Public Comment Regarding Items Not On The Agenda (Up To One Hour: Fill & Download for Free

I listen a lot to Danish radio. Apart from some Swedish commercial stations that I quickly get tired of, I listen to Danish Public Radio almost every week.First of all, a bit of background to what creates the differences between the countries.Here is a map I found and enhanced to include the city I currently live in: Malmo (blue dot). As you see, Denmark is quite a small country compared to Sweden. I’d estimate you can take a train from one end of Denmark to the other in 3 hours. If I want to visit my sister who lives in the middle of Sweden, it takes me 8 hours with train, if I’m lucky (our train system is getting pretty bad, trains are often several hours late).One difference this has resulted in is that Danes feel more closely together. They have their “hygge” which means to have a nice time together. We don’t have that in Sweden in the same way.Instead we have a pretty strong political correctness. We see ourselves as morally responsible for the world. That’s also why Swedish discussions tend to have a moralizing tone, such as “Immigration has had many good effects on Sweden, and will continue to have so in the long term, but we need to discuss some of challenges our society will face in the next few years”. In Sweden we don’t talk about immigration-problems — we call them “challenges” (utmaning).Migration Office:Fewer people are seeking asylum in Sweden but the challenges remain great.https://www.migrationsverket.se/English/About-the-Migration-Agency/News-archive/News-archive-2017/2017-02-15-Forecast-Major-challenges-coming-for-the-Swedish-Migration-Agency-in-2017.htmlEu seminar:The recent refugee immigration – challenge and asset for the economies: sharing experiences and comparing prospects between Sweden and GermanyIntegration av nyanlända genom utbildning och arbetsmarknad - OBS! NY STARTTID - Sweden - European CommissionSweden is very focused on words and which words to use. When Lund University announced a debate about the “mass immigration” in 2015, they were criticized for using a phrase common among racism, haters and xenophobes, and then changed the debate to be about the refugee crisis. [1]Sweden is also eager to replace terms with the word “man” in them (such as “fireman”) to something gender neutral. The people who don’t want to use the new word are treated as regressive haters, because Swedes are eager to talk about the “we”, such as “we in Sweden are open towards strangers”, “we in Sweden believe in equality”, etc.To contrast with Denmark. Danes love to joke about things and don’t talk themselves too seriously. I asked a friend of mine about that. He had lived and worked in Denmark for two years, but he told me that he got tired of the constant need Danes have to say everything with a joke.One of the radio shows I listen to during the day is run by two ethnic Danish male hosts. Already there is something that wouldn’t be allowed on Swedish radio because it would be seen as excluding women. The Danish radio show then often has people calling in. The last few days they’ve had people call in to tell jokes.On Swedish radio, they hardly have any programs were listeners can call in. The reason is obvious. The only open air program on Swedish public radio is on the talk-radio P1 on weekdays at 10 AM. I don’t listen to Swedish radio, but I asked my grandmother what people called in about and she said “well you know, it’s the immigration politics they are complain about”.All Swedish newspapers have had to close their comment sections because of the “haters” — people who are very angry about the Swedish immigration politics and are feeling silenced and left out.Denmark doesn’t seem to have that hater-problem, from my brief experience with their radio. They can have open radio shows where people can call in without every other person screaming about how immigrants are ruining the country, the media is covering up, and the politicians are applauding the ordeal.One incident that shaped the Swedish view of Denmark was when the respected journalist Lena Sundström in 2011 moved from Stockholm to Denmark to find material that eventually resulted in the book The World’s Happiest People where she criticized Denmark for their immigration politics. It created a view of Denmark being a racist country.Here is an article from 2011 from Swedish Public Radio:The neighbouring country of Denmark may have a lot in common with Sweden, but developments over there are causing some dismay here in Sweden.Last week the immigration minister, Erik Ullenhag, said that, as regards racism "Sweden must not become like Denmark."Following the entry of the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrat party into the Swedish parliament in 2010 the 'Danish way' is more and more being held up by some politicians as an image of what they do not want to see happen here in Sweden.In January Maria Wetterstrand of the Greens also chose Denmark as her cautionary example, of a country that had, according to her, become closed and intolerant because of political changes.Danish writer Mikael Jalving, who has written a critical book on Sweden - Absolut Sverige - says that over here a culture of silence and self-censorship prevails, whereas in Denmark debate is more open and robust.Author Lena Sundström wrote a Swedish book critical