JFK's Daughter Weighs In on Clinton-Obama Flap

Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy, endorsed Barack Obama with two central concepts in mind.

First, she wanted to send a signal to the Clintons that she vehemently disapproves of their campaign tactics and reputation. Ms. Kennedy's father may have been considered by some to be 'liberal' for his day, but he was clearly not mean-spirited, the proof of which is in the late Barry Goldwater's assessment of the President.

Goldwater, who ran as the quintessential conservative Republican in the 1964 Presidential campaign, stated that he was looking forward to running against John Kennedy. The two had even discussed conducting a nationwide series of friendly debates during which the issues and not personalities would be discussed.

However, fate would have it that Kennedy would never have the chance to run again, and Goldwater was stuck with running against Lyndon Baines Johnson, whom he described as the absolute most despicable human being ever to occupy the White House.

The Johnson campaign proved Goldwater's point. By falsely scaring the public into thinking Goldwater was a 'war-monger' who would get us into a nuclear war, including the airing of commercials showing mushroom clouds in the background as innocent American children played in the grass, Johnson succeeded in beating the socks off of Goldwater on a totally false premise.

In fact, it was actually JOHNSON who was the war-monger, and the Viet Nam War ruined his chances of running for a second term.

Kennedy was, no doubt, an amicable human being who would have run a clean, positive campaign in 1964, as Caroline Kennedy says Barack Obama is doing now.

Second, Ms. Kennedy claims that Obama would 'be a President like my father.'

This is where the comparison breaks down and highlights contrasts more than comparisons.

Obama sets a tone in a campaign that is similar to Kennedy's, but his views cannot be considered consistent with the late President's. For example, John F. Kennedy was a lifetime member of the NRA. Barack Obama has voted for every single piece of gun control legislaton that was put forth during his terms of office in Illinois, as well as in the U.S. Senate.

It is also worth noting that contrary to popular opinion, Kennedy was no big government statist. The massive growth of government occurred during Johnson's term of office. In addition, Kennedy supported and was able to pass a major tax cut similar to Ronald Reagan's in the early 1980s.

In short, Kennedy kept the growth of government in check and gave the citizens a prudent tax cut. If one reads Obama's proposals, one cannot in any circumstance refer to him as anything other than a big government statist in the mold of Lyndon Baines Johnson, without the Johnson corruption and mean-spiritedness.

The big news in the midst of all of this is that the Kennedy endorsement of Obama indicates that the 'old guard' in the Democratic Party is turning away from the Clintons. This could well spell the end of her campaign following Super Tuesday.

Religious Questions Surface During Campaigns

As regular as clockwork political campaigns evoke the inevitable religious questions that are bound to come up as the electorate attempts to determine which of the candidates they prefer to be President.

That the voters would ask these questions is as natural a part of being human in civilized society as, say, wanting to know if a candidate has Nazi tendencies once it has become known that he/she once stated they admired Adolf Hitler.

Religion and spirituality are all-pervasive aspects of human life. One's views on the subject tell us much about their character, their values, how they view humanity, and how they would react in a crisis.

Thus, John Kennedy's Catholicism became an issue in the 1960 election until the candidate reassured the populace that although his religious views inform his decisions and provide solace, they would in no way usurp his oath of office to uphold, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Contrary to these questions being tantamount to a 'religious litmus test' as Mitt Romney suggested during his now-famous religion speech, they are merely attempts by the voters to get at the heart of just who is this person who is asking for their vote. Are they trustworthy? Can I relate to them at all on a personal level? Will they understand the feelings and views of someone like me?

Thus, it is only natural that the American people would have questions concerning the Mormon faith if they are considering a vote for Mitt Romney, particularly in light of the fact that most Protestants and Catholics have been taught at some time or another that Mormonism is a 'cult.'

And the answer that most are looking for is whether or not the Mormon faith that Romney espouses is too big a hurdle for them to get past. They may well decide that the candidate appears entirely reasonable and that there is nothing to fear. On the other hand they may well decide that they are entirely uncomfortable with a President who believes the teachings of the Mormon church.

But this is part of the process, and it is entirely reasonable, just as it was reasonable for Americans to inquire into Jimmy Carter's membership in a Baptist Church during the 1976 Presidential campaign. As it turns out, it was not Carter's Baptist faith that ruined him but his utter inability to lead effectively, not to mention his horrendous foreign and domestic policies.

In like manner, it is reasonable to expect Americans to have questions concerning Mike Huckabee both as a Baptist and as an ordained minister within the Baptist denomination. Are Americans comfortable with a Baptist minister as President? It may well turn out that this is totally a non-issue, since Baptists form the single largest non-Catholic denomination in the U.S.

On the other hand, the issue may be a sticking point for Huckabee. He claims, for example, that giving children of illegal aliens college tuition breaks, allowing them to move ahead of many of our own people, is the 'good and right thing to do.'

Religiously oriented people often let their emotions dictate their stance on issues which demand purely rational views. Thus, we have Catholic churches providing safe haven for illegal aliens. We have liberal Protestant churches sending money to Mexico, supposedly for 'missions,' but in actuality their generosity is only used to promote causes that hurt our own country.

It is for this reason that I could vote for an agnostic who believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights over a liberal Baptist who espouses statism or socialistic solutions to problems. I could vote for an atheist who doesn't have an ax to grind with religious folk, provided he/she espouses views similar to the Founders, over a deeply committed Christian who believes that it is somehow 'moral and ethical' to commit robbery (through higher taxes) in order to 'help the poor children of illegal immigrants.'

