Over 76% of Americans believe that the public will never find out the whole truth behind the John F. Kennedy’s assassination, and that the resulting investigation was either badly mishandled or intentionally sabotaged.

I’m in that 76%.

Keep in mind that we are talking about the assassination of an American President, the government’s handling of that event, and the associated investigation.

Here are some of the many unresolved mysteries surrounding the JFK Assassination that haven’t been adequately explained to this day:

1 . What happened to Mary Moorman’s missing fifth photo in Dealey Plaza? Moorman is known for her famous Polaroid photo that captures the JFK assassination at nearly the precise instant the head shot occurred. What is less well-known, though, is that Moorman took other photos that day. One photo she took moments before the assassination reportedly depicted the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. The photo was reportedly turned over to Secret Service agents shortly after the assassination and vanished from sight. It has never been published and it remains missing to this day.

2. Why was Oswald’s handwritten note to FBI agent James Hosty destroyed? Oswald wrote a note to Hosty a week or two before the assassination. Within hours of Oswald’s death on Nov. 24, 1963, the note was torn up and flushed down the toilet by Hosty. Hosty had claimed his superior had ordered him to destroy the note, however, this was denied and Hosty was never prompted to share what was in the note. Why would that be and how could that be?

3. Did Joseph Milteer have knowledge of the assassination beforehand? 13 days before the assassination, right-wing extremist Milteer gave tape-recorded comments to a Miami police informant that eerily predicted key details of the JFK assassination. Milteer claimed that a conspiracy to kill Kennedy was in the works and described a scenario in which the president would be shot “from an office building with a high-powered rifle.” Milteer also predicted that, in the aftermath of the assassination, the police would arrest a patsy “to throw the public off.”

4. The Mysterious Autopsy. After the shooting, Kennedy was rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. According to Texas state law, the President’s body was not allowed to be taken from the hospital until after an autopsy had been entirely performed. However, the Secret Service chose to ignore this, taking the body straight to the airport and securing it on board Air Force One.

According to a doctor at Parkland, this led to a heated confrontation between Secret Service agents and the Dallas Chief of Forensic Pathology, Earl Rose, during which the agents displayed their guns menacingly. Dr. Rose and others forced against a wall while the body was taken away.

The body was flown to Maryland’s Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was finally carried out.

Why would the Secret Service, of all organizations, refuse to let the Parkland Memorial Hospital’s professional surgeons perform the autopsy? Who ordered them to “grab the President and run, and to not let anybody stand in their way?”

5. How was Jack Ruby able to get close enough to Lee Harvey Oswald, with a gun, to shoot him at point blank range in a Dallas police station? Why did they feel they had to transfer him in the first place? Don’t you think security would have been better than that? The silencing of Oswald would be a key component to perpetuating some of these questionable theories relating to the assassination.

6. Eventually, an autopsy was conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital, back in Washington, where neither of the two surgeons in charge had much experience with autopsies at all. These two were later joined by another doctor who hadn’t done one himself in two years either. Does this seem to you how an assassinated president would be autopsied? Me either!

7. One of the strangest mysteries surrounding this dark event actually took place after the president’s autopsy. In 1978 a special government organization published findings that stated that the deceased president’s brain had vanished. What!?

Yes, apparently, the remaining part of his brain was surgically removed during his autopsy.

The brain remains were put into a metal box and stashed in the White House by the Secret Service. Again, what!? They remained there until 1965 when a report showed that Robert, the president’s brother, had the brain put into the national archives, nobody knows why he chose to do this.

During a routine archive check twelve months later it was discovered that the Kennedy brain had indeed gone missing. Many archive workers were interrogated but not one of them had any sort of information. Of course they didn’t.

8. Among the many JFK assassination controversies, none is more controversial than the “Single Bullet Theory.” The Single Bullet Theory proposed that a single, nearly whole bullet, that was later recovered, had caused all seven of the non-fatal wounds sustained by President Kennedy and Governor Connelly. But the bullet that was recovered had one strikingly peculiar feature: it had survived all the damage it had apparently caused virtually unscathed itself. The shell’s near-pristine appearance, which prompted some to call it the “magic bullet,” left many skeptics wondering whether the bullet in evidence had really done what the Commission had said it had done. Additional skepticism was generated by the fact the bullet was not found in or around either victim. It was found instead on a stretcher at the hospital where the victims were treated.

