I did not like JFK overall but always found this interesting

[puppetmaster]

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system that has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, and no secret is revealed."

YouTube - President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech version 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces&feature=related)


from: http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/1961-speech-that-got-jfk-killed.html

[johngr]

He painted a target on his forehead with that speech.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

that speech was about communism. It was given to a crowd of reporters. In that speech he was asking those reporters to help the US against communism by not asking questions. Google and read the whole thing.

[puppetmaster]

that speech was about communism. It was given to a crowd of reporters. In that speech he was asking those reporters to help the US against communism by not asking questions. Google and read the whole thing.

Why did the USSR and communism not get mentioned, seems like he was taking great strides not to say USSR.... ...and communism is not a bad thing to the CFR or what ever they call themselves....

[FrankRep]

that speech was about communism. It was given to a crowd of reporters. In that speech he was asking those reporters to help the US against communism by not asking questions. Google and read the whole thing.

This is true.

[silus]

that speech was about communism. It was given to a crowd of reporters. In that speech he was asking those reporters to help the US against communism by not asking questions. Google and read the whole thing.
I don't see how you can read the entire speech and say it was just about communism.

[johngr]

Oh, it was about Communism, all right, in a broad sense, anyway, particularly the bits about secret societies and government secrecy. This interview with Larry MacDonald should throw some light on the connexion.

YouTube - Larry McDonald on the New World Order. Pt 1/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlkD5z740w0)

Note that Congressman MacDonald was killed shortly after this interview, just as Kennedy was shortly after his speech.

[Andrew Ryan]

I like this one:


YouTube - JFK on Imposing our Will on the World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fD8PXIiD1A)

[therepublic]

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

[buffalokid777]

I think JFK was actually a good guy trying to do good,

The worst and most misguided thing he did, was to allow public servants to form unions via executive order, which led to a rape of taxpayers that exists to this day, even liberal hero FDR thought unions in the public sector were a bad idea.



"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government." - FDR

[rich34]

I think JFK was actually a good guy trying to do good,

The worst and most misguided thing he did, was to allow public servants to form unions via executive order, which led to a rape of taxpayers that exists to this day, even liberal hero FDR thought unions in the public sector were a bad idea.



It's obvious Kennedy had his faults as mentioned above, but his assault on the Federal Reserve was probably the single most powerful attack on the private bank ever. As a result for doing such a thing by sticking his head out (literally) for the American people he paid very dearly by losing his life for it. For this alone I respect the man. I agree not all his policies were the best, but imo this issue is the single most important issue facing our country. Then his brother Bobby paid the price as well because I believe the bastards that did this believed that if he got the presidency he would have the power and the backing of the American people to go after their asses. Sadly he was taken out as well ensuring that the power Fed remained in existence and therefore essentially running the country. What makes more respect those two guys a little more is the fact that they didn't even have to do that because they were of the elite. They had nothing to gain by doing this from the elitist that their family was part of. I also believe that they killed JFK Jr. Plenty of evidence out there that says there was foul play involved with his plane crash. Especially the media reporting that JFK Jr. was an inexperienced pilot yet when speaking to people that knew him and flight instructors they all agreed that the guy was a methodical pilot who always did things by the book. Teddy Kennedy on the other hand was a ...

[buffalokid777]

It's obvious Kennedy had his faults as mentioned above, but his assault on the Federal Reserve was probably the single most powerful attack on the private bank ever. As a result for doing such a thing by sticking his head out (literally) for the American people he paid very dearly by losing his life for it. For this alone I respect the man. I agree not all his policies were the best, but imo this issue is the single most important issue facing our country. Then his brother Bobby paid the price as well because I believe the bastards that did this believed that if he got the presidency he would have the power and the backing of the American people to go after their asses. Sadly he was taken out as well ensuring that the power Fed remained in existence and therefore essentially running the country. What makes more respect those two guys a little more is the fact that they didn't even have to do that because they were of the elite. They had nothing to gain by doing this from the elitist that their family was part of. I also believe that they killed JFK Jr. Plenty of evidence out there that says there was foul play involved with his plane crash. Especially the media reporting that JFK Jr. was an inexperienced pilot yet when speaking to people that knew him and flight instructors they all agreed that the guy was a methodical pilot who always did things by the book. Teddy Kennedy on the other hand was a ...

I agree with you, it is why I think JFK was a good guy, but I would argue Andrew Jackson was even a more aggressive enemy of the banksters, he went for the boot on the throat while JFK sought to subvert them, I still admire JFK's effort though. But it wasn't a full frontal assault like Andrew Jackson, but I also realize the times were different and JFK did the best he could, and it got him killed.

