David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
Many people deeply loved Ted Kennedy, and the whole Kennedy family. Like the Beatles, the Kennedys were held in the public’s supreme esteem. Also, like the Beatles, the Kennedys stood for self-indulgence, unbridled passion, profligacy, alcohol, drugs, narcissism, and irresolution. The Beatles preached sin, like the Rolling Stones, but the Kennedys lived it. Interestingly, the Kennedy’s preached patriotism, responsibility, even religion, if indirectly.
Edward Moore “Teddy” Kennedy 1932-2009
Perhaps more than any of them, Ted Kennedy had a troubled conscience. He and his brothers were the heirs of outright hoodlums, the sons of two generations of Irish gangsters in Boston, it must have been difficult to think of oneself as respectable. It must have been quite impossible to live as known hypocrites, loved and respected, knowing that they were little better than street bums with dirty money. Ted struggled with it. Bobby struggled with it. And John suffered from it. The Kennedy brothers were really quite miserable, sad personalities. Crime, sex, alcohol, drugs, immorality, adultery, irresolution, murder, assassination, all the accoutrements of gangster life. Unions, societies, and other disguises of gang behavior, were all part of the Kennedy family.
But Ted’s conscience worked things out a bit differently. Bobby tried to get cocky with the Italian mafia (the only competition the Irish mafia ever had). John tried to be a tough president, but was ushered into office by Italian Chicago mafia (who forced Daley’s hand). But Ted tried to be a philanthropist. As politician, his work was to coerce the public to be charitable, to be responsible for the poor. For himself reserved great wealth and power. It was the public he beat, he whipped, he flagellated. The penance of his own soul he wreaked on the public. Yes, he was indeed devoted to spending other people’s money on the needs of the poor. That’s as good as a gangster politician can do, apparently.
John Fitzgerald “Jack” Kennedy, 1917-1963
Chuck Giancana, brother of the famous Chicago boss Sam “Mooney” Giancana, related the sordid story of the Kennedy family to his own son, Sam. It’s all in the book Double Cross, published by MacDonald, a London-based company, in 1992. (No Kennedy has ever filed a suit for libel against the Giancanas.) According to “little Mooney,” John F. Kennedy was elected through the concerted efforts of the Chicago boss. It was a deal made between big Sam and the Boston gangster, Joe Kennedy, John’s father. Joe promised Sam the White House, and swore to it (p. 230). Why? Frank Costello, another mobster, wanted Joe to be the front man in a real estate deal. Joe didn’t want to take the risk, because of his son John’s reputation as a young Massachusetts senator. Fact is, says Sam, Joe owed Costello, because Costello got young John’s first marriage annulled. Costello figured Joe owed him for other things as well. It came to a contract on Joe Kennedy! The promise of Joe to Sam, that Sam could have the White House if he supported Joe’s son John. “A beautiful friendship,” you might say. Mooney called off Costello. Eleanor Roosevelt said John F. Kennedy and Sam Giancana were part of “the new managerial elite that has neither principles nor character” (p.267).
Both Bobby and John has used Marilyn Monroe like a play thing (as did the mob bosses), and she was becoming a major problem for all parties concerned. She knew too much. When Bobby snubbed her, she became a hysterical, lethal threat, and Mooney’s boys took care of her. Yes, the story goes it was a suicide. Sam says they forced a suppository in her, a prepared Nembutal combo, which would leave no trace (pp. 314, 315).
Robert Francis “Bobby” Kennedy, 1925-1968
The truth is, Mooney used the Kennedy brothers. He knew their weakness for women, their absolute profligacy, even as married men.
Ted, the youngest brother, showed the same character, but he was a loser. There was no use for him in the larger picture. Let him publicly profligate himself with a women in a restaurant, as a married man (married to Virginia Joan Bennet). Who cared? They divorced in 1982. Ten years later, Ted married a woman 22 years his junior, Victoria Anne Reggie. That was in 1992. Ted was sixty.
