Why America is FUBAR..

[Century 25]

YouTube - John F Kennedy : Speech on Secret Societies

Comment after listening.

[Zeebadee]

The world would be a much better place had he served a full 2 terms.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Zeebadee The world would be a much better place had he served a full 2 terms.

He had taken Eisenhower's warning to heart. This speech tells the entire United States what was going on. When he began to disassemble the monster.. it killed him and his brother Bobby. 'America' - is controlled by the Military, Industry, Media (and religion) complex. Basically, the MIM uses 'religion' as a tool.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Century 25 He had taken Eisenhower's warning to heart. This speech tells the entire United States what was going on. When he began to disassemble the monster.. it killed him and his brother Bobby. 'America' - is controlled by the Military, Industry, Media (and religion) complex. Basically, the MIM uses 'religion' as a tool.

I believe you are pretty much right. JFK made mistakes, but he didn't hide them, and we all learned from them. I was in high school when he was murdered, it was like a light went out.

[RickSp]

Like so many Kennedy speeches it was well written and largely hollow.

Quote by: Zeebadee JFK made mistakes, but he didn't hide them, and we all learned from them.

He didn't hide them? LOL. JFK and RFK's secret plots for the CIA to assassinate Castro in some cases involving the Mafia provided grist for all the conspiracy theorists out there. JFK's sexual relationships with mob connected women didn't help either. JFK made Clinton look like an altar boy.

The documents showing the secret shenanigans of the Kennedy brothers as well as the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations have only coming out in recent years.

CIA tried to get Mafia to kill Castro: documents

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: RickSp Like so many Kennedy speeches it was well written and largely hollow. He didn't hide them? LOL. JFK and RFK's secret plots for the CIA to assassinate Castro in some cases involving the Mafia provided grist for all the conspiracy theorists out there. JFK's sexual relationships with mob connected women didn't help either. JFK made Clinton look like an altar boy. The documents showing the secret shenanigans of the Kennedy brothers as well as the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations have only coming out in recent years. CIA tried to get Mafia to kill Castro: documents

From your link:

"The agency's leaders determined "a sensitive mission requiring gangster-type action" was needed. "The mission target was Fidel Castro," the document said."

Nothing in the article even mentions Kennedy. In any case, the flaws you attribute to JFK are all old news.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Zeebadee From your link: "The agency's leaders determined "a sensitive mission requiring gangster-type action" was needed. "The mission target was Fidel Castro," the document said."

It's fascinating they said such self-incriminating things, even if they knew they would not be punished in some way.

Grandpa h.

[Century 25]

Quote by: RickSp Like so many Kennedy speeches it was well written and largely hollow.

Before we get into denigrating JFK for his sex life.. the speech was well delivered and accurate. I suppose it was somewhat of an incredulous notion for the populace.. even then - never mind today. That should make it easier to see how, no matter what JFK & RFK attempted to do, the 'syndicate' was virtually impregnable. No mere 'President' was going to muscle in on their 'territory' - aka the world. After all, look how they derailed Eisenhower's & Krushev's planned detente talks. 'They' - the CIA branch of this MIMC, sent Francis Gary Powers out on a little photo-op over the USSR.. thereby scuttling Ike & Krushy's little upcoming chat.. and - let me tell ya, Ike was pissed he was smokin'..! I would say the man did plenty of digging.. and, as the ex- 'Supreme' general of the Allied forces in Europe, he had more than a few excellent sources of info.. data..

At any rate, the speech JFK gave was a message and a plea for help.. too bad the public was a bit distracted by the shenanigans of the CIA with Cuba & Vietnam. Oh yes.. Vietnam. The MIMC syndicate was busy as a swarm of bees.. aiding and abetting Mrs.Ngo Dinh Nhu & her beloved Christian soldiers trying to give the Buddhist's the boot.. remember the monks.. burning themselves in protest..? Ah.. that's another story.

He didn't hide them? LOL. JFK and RFK's secret plots for the CIA to assassinate Castro in some cases involving the Mafia provided grist for all the conspiracy theorists out there. JFK's sexual relationships with mob connected women didn't help either. JFK made Clinton look like an altar boy. The documents showing the secret shenanigans of the Kennedy brothers as well as the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations have only coming out in recent years.

The rest of your quote is referred to my above post. JFK was used. He did what he could. He owned up to the 'mistake' - created, of course, by the CIA. So, the USA.. the World - lost JFK, RFK & MLK.. and now?? Beat the drums and salute your flag.. we are.. 'free'

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeebadee From your link: "The agency's leaders determined "a sensitive mission requiring gangster-type action" was needed. "The mission target was Fidel Castro," the document said." Nothing in the article even mentions Kennedy. In any case, the flaws you attribute to JFK are all old news.

LOL. Read some history. The CIA was direct by the White House. The Kennedy brothers were deeply involved.

[L00zer]

Those words still seem very relevant today.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Century 25 Before we get into denigrating JFK for his sex life.. the speech was well delivered and accurate.

I agree the speech was well delivered. Accurate? Only in the sense that the policy he proposed was a good one, even if history suggests that he did little more than pay lip service to it.

[Century 25]

Quote by: RickSp I agree the speech was well delivered. Accurate? Only in the sense that the policy he proposed was a good one, even if history suggests that he did little more than pay lip service to it.