of Denmark ('The happiest people in the world'), looking at the growth of xenophobia there. She says that Danes, when talking about Sweden, often have a bit of animosity, that there is a big/little brother complex at work.Danish writer Mikael Jalving works at the Jyllands Posten, the Danish paper that was the target of protests and attacks after it featured a series of cartoons on the theme of 'Muhammad', some showing the muslim prophet as a terrorist.Mikael Jalving says that this really caused a 'revolution' in the debate on free speech - that it made many realise that some rights had to be vigorously defended."If we start to listen to mobs in Cairo, in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia, this is when our country is no longer free."As regards the right-wing extremism, Mikael Jalving says this has to be met with dialogue and open debate. "The Sweden democrats are growing every day. And why? Because they are demonised."But for Swedish author Lena Sundström, the difference between Sweden and denmark are not in their cultures, but more about specific political events.The widening gap between Sweden and Denmark - Radio SwedenThat was six years ago, and now the Danes are gloating about their “humanitarian” big brother having to admit that our immigration politics has been a failure.Swedish public TV had a co-debate with Danish TV in 2015. It ended with our side embarrassing ourself, I’d say, but feel free to make up your own mind about it.Maybe this is a good indicator of how Danes and Swedes debate. Swedes make childish arguments about Nazi Germany whenever they can.We also had a debate about feminism with Denmark. I couldn’t find any shortened video, but here is the whole clip.Already looking at the image at 1:26, they were asking “do you consider yourself a feminist”, where 52% of Swedes said yes but only 27% of Danes.By the way, the reason I don’t listen to public Swedish radio is because they have a clear agenda of promoting feminism and the gay-movement. They don’t have that in Denmark.In Denmark, a radio show about football will discuss football, not if it is fair that women make less money than men, how female football players are treated, why most sports hosts are men, how to combat sexism and homophobia in the sport, etc.The news on Danish radio don’t contain a mandatory news item about a gay person and about women’s issues. A show about sex in Denmark doesn’t need to include a gay couple. On a show about construction workers, they don’t feel compelled to ask how many women that are working there, why there aren’t more women (sexism perhaps?), and how to fix the gender issue.Danish people simply talk about what they feel like talking about, while Swedish people are more anxious and feel they have to say the most appropriate things in a higher social context. A Swedish conversation can include 10 grown ups all saying things they don’t actually believe in — you won’t find that in Denmark.Danes want to enjoy life. They smoke more, drink more and as a consequence live shorter.Footnotes[1] Universitetet backar efter kritik från Expo

In the present context, every Nepalese is angry with Indian Government- Modi. Please note that being angry with Indian Government and hating Indians should not be used interchangeably. And we don’t hate Indians. We hate Indian government and their policy. Of course, we don’t appreciate when people make ignorant comments.Balaji Viswanathan (பாலாஜி விஸ்வநாதன்) has given a good back ground and @Balaji Viswanathan (பாலாஜி விஸ்வநாதன்)'s answer to Why is India so concerned about Nepal adopting its new constitution in 2015? is good reference.Indian Government has a long history of being a bully and interfering in all trivial matters, as India considers themselves as the big brother. ( of course Nepalese politicians also get the credit) who speaks “my way or the highway”. @Why did India impose economic sanctions over Nepal in 1989?Nepal is a poor landlocked country (with corrupt politicians) heavily dependent on Indian ports for all its imports. And India always used this dependency for its political advantage with fuel as the primary political commodity. And it's also noteworthy that Nepal has 6-8 hours of electricity load shedding. So factories, hospitals, office are largely dependent on diesel to run their operations.The new constitution was drafted with overwhelming 90% approval. [ 90% includes CA members from Madhes as well, and remaining 10% is not all Madhes CA members who did not sign the constitution . ] This was a historic event. After 13 years of insurgency, dethroning of Monarchy, and 7 years in the making, it was the biggest milestone for the future of Nepal. Naturally it could not address everyone’s concern. India wanted this new constitution to be drafted with "Widest possible consensus" and hence delayed until all the issues of the agitated Madhesh leaders' demands were addressed. It it worthwhile to be noted that The Madhesh unrest headed by leaders of Madesh party, all of them lost their election from their respective region. ( That could possibly mean their agenda was not supported by common Madhesh people? ) Since so called Pahadhi Leaders didn’t agree to it, Modi sent a special envoy - Foreign Secretary Jaishankar to pressurize the leaders to delay the constitution. Nepal still went ahead and promulgated the new constitution as