘crap’, you have written is very suspect and quite telling. Will America ever awaken from the nightmare of 22 November 1963? Clearly not.


4 10 2014
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Neil, for your thoughtful comments.

Like you, I was once a JFK “true believer,” but those days are long gone. He and his presidency were fraudulent and dishonorable; and there is no other way to describe him and it.

Please do not rely on my beliefs. Above are massive sources that totally bear out my conclusions. Please read all of them carefully, as I have done; and then see if your judgments have changed.

The myth of “Camelot” was created shortly after his death, and it persists in some quarters even to this day. However, as more generations pass, fewer and fewer people around the world have heard his name, much less know anything about him.


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 176 other followers

%d bloggers like this: