John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert Kennedy, and George Wallace . . .

[Ronin Truth]

John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert Kennedy, and George Wallace . . .

Thomas DiLorenzo Thomas DiLorenzo

. . . had a number of things in common, wrote Murray Rothbard. They were all “important anti-establishment figures.” They all had a “charismatic capacity to mobilize large sections of the populace against our rulers.” They all “constituted ‘populist’ threats against the ruling elite.” And the Official Government Cause of Death (or attempted murder in Wallace’s case) in each instance was murder by a “lone nut.”

John Avery Emison has written the latest challenge to the lone-nut theory of political assassination, challenging the state’s Official Explanation of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. James Squires, former editor of the Chicago Tribune, says on the back cover: “That [James Earl] Ray acted alone out of racial hatred has always been unbelievable.”

UPDATE: Dan W. writes to suggest that John Lennon, one of the “greatest peace advocates of all time,” be added to the list. And note that Rothbard asked in his article in the link why there never seemed to be any attempts to harm the biggest warmongering politicians of the sort we have today trotting the globe stirring up trouble, sending in the CIA, arming “rebels,” overthrowing democratically-elected governments, mass murdering foreign civilians, bombing cities, and endlessly calling for war, war, and more war (the defining characteristics of the Republican Party and its cackling radio chickenhawks like Limbaugh and Hannity ). In fact, such politicians are perennially hailed by our professional court historians (a.k.a. government grant-seeking academic “historians”) as “our greatest” statesmen, presidents, etc.).

Michael D. writes to pose the question of whether Reagan was also targeted for doing a little too much, too fast, to end the Cold War.

6:46 pm on March 28, 2014

Email Thomas DiLorenzo

The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo

lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/john-f-kennedy-malcolm-x-martin-luther-king-jr-robert-kennedy-and-george-wallace/

[Occam's Banana]

Text is too small.
Link is not active.

[Tywysog Cymru]

How was George Wallace anti-establishment, he was a leftist neocon IIRC.

[Vanguard101]

Rumor has it Reagan was Libertarian until he was shot.

[William Tell]

Rumor has it Reagan was Libertarian until he was shot.

He should not have picked Bush for VP.

[Zippyjuan]

Rumor has it Reagan was Libertarian until he was shot.

Even as governor of California he signed the biggest tax increases in history (at the time). As president he did lower taxes but as the deficit grew he agreed to what was again the highest tax increase in history (at the time). The assassination attempt was only about two months(69 days) into his presidency so hard to say that he was a more libertarian president before that. What he said in speeches was not necessarily how he acted in reality.

He also signed bills as both governor and President which restricted guns. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,1471722.story

As governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases. After leaving the presidency, he supported the passage of the Brady bill that established by federal law a nationwide, uniform standard of a 7-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns to enable background checks on prospective buyers. He urged then President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill.

As reported in the media, after mentioning he was a member of the NRA, President Reagan stated the following at a George Washington University ceremony on March 28, 1991, marking the 10th anniversary of his near assassination: "With the right to bear arms comes a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases. And it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns."

I don't think the attempt on his life changed his political philosophy.

[Ronin Truth]

Text is too small.
Link is not active.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...eorge-wallace/

[Occam's Banana]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...eorge-wallace/

*shrug* I meant that you should edit the link in the OP - and use a readable font size for the rest.
I am, of course, assuming that you are not trying to minimize the number of people who bother with your OPs.
If that asumption is wrong, then nevermind, as you will, carry on ...

[boneyard bill]

The Vietnam War had ended years before Lennon was shot, and he wasn't particularly active the peace movement even when it was going on. From what I have read, like many of us, he had actually become much more conservative as he got older. His assassination was probably was not political.

I don't know the official position on Malcolm X, but I think most of his supporters believe that he was offed by Elijah Muhammed. He wasn't much a threat to the US establishment, but he was a threat to Muhammed's influence in the Black Muslim community.

As for the others, however, it's not hard for me to imagine that they may be connected. George Wallace was threatening to the Democratic Party apart. The day after the assassination attempt, Wallace won primaries in Maryland and Michigan. Michigan, the home of the UAW, a staunch Northern state, and they voted for Wallace. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and other big northern states hadn't voted yet. Along with his southern base, he was virtually certain to prevent any candidate from getting a majority at the convention. He might very well have held the balance of power.

Reagan was charismatic, and he was not the establishment party candidate. Yes, he attacked the establishment from the right rather than from the left, but one couldn't be sure how he would actually govern.

But frankly, I don't know why the establishment would feel threatened by Dr. King. He opposed the Vietnam War, but any damage on that front had already been done. He certainly had enormous influence among black voters, but he wasn't using it, particularly, to support any particular candidates, and the policies he supported were mostly within the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

[osan]

He should not have picked Bush for VP.

You think REAGAN picked Bush? Really?

[Ronin Truth]

*shrug* I meant that you should edit the link in the OP - and use a readable font size for the rest.
I am, of course, assuming that you are not trying to minimize the number of people who bother with your OPs.
If that asumption is wrong, then nevermind, as you will, carry on ...

You may want to consider a different sized screen resolution. Seems like the posts look fine at 1440 x 900.

[Occam's Banana]

You may want to consider a different sized screen resolution. Seems like the posts look fine at 1440 x 900.

My screen resolution is fine (1920 x 1080). If you don't want to reduce the number of people who actually read your posts, you may want to consider that it's probably not a good idea to expect other people to go to the trouble of changing their settings just so that they can read your atypically formatted posts.

LIke I said before, though, it really doesn't matter to me. I'm not angry or upset about it or anything. I just don't see the point of it. But if you think there's a good reason for making your posts inconvenient or difficult for others to read - one that outweighs the fact that some of us won't bother trying to read them - then by all means, carry on, and more power to you. I'm just sayin' ...

[Ronin Truth]

My screen resolution is fine (1920 x 1080). If you don't want to reduce the number of people who actually read your posts, you may want to consider that it's probably not a good idea to expect other people to go to the trouble of changing their settings just so that they can read your atypically formatted posts.

LIke I said before, though, it really doesn't matter to me. I'm not angry or upset about it or anything. I just don't see the point of it. But if you think there's a good reason for making your posts inconvenient or difficult for others to read - one that outweighs the fact that some of us won't bother trying to read them - then by all means, carry on, and more power to you. I'm just sayin' ...

Only some of the 1920x1080 folks have complained so far or have any problem with my screen resolution choice. I couldn't use 1920x1080 because it makes everything too small for my old eyes. I had found the size 1 font to be larger than the default for my thread OPs, but now I'm going back to size 2 for the thread leads.

[enhanced_deficit]

Don't know about other cases but had read somewhere that and people behind Robert Kennedy assassination, original 9/11 (WTC 1/2/7 ) and 1990s WTC1 attacks were all driven by same cause.