promised to the citizens after 7 years of delay !This irked India and decided to opt for "my way or the highway" policy and started the undeclared blockade.While the other countries congratulated and welcomed the the new constitution, India refused to welcome and issued a statement stating “ We note the promulgation in Nepal today of a Constitution.” In next few days India issued stern statement stating “repeatedly cautioned the political leadership of Nepal to take urgent steps to defuse the tension in [the Terai] region. " "This, if done in a timely manner, could have avoided these serious developments”[ Even if we are to ignore the fact that Madhesh is strategically very critical for India , the incumbent BJP government in the Centre has a lot at stake and relaxing its position could mean negative votes in Bihar constituencies bordering Nepal. After the 2006 , millions of Indians obtained Nepali citizenship certificates. Out of them, there are two million voters in Bihar who are holding Nepali citizenship certificates. The two million voters can influence half of the electoral constituencies in Bihar. ]India wants amendments in the new constitution and is trying age old tactics to twist the arm by cutting fuel supplies and obstructing the food and essential supplies. ( Point to be noted - This is undeclared blockade, unlike the sanction in 1989. So obviously, India will forefront security and border unrest concerns. India delayed the custom clearance citing different reasons for petroleum products , however India did manage to release few containers with perishable items exported from India so that the it cannot be called complete blockade. Declared blockade would be complete disaster while Modi is attending UN summit and when India is trying hard to get UN Security Council membership )Due the current undeclared blockade the entire economy is coming to a halt. Due to the shortage of fuel, the government has set a fuel quota. (Private cars get 10 liters per week, motorcycles get 3 liters per week etc . From tomorrow, fuel will be provided to public vehicles only. )Not to mention, people have to stay in queue for about 12-18 hours to fill up fuel! The queue runs upto 2-3 km!There is literally no public transportation for people to commute to work, school, hospitals. Schools are not able to pick up and drop off children. Banks are shutting down since they cannot operate without power. Hospitals have started to operate in limited capacities. Factories have shut down due to lack of power and lack of supplies. Ambulances have run out of fuel.No economy can run without fuel. And India has the monopoly of fuel supply to Nepal. Due to the recent earthquake the only trade route between Nepal and China is closed. So India is the single source of supply of food and supplies at the moment, and India is exploiting this at its best.Does the new constitution addresses all the concerns? and make everyone happy? Of course not. It has flaws and it will be amended in coming days. But amendment should happen in the national interest, rather than under the political influence of Indian government. Nepal’s constitution is Nepal’s internal matter and India should honor that.The dispute between Madhesis and Pahadi people is nothing but India’s divide and rule strategy working at this best. The current situation will fuel animosity between Madhesis and Pahadi people. And unfortunately, we Nepalese have forgotten that we are first Nepalese before we are Madhesis or Pahadis.If India wanted to intervene, India could have played a positive role to resolve this matter and could have in fact act like a big brother to bring all the dissatisfied political parties to the table. Instead, India chose a different route to fuel the tension and animosity between the Nepalese and twist the arm by cutting the fuel supplies.This morning I saw a pregnant woman, most probably 7-9 months pregnant, struggling to walk to the hospital in sweltering heat after failed attempt to get any transportation. I couldn't help thinking when Modi cried remembering his mother in his trip to Silicon Valley. I wonder what does he think about the to be mother who has to walk miles to get to a hospital, just because he wants to dictate his terms at any cost and has the monopoly to punish if it's not his way.When Modi visited Nepal in 2014, he gave a beautiful speech and he won many Nepalese hearts. People went gaga over him.In his speech in said -"We have always believed that it is not our work to interfere in what you do but to support you in the path you decide to take. Our only wish is that Nepal's progress reaches as high as the Himalayas. Being your neighbour and seeing our experience as a democracy, we feel happy at the direction in which you are going.”He went on to say," if there is a hungry Nepalese, how can Indians be happy”Today, there is a scarcity of food, and essential supplies. Many daily wage workers are jobless and bound to sleep empty stomach in Madhesh and Pahad.When Nepal was hit by an earthquake, India ran the biggest rescue operation. Nepalese were overwhelmed by the leadership, initiation and kind gesture demonstrated by Modi. However, unfortunately, we didn’t know the help provided had many strings attached and we would have to pay a heavy price for it. When the Indian ambassador reminded about the help provided during the