Opinion
The Lost Game: Gridiron Memories of November 22, 1963
I was playing quarterback in a high school intramural flag-football championship game around 1:30 p.m. on Nov. 22, 1963.
The game went into overtime as the class time ground into its last minutes. My team needed a score to even the alternating possession OT (we were ahead of our time) and extend things to the following day. Impatient, I lofted one deep and up for grabs – like Brett Favre occasionally does – that some defender out jumped my guy for.
BANG! We lost, no tomorrow.
Little did I know that the bang of defeat that had just gone off in my head was the mere echo of a much louder bang that went off almost simultaneously 1,330 miles to the south-west.
That other bang I had yet to hear was one of another kind of defeat that I will, it seems, carry with me to the grave.
Somewhat dejected I headed back to the locker room to shower before heading to my fifth period English class. Someone ran out of the locker room to meet us and said, “The president’s been shot!” Bullshit, that kind of thing doesn’t happen except in history books, I thought, “That’s not funny,” I said.
Inside the Alexandria, Virginia high school, not eight miles from the White House, things seemed normal as I prepared to shower. No solemn faced coaches, no lock down to protect then Republican House Minority Whip Gerald Ford’s sons. “The president’s been shot” was lost beneath what seemed normal adolescent, locker room banter. I began to return to a 15-year-old’s reality: sport, the thought of the girl’s locker room on the other side of a thick cement wall.
Then the PA system crackled and the locker room went unnaturally silent as the principal’s voice, not a secretary’s, asked for attention. A chill went down my spine, perhaps as a subconscious premonition that things were about to change in previously unimaginable ways flashed along sub-atomic particles throughout my brain. The tone first, then the words “President Kennedy has been shot” gravely confirmed what I had immediately denied as a plausible reality. One kid, a little red around the edges for that suburban Alexandria high school said something to the effect of “good.” Though we were casual friends and recent teammates, I started swinging and we went into a pile on the floor only to be quickly pulled apart by classmates and coaches. I had never wanted to damage someone as irrevocably as I did at that moment and the two of us never spoke again, leaving a silent distance between us that precluded the necessity of re-engaging that primal impulse toward some sort of irreversible destruction.
President Kennedy leaves the White House for the final time.
The emotions were immediate, deep and apparently ran in the family. I didn’t find out until years later that at almost the same moment, following a similar remark, my father, a WWII Army veteran who had lived through Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge, was decking a total stranger in a D.C. medical building on I Street where he was waiting for my mother to complete a routine checkup.
Across the Potomac River, we sat quietly in our classrooms: no teaching, no discussion, no emergency mentoring. We sat alone, grappling with our thoughts, as was our teacher. The principal came on again and said the president was dead. The reaction was subdued except for a girl named Jacqueline Kennedy – though I think she spelled her first name differently than the president’s wife. Spelling aside she went off, sobbing, hysteria rising. The teacher took her outside the room to settle her down. Didn’t work, she ended up in the infirmary. I sometimes wonder what happened to Jackie Kennedy, my classmate. How did she ride out that 15-year-old’s identification with the now blood-stained Queen of Camelot?
Forty-odd years later I know that day was the measurable beginning of the direction of the balance of my life. Despite the immediate profundity of a presidential assassination, I couldn’t have recognized that JFK’s violent death would lead directly through a five-year span of political upheaval between my formative 15th and 20th birthdays. This and three other domestic assassinations – of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Francis Kennedy – seemed to earmark the time through a litany of foreign political intrigue, murder and assassination that always seemed to lead in one direction – to the right, toward war, toward implicit corporate profiteering from war, toward social division, toward lies.
That is my perception, my belief – the bad guys won. That is my psychological watershed. Rather than living under the auspice of a state favored by both man and God, I was floating through the most recent episode of civilization in decline, fueled by greed, power, murder and conquest.
It took all of those next five years for me to begin to appreciate what had begun during that that lost football game. By 1969 it was becoming apparent that a hopeful youth-driven world counterculture, as well as the best and the brightest within the world political system reflecting or inspiring the social idealism that characterized that counterculture, the Americans named above, Salvadore Allende, Alexander Dubcek, Patrice Lumumba, Che Guevara and others were beaten.
Around the world we had lost.
We would either be annihilated or assimilated – a foolish, inaccurate footnote to American and World History X – the fiction written by the winners.
