David Von Pein: ‘ABC News: JFK Assassination As it Happened- 11/22/1963’

Source:ABC News- As It Happened.

Source:The Daily Press

“Two hours of live, as-it’s-happening ABC-TV coverage of the news surrounding the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on Friday, November 22, 1963.

This video begins at approximately 1:50 PM EST (12:50 PM CST in Dallas, Texas, which is where President Kennedy was shot at 12:30 PM Central Time).

The very first ABC-TV bulletin concerning the shooting in Dallas is, unfortunately, not included in this YouTube series, but some of the early bulletins are here (before all regular programming was cancelled).

A rerun of “Father Knows Best” was airing on many ABC-TV affiliates when the assassination occurred, and portions of that television show are included in Part 1 of this series.

This ABC news coverage seems quite primitive and antiquated by today’s 21st-century standards, and at times it almost appears as if the newsmen are reporting from somebody’s shabby-looking basement.

But it must also be noted that ABC, in 1963, was definitely the “number three” television network among the trio of TV networks that existed at that time (CBS, NBC, and ABC).

As a footnote to this ABC coverage, I received the following message from Ed Silverman in June 2013… 

From David Von Pein 

“Two hours of live, as-it’s-happening ABC-TV coverage of the news surrounding the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on Friday, November 22, 1963.

This video begins at approximately 1:50 PM EST (12:50 PM CST in Dallas, Texas, which is where President Kennedy was shot at 12:30 PM Central Time).

The very first ABC-TV bulletin concerning the shooting in Dallas is, unfortunately, not included in this YouTube series, but some of the early bulletins are here (before all regular programming was cancelled).

A rerun of “Father Knows Best” was airing on many ABC-TV affiliates when the assassination occurred, and portions of that television show are included in Part 1 of this series.

This ABC news coverage seems quite primitive and antiquated by today’s 21st-century standards, and at times it almost appears as if the newsmen are reporting from somebody’s shabby-looking basement.

But it must also be noted that ABC, in 1963, was definitely the “number three” television network among the trio of TV networks that existed at that time (CBS, NBC, and ABC).

As a footnote to this ABC coverage, I received the following message from Ed Silverman in June 2013…  

Source:Britannica- The last ride that John F. Kennedy would ever take.

From Britannica 

ABC News, was such a small operation in the early 1960s. Sort of like the baby sister or baby brother of NBC and CBS News. They didn’t become a major operation at least until the late 1960s or early 70s, when Howard Smith took over as the anchor of the ABC Evening News. And probably not even a major competitor as far as first being in news when it came to the TV networks until the late 70s and early 80s. When Nightline with Ted Koppel came on the air and covered the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

ABC News, won a lot of rewards for their depth coverage of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. It made Ted Koppel a star and household name and if you look at this coverage of the JFK assassination, you don’t see a clear anchor of this coverage. It looks more like a news update or something.

When CBS News went on the air, with this story, Walter Cronkite was their number one anchor, broke in right away to report this story. And the same thing with NBC News with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, they went their main people their stars. You don’t see that with ABC News.

With what ABC News had to work with back then and again being in third place out of the three networks and being so far back it looked like fifth place, I think they actually did pretty well and we’re on top of the story. They were the so-called CW or My-TV, whatever that is, or even FOX. Being so small that they didn’t even have a news division, or weren’t interested in news at all. FOX, of course now has a news obviously. ABC, was a national TV network back then, but didn’t have the affiliates and ratings that CBS and NBC did. 

History Comes To Life: 'Wendell Willkie (1892-1944)'

Source:History Comes To Life- 1940 presidential candidate Wendell Willkie (Republican, Indiana)

"Willkie about to board plane in 1940 campaign, Willkie waves and boards, Mrs. Willkie boards plane, Willkie working on plane, plane in flight, Willkie looks out window.  1940: FDR campaigning, Mrs. Roosevelt and Herbert Lehman in car with him, long shot same, FDR car passes by. (sound) Willkie campaigning in New Jersey, man marks vote board. 1942: Plane just landed in Cairo, Wendell Willkie, FDR representatives in Cairo out of plane, various shots of Willkie in conversation at the airport, Willkie enters car and drives away. CU Willkie as he receives award for Real Understanding of Americanism (sound). CU Willkie removing hat, CU Willkie." 

From History Comes To Life

I'll go on the record right now and just admit that I'm a big fan of Wendell Willkie to the point that if I was from his generation, or even from the World War II generation, I would probably be a Republican as well back in the 1930s and 40s. He and might match up very well with our center-right, classical liberal (meaning the real liberal) philosophy. 