earthquake, the expectations in return of the help became very apparent.While Nepal is still struggling to overcome the devastation caused by the earthquake and is still experiencing aftershocks, the Indian Government tries to twist the arm and shakes the economy by cutting food and fuel supplies.This is why Nepalese are angry with the Indian Government.People are extremely unhappy with the interference, badly suffering from the blockade and horribly disappointed with Modi. People had high hopes from him for the new era of India - Nepal relationship. Unfortunately, he didn't leave up to to his words.I personally don't endorse profanity, burning effigies etc, but those are just act of despair i suppose.UPDATE - 15 Oct 2015Since 12th October, all the check points, except one ( Raxual ) have resumed normal operation and all the stranded cargo trucks have started to enter Nepal. (Madhesh agitation still on going ) However IOC has not yet restored fuel supplies completely.IOC reduces fuel supply to Nepal againIndian Oil slashes petroleum supply to Nepal, againDPM Thapa to visit Delhi in bid to lift border obstructions - The Himalayan TimesDPM and Foreign Minister Thapa to leave for Delhi on Saturday--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yajurendra Shrestha's answer to Nepalese people are directly blaming the Government of India for the ongoing turmoil and instability in their country? Why?Yajurendra Shrestha's answer to Why did the Indian embassy in Nepal not even issue a statement of congratulation in regards to the promulgation of new constitution in Nepal?Yajurendra Shrestha's answer to Is Narendra Modi responsible for the blockade of supplies to Nepal after Nepal denied India's request for considering amendments in their newly formed constitution?Yajurendra Shrestha's answer to Is Narendra Modi responsible for the blockade of supplies to Nepal after Nepal denied India's request for considering amendments in their newly formed constitution?PS: Pictures are not owned by me.

I have answered several questions of this ilk. I shall provide two of those questions and my responses to them below.A) Who assassinated President Kennedy and why?Answer: Ignore the dogma presented here on Quora. Anytime anyone tells you they have the definitive answer on a subject that has engendered controversy for over half a century, a red flag should go up in your mind.I answered a similar question, Was the Kennedy assassination a conspiracy? I shall post that answer here and hope it suffices.“There are many books that have been written on the subject, both pro and con regarding the single assassin theory. Review the findings of the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations; search through scholarly websites, such as the Mary Ferrell Foundation; and especially, search for the earliest works on the assassination—those written from 1965 to 1968—and decide for yourself.”B) Who were the three tramps that were arrested right after JFK's assassination?Answer: As an answer to your question, what follows, in part, is the story of Roderick A. MacKenzie. I ask that you tread very carefully here. Read it with a healthy dose of skepticism but also with a mind cognizant of the literature published on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Then decide for yourself.Roderick A. MacKenzie III, 77, is a former mobster and forger of police and government identification cards; he is also the author of a self-published book, The Men That Don’t Fit In: The Factual History of a Rogues Life from 1934 to 1967 (2010, Now Available - The Men That Don't Fit In (PDF) - Paranoia Magazine), in which he claims he was employed by Chicago Mafia chieftain Sam Giancana to run a Dallas, Texas safehouse on Holland Avenue when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.MacKenzie claims he didn’t know The Big Event was going to happen [my words, as the JFK assassination was referred to by CIA contract agent and mercenary Gerry Patrick Hemming] ; yet soon after it did, he realized the “precarious position” he was in. So he disappeared.MacKenzie also claims that his “handler” was a member of the Defense Intelligence Security Command (DISC), Jake Miranda, who sent him to CIA’s “Flaps and Seals” school at Fort Detrick, Maryland. (The Secrets Inside the CIA's Off-Limits Spy Museum) The school specialized in making phony documents—a skill MacKenzie was already well acquainted.MacKenzie’s criminal past and connections to organized crime are well documented. He claims to have been employed by Permindex, a Swiss-based company about which the Italian newspaper Paese Sera wrote a story alleging that individuals connected to the company worked for CIA and had been involved with the OAS (Secret Army Organisation) in plots to assassinate French President Charles DeGaulle. [CIA’s only comment on this was to verify that Clay Shaw had volunteered information to the Agency’s Domestic Contacts Division. In the late 1960’s, Shaw had been accused by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison of having been involved in the assassination of JFK.] (The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination and Clay Shaw, Perjurer)MacKenzie claims to have been in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie, whom he describes as “queers,” and Jack Ruby, whom he was told by Chicago Mobster Johnny Roselli