I left Alexandria in 1967 for college. I moved from the specter of the federal capital to Richmond, the historical capital of the American Confederacy that had fought the ascendance of that federal system just over a century earlier. In retrospect it seemed an unconsciously profound symbolic move. Though I was through and through a son of the federal government in whose shadow I was raised by two parents it employed, I was soon to become suspicious, some would say paranoid, about its machinations, its intent, its history.
I followed my intellectual instincts for the next five years, studying sociology and psychology – how society and the human mind work. I guess I wanted to know why I had grown so alienated from the culture in which I lived. Was I crazy or did I live in an insane world? I learned things about myself and my society between 1967 and 1973 and most of what I learned took me back to the day my team lost that high school, intramural football game.
In college I learned that three days before John Kennedy’s inauguration, his predecessor, Dwight David Eisenhower, made an astonishing observation in his farewell address to the nation. I had grown up thinking of Eisenhower as a doddering, old, golf-playing general rewarded with the presidency for a job well done holding the Allied war effort together in Europe during World War II. My interest in the fate of his successor led me to a different view of Eisenhower. It began with that farewell address of Jan. 17, 1961.
Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower at Camp David, April 22, 1961, five days after the first crisis of JFK’s presidency, the failed CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion.
On that day Eisenhower, the West Point graduate, career military man, general and president who led his country and its allies, first against Nazi Germany and then through the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, told his nation that the greatest threat it faced as he prepared to leave office was that born of its own military and corporate institutions in a profoundly changing American landscape.
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience,” Eisenhower told the American people of the corporate, political and military landscape that had arisen in the wake of World War II. “The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist,” Eisenhower concluded.
The career soldier turned politician had apparently not thought it a sin to normalize relations with the Soviet Union, then our recent military ally, and reduce the rapidly expanding American military budget. This belief, according to Eisenhower biographers, led to much behind-the-scene infighting with the evolving military and industrial institutions Eisenhower spoke of at the end of his eight-year presidency.
Less than three years after Eisenhower’s dour warning, his successor had his head blown off in the streets of Dallas, Texas, while I played football a half a continent away. That successor, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, had also bucked the American military-corporate apparatus during his presidency, and perhaps fatally, more directly and in more immediate situations than Eisenhower had.
First, just three months in office Kennedy refused to commit to direct American military involvement during the 1961 invasion of Communist Cuba by a CIA-trained militia despite the urgings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA Director Allen Dulles. As a result of the intelligence misinformation and personal coercion he endured during that experience, Kennedy fired Allen Dulles as director of the CIA. He also developed enough distrust of the U.S. military command to avoid the armed, likely nuclear confrontation they suggested over Cuba during the missile crisis less than two years later.
President Kennedy addresses the nation on live television during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the U.S. and Soviet Union came to the verge of nuclear war according to later unclassified Soviet intelligence documents.
Kennedy is even reported to have stated the intention of scattering what was threatening to become a rouge intelligence agency resistant to presidential oversight “into a thousand pieces” following a 1964 re-election that seemed a sure thing.
A great deal of debate still exists over whether Kennedy was planning implementation of another post-1964 election plan that would have flown further in the face of Eisenhower’s originally-named American “Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex”. That much-discussed plan was a lessening of direct American involvement in Vietnam. That involvement in the fall of 1963 was 16,000 “advisors” compared to the half million combat troops that would be sent there after his death. If true, as key Kennedy insiders assert, that plan reflected JFK’s growing belief that the Vietnam conflict was ultimately a civil war that would have to be won or lost by the South Vietnamese themselves – a decade and the bulk of 65,000 American and two million Vietnamese lives later that belief proved correct.
Many years after the fact I heard a European investigative report that quoted Kennedy archives indicating his ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, reporting back to Washington that presidential directives relayed through the embassy in 1963 ordering CIA operatives in country to back off of aggressive covert actions, including assassinations, were simply being ignored in the field. I wondered then if those “rouge” CIA elements had an inkling those directives would soon change despite Kennedy’s overwhelming popularity as the1964 election approached?
No, probably just a coincidence that Kennedy was soon shot down like a rabid dog on a parade route whose path had been realigned that day to go down Elm Street in front of the Texas School Book Depository in a town whose mayor was reportedly the brother of Allen Dulles’s former military liaison officer.