But, today, according to Bill Clinton, one’s personal life is not connected to his job performance. (Yet, new SCOTUS judge Sonya Sotomayor says one’s personal experience certainly shapes one’s judgment!)
And since when to we take gangsters’ words for truth? Well, we know the Kennedy family is a gangster family, from the beginning in Boston. We know the famous Kennedy brothers lived profligate lives.
So, how and why are they so beloved, so honored, so cherished? Why have Americans made them into such social idols? Italian Americans were never received into the bosom of American society in that way. Italians were always considered foreigners of the old days. Something about them kept them separated. But the Irish, they were somehow more accepted, even though, in the beginning, there were laws back East that disallowed the hiring of red-headed Irishmen! They are obviously a powerful tribe, the Irish. They have transcended much–at least in the professional, material sense.
But it shall ever remain a mystery how the Kennedy family became the object of public affection, how the Kennedys became so beloved. They were trash. White trash. Nothing short of it. A reflection of the ’60′s, perhaps. Liberalism has always been well stocked with such characters. They champion the cause of the poor, but they themselves are fabulously wealthy. That’s the Democrat way. That’s what Communism is all about, really. Using the masses to increase one’s own power. One’s personal life is exonerated in the lust of political wars. One’s character is covered by media dust. In Ted’s case, a long landslide.
29 responses so far ↓
1 John Sandusky // Aug 28, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“the Kennedys stood for self-indulgence, unbridled passion, profligacy, alcohol, drugs, narcissism, and irresolution.”
Do not forget they stood for cowardice, also.
Joe, literally abandoned his post as the Ambassador to England, long before there was a real threat by Hitler.
JFK allowed freedom fighters to die at The Bay of Pigs after giving them assurances that he would support them.
And of course Teddy didn’t even have the guts to report an accident he caused that cost a beautiful young girl her life until hours after it happened. I believe he made countless number of phone calls to lawyers and family, before reporting the accident.
Mary Joe could have easily been alive in a air bubble for several minutes, and may have been saved had Teddy first called the police.
Joe taught his cowardice sons well.
2 John Sandusky // Aug 28, 2009 at 10:55 pm
However, as in all matters there are exceptions that in fairness must be pointed out.
Joe Jr. died in a plane explosion that just got airborne during WW2. The plane was to bomb V2 rocket sights in Europe that were plaguing Britain.
It is said that Joe Jr. was ecstatic he got the mission, because he wanted to try and over come his father Joe’s (America’s Ambassador to England) handle of “Jittery Joe.”
Once again, the sins of the father is paid for by the sons.
3 beakerkin // Aug 28, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Big city machine politics and organized crime have always been tied together. This was especially more so at the turn of the century.
That is the way the system worked back then. A true reformer like Teddy Roosevelt was a rare sight indeed.
4 John Sandusky // Aug 28, 2009 at 11:35 pm
One final comment on my position of Kennedy cowardice.
JKF, if not for his father’s influence would have been court marshaled for his leadership failures commanding PT-109.
I personally could have commanded a row boat and avoided a collision with a Japanese destroyer at night. No other PT boat, ever, was sunk in such a manner. A destroyer can be heard coming from miles away.
JFK, failed the men of PT-109, as he failed the men at the Bay of Pigs. The man that wrote the report of what happened to the 109 was “Wizard White,” a man that JFK just “happened” to put on the Supreme Court.
Camelot the folk tale is more of a truism, than the Kennedy Camelot, which is one gigantic, fabricated lie.
5 kuhnkat // Aug 29, 2009 at 12:58 am
Beakerkin,
“A true reformer like Teddy Roosevelt was a rare sight indeed.”
True reformer?? Reformer of what for what???
I really think you are losing it Beak.
OOOPS!! That’s right. You are a LIBERAL!!!! You actually think Socialism can lead to something other than Totalitarian gubmints!!
Hey, when humans have EVOLVED a few more million years maybe you will be proven right!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
6 beakerkin // Aug 29, 2009 at 2:18 am
Sandusky is that the best you can offer
Placing modern labels on Presidents from nearly a century ago doesn’t work. He was a nationalist, conversationalist and a reformer.