That a bullet, supposedly fired from Oswald’s weapon and later identified by hospital witnesses, had immediately turned up on a stretcher in the hospital where the victims were treated struck some as perhaps a little too convenient.  Suspicions it had been planted followed.

9. There were 38 “strange” and “convenient” deaths, of people with knowledge, surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, within two years of the assassination, and 103 overall, spanning into the early eighties.

10. A recent release of documents was made to satisfy a 25-year deadline set forward by the Oct. 25, 1992, enactment of the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act. However, many of the files were held back from release by after the CIA and FBI asked for more time to redact information that could cause “potentially irreversible harm.” That sure sounds familiar doesn’t it. The question is, “could cause harm to who?”

If you weren’t in that 76% that I mentioned earlier, you should be now!

Stay thirsty my friends! And don’t forget to check out today’s post about Robert Mueller harassing President Trump over $150K, when Hillary got over $20 million from the same guy!  Stay thirsty my friends!

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly investigating a $150,000 donation/payment made to President Donald Trump’s foundation by a Ukrainian steel magnate in September of 2015.

The New York Times, citing three unnamed people (there go those “unnamed People” again!) with knowledge of the matter (they should have knowledge of the matter because they are probably members of Mueller’s team), reported on Monday that the inquiry pertained to a payment Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk made to the Donald J. Trump Foundation for a 20-minute video appearance by Trump to a conference in Kiev.

(Please note that technically, The Ukraine is not even a part of Russia anymore. In fact, Ukraine is currently at odds with Russia.)

Now let’s take a look at the shameless bias displayed here, as well as the legal double standard.

They are looking into a payment of $150 thousand to Trump’s foundation for a video appearance…while during the same timeframe, Hillary Clinton received donations from numerous foreign entities, including those with middle eastern ties and real RUSSIAN ties, IN EXCESS OF 200 MILLION DOLLARS!!!! That’s right, IN EXCESS OF 200 MILLION DOLLARS!!!! Did I mention the donations were IN EXCESS OF 200 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!

And to top it all off…HILLARY CLINTON RECEIVED OVER $20 MILLION FROM THE SAME GUY!!!!

And nobody in “the swamp” or the biased mainstream media bats an eye or says one word about it. Does their hypocrisy know no bounds!? Apparently not.

I’m sure Hillary’s lawyer’s offices and home will be raided any day now. Don’t hold your breath.

Like President Trump stated, this whole process is an absolute disgrace and reaching new levels of unfairness every day.

President Trump has referred to the on-going (and seemingly never-ending) investigation, of him and his campaign, by led by Robert Mueller, as a “witch hunt.”

Well, let’s see about that. According to the Merriam-Webster unabridged dictionary, a “witch hunt” is: the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views.

That pretty much hits the nail right on the head doesn’t it?

President Trump’s views are very unpopular with “the swamp.” In fact his views are “life threatening” in “the swamp’s” view.

Under the guise of investigating dreaded “Russian collusion” (please note that “collusion” is not an actual crime anyway), Mueller and his motley crew apparently have carte blanche to investigate anybody, for anything that ever happened, at any time.

The cast of characters caught in Mueller’s dragnet, and their significant crimes has been impressive, haven’t they?

No…, actually they haven’t been.

Mueller’s investigation is just a harassing “witch hunt.” “The swamp,” and their point man, Robert Mueller, knew this from the start, however.

We’re talking about Facebook’s biased, political, racist, and gender specific censoring of Diamond and Silk. That’s an anti-politically correct grand slam, Facebook.  Congratulations!

Facebook has decided that Diamond and Silk, two self-made, opinionated black women, who also happen to be supporters of President Trump, are “unsafe to the community.”

If these two weren’t conservative black women there is no way in hell Facebook would ever deem them as being “unsafe to the community.”

Being a happy and loyal follower of Diamond and Silk myself, I feel that I can say that they are NOT “unsafe” to any “community.”

In fact, you could make the case that they “call out” individuals and organizations who are attempting to make many communities less safe, however.