Coincidence too, I expect that a former Marine named Lee Harvey Oswald worked in that School Book Depository. Oswald was the prodigal American son, who had “defected” to the Soviet Union with a perfect command of the Russian language following his assignment to a top-secret American military intelligence base in Japan from which American U-2 spy flights were launched over the Soviet Union. Later, the prodigal son would reconsider that defection – perhaps because the Soviets thought he was an American spy and kept a close check on him. I sometimes wonder at the benevolence of a nation that would welcome back its prodigal son with camera equipment to start a “new” career, rather than a little prison time for his alleged departure with top-secret information that was claimed to have compromised America’s U-2 spy missions. But how could his native land stay mad at the whimsical Oswald, who despite his highly public pro-Castro activities in New Orleans, cultivated associations with a number of right-wing, anti-Castro associates based in both New Orleans and Miami as he “floundered” philosophically in the years between Russia and Dallas?
Above, JFK and Ike at Camp David in the days after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba – likely when the sitting president found out he had been lied to by the CIA about the previous president’s authorizations, or lack thereof, for a CIA-sponsored invasion of Cuba. Photographer Paul Vathis wrote ‘They looked so lonely.’ Below, Vathis’s photo juxtaposed on the wall of the Newseum in D.C. with mob-connected Jack Ruby’s silencing of Lee Harvey Oswald, who died claiming he was set up as a patsy in the JFK assassination. JFK photo sources, credits: Public Domain; White House Photographs; John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston; Robert Knudson; Paul Vathis; Abraham Zapruder; “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” Nigel Turner-produced British TV documentary series; AP; Roger Bianchini at Newseum, Washington D.C.
Pondering these things after launching my own college term paper research on the JFK assassination in 1969, I told my mother, “There are circumstances leading a lot of people to think your old (CIA) bosses were behind it.”
“I wouldn’t be surprised, the way they talked about him,” she surprised me with a frank appraisal of her early 1960s superiors at the top of the American intelligence apparatus.
Now 43 years gone I am the paranoid-tinged, conspiracy freak sitting alone in the dark corners of dark bars, reflecting on the familiarity of low times and low lies glowering at me from the “enduring freedom” of a television screen hovering slightly above my still focused eye.
And 43 years gone from that long lost childhood football game I find myself choking down one final coincidence – that the U.S. president gesturing at me from that screen explaining the necessity of this country’s ongoing military-industrial occupation of Iraq, one of the world’s two primary oil fields, and the ultimate evil of its oil-rich neighbor Iran, is heir to a family legacy the roots of which run deep into Texas oil, American politics and the directorship of the CIA.
Roger Bianchini
Front Royal, Virginia
First published on November 22, 2013 as part of a pull-out section of the Warren County Report on the ongoing significance of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy 50 years later.
Opinion
The Hypocrisy of the Sam Bankman-Fried Conviction
Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the founder of FTX and Alameda Research hedge fund has been found guilty on all seven counts related to financial fraud and money laundering in a lower Manhattan courtroom. The trial took a lot less time than expected, as did the jury’s deliberation of the case which speaks to the overwhelming evidence against the onetime financial guru of entertainers, crypto enthusiasts, and politicians. SBF could face sentencing of up to 100 years behind bars.
Gary Gensler, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said that “Sam Bankman-Fried built a house of cards on a foundation of deception while telling investors that it was one of the safest buildings in crypto.”* Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams concurred, calling Bankman-Fried’s actions “one of the biggest financial frauds in American history.”**
SBF’s conviction is particularly fitting since he had marketed himself as a new-style capitalist who was more interested in philanthropy and giving away his wealth, instead of enriching himself. That so many were taken in by this charlatan, especially a number of supposedly savvy investors, demonstrates again that greed remains a significant part of the human condition.
While SBF will hopefully receive his just rewards for his wrongdoings, there is another fraud that has been taking place in the financial world for quite some time, which dwarfs exponentially the scam of the one-time “crypto-king.” Unlike SBF, however, this entity continues to exist and faces no prosecution, but instead is often praised for its operations.
The institution, of course, is the Federal Reserve and, for that matter, all central banks. Central banks do what FTX did but on a colossal scale. While SBF’s crimes were limited to those who foolishly invested with him, the Fed’s customers are all those who hold dollars and have little option to not use them unless they want to revert to barter and become desperately poor. Like what SBF did to his investors, the Fed has defrauded (although surreptitiously) its “customers” by robbing them of their purchasing power through monetary debasement. The loss of purchasing power by the public has been redistributed to the Fed, the political class, and financial elites.