Hit the books
7 John Sandusky // Aug 29, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Sandusky is that the best you can offer
Placing modern labels on Presidents from nearly a century ago doesn’t work. He was a nationalist, conversationalist and a reformer.
Hit the books
“Who you talkin to?”
“Are you sure “you talkin to me.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e9CkhBb18E
8 beakerkin // Aug 29, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Yes I am talking to you. Read about his career
9 John Sandusky // Aug 29, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Beakerin, obviously you’re nothing but another victim of a bribed media. It is you that needs to read about JFK’s career.
10 John Sandusky // Aug 29, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Old “Shafty” (as JFK was called by his men on PT-109) was a conversationalist.”
Most certainly, if the conservation was about sex and drugs.
The records show that Kennedy took codeine, demerol, methadone, ritalin, meprobamate, librium, barbiturates, thyroid hormones; injections of a blood derivative, gamma globulin, antispasmodics to control colitis; antibiotics for a urinary tract infection; hydrocortisone, testosterone . Lomotil and procaine.
I really don’t need to get into “Shafty’s” lechery, or are you hopelessly brainwashed and I must . Or perhaps extreme lechery is of no consequence to you when it comes to ones leadership abilities . Personally, the most useless people I have ever known were lecherous.
11 John Sandusky // Aug 29, 2009 at 7:14 pm
JFK was a “speed freak,” one of the most dangerous life forms on the planet.
JFK got shots of speed from Dr. Max Jacobson, a.k.a. Dr. Feelgood.
Placing modern labels on Presidents from nearly a century ago doesn’t work
Kennedy was elected president in 1960, that’s 49 years ago. Exactly which presidential history books are you reading, so I can avoid them.
12 John Sandusky // Aug 29, 2009 at 7:23 pm
JFK’s and Roberts ENEMIES LIST!
Nixon was impeached primarily for misusing the IRS. In early 1961 JFK planted family friend Carmine Bellino in the IRS with the title “special consultant to the president “and demanded that he have access to tax returns. They turned the IRS into a lending library. Quoting from the Wall Street Journal of January 28, 1997: “the Kennedys were far worse than Nixon in their manipulation of the IRS…The documents show that the Kennedys targeted non-exempt activist groups. And the auditing was done at the behest of politicians, not the professionals at the IRS…On December 20, 1961, Rogovin forwarded to Dean J. Barron, the IRS audit director at the time, a list of 18 organizations to investigate.” Scores were targeted later including: Daughters of the American Revolution, the Americans Veterans Committee, the Conservative Society of America, Americans for Constitutional Government, All-American Society, the Conservatives, the Christian Crusade, Life-Line Foundation, Christian Echoes Ministry, the National Education Program of Harding College, the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith, the Freeman Charitable Foundation, and the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade. Many of these groups had their tax-exempt status revoked. The Kennedys also targeted corporate taxpayers and at one point had a plan to target up to 10,000 groups.
13 John Sandusky // Aug 29, 2009 at 7:48 pm
From the “Dark Side of Camelot” concerning “Shafty’s career:
John Kennedy seemed to have it all; looks, charm, intelligence, a sense of humor, power, and the Kennedy fortune. He was a man’s man and a woman’s man. He was also impatient, self-absorbed, zealously loyal to his family, a womanizer, an adulterer, physically unhealthy, dishonest, and extremely reckless. John Kennedy was a notorious penny-pincher who never carried cash and thus was never able to pay his share of a restaurant or bar bill.
JFK adored his father and maternal grandfather, his brother Bobby was his closest friend, but he had little time or use for his mother nor for women as peers in general. He often called women he knew “kid” because he couldn’t remember their names; even the names of his lovers. Hersh speculates that JFK’s craving for women and compulsive need to shower (as often as five times a day) may have been linked to a lack of mothering.
He not only considered women as less than equals, he often referred to the poor, the blacks, and the Jews, as “poor bastards”. He showed almost no empathy and, like the majority of people of his time, accepted inequalities based on race, gender, and religious belief.