In a post to their 1.2 million followers on Facebook, the Diamond and Silk wrote:

“Diamond and Silk have been corresponding since September 7, 2017, with Facebook (owned by Mark Zuckerberg), about their bias censorship and discrimination against D&S brand page. Finally after several emails, chats, phone calls, appeals, beating around the bush, lies, and giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receives notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage.”

The continued, “Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: “The Policy team has come to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community.” Yep, this was Facebook’s conclusion after 6 Months, 29 days, 5 hours, 40 minutes and 43 seconds.  Oh and guess what else Facebook said: “This decision is final and it is not appeal-able in any way.” (Note: This is the exact wording that Facebook emailed to us.)”

They also posed some questions directly to Zuckerberg:

1. What is unsafe about two Black women supporting the President Donald J. Trump?
2. Our Facebook page has been created since December 2014, when exactly did the content and the brand become “unsafe to the community?”
3. When you say “community” are you referring to the Millions who liked and followed our page?
4. What content on our page was in violation?
5. If our content and brand was so “unsafe to the community,” why is the option for us to boost our content and spend money with Facebook to enhance our brand page still available? Maybe Facebook should give us a refund since Facebook censored our reach.
6. Lastly, didn’t Facebook violate their own policy when Facebook stopped sending notifications to the millions of people who liked and followed our brand page?

“This is deliberate bias censorship and discrimination. These tactics are unacceptable and we want answers!” they said.

I agree with Diamond and Silk. This is an example of liberally biased Facebook deciding to censor and discriminate against individuals on Facebook who don’t agree with their political point of view.

My only question is who else has been blackballed by Facebook, and who is next?

Shame on you Facebook. It was nice knowing you.  Some people just don’t know how to handle success.

If it’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s if there is a market to be satisfied, someone will satisfy it. An alternative to Facebook will rise, and I’ll be there to say adios to Facebook and get on-board.

In the meantime, let’s support Diamond and Silk and others like them who are victims of Facebook’s form of social media fascism.

Portions contributed from an article on The Daily Wire by Joseph Curl.

The touching story of these three friends began back in 2001, when police carried out a drug raid on a house in Atlanta. The officers’ search took them to the basement of the house, where they found something that must have made their jaws hit the floor. There, three caged exotic animal cubs had been kept in terrible conditions.

The babies, a bear, a lion and a tiger, were all underweight, all underfed and all infested with parasites both inside and out. As well as their malnourishment and neglect, the animals had also suffered horrible abuse in their cages, which were clearly not fit for animals of their size.

The lion was further found with a sore-looking injury on his nose; he had been kept in a crate so small that the bars were digging into his snout. Even worse, the bear cub had outgrown his restraints completely, so the harness had to be surgically removed from his flesh.

After they were rescued, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources took the trio to the Noah’s Ark Animal Sanctuary (NAAS), where they received emergency medical treatment. All three of the cubs thankfully made a full recovery and found a new home at the sanctuary, and a new family with each other.

Two of the cubs, Baloo, the American black bear, and Shere Khan, the Bengal tiger, were named after characters from The Jungle Book. The African lion cub was named Leo. Thereafter, the three buddies became widely known as the “BLT”: Bear, Lion and Tiger.

Surprisingly, even after they were rescued, the three preferred staying together, and the sanctuary allowed them to share the same living space. There, they acted every bit like a family, giving each other comfort, love and playing with each other as if they were born to it. Indeed, the sanctuary reported that their traumatic past brought them together as brothers.

“Baloo, Leo and Shere Khan eat, sleep, and play together and even seek out grooming and affection from one another, head rubbing and licking each another,” NAAS said on its website. “Their terrifying early months in life bonded the three together and they are truly inseparable despite their obvious differences.”

The brothers lived together happily for 15 years at NAAS, well into their golden years in terms of their lifespan. However, in August 2016, the sanctuary posted the sad news that the BLT was going to be missing one of its beloved family members.

“On August 11th we said goodbye to our beloved Leo, the 15-year-old lion in our ‘BLT’ trio,” the organization’s statement read on Facebook. Leo hadn’t been himself and it was discovered that cancer of the liver had overtaken him.