While Fed officials, the government, academia, and the sycophantic financial press may try and obfuscate the matter, the fact remains that the Federal Reserve has the ability to create money out of thin air and without limit. It is essentially counterfeiting writ large. No criminal, be it SBF, Bernie Madoff, or the Mafia, could ever dream of such a scenario!
The Fed’s creation of money through credit expansion is certainly more subtle than the swindling which SBF engaged in or what took place in earlier times from “coin clipping,” but the underlying criminality of the action is certainly the same. However, central banking is a part of the financial structure of almost every nation-state regardless of which political party is in control.
As SBF wrapped himself in an aura of a benevolent and charitable new-age businessman, the Fed hides behind its criminality by presenting itself as a necessary and indispensable factor for the nation’s economic well-being. Without the Fed and its dual mandate of “price stability” and full employment, the economy would collapse.
Yet, this is a ruse. Before the advent of central banking, economic life went about quite nicely. It was only when central banks appeared that the dreaded boom and bust cycle became more frequent and severe. Moreover, in the pre-central bank era, most of the world was on a gold/silver standard where paper money notes could be redeemed for gold and or silver. This acted as a check on inflation and protected peoples’ purchasing power.
The Fed was created in a bi-partisan manner by the top politicos and the major U.S. banks and signed into law by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. It allowed banks to counterfeit without facing the consequences of their actions. Stable prices and low unemployment are secondary functions of the Fed and mostly spoken about for public relations. Protection of the system, especially the solvency of the Big Banks and now funding the national government through debt monetization, remains the prime responsibility of the Fed.
This, of course, is not to exonerate SBF. Why is it though that the laws which convicted the rogue crypto financier are not applied to America’s central bank? When sovereigns of the past debased the money supply most acknowledged its immorality and pointed out who benefited. In this supposed enlightened age where “equal justice before the law” is supposedly a ruling mandate of the legal system, its application apparently does not apply to the monetary authorities of the world and their political front men from all political sides.
Capitalism, at its core, is a moral argument where respect for property rights, the freedom to exchange, honest money, and the liberty to become an entrepreneur are the foundations upon which the system rests. Those who legitimately satisfy consumer tastes and demand are rightly rewarded. Naturally, in doing so, entrepreneurs enrich themselves but they do so by providing for the needs of their customers and in the process create jobs and incomes for those they employ, all of which is done on a voluntary basis.
Central banking is the essential instrument of “crony capitalism” which is the antithesis of free enterprise. Crony capitalism is a new version of mercantilism which was condemned by the likes of Adam Smith and was one of the factors why the American Revolution was fought. It has since come back with a vengeance.
Besides the immorality of central banking, the Fed’s manipulation of the money supply has deleterious effects on economic life. Inflation hurts the poor and the working class disproportionately while the Fed’s control of interest rates and credit is the reason for the dreaded business cycle.
The present age has prided itself in its efforts to attain justice in regard to race relations, the environment, economic equality, and now gender recognition. Yet, the immorality of central banking remains, and while Sam Bankman-Fried may be incarcerated, social justice warriors (as well as conservatives) willfully ignore the counterfeiting elephant in the room. Until central banking is outlawed, a truly just social order is an impossibility.
James P. Philbin
Adjunct Professor of Economics and History
Northern Virginia Community College
FOOTNOTE: *https://www.zerohedge.com/political/sam-bankman-fried-found
FOOTNOTE: **https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/12/sam-bankman-fried-has-been-arrested.html
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
A Season of Hope
Front Royal’s own Reverend Dr. Mark Jordon recently delivered a sermon about how the best place to look for the birth of Christ is in the hearts and faces of those we encounter in our daily lives. That, he argued, is the right way to combat the divisiveness that threatens not only our community but the world at large. I believe we saw that dark force at play in our recent elections, where candidates launched attacks against each other because of their religion, schooling preference, and family members. I doubt I am the only one who felt that this detracted from the sanctity of civic life.
With Dr. Jordan’s encouragement in mind, I accepted my supervisor’s invitation to meet with Tom McFadden, who will join the school board soon. I will admit that I approached this meeting with a touch of apprehension, but I respected his willingness to work through whatever apprehension he may have also had.
Hearing Mr. McFadden’s questions, I believe he approached our meeting with an open mind and a willingness to listen. He asked how he could help recruit and retain teachers. He asked how he could highlight the positive activities occurring within the school system. He offered his admiration for our schools’ efforts to serve students with disabilities – at no additional cost to families. After the meeting, he thanked us for our time; he reached out to other staff members and thanked them for serving our community.