As Walter Williams often quips, 'For me to voluntarily reach in my pocket to help the poor is an honorable act of compassion, but for you or government to reach into my pocket and take my money for that purpose is stealing and should be punished by law.'

I fully relate to Huckabee as a Baptist, though I suspect that my brand of Baptist is much different from his southern-evangelical brand. I tend to be a Baptist in the classic, Calvinistic, reformed, non-conformist tradition--that sector of Christianity that began in England in the early 1600s as a congregational protest movement against the highly organized hierarchy of the Church of England.

These hearty souls saw no problem with alcohol, or tobacco, or some of the other so-called 'vices' that some groups identify. Huckabee's brand of Baptist comes out of southern evangelical Christianity which views 'al-kee-hol,' 't'bacee,' and 'dayncin' as horrible sins (if you recognize the three words you qualify as a bona fide southerner).

Yet I fully understand the mindset, and I am thoroughly familiar with its ramifications. Most of these folk are the salt-of-the-earth types who wouldn't hurt a flea, in spite of their rather restrictive moral standards.

It is therefore not Huckabee the Baptist that bothers me.

What bothers me is that Huckabee leads with his religion, just as did Jimmy Carter. Both have made it a central issue. At least Romney doesn't talk about his Mormonism and did so only after being hounded about it.

Fred Thompson is the perfect role model on the religion issue. In response to reporters' questions he stated, 'I am a Christian who was baptized into the Christian Church, and who believes in Jesus Christ. And that is really all that needs to be said about the matter.'

The way I see it, this was answering a legitimate question without turning the religion issue into some sort of litmus test.

Cuba Revisited

Washington, DC (TLS). Cuba has warned the United States against using the airwaves to send 'illegal' anti-Communist messages into the country. As one of the world's last remaining Communist dictatorships, the Cuban government is cracking down on citizens who use satellite dishes, which are illegal in Cuba, to gain access to American programming that contains messages of freedom and liberty.

In December of last year, the United States began using Florida television stations to get around the Cuban jamming of 'TV Marti,' the American owned station aimed at undermining the Communist Cuban government. The move by the U.S. government has made anti-Castro programming accessible to thousands of Cubans who otherwise would not be able to get it.

Under the U.S. plan implemented by the Bush administration, persons can pay commercial television stations in Florida to carry TV Marti programming, which by law cannot telecast anti-Cuban messages inside the U.S. These commercial stations are among those that can be picked up by satellite dishes inside Cuba.

The manufacturing and production of black market satellite dishes is a growing cottage industry in Cuba. Government officials have caught citizens operating satellite dish manufacturing and distribution centers out of bicycle tire repair shops and other small businesses that are among the few allowed by the Cuban government. Those caught engaging in this activity face fines and jail time. One Cuban citizen who was caught with 14 satellite dishes he had made was fined $44,390.

A bit of history is in order to fully understand the Cuban problem. Fidel Castro came to power in a Communist revolution in the country in the early 1960s. President John F. Kennedy purported to use the force of the U.S. military to prevent Castro from taking power. However, at the now-infamous debacle at the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy reneged on the promises he had made to provide U.S. military officials with reinforcements. Thus, our servicemen were left hanging on the vine with no help. The result was the fall of Cuba to the Communists, and Fidel Castro took power as the first Communist dictator within the Western Hemisphere to be right at the doorstep of the United States--a mere few miles from the Florida coast.

The consequence of Kennedy's striking failure was dire. The world was brought to the brink of nuclear war as the Cuban Missile Crisis loomed. The Communists of the USSR brought their backing to the new Cuban regime by bringing in nuclear missiles aimed directly at the United States. What most within modern America today fail to grasp, however, is that the entire scenario would have never happened had Kennedy kept his word to support the fledgling troops on the ground at the Bay of Pigs with reinforcements, back-up, added troop strength, and a replenishing of ammunition.

Kennedy's abject failure at the Bay of Pigs resulted in Communism coming right to our doorstep. We also came to within a hair's breadth of nuclear war.

It is most interesting that very few scholarly books have been published that delve into the murky reasons for Kennedy's failure to follow through with the plan, leaving our military personnel in a dangerous bind. Why would a Commander-in-Chief who had laid out a strategy for stopping Castro suddenly scrap that strategy after our soldiers had been sent into harm's way?

This is the million-dollar question. We do know, however, that Democrats have always had a cozy relationship with Castro. Bill Clinton rolled out the Red Carpet for him when the Communist dictator visited the United States in the 1990s. Dan Rather treated him like an elder statesman to be revered. Democrats have been calling for a normalization of relations with the Communist country for years.

Why?

According to a special report compiled by David Wallechinsky, Fidel Castro has been one of the most oppressive dictators in the world, regularly engaging in throwing journalists into jail, suppressing facts concerning his human rights violations, and the like. Last year, Castro was ranked Number 15 among the world's most oppressive dictators. The only reason he is not on this year's list is that he relinquished power to his brother in the wake of his life-threatening illness.

Miami, Florida is ample testimony to the carnage Castro has wreaked in Cuba. The Cuban-American community in Miami is the direct result of the rise of Communism in that nation. Seeking refuge here in the U.S., Cubans settled in Miami, many of whom still have family members back home. The Miami Cuban community is overwhelmingly anti-Castro, and for good reason. Most of them saw first-hand what Communism can do to a society.

The Bush Administration is to be commended for devising a strategy that allows anti-Communist programs to be telecast into Cuba. And for heaven's sake, we DO NOT need to normalize relations with this evil regime until it grants human rights to its citizens.