Though he won a Pulitzer Prize for his autobiography Profiles in Courage, it is likely the book was largely ghostwritten and it is the case that his dad’s money kept it on the bestseller list and Joe’s connections won it the Pulitzer.
JFK had an undistinguished legislative output in the Senate, but his looks and personal appeal and Joe Kennedy’s planning, connections, and money were behind marketing efforts that made him a national celebrity.
During JFK’s presidency, his desire and demand for loyalty resulted in his capable staff serving him poorly as they preferred to please him rather than enlighten him.
What the public saw in JFK was an attractive, glamorous, hardworking President devoted to country, wife and family. Four former secret service men who were assigned the Kennedy presidential detail were interviewed for The Dark Side of Camelot. They reported they saw a president obsessed with sex, willing to take enormous risks to gratify that obsession, a president who came late many times to the Oval Office and who was not readily available for hours during the day.
“JFK was pond scum.” NEWSWEEK, August 19, 1996.
14 beakerkin // Aug 29, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Who was talking about JFK. I was talking about Teddy Roosevelt.
15 John Sandusky // Aug 29, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“Who was talking about JFK. I was talking about Teddy Roosevelt.”
“Never mind!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0
As I suspected, and is why I asked if you were “talkin to me.”
Your debate is with Kuhnkat, I never mentioned TR, “the conservationist,” not conversationalist–that also through me.
“Never mind!”
16 David Yeagley // Aug 29, 2009 at 9:09 pm
How did the Kennedy’s become so beloved? Was it because they were white? and the Irish gangster family spoke English?
All kinds of Italians came in, later. They were European. They were Catholic. They were into “unions” (gangs). But, they were dark, dark eyes, dark hair, and somehow, they were never beloved. To this day, they are regarded as separate, in a visceral kind of sense. “Mafia! Mafia!” everyone suspects them.
Yet, the Irish had all the first gangs. The “Godfather” movie should have been about an Irish family. That was the precedent. How did the Irish slip the rap?
I think this is a serious question, given the social “success” of the Kennedy gangster family. When you hear the name “Kennedy,” think gangster. Think organized crime. Think trash. Think social enemy. Think of people you don’t want your children to associate with. People you don’t want to have any dealings with.
Isn’t that what they deserve?
17 kuhnkat // Aug 29, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Beakerkin misses the boat:
“Placing modern labels on Presidents from nearly a century ago doesn’t work. He was a nationalist, conversationalist and a reformer.”
I did not label TR. I labelled YOU Liberal. You aren’t even the old type liberal I used to have some respect for. They didn’t believe in BIG Gubmint solutions.
As for TR, yes he was a Nationalist. That is rather neutral depending on what is done with it. Yes he was a conservationist, like all elitists who are going to save the world from the scum who aren’t elite.
Now, let’s discuss his reforms. Please tell me why you think they weren’t dog crap.
18 kuhnkat // Aug 29, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Beakerkin,
In case you have forgotten, here is a page with a couple high points of TR the Big Gubmint MAN!!!
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h961.html
19 kuhnkat // Aug 29, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Dr. Yeagley,
I apologise for taking your thread off the topic of gangsters, although I personally have difficulty seeing a lot of difference between elitists, or gangsters, or totalitarians all of whom think they are capable of making our minds up for us and believe they can take what they want from us to pay them for their trouble in running our lives.
20 beakerkin // Aug 30, 2009 at 1:30 am
Kuhnkat
TR needs to be evaluated in his time period. His actions at the time were prudent and are hailed by people from left to right.
On ethical concerns and vision he was years ahead of his time.
Is the best you can do is say liberal. Sorry, but I believe in the big table of equals bit. I took an oath and proudly serve my country every day.
You are ill informed with how gangsters work. A true gangster runs an efficient business. Government merely provides another revenue stream via contracts. There is no connection as you stated and the matter is merely reductionist thinking on your part.