I do not believe that one conversation with a person allows you to “see their soul,” and I do not believe that Mr. McFadden and I would agree on every opinion or issue. I do believe, however, that gestures of goodwill deserve to be seen as such and that they should encourage civil discourse. We will face challenges and need to debate issues, but we must do so in a way that recognizes ourselves in each other. He is Catholic, and I am Presbyterian – but we both have faith in God. He attended public schools in Ireland, and I attended Warren County Public Schools, but we both believe in providing our community’s children with a good education. We both love our wives and families dearly.
As citizens of a democratic republic, we will likely find ourselves at odds with each other on serious issues. Mr. McFadden and I are equally capable of disappointing each other in the future. Neither he nor I nor you know what the future holds for our community.
As Dr. Jordon said on Sunday, we must wait and see because SOMETHING is happening. Is it the rot, bile, and vitriol that we saw during contentious moments during the election season, or is it the hope, goodwill, and fellowship that I believe I saw in this recent meeting? Will we attack each other from a distance based on preconceived notions that might be inaccurate, or will we meet together and listen to each other’s points of view?
Zachary D. Logan
Warren County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Front Royal Shines Bright: A Heartfelt Thanks for a Magical Christmas on Main
I’d like to extend a giant THANK YOU to everyone involved in making Christmas on Main – Christmas Parade & Merry Market such a HUGE success.
To our volunteers who helped get everything set up, assisted vendors ushered the carriage rides, made sure the parade entries were lined up, and helped to ensure a great day for everyone: you are appreciated, and these events can’t happen without you!
To our friends at the Town of Front Royal Public Works and Energy Services staff who blocked streets, cleared parking lots, picked up trash, made sure the electricity was working, and so much more: you are the best, and your efforts do not go unnoticed. To the Officers at the Front Royal Police Department who worked tirelessly to keep everyone safe during the day’s events: your vigilance and professionalism are outstanding. I’d also like to acknowledge the hard work of Lizi Lewis, Manager of Community Development & Tourism, and her team at the Visitor Center. They are always helpful, insightful, and great to work with on events and projects.
To our vendors and parade participants: You knocked it out of the park this year! I was in awe of the artistry and magic in your creations. You made us all feel like we were in a Hallmark movie.
To our merchants and residents downtown: thank you for your patience and for sharing our beautiful downtown with everyone.
Last but certainly not least, to our community: Thank you for showing up. It was truly amazing to look out and see such a remarkable crowd. I hope the event made your heart as happy as it made mine and that you created memories to enjoy for a lifetime.
There is quite a bit of time and effort that goes into planning events like these. At the Chamber, we are already looking forward to next year and thinking about how we can make this event even more enjoyable for everyone. We’re always open to hearing your thoughts and suggestions. Please reach out if you have something to share.
I wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!
All the best,
Niki Foster, President
Front Royal-Warren County Chamber of Commerce
Opinion
Leslie Mathews: Gracious in Defeat, Firm in Clarifying Misreporting
I wish to extend my Congratulations to my opponent and incumbent, Kristen Pence, on her victory in retaining her seat on our local school board!
I’d like now to address Mr. Bianchini regarding his November 8 write-up. While I guess it is likely that someone by the name of “Leslie Matthews” chairs a group called “Mothers for Liberty” and is employed at Christendom College, I believe you were reporting on me.
I must clarify — I am “Leslie Mathews” – an employee of Christendom College and Founder and Chair of the Mom’s for Liberty, Warren County, VA Chapter, a fairly new, powerful, and strong parental rights organization in America. During and after my campaign for the school board, the above-mentioned info seemed to be of huge interest to some, so I wanted to enlighten you a bit.
The online group — “Save Samuels” chose to make its opinion known regarding certain candidates, who they claim did or did not support our local library, and in my opinion, turning our latest local election into a fiasco! Other organizations, such as the Browntown Community Center, piggy-backed off the “Save Samuels” group when forwarding this group’s “online packet” out to their email recipients, and there were some campaigners who were asking voters if they would like a “sample ballot” listing the names of the candidates who supported the library (see attached).
Mr. Bianchini, although you reported that Moms for Liberty came about just before the issues surfaced in our local library, I regretfully inform you that I nor Moms for Liberty, Warren County, VA, can rightfully take credit in bringing forth the awareness of the filth that was at our children’s reach in our Samuels library! I wish to take this opportunity to thank those who brought this issue to light and for pursuing new procedures through efforts to protect our children!
