His stand against tyranny lives on over 50 years following his death.
JFK was not a perfect. man by any means. In fact, he was an enigma, because as flawed as was his personal life, his Presidency was filled with unparalleled courage, the kind of courage that we all wish we had in our current President.
Kennedy’s Enemies
During his 1,000 days in office, JFK managed to acquire the largest and the most powerful list of enemies acquired by any sitting President. The President’ father, Joe Kennedy, a former ambassador to England and mafia bootlegger, used his Mafia connections to steal the 1960 election in Cook County, IL., which ensured that JFK would carry Illinois. This ultimately was the deciding factor in the 1960 Presidential election. Yet, JFK’s administration declared war on the Mafia with Robert Kennedy as the Attorney General leading the way.
JFK also managed to anger the oil industry as JFK was cutting the oil depletion allowance. He further infuriated the military industrial complex over his refusal to support the Bay of Pigs invasion. JFK had every intention to bring home the combat advisors which meant no involvement in Vietnam and his intention to engage Russia in talks of nuclear arms control did not sit well with the manufacturers of the weapons of mass destruction. In his greatest act of defiance towards the globalists of his day, JFK was slowly but surely eroding the Federal Reserve domination over our nation’s monetary supply with the issuance of C-notes.
Any police detective worth his/her salt would have followed the money and sought to look for the perpetrators among those who would have gained financially from JFK’s death.
Who Killed JFK?
Every November, I do a number of radio interviews and in-person presentations in which I reveal who fired the fatal shot from the grassy knoll. I present photographic evidence (i.e. newly enhanced “Badge man” photo), the recorded eye witness testimony of Lee Bowers, Gordon Arnold and Ed Hoffman. I also present the video testimony of the man who gave that particular assassin the contract to kill JFK (i.e. Christian David) and the paymaster (i.e. Michele Nicoli). All roads lead to Lucian Sarti as the shooter on the grassy knoll.
Vice President, Lyndon Johnson, was a co-conspirator after the fact. He blocked any crime scene investigation of the President’s limousine by having the interior and the exterior stripped without being examined as a crime scene. The bullet fragments contained in the limo could have proven the Oswald was not the shooter. This is called obstruction of justice and LBJ should have gone to prison. We also have LBJ presidential tapes in which it is heard that LBJ and FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover conspire to appoint a “phony” commission to sanction their story that Oswald acted alone. However, knowing who did the shooting and who did the covering up, does not provide one with the answers as to why JFK was killed and who was ultimately behind the assassination.
If the money trailed was followed by investigators in 1964, it would have revealed that the military industrial complex (e.g. Chrysler, Bell Helicopter), the Federal Reserve and the oil industry all made significant profits in the year following JFK’s death through the complete reversal of his policies on Vietnam, the nuclear arms race and his relationship with the oil industry. The central theme running through these entities was David Rockefeller who is presently 99 years old and is still wreaking havoc upon the American people. Had I been an investigator, in 1964, he would have been my primary person of interest.
Signing His Own Death Warrant
The plot to kill JFK had its origins in two speeches the President made. The first speech was made 10 days following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, and 10 days after a defiant JFK said “no” to the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Mafia and the Cuban refugees, by refusing to provide air cover for the invasion of Cuba by CIA trained Cuba refugees, JFK made the speech that put one of the final nails in his coffin.
The JFK speech is now known as his famous “Secret Society” speech. JFK was the first and the only President to ever identify the globalists as the enemy of America and humanity as a whole. For a man in his position, JFK was stunningly detailed in calling out the globalists of his day.
Calling Out the New World Order in 1961
1. Media censorship: “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”.
2. The growing dominance of the globalists: “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. …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”.
3. Identifying the globalists- “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”.
Some people believed that JFK was talking about the Soviets. However, the Soviets did not control our media which was the focus of his speech to a group of newspaper editors. The Soviets were known to the public, they were not a “secret society”. There is no question, he was talking about the globalists of his day.
In 1961, these were fighting words because the public had never heard of such things. In the two weeks following the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the globalists knew they had an enemy in the White House and if he could not be unelected, he would have to be dealt with.
Conclusion
If you have never listened to the speech, you should take the time to listen, now, for if you do, the events of today’s America will make a great deal more sense. The text of the speech is provided below the audio recording.
In tomorrow’s companion piece, the second speech, the one that put the final nail in JFK’s coffin. Any guesses as to what speech that I am referring to?
This Sunday evening, from 9pm to Midnight, my show explores the events connected to JFK’s assassination as well the current implications arising from this horrific 1963 event. Listening details are located below the text of the speech.
APPENDIX
The Text of the “Secret Societies” Speech
“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.”
Credit to Common Sense
No comments:
Post a Comment