Before Leo passed, though, his brothers were allowed to say a final farewell to him. Interestingly, the sanctuary staff reported that it’s likely that Leo’s passing came as no surprise to Shere Khan and Baloo. According to the Facebook spokesperson for NAAS, the BLT brothers probably noticed Leo’s health problems before his caregivers did.

“Animals are so perceptive,” NAAS wrote. “With the incredible bond the BLT had since being rescued together from a drug dealer’s basement in 2001, it is highly likely that Baloo and Shere Khan knew their lion brother was terminally ill long before Leo began displaying outward symptoms.”

Because of the tight bond the BLT shared, then, the sanctuary staff are also taking extra precautions to monitor Leo’s brothers for behavioral changes. So far, Baloo and Shere Khan are coping “remarkably well” with Leo’s absence.

To further commemorate his memory, a lion statue was placed on his grave next to the clubhouse where the brothers would spend their time together.

Thanks to Carla Herreria and her 2016 article from the Huffpost for bringing this story to light.

Assuming you even know who Rob Reiner is (I apologize if you don’t), I always thought he was a pretty good actor (even though he hasn’t done anything in like a hundred years).  He is most well known for playing Archie Bunker’s son-in-law in “All in the family,” which aired in the 70’s.

It turns out he wasn’t acting at all!

He really is, and was, a meathead the whole time!

Ok…, just so we are clear about this…, there is now ONE show, ONE, that really is not pro-Trump, but just willing to at least have a two sided, and an honest discussion, and these liberals are losing their minds. This while President Trump (and his family) are bashed unmercifully, on multiple late-night shows, on a nightly basis, and while the other hundred network shows are allowed to pursue all of their plots and topics from a liberal point of view.

So anyway, this former actor and director, and now a self-proclaimed political activist, had these warnings on MSNBC about the new “Roseanne” show.

He claims that Roseanne and her show are a, “Pro-President Donald Trump megaphone for the lunatic fringe in America.”

(Is “lunatic fringe” equivalent to being a “deplorable?” I think it is.)

Reiner also said, “Roseanne Barr has tremendous power to use her social media to push pro-Trump political messages to millions of Americans. You have your Fox News and Sinclair and Breitbart and Infowars, which used to be considered and thought of as the lunatic fringe, have now become the mainstream media. Truthful journalists, people who are pursuing the truth, are diminished.”

(What!? One network, Fox News, has supposedly become the entire mainstream media now? What he really means is that the biased mainstream media, the fake news, now has some small level of competition, and they don’t like it!)

“Democracy,” Reiner added, “is really in trouble.”

Coming from him, this might have been the funniest thing he has said since his days with “All in the Family!” It’s actually a true statement, but for the complete opposite reasons that he thinks it is!

Reiner continued to say, “It goes back to the original sin of this country which is slavery, and we are fighting this last battle of the civil war. And those people who are the alt-right, the white supremacists are hanging on for dear life, and they’re using these propaganda tools which are not just, like I say, lunatic fringe,” Reiner continued. “They’re now invading us, and you guys in the mainstream media seeking the truth are really fighting an uphill battle. This is a real battle right here for the soul of democracy.”

(It’s just so predictable, typical, and sad. Anything the fascist left doesn’t like get equated with slavery, white supremacists, and the “lunatic fringe.”)

Asked how much ABC (or its parent company, Disney) would tolerate Roseanne, Reiner referred to advertisers potentially pulling their ads. “They’re going to have to walk a very fine line,” Reiner said.

These liberals are just amazing to me. I know that all these Hollywood types do is look in the mirror, but why they don’t see the hypocrisy dripping from them when they do is perplexing. Maybe they really don’t realize it. I guess that is possible.

After all, what qualifications do you have to have to become an actor or an actress?

A high school diploma? No.

A college degree? No.

Any type of basic education requirements? No.

Any type of Trade certification? No.

Any type of Professional certification? No.

I think Harvey Weinstein, among many others, brought to light what qualifications are simply required in Hollywood, and they have nothing to do with any level of intelligence or skill.

There is a distinct difference in the tone of White House and Presidential press conferences since Donald Trump was elected President.