Wendell Willkie was a cold warrior, he believed in property rights, (both economic and personal) he believed in civil rights and equal rights for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion, he even believed in a public safety net for people who truly needed it. 

Wendell also believed in limited government and fiscal responsibility as well and when you look at the 1940 presidential election, it wasn't conservative versus liberal. More like Liberal versus Progressive or Social Democrat, which Wendell Willkie representing the Liberal Republicans and to a certain extent the Conservatives as well and Franklin Roosevelt representing the Progressive Democrats, as well as the Neo-Confederate Democrats, who were latter called Dixiecrats. The 1940s was a very a different time politically and ideologically.

Associated Press: Raw Video- 'Judge Denies Request to Stop Anti-Muslim Trailer'

Source:Associated Press- actress Cindy Lee Garcia filed this lawsuit and loss.

“A judge has denied a request seeking to force YouTube to remove an anti-Muslim film trailer that has been blamed for causing deadly violence in the Muslim World. The actress who filed the lawsuit calls the film ‘degrading’.”

From the Associated Press

If this actress in this movie was misled about this movie that she was in, then she probably has a good case, that she should take to court and sue the makers of this movie over that and be rewarded compensation for that. Assuming she didn’t know that she was going to be part of an Islamaphobic film and I don’t know if she was misled or not. But as far as getting the movie shut down, over that, that simply won’t happen.

We have a First Amendment in this country that protects Freedom of Speech, which movies would clearly come under, because they clearly have speech in them. And when they are in documentary form, they are delivering a message and perhaps intended to inform people about the subject matter that the film is covering.

Seeing speech that you love or hate, is part of sharing and living in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen million people. We can control what we see and hear, but can’t shut people up on our own.

Suing people might be part of the American Way in America, but free speech is clearly the American Way and has to be protected. Whether its peaceful speech, hate speech, accurate speech or inaccurate speech. It’s not the job of government to protect us from what they may see as dangerous speech. We have the freedom to make these decisions for ourselves. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

NORML: Eric Altieri: Boston Freedom Rally (2012)

Source:NORML- pro-marijuana legalization rally in Boston, Massachusetts.

"Boston Freedom Rally 2012 - NORML's Erik Altieri speaking at the 2012 Boston Freedom Rally on September 15th, 2012" 

From NORML 

What we do know about these marijuana legalization initiatives is that the so-called War On Drugs is not nearly popular today, especially with Gen-Xers (my generation) and people who are younger. As well as let's say aging, hippie, Baby Boomers from the 1960s and 70s. 

During the 1970s and 80s when the Nixon Administration and later the Reagan Administration launched major campaigns against illegal narcotics in America, it was popular to be in favor of the so-called War On Drugs. But not with young adults today, which why we might see Americans vote to legalize or decriminalize marijuana in multiple states in 2012.

Center For American Progress: Ian Millhiser: 'The Politicization of the Constitution'

Source:Center For American Progress- with a look at the U.S. Constitution.

"The Center for American Progress' Ian Millhiser, Senior Policy Analyst, Constitutional Policy, describes how conservatives have politicized the U.S. Constitution and offers insight into what our founding document actually says." 

From CAP

There's only one issue that I take with Ian Millhister with his little commentary here. He said that the United States is a democracy and we do things by majority rule. I'm paraphrasing here, but that's basically what he said. 

If America were a pure democracy, we (meaning the government) would do basically do everything by majority rule and there would be no need for a U.S. Supreme Court and even a Federal court system as well, at least as it relates to how our government operates and what it can do for us or to us, just as long as a majority of American voters approves of what the government is doing.

What America is, is a constitutional, liberal democratic republic form of government, meaning that we elect our leaders. But even our elected leaders are sworn to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution, which means they can't do things and pass laws simply because they're popular. Everything that government does anywhere in America, has to be constitutional. But it doesn't have to be popular or even democratic.

Associated Press: Warren Levinson- 'Occupy Wall Street: One Year Later'

Source:Associated Press- Pete Dutro used to be one of the organizers of Occupy Wall Street.

“To mark the one-year-anniversary of the Occupy movement on September 17th , current and former members talk to the Associated Press about the changes they see in the organization.”

From the Associated Press 

Occupy Wall Street started off as a I guess left-wing social democratic (even though there are Communists who part of OWS) movement a year ago, that was pissed off at Wall Street and corporate America as a whole. And seeing them get bail outs while they saw the rest of the country as they put it got austerity and decided that they were: “Mad as Hell and weren’t going to take it anymore.” Or perhaps even stronger language than that)

OWS was a very focused and fairly disciplined movement, especially for Socialists who aren’t known for discipline or even believing in it. And that’s how they were successful in its first few months: “This is what’s bad, we have the people with us and we need to stop this.”