I located the print copy of JFK's speech. I think it is important enough to post here for reference. And Rick, it isn't just about 'policy' - and he did far more than pay lip service, that seems obvious.. it was his (JFK) and his brother Bobby was one of his advisers during his presidency. For nine months after JFK was assassinated on November 22, 1963 Bobby served as Attorney General under LBJ.. In September of 1964 RFK wanted to run for the Senate and a couple years later he got into to it with Johnson.. and of course he got bumped off by the same syndicate this whole speech is about. Anyway.. here is the speech and Full credit goes to YouTuber KRISisLOST for the audio and script.

YouTube - JOHN F. KENNEDY APRIL 27 , 1961 SPEECH - Media & Secret Societies - part 1/2
YouTube - JOHN F. KENNEDY APRIL 27 , 1961 SPEECH - Media & Secret Societies - part 2/2

Transcript link:
pastebin - collaborative debugging tool

************************************************************************************ 

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 to 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 which 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.

Con't..

[Century 25]

Con't speech:

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 far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

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’s 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 times 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.

That 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 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.



.

[Century 25]

The last part of speech:

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.

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.

*********************************************************************************

And here we are.. watching the BIG news.. M. Jackson.. over and over.. we have very long ago lost our media. It has long since been owned by the MIMC syndicate. (The 2nd M in MIMC) The speech is incredible..!! That was so long ago, but is so prophetic today..

After reading that, and seeing what you see today.. it is beyond belief. It all went down as he said. But now..? It is way too late. America is FUBAR...!!!

[RickSp]

Believe what you want. I see no evidence that Kennedy was any less secretive than any other president of the period.

His personal life was reckless to the extreme, conducted in secret. He and his staff lied about his health. His foreign policy was typically aggressive. He ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, the overthrow of the Guyana President Cheddi Jagan in the same year, and the Guatemalan President Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes in 1963. All was done in secret only to be revealed years later. Kennedy also got us into Vietnam where he supported the coup against South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963. And on and on it goes.

Profile: John F. Kennedy

It was a well written speech. Romanticizing Kennedy does a disservice to history.

[Century 25]

Quote by: RickSp Believe what you want. I see no evidence that Kennedy was any less secretive than any other president of the period. It was a well written speech. Romanticizing Kennedy does a disservice to history.

Romanticizing..? It is history. It is fait accompli.. you seem quite blasé Rick. Just for historical reference, where were you at that era..? I was 15 when he took office and 18 when he was murdered. At the time, we - all of America - were in shock. You wouldn't believe.. no one cared if the neighbor was a 'conservative' or 'liberal' - it was their business..!!! And guess what..? They all cried.. all the people, we weren't 'conservative vs liberal' - that crap is all manufactured by the MIMC.. looks like you swallowed it all.. Rick.

Ah well.. all of the high priced psych work paid off.. the 'America' you see today is a sick.. sick version of what was then.. and we are still sinking. A very backward country.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Century 25 Romanticizing..? It is history. It is fait accompli.. you seem quite blasé Rick. Just for historical reference, where were you at that era..? I was 15 when he took office and 18 when he was murdered. At the time, we - all of America - were in shock. You wouldn't believe.. no one cared if the neighbor was a 'conservative' or 'liberal' - it was their business..!!! And guess what..? They all cried.. all the people, we weren't 'conservative vs liberal' - that crap is all manufactured by the MIMC.. looks like you swallowed it all.. Rick. Ah well.. all of the high priced psych work paid off.. the 'America' you see today is a sick.. sick version of what was then.. and we are still sinking. A very backward country.

Spare me. Ignore history if you want to and rant away about America being "backward" if you insist. Those are your problems not mine. I lived through the same history you did. I apparently am just less willing to ignore large portions of it.

[rmnunez]

What is "FUBAR"?

[Zeebadee]

F'd up beyond all recognition.

[Century 25]

Quote by: RickSp Spare me. Ignore history if you want to and rant away about America being "backward" if you insist. Those are your problems not mine. I lived through the same history you did. I apparently am just less willing to ignore large portions of it.

I am doing quite the opposite. Those who ignore history wind up as this country has. They most certainly are your problems too.. and your children's and onward from there.

This speech was his message to America, just over 3 months after Eisenhower gave his farewell speech.. warning us & JFK in front of all of America, about this 'secret society' we know as the Military-Industry-Media-Complex. Back then of course, the media weren't 100% corrupted.. owned, lock, stock & press, by this enormous conglomerate, as it is and has been for many years now. I think it was Hitler that said it, way back in his bid for world supremacy - ah yes, read at this site:

Adolf Hitler Quotes

I would say the MIMC learned a great deal from Hitler. He knew, as they do, that the pen is far mightier than the sword. Our media.. do you know who owns most of it..? I know that Time-Warner is the heavy hitter around our.. 'country' - eh.. why not research a bit.. knowledge is power.

Btw, I have kept many old almanacs.. and you wouldn't believe the info that they packed into them. I'm talking old going back to my parents era.. on up to the 2008 one. The new ones.. I won't waste $ with. They are garbage. But.. those oldies are goodies..!! Enough so that they provide a place to begin researching & cross referencing..