21 beakerkin // Aug 30, 2009 at 4:47 am
Sandusky
Lets go back to JFK and Nixon. The behaviors you
describe were just how politics were done in that era. To a lesser extent they probably still are as evidenced with the FBI files on Clinton foes.
I can not even begin to explain how serious FBI files are. Moreover, there are very strict rules about when one can look in certain databases
or files. People do get fired and disciplined for
looking at things they are not supposed to look at.
The truth is that in a better world we are all held to the same laws. Sadly in government this concept often goes out the window for expediency.
In truth Nixon was way too kind to some of the antiwar activists who collaborated with foreign governments and advocated violence.
22 David Yeagley // Aug 30, 2009 at 8:11 am
I don’t think understanding a person in his historical context exonerates his behavior, necessarily. Morality is not contextual, by definition. Ethical relativism is an extention of liberalism. This is weakness in the hour of need.
23 beakerkin // Aug 30, 2009 at 9:37 am
Doc
The behaviors of Kennedy and Nixon reflect how things were done in that era. What is more shocking is how the Clinton’s never were held accountable for those FBI files and that is seriously worse than Watergate.
Removing documents from a file ala Sandy Berger and placing them in his socks would get a termination anywhere else.
24 whitetrash // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:01 am
Well Doc… it seems that the Irish are getting the same treatment from you that the “negroes” get.
You realize that Ronald Reagan was Irish… right?
25 rebnatan // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Bobby Kennedy was the first American victim of Palestinian terrorism, shot by Sirhan Sirhan because of his support of Israel. I didn’t see the recent movie about RFK, but I heard that this critical fact was omitted.
26 David Yeagley // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:23 pm
That is indeed the reason S.B.S gave for his animosity towards JFK. However, as in any high profile case, in spite of SBS’s confession, there is great conspiracy theory that he didn’t even do it! Or, that there was another shooter also involved.
But, early on, SBS was known to have this political hatred of Israel. Interestingly, he also was part of a Christian Arab family.
Sad story.
27 David Yeagley // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:25 pm
White Trash, yes, half the country seems to be Irish, and well-beloved. I just don’t know how the gangster family got such high rating. Lots of Italians, ganster and non-gangster. They never got the same billing.
Just curious. Guess the Italians just weren’t “white” enough. (Ha, ha!)
28 John Sandusky // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:12 pm
“I just don’t know how the gangster family got such high ratings.”
In the case of the Kennedy-gangster-family, being one of the wealthiest families in the nation didn’t hurt.
It was estimated that Joe Kennedy Senior was worth 500 million in 1940. To put that into perspective: I don’t think anyone would argue that a 1940 buck was worth at least ten times what the buck is worth now–ten times 500 million=5,000 million, or 5 billion.
With that kind of money in the 30′s, 40′s, 50′s and 60′s, an evil patriarch could make his family out, just about anyway he chose given the limited sources of information available to the public.
But even with all the Kennedy clout, Nixon only lost the 1960 presidency by about 100,000 votes. And if it hadn’t been for TV and the fact Nixon was sick during the debate, I don’t think JFK’s “Addison’s diseased” looks would have carried the day. But the fact that JFK got his “speed fix” from Doctor Feel Good did help.
Those that listened to the debate on the radio voted for Nixon 3 to 1 compared to JFK. When people just had a voice and ideas to go by, Nixon destroyed JFK.
Nixon was ten times brighter than JFK, graduating second in his class from Whittier College, and third in his class from Duke Law School.
Nixon came from very humble roots, his father built his families home with his own hands, at a time when JFK’s father was bootlegging, engaging in stock fraud, pimping young women eager to make it in the movie industry that he was prominent, and only God knows what else
29 David Yeagley // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Sam Giancana’s machine twisted Daley’s arm in Chicago. Kennedy carried Illinois by only 9,000 votes. The Republicans knew something was awry, demanded a recount, and Nixon won by 4,500 votes in the Chicago precincts. Daley balked on the official recount, as ordered, and Nexon condeded defeat. (Double Cross, p.290.
You must log in to post a comment.