And then OWS could go about fixing the problems, instead of making them worst and were successful in not only getting attention from the national media, but getting people behind them as well. Even Democrats not so much the leadership, but some Congressional Democrats in both the House and Senate who are so far to the Left as they are and also have a hard time seeing the center and perhaps center-left with a telescope, such as OWS. And they even managed to not only communicate what they believe is wrong with the country, as far as the economy, but we’re able to start to put together their own social democratic agenda.

OWS moves from talking about what they don’t like about capitalism and corporate America, to preserving social insurance programs, especially Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But what they would do about the “too big to fail banks”, breaking them up or nationalizing them. As well as things like universal higher education, protecting organize labor and debt forgiveness for students and other things.

But now OWS seems to be about complaining about ever society ill that the country seems to be going through. Jump from one problem to another without any real focus or discipline and living up to one of the negative stereotypes that Socialists have. They’ve become like kids who when they get a new toy, they see something else that they want and now have lost all interest in their first toy. They’ve become like children.

That’s how Occupy Wall Street started out, but by the late spring and summer they had already lost whatever momentum they were able to build up from the fall and winter of 2011-12 and started looking more like rioters or anarchists and with all the arrests they started piling up. They were like fireworks that are lighted on July Fourth, that burn out with in minutes. And started piling up arrests at their rallies and events. And once a movement gets to that point, its hard for Americans who unless they are die-hard supporters of you, to take you seriously: “Why should I pay attention to them. They are just some whacked-out fringe: why should I take them seriously.”

And because of this, the Democratic Leadership, has never really gotten behind them. Because unlike Republicans, Democrats understand that there’s a certain responsibility to being part of a major political party. That you can’t afford to look like you are part of a fringe movement, because you are supposed to be the adults in the room.

Right now in America again unless you are a big supporter of Occupy Wall Street, they look like some whacked-out Far-Left socialist party, that are champions of big government and high taxes, which hasn’t played well in this country for a long time.

And even worst, OWS looks like anarchists people who are so out of their minds they aren’t capable of having an adult conversation, which is why they are struggling to be taken seriously.Even fringe movements need ties and have a base with reality and how the world works, so they can be as successful as possible. Even if it comes off as stale or old school to their supporters. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

Public Resource: President John F. Kennedy After Two Years (1963)

Source:Public Resource-  President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) talking to the network news White House correspondents, in 1963.

Source:The Daily Press

“ARC Identifier 52813 / Local Identifier 306.6613. U.S. Information Agency. (1982 – 10/01/1999) Made possible by a donation from John and Paige Curran.” 

From Public Resource 

Jack Kennedy came to the White House in 1961 with a broad agenda that included civil rights for African-Americans, Federal aid to public education, health insurance for seniors and an economic plan to deal with an economy that was slowly coming out of recession from the late 1950s, that included a deep tax cut. And yet most of his domestic agenda stalled in Congress despite having large Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. And spent most of the first two years dealing with foreign policy. With Cuba twice both involving Russia, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and of course the Cuban Missile Crisis.

President Kennedy, did have a foreign policy agenda as well and was a tough Liberal Cold Warrior that wanted to open discussions with Russia. But wasn’t prepared to be soft with them, but take them on. And spoke out for liberal democracy not only in America, but in Europe as well, but wasn’t looking for a war with the Soviet Union either.

And in the middle of 1963, finally took a tough stand when it came to civil rights for African-Americans and liberal democracy for them. Who were being discriminated and beaten in the South with the violent beatings that were happening in Alabama and Mississippi.

We’ll never know how successful of a President that Jack Kennedy would’ve made, one of the tragedies of his assassination. But he had all the tools of becoming not just one of the best Liberal Democratic president’s we’ve ever had, but one of the best president’s we’ve ever had as well. Just by what he believed in, but also how he handled the issues that came his way. The Cuban Missile Crisis and finally taking on Civil Rights as well in 1963.

The question is how effective President Kennedy would’ve been how he been able to complete his first term. And he been reelected, he effective he would’ve been at getting his agenda through Congress. Something he wasn’t very successful at in his first two years.

President Kennedy, was very popular when he died I believed, because of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and because he was very likable personally. Which are the advantages that President Obama has today. But wasn’t very good at making Congress go along with his agenda based on his personal appeal.

Had President Kennedy completed his first term, he would’ve continued to work on the issues, that he ran on as President. Across the board tax cuts, the health insurance program that later became known as Medicare, Federal Aid to public education, and civil rights. And then the question would’ve been how successful he would’ve been at pushing that agenda through Congress.