We members of Moms for Liberty consist of parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles who stand for parental rights and who will fight to protect the very innocence of our children’s minds, hearts, and bodies! If that means, when choosing to be candidates in local elections, we have our names listed in opposition to others’ views and/or that our names aren’t shaded in on a sample ballot because of this — then so be it! Almighty God warns – Woe, to those who harm and disregard the protection of the children, it would be better to tie a millstone around their neck and toss them into the depths of the sea! I take His warnings seriously, and I never give a false indication of where I stand or whom I affiliate with. I thank you, Mr. Bianchini, for taking notice, but I suggest you dig deeper next time on the affiliations of others so you have a much more accurate report. (see attachment).
My run for the school board seat was very good, and I want to thank those who supported me and my endeavors. The numbers speak volumes and give hope that several South River folks still remain morally steadfast and will press forward for our children’s educational best and the future of America. For that, I am sincerely grateful!
Mrs. Leslie Mathews
Warren County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
The Loss of Innocence
There are certain days in our nation’s history that are simply more important than others. These days tend to be ones that have changed our nation for better or worse. These are turning point days and generation-defining dates.
For my generation, Gen X, that date is Sept. 11, 2001, as we were in high school or early 20s. It seems like everything in my memory is categorized as either pre or post 9/11. For my grandparents that day was Dec. 7, 1941; it was scarred into their memories and completely changed their lives forever. While my Baby Boomer parents have felt the effects of 9/11, the day from their youth that left a scar happened 60 years ago this month, for on that day the very popular President John Kennedy died, but even more importantly, so did our nation’s innocence.
On that tragic November day, Kennedy and his wife had been in Texas along with his V.P. Lyndon B. Johnson for a few days to kick off his southern campaign tour for reelection. Kennedy knew he had a fight in Texas as he had just recently proposed the Civil Rights Act. Kennedy had avoided getting too involved with Civil Rights earlier in his presidency because Southern Democrats had opposed it, and any support could break up the party. Yet after the 1963 March on Washington and the assassination of civil rights activist Medgar Evers, Kennedy knew it was time to take up the fight. His goal on this southern tour was to try to hold the party together while trying to get support for his bill. Yet while in Texas he spent most of his time talking about the economy and military preparedness, topics much more comfortable for his southern audience.
After speaking in Fort Worth, the presidential party flew to Dallas and rode in multiple convertibles on their way to The Trade Mart. As they drove through Dealey Plaza around 12:30 p.m., shots rang out as they passed the Texas School Book Depository. President Kennedy was hit.
Before Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1 p.m. at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas police arrested Book Depository employee Lee Harvey Oswald. Our nation came to a halt as word spread over the airwaves.
After his death his wife would refer to Kennedy’s presidency as Camelot, capturing the feeling of most of the nation. His good looks and charisma added to his leadership and strength had captivated America. Even today he is still considered one of the most popular presidents ever. In fact, when I poll students, he usually makes the top ten. While the loss of such a popular president was tragic, what was even more tragic was America’s loss of innocence which opened the door to civic mistrust and a lack of faith in our country.
President Johnson, who was sworn in aboard Air Force One just two hours after Kennedy was killed, ordered an investigation into the assassinations of both Kennedy and Oswald. Oswald was shot and killed by Dallas night club owner Jack Ruby a week after being charged for the Kennedy assassination. The Warren Commission, headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, included two senators, two representatives, a former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the former U.S. High Commissioner for Germany. During the investigation the American public believed the government’s story of the lone shooter, but after the commission released its findings, that all changed. While the more than 800-page report initially calmed most people’s fears, it did not completely remove them. While most Americans believed Oswald was the shooter, it was becoming a common perception that he had not acted alone.
The big change began in 1966 with the release of three separate independent investigations. First was Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment that questioned the accuracy of the Warren Commission. Next was an investigation by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison who saw a conspiracy and coverup in the shooting (the Bases for Oliver Stone’s JFK). Finally, Life Magazine released the Zapruder film which was an amateur video which called into question if Oswald acted alone. Americans became so consumed with the new reports that 20 years later when Newsweek took a poll, 74% of Americans did not trust the Warren Commission.