and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit, was a “switch hitter,” i.e., bisexual.According to MacKenzie, his role at the safehouse was essentially that of a janitor; he cleaned up the place. By mid-November MacKenzie claims he was told by Roselli to move out of the safehouse to the Cabana Motel for a few weeks, though to come by the safehouse daily to keep it clean.What MacKenzie claims he later saw at the safehouse was “a war room for an Army.” The place was littered with maps of Cuba, Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, the southwestern United States and Gulf of Mexico area. He assumed a hit on Fidel Castro was forthcoming. He says he never gave a thought to it being a hit on the President, and, in fact, he claims that no one at that time and on his level even knew Kennedy was coming to Dallas. [Odd, since news of President Kennedy’s trip to Dallas had already been widely publicized in the newspapers and on radio and telelvision.]Around the time of the Pepsi Convention in Dallas on November 21, MacKenzie says he was informed by Roselli that “cleaners” would hit the safe house on the 22nd, and he was told to stay away. The cleaners, MacKenzie explains, “are sent into a situation when it has to be wiped clean of any past, and as often as not those involved in the past of the operation are terminated as well.” After the cleaners accomplished their task at the safehouse, MacKenzie was told by Roselli that he could move back in on November 25th.“The night of November 21st was a very busy night at the Cabana Motel,” according to MacKenzie.” It was noisy, with many Spanish-speaking people hanging around in the parking lot.” MacKenzie claims he saw Frank Sturgis, aka Frank Fiorini, hitman and future Watergate burglar; Richard Nixon; Sam Giancana; and hitwoman Ruth Ann Martinez emerge from vehicles in parking lot.MacKenzie describes the JFK hit as “a classic, well thought-out hit by a very large cast of characters.” He explains, “They brought just about everyone who was anyone in the business of nastiness and criminality together to witness or unwittingly be part of it. I was one such person. We were all disposable, as well, and did not know that either.” Following the assassination, MacKenzie spent a day drinking with Malcolm “Mac” Wallace, the man whom he claims “had directed the killing teams for Lyndon B. Johnson and his Texas Mafia with the help of the other Mafia.” MacKenzie describes Wallace as “quite talkative, in a conspirator way.”MacKenzie went on to identify several individuals purportedly associated with President Kennedy’s assassination as having visited or stayed at the safehoues: Jack Rubenstein (Ruby); Mac Wallace; Corsican assassin Jean Souetre, aka Michel Roux, aka Michel Mertz; Jake Miranda; J.D. Tippit; Percy Chauncey Holt; Charles Harrelson, Charles Rogers and several other French or Corsican hitmen.MacKenzie claims that the three so-called tramps were Charles Harrelson, Percy Chauncy Holt and Mafia hitman Charles Frederick Rogers. They were an additional hit team positioned under the bridge and above the railroad area in case the president was not shot. He also details the entire command structure and layout of the hit team in Dealy Plaza. This can be found in his book and from a search online.2) You may get dogmatic responses with the latest simulcra attesting to the single assassin theory, despite the fact that you posited a subjunctive situtation. I hope you will go to the answers that befit your question and do as you like with the others.Beyond the narrowcasting of those with an agenda, I ask that you look at the findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the second major government investigation of the JFK assassination, after the Warren Commission. Its second Chief Counsel, G. Robert Blakey, and its lead investigator, Gaeton Fonzi, have both reasserted the Committee’s conclusion that “President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy.” (Table of Contents (HSCA, JFK Assassination)A confluence of organized crime, anti-Castro Cuban exiles and rogue elements of the intelligence community were, according to the HSCA, involved in the plotting, execution and cover-up of President John F. Kennedy’s murder. The release of formerly classified documents by the Assassination Records Review Board reveals that CIA withheld key evidence sought by the Committee (The Assassination Records Review Board Report).Blakey asserts that CIA obstructed their investigation and withheld crucial information on Lee Harvey Oswald, his activities in New Orleans and in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, Oswald’s attempts to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.Blakey believes a CIA-Mafia plot to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro was then turned on President Kennedy. The anti-Castroites held tremendous antipathy toward President Kennedy for failing to provide air cover during the failed Bay of Pigs affair (despite warnings from several CIA analysts that the operation was doomed from the start and that there would be no uprising by the Cuban people against Castro).The Mafia thought they had a deal: their help to get Kennedy elected in exchange for a complaisant Justice Department. The month after the election, though, John Kennedy announced that he was making his brother Robert Attorney