[Knightskye]

that speech was about communism. It was given to a crowd of reporters. In that speech he was asking those reporters to help the US against communism by not asking questions. Google and read the whole thing.

Oh. Now it makes sense.

His sentences are pretty general, though. And the audio doesn't mention communism.

Eh.

[dannno]

Full Transcript:


Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

[tnvoter]

awesome thread.

[romacox]

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

I recall that not only did he sign Order 11110, he and his brother Bobby were openly working to destroy the Mafia. Many wonder if there is a connection to the Federal Reserve and the Mafia (organized crime as they often called it).

Of course that is only conjecture...no evidence (as far as I know).

I also remember that the CIA seemed to be destroying and covering up evidence. They were ignoring eye witnesses that were saying they saw a second shooter. It was truly a very sad day, because we (Most Americans) truly loved this family. Jakie did more for foreign relations than any of our leaders...a great lady.

Later we learned that a doctor was giving our President speed, which he thought was a vitamin. When I look at Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, it makes me wonder.

[00_Pete]

That speech is about the Intertnational Communist Conspiracy and how this conspiracy is something much much larger than simply the "USSR".

JFK was very naive and allowed his entire administration getting filled with NWO/commie rats. He was warned over and over but ignored the warnings and called the people that warned him "crazies, maccarthists, Birschers, etc, etc).

Slowly, he was starting to figure things out (just like Nixon). It is said that the Bay of Pigs fiasco was when he realised how bad things really were...he started to distance himself from all the people in his administration that were accused of being commies or pro-commies (including many people belonging or related to Skull and Bones), he started to be suspicious of the State Department (just like McCarthy, Otto Otepka, JBS, and many others hard anti-communists of that Era...), the Pentagon, CIA, etc. He was calling off the Vietnam war...He started to listen to the people that tried to warn him...

Then he does that speech and issues the executive order to remove from the banks the power to print money. BANG! Is it a coincidence that one of the killers (or patsy or whatever) was a commie?

[puppetmaster]

I recall that not only did he sign Order 11110, he and his brother Bobby were openly working to destroy the Mafia. Many wonder if there is a connection to the Federal Reserve and the Mafia (organized crime as they often called it).

Of course that is only conjecture...no evidence (as far as I know).

I also remember that the CIA seemed to be destroying and covering up evidence. They were ignoring eye witnesses that were saying they saw a second shooter. It was truly a very sad day, because we (Most Americans) truly loved this family. Jakie did more for foreign relations than any of our leaders...a great lady.

Later we learned that a doctor was giving our President speed, which he thought was a vitamin. When I look at Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, it makes me wonder.

Oh there is plenty of evidence that the fed IS organized crime....

[puppetmaster]

That speech is about the Intertnational Communist Conspiracy and how this conspiracy is something much much larger than simply the "USSR".

JFK was very naive and allowed his entire administration getting filled with NWO/commie rats. He was warned over and over but ignored the warnings and called the people that warned him "crazies, maccarthists, Birschers, etc, etc).

Slowly, he was starting to figure things out (just like Nixon). It is said that the Bay of Pigs fiasco was when he realised how bad things really were...he started to distance himself from all the people in his administration that were accused of being commies or pro-commies (including many people belonging or related to Skull and Bones), he started to be suspicious of the State Department (just like McCarthy, Otto Otepka, JBS, and many others hard anti-communists of that Era...), the Pentagon, CIA, etc. He was calling off the Vietnam war...He started to listen to the people that tried to warn him...

Then he does that speech and issues the executive order to remove from the banks the power to print money. BANG! Is it a coincidence that one of the killers (or patsy or whatever) was a commie?

Communism benefits the elite NWO, So whether you feel the speech was about communism or the illuminati ....they are the same beast.

[00_Pete]

Communism benefits the elite NWO, So whether you feel the speech was about communism or the illuminati ....they are the same beast.

Exactly. Thats how i feel. In practice, this conspiracy is a communist/collectivist conspiracy.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I recall that not only did he sign Order 11110, he and his brother Bobby were openly working to destroy the Mafia. Many wonder if there is a connection to the Federal Reserve and the Mafia (organized crime as they often called it).



J. Edgar Hoover hated the Kennedys. Especially Bobby. If you really want to take a look at the war going on between the Kennedys and the shadow government, look at Bobby Kennedy. That's why when he won the primary they offed him that very night.

It was Bobby they couldn't control.

[tajitj]

What about idea the LBJ had him killed? Book about that made some headlines, I have been meaning to buy and read it.

Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K.
http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Money-Power-L-B-J-Killed/dp/0963784625/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280167743&sr=8-1

[Nate-ForLiberty]

LBJ had quite a few notable people people shot.