Let’s take a walk down memory lane and listen in on some of the hard hitting questions that were posed to President Obama:

“Golf, what does it do for you?” – Harry Smith from CBS

“I’m wondering if you think that [Republican presidential candidates are] uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible?” – Dan Lothian of CNN

“Do you have a vindictive streak?” – Lester Holt, NBC

“What has enchanted you the most in your first 100 days in office?” – Jeff Zeleny, The New York Times (I love this one! President Obama even had a hard time answering this one with a straight face!)

“In this fatherless world, where did you learn to love?” – Harry Smith, CBS 

(Really?)

“What hard things do you want to tackle at this point?” – Jim Acosta of CNN

“Are you ready to call yourself the ‘comeback kid’?” – Caren Bohan, Reuters

“You definitely have some impressive accomplishments….And more than a lot of presidents who manage to get reelected. My question is, is it enough?” – Steve Kroft from CBS (I’m sure we’ll hear questions like this when Donald Trump is looking at getting re-elected!)

“Have you given up on the Republicans?” – Steve Kroft of CBS (again)

“Tell me again, what you consider your major accomplishments?” – Steve Kroft of CBS (and again)

“How do you avoid the dangers of being too cocky?” – John Harwood of CNBC

This is just a small sampling of a long list of “softballs.”

At Barack Obama’s final White House press conference (notice he waited until his last press conference) he was actually embarrassed enough by the questioning to “scold” the reporters there: “You’re not supposed to be sycophants (a$$ kissers), you’re supposed to be skeptics, you’re supposed to ask tough questions,” Obama said. (in other words, “I’m gone now, so do it to the next person!)

During the Obama era, the only reporter that seemed to dare and ask a substantive or critical question was Ed Henry, who had been a White House correspondent for CNN and later for FOX News.

It was almost comical how all of Ed’s liberal colleagues would gasp at his boldness of asking a question that may make President Obama or his press secretary the least bit uncomfortable.

How dare he!

Compare that to today’s press conferences, where the mainstream liberal media are all on crack, and out for blood with every question. They brutalize and insult The President on a daily basis, along with his press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. (God bless her soul!)

No, they’re not biased. They’re not biased at all.

Y’all got any more of that global warming? ‘Cause we could sure use some of it up here in the north woods!

We’ve been freezing up here since November. We just got 8 inches of snow a few days ago, on March 31^st,  and I’m sitting here, looking out my window at a blizzard, and they’re talking about another 7-12 inches by tomorrow.

How many ads and stories have we seen about the plight of the poor polar bears? They have become the poster children for the global warming and climate change communities.   Don’t get me wrong, I feel for the polar bears as much as the next person.  But when Al Gore (the father of the internet, and the master of making money off of all of this global warming propaganda) was born, there were around 7,000 polar bears.  Today it is estimated that there are over 30,000 polar bears.  It doesn’t seem like they’re doing too awful bad.  It also seems like the global warming alarmists are being quite disingenuous.

We hear how the ice in the arctic (North Pole) is melting and on the decline. But do we hear how the ice in the Antarctic (South Pole) is growing, and is actually at record levels, giving us a net increase in overall global ice?

I don’t need some scientist with a political agenda to tell me about what I can feel through my own skin and see with my own eyes.

Now excuse me, I’ve got to go get some more gas for my snow blower!

Mexico does not seem to want to cooperate with, or help, The United States, regarding drugs, illegal immigrants, gang members, and criminals, finding their way across the border and into our country.

How about we impose a tariff on Mexico for every illegal immigrant we are forced to deal with that comes through Mexico, just like imported goods?

How about we impose additional tariffs on Mexico for any court costs and costs to incarcerate those convicted of crimes?

How about we impose additional tariffs on Mexico, annually, for any costs that we incur for health care, education, and other support services?

It’s only fair, isn’t it?

Why should the hard working, tax paying citizens of The United States be forced to pay for these people that are pouring into our country illegally?

What if Mexico refuses to pay these tariffs?

Then we need to treat this situation as a threat to our nation’s security, similar to another country invading our borders.

We freeze the importing of any products or goods from Mexico, and we ban Americans travelling to Mexico, which supports their tourism economy.

We have to make Mexico see that they need us WAY more than we need them.

We have to make them see that it is in their overall best interests to be a good neighbor and cooperate with us.

Hey…, drastic times require drastic measures.

They may even reconsider and help us build the wall after all!