General. Speaking from the steps of the Department of Justice, Robert made it clear that he intended to use the office to wage war on organized crime.By early 1962, using new laws and specialized intelligence, the Attorney General had top gangsters on the run. Three hundred and fifty mobsters were indicted in that year alone, topping the total number from the Appalachia meeting in 1957 through 1961. The Attorney General pressed for the deportation of any mafiosi who could be shown to be illegal aliens; New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello had been flown out of the country to Guatemala—though he subsequently returned. There were new efforts to expel Mafia underbosses Frank Costello and Johnny Rosselli (THE CLAIMS THAT MAFIA BOSSES TRAFFICANTE AND MARCELLO ADMITTED INVOLVEMENT IN ASSASSINATING PRESIDENT KENNEDY).Rosselli and Chicago Mafia don Sam Giancana had hoped for special treatment because both had been involved in CIA plots to assassinate Fidel Castro and—as Giancana put it—considered they had been “working for the government.” FBI wiretaps make clear Giancana simmered with rage. After the deal-making of the election—when his efforts had helped deliver Illinois for Kennedy—he felt he had been double crossed.“The Mob typically doesn’t hit prosecutors or politicians,” said Robert Blakey. “You are all right…just as long as you do not `sleep with them’; that is, you do not take favors, either money or sex. Once the public official crosses the line, he invites violent retribution.” (see: FBI WATCH Making Cruelty visible)There was a comment Trafficante had made in 1975, while being taped during an FBI surveillance operation. “Now only two people are alive,” the FBI microphone had picked up Trafficante saying—in conversation with Marcello—“who know who killed Kennedy.”In 1994, Frank Ragano, an attorney who long represented Trafficante, Marcello, and Teamsters union leader Jimmy Hoffa made remarkable claims in a new memoir, “Santo, Carlos, and Jimmy.” He wrote that the three had often spoken of their wish to see both Kennedy brothers dead. In July 1963, Ragano claimed, Hoffa had sent him to New Orleans to ask Trafficante and Marcello to kill the President. When he passed on this message, Ragano wrote, the mobsters’ response led him to think the idea “had already seriously crossed their minds.” (THE CLAIMS THAT MAFIA BOSSES TRAFFICANTE AND MARCELLO ADMITTED INVOLVEMENT IN ASSASSINATING PRESIDENT KENNEDY).After the assassination, a gleeful Hoffa had supposedly exclaimed, “I told you they could do it. I’ll never forget what Carlos and Santo did for me.” Marcello supposedly said, “When you see Jimmy, you tell him he owes me and he owes me big.”There is a theory extant that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was involved, particularly with regard to the cover-up. I dismiss this theory as I feel the FBI’s unwillingness to investigate the crime is due more to bureaucratic ennui and an effort to conceal former FBI agent Guy Bannister’s involvement—though Hoover’s close associations with known mobsters and right-wing extremists H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison bear more than passing scrutiny.The notion of the far right-wing’s imvolvement has been considered. Racists with ties to the militant right-wing groups the Minutemen and the John Birch Society, like Joseph Milteer, whose prediction of the precise scenario in which President Kennedy would be murdered was captured on a police intelligence surveillance tape (Joseph Milteer -- Foreknowledge of the JFK Assassination?); General Edwin Walker, whom Robert Kennedy forced to resign from the Army (Did Lee Harvey Oswald Shoot at General Edwin Walker?); and oil barons like H. L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, who stood to lose millions of dollars with Kennedy’s proposed removal of the oil depletion allowance, have also been implicated. (see: Oil Depletion Allowance)It is plausible that fascist individuals or groups may have had advance knowledge of the assassination, but there is no evidence directly linking them to the shooting.As for whether Oswald was in that sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository, I will offer just these five items from both the Warren Commission’s report or hearings, and that of the HSCA:The rifle contained no identifiable fingerprints, WCH, vol.4, p.258.Of the 19 book cartons by the window in the south–east corner of the sixth floor, only two contained Oswald’s fingerprints or palmprints, and only one of those prints had been deposited within three days of the assassination, WCR, pp.138–144 [emphasis mine].One palmprint remained unidentified, and presumably belonged to an employee or assassin who was not Oswald, WCH, vol.26, p.799. Note: This print was later compared to a 1951 print of Malcolm Wallace, a Lyndon Johnson associate. A 14-point match by latent print examiner Nathan Darby confirmed the print belonged to Wallace.Arnold Rowland saw two men on the sixth floor of the TSBD at about the same time as Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald elsewhere in the building, WCH, vol.2. p.171.And finally, Joseph Milteer’s prediction that Kennedy would be shot “from an office building with a high–powered rifle … they will pick up somebody within hours afterwards … just to throw the public off,” HSCA, appendix vol.3, p447.