Kennedy’s assassination was a game-changer in our nation’s history. For the first time the majority of our nation did not believe the government. Before this, for the most part, Americans believed the government was telling them the truth, or if not, it was for a good reason. Now America had lost its innocence. If the government had lied about this, what else were they lying about? Our nation entered one of its darkest hours as our own government became the bad guy. The assassination was just the beginning of a long dark road.
Shortly after, came Vietnam War protest in the streets and antigovernment sentiments. The Watergate scandal and the presidential resignation of Richard Nixon made Americans more suspicious and less confident of their government. Events like the Iran hostages made it seem like maybe we were losing the Cold War if we could not even get our hostages out of a far less powerful country like Iran.
Fortunately, the 1980s did relieve some of the stress and brought back some faith in America once more. The problem is we did not come all the way back. Since the 1960s and ‘70s patriotism and American faith have fluctuated. Personally, I do not believe we will ever be as confident in our government as we were pre-1963. That door is closed. As a historian, I wonder if maybe we should have never completely trusted the government; they have never been completely truthful. But as an American, I am disheartened, for I long for the days when we felt our government was always on our side and looking out for our best interests.
James Finck, Ph.D. is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma. He may be reached at HistoricallySpeaking1776@gmail.com.
Opinion
Boondoggled or Railroaded?
As the beginning phase of the grade separation project of the Rockland Road overpass begins with the relocation of utilities, neighbors in the area are beginning to see just how much of an inconvenience this project is going to be, and some wonder what is the true value.
Yes, there were a number of hearings prior to reaching the current stage of progress, but when dealing with entities such as Norfolk Southern, Vdot, the Port of Virginia, and the Warren County BOS, looking at a gift horse in the mouth. I, like others, have never heard reasonable answers to often-asked questions, just how badly this improvement is needed to improve our quality of life in the Rockland area.
Some of those include.
- Emergency access during construction- With the fire and rescue station located less than a mile from the railroad crossing, will there be some sort of provision to allow access during construction, or will they have to make the 6-mile detour around Fairground Road to respond?
Keep in mind, there are probably less than 200 residences from the railroad tracks to the intersection with Bennys Beach Road including the residences of Bennys Beach and Windy Hill. From Bennys Beach to Fairground Road only has maybe 4 property owners.
- Rockland Road from Bennys Beach to Fairground Road- This rural road is far from Vdot standards, with narrow widths, blind hills, sharp turns, no shoulders, and rock outcroppings that challenge normal traffic volume. Now, all 200 residences are forced to use a road that is dangerous as is, with more opportunity for something bad to happen, especially with about 8,000 dump trucks importing fill material to build the ramps to the bridge. It would be a shame, although a real possibility, that this railroad crossing claims serious injury or, worse, a life due to the detour.
- Rocklands Rural Character slowly diminishes- The railroad tracks have always separated the industrial portion of Warren County to the rural portion. This project, with its 40-foot-wide roadway and bridge, will still get you to the rural part of the county, just quicker and without delay due to a train blocking the tracks. It still ends in a 20’ wide rural unimproved roadway, but at least the major expense of further development is out of the way and opens the door for more development.
So with that, what are the benefits?
Norfolk Southern will no longer hear complaints about blocking the crossing to change out crews or to let other trains pass. My experience is when the port or other businesses with sidings along that section of track block the crossing it is only for short intervals while building the train. Norfolk Southern also benefits so that if and when they do install a third rail, there will be fewer obstructions in their way.
The Port of Virginia comes out with less complaints from the community, more flexibility in using the mainline tracks in building their trains, and kudos for providing the grant that allows for such a project to be done. There are other communities in the county that don’t have a choice of another route out if the train blocks their crossing (Shenandoah Shores) and probably won’t until some entity grants funding for such.
Warren County and the BOS no longer have to field complaints about blockages and will now have an important and expensive piece of the puzzle needed to increase the development of this area of the county. All that will be left to do is install a bridge over the river to make a loop to Shenandoah Shores (giving them another way out), and the entire area becomes a target for development.
We, as residents, once we tolerate the 18-24 months of construction inconvenience and the project is completed, get the benefits of no-hassle egress to and from 522, a utilitarian highway overpass leading to our rural country setting, and most likely even more through traffic.
A boondoggle is defined as ‘work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.’ Not really having comments, suggestions, or opinions addressed or otherwise coerced is a form of being railroaded.
Have we been railroaded or boondoggled with this project?
17 Year Rockland Resident
David Anderson
Warren County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
