Friday, February 10, 2012

No Messing with JFK!

No Messing with JFK!

It’s not nice to mess with Mother Nature. In the perceptions of Democrats, it’s even less nice to mess with Dem-liberal icons such as America’s 35th and first Irish-Catholic president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

I wasn’t of legal voting age in 1960 and didn’t live in Chicago where such legalities didn’t much matter, so I didn’t vote for JFK although, at 18, I thought Jack Kennedy was the greatest thing to come on the scene since sliced Irish soda bread.

I maintained that immature viewpoint through Jack’s narrow election victory and until he proved he was more liberal than he was presidential, not anywhere near the mold of America’s current extreme leftist chief executive but still far from what I had anticipated of him.

As it subsequently turned out, JFK was more in Bill Clinton’s mold.

In my admittedly harshly though accurately-titled article, “JFK: Whoremaster, Pimp, Drug Pusher,” I discussed Mimi Beardsley Alford’s new book, Once Upon a Secret: My Secret Affair with JFK, which details the author’s experiences as a 19 year old Kennedy White House intern in 1962. (http://bit.ly/ygir7l)

According to Alford’s recollections, Jack was indeed a whoremaster, pimp, and drug pusher who seduced her in Jackie Kennedy’s private bedroom, carried on a lengthy affair with her, farmed her out to perform oral sex on his buddy, Dave Powers–while Jack watched–and suggested she take his prescribed drugs, which she refused to do.

Of course, fifty years later, there is little possibility of verifying Mimi Alford’s allegations and hence no hindrances on the media alleging it’s all baloney. There are no other living witnesses and, regrettably, no Monica Lewinsky blue dress dna evidence, evidence that wouldn’t deter JFK idolators, anyway.

Following the usual script, liberals are now busily attacking both Alford’s remembrances–which would be extremely difficult to fabricate–and her motives in publishing her book. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=12722.)

No comments: