Lee Harvey Oswald Was Innocent. And Here's Why

This is pretty easy to figure out.

It cannot be argued that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of assassinating President John F. Kennedy. Why? Because he's not alive to defend himself and under the Constitution private citizens are considered innocent until they have been proven guilty. You have a right to a fair and speedy trial, you have a right to an attorney if you cannot afford one, you have a right to have your case heard before a jury of your peers, and you have a right to know what the charges are that have been brought against you.

Even if someone were to make the convincing argument that Lee Harvey Oswald did indeed murder Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit, that in no way establishes his guilt in the crime of assassinating Kennedy. Jack Ruby ended Oswald's life before he ever went to trial. There's something wrong about convicting a dead, and therefore defenseless, man.

While being interviewed by the press, Oswald said that he hadn't been charged with the murder of President Kennedy. Oswald mentions that all he knew was the charges of murdering a policeman (Tippit), but his statement is somewhat drowned out by background noise.

How government is regarded by the public has changed in this country. During the time of its founding, our founders believed that government was a wild untameable beast that had to be held down by the "chains of the constitution" because it wasn't something to be trusted. It wasn't as if they believed government was ineffective because it was comprised of bumbling idiots. They believed that government was corrupt because so many of its employees fell prey to the temptation of intoxifying power.

Government is the aphrodisiac of the mind that provides the ego its mojo and enables the power mad megalomaniac the title of tyrant. But because the American people have forgotten this precious lesson by state-engineered apathy, a culture of dependency has been borne out by the welfare/warfare state that the politicians in Washington promise to the ignorant massess will provide them with shelter, sustenance, and protection.

It is because of this our culture has produced people like Nancy Grace of CNN who believe instead that it is the private citizen who is guilty until proven innocent. This is a prejudice that better serves the public by reallocating it to government.

Conspiracy debunkers always like to argue that the burden of proof rests upon those who bring allegations of crime and conspiracy against government. But they forget to tell us, perhaps for purposes of gain, that the same critical thinking methods we use to conclude that JFK's death was the result of conspiracy are the same ones used to conclude that the Nazis exterminated the Jews.

For an example of their faulty logic in practice: the burden of proof of a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews rests on the Jews themselves.

This is a classic example of tyranny in practice. One doesn't need to prove that the interests of the fox are nowhere to be found in protecting the henhouse. And like that policemen's line of old: you have nothing to fear from an investigation if you are innocent.

So it comes as no surprise and shouldn't be that much a stretch of the imagination to see the conspiracy debunker as a cheerleader for the authoritarian state -- a cheerleader for slavery.