JFK was actually talking about current events of the cold war and how nontraditional enemies were gaining information on how the US was battling this war. In this speech JFK actually points out "the need for far greater "official" secrecy"...as well as "the need for a far greater public information". -- JFK admits "I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed," but also states, "and would not seek to impose it if I had one." This a major difference from where todays elected officials stand.
________________________________________________
Keep in mind that this speech (April 27th, 1961) was made a week after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion (April 17th-19th) and at a time when the US was assisting the South Vietnamese Government against Viet Cong insurgency actions.
The address is an appeal for responsible co-operation between the Press and the Government, that fair criticism is warranted while recognising a need to withhold information that can aid the Communists. He is helping re-enforce the message that despite the failure in Cuba, the US is still seriously engaged in the Cold War against the Soviets, that unconventional and non-military threats of many kinds abound.
JFK's appeal for an open, responsible and critical press is still a great message for the people of today, especially considering the War on Terror - a conflict that was started by the false flag attacks carried out on September 11, 2001.
Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Limits on Obama's Flying Killer Robots?
LiberalViewer
Published on Feb 23, 2013
Related:
Drones protest gains local and national support
7 March 2013 Drone Strikes To Kill U.S. Citizens on American Soil Legal Status
Senator Leahy: We Demand A Public Release of Legal Memos on Drone Strikes:
http://codepink.salsalabs.com/o/424/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=7131
Michael Isikoff To Rachel Maddow: Obama Has 'More Elastic' Concept Of Imminent Threats
Ladies in Pink Slips: 10 Years of CODEPINK Creativity
Published on Feb 23, 2013
Limits on drone strikes that can kill virtually anyone, anywhere?
More ACLU related videos at http://bit.ly/oqoPgz
Having killed hundreds if not thousands off people using remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, the Obama Administration has not been very forthcoming in explaining the legal justification for targeted killing or the limits placed on its use raising troubling questions about the ability of the CIA to kill virtually anyone, anywhere, as I show in this video.
The clips I use of the NOVA special "Rise of the Drones" come from PBS' January 23, 2013, broadcast also available online at http://to.pbs.org/XgP52Y
The clips I use of the American Civil Liberties Union's Chris Anders come from a longer segment of PBS' January 23, 2013, broadcast of "NewsHour" available on YouTube at http://bit.ly/1229AGz
The clips I use of Jon Stewart and Aasif Mandvi come from a longer segment of the February 21, 2013, broadcast of "The Daily Show" available online at http://bit.ly/11ZTugn
The clip I use of Lee Doren and President Barack Obama comes from the February 14, 2013, Google hangout available on YouTube at http://bit.ly/138QFci
The image I use of the Department of Justice white paper on targeted killing obtained by Michael Isikoff of NBC News comes from the webpage at http://on-msn.com/YFO3gn
The image I use of Jameel Jaffer's February 4, 2013, ACLU blog post titled "The Justice Department's White Paper on Targeted Killing" comes from the webpage at http://bit.ly/WL6Yb5
The image I use of Matthew Harwood's February 15, 2013, ACLU blog post titled "The Softball Question That Wasn't" comes from the webpage at http://bit.ly/ZiuXBy
More ACLU related videos at http://bit.ly/oqoPgz
Having killed hundreds if not thousands off people using remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, the Obama Administration has not been very forthcoming in explaining the legal justification for targeted killing or the limits placed on its use raising troubling questions about the ability of the CIA to kill virtually anyone, anywhere, as I show in this video.
The clips I use of the NOVA special "Rise of the Drones" come from PBS' January 23, 2013, broadcast also available online at http://to.pbs.org/XgP52Y
The clips I use of the American Civil Liberties Union's Chris Anders come from a longer segment of PBS' January 23, 2013, broadcast of "NewsHour" available on YouTube at http://bit.ly/1229AGz
The clips I use of Jon Stewart and Aasif Mandvi come from a longer segment of the February 21, 2013, broadcast of "The Daily Show" available online at http://bit.ly/11ZTugn
The clip I use of Lee Doren and President Barack Obama comes from the February 14, 2013, Google hangout available on YouTube at http://bit.ly/138QFci
The image I use of the Department of Justice white paper on targeted killing obtained by Michael Isikoff of NBC News comes from the webpage at http://on-msn.com/YFO3gn
The image I use of Jameel Jaffer's February 4, 2013, ACLU blog post titled "The Justice Department's White Paper on Targeted Killing" comes from the webpage at http://bit.ly/WL6Yb5
The image I use of Matthew Harwood's February 15, 2013, ACLU blog post titled "The Softball Question That Wasn't" comes from the webpage at http://bit.ly/ZiuXBy
Related:
Drones protest gains local and national support
7 March 2013 Drone Strikes To Kill U.S. Citizens on American Soil Legal Status
Senator Leahy: We Demand A Public Release of Legal Memos on Drone Strikes:
http://codepink.salsalabs.com/o/424/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=7131
Michael Isikoff To Rachel Maddow: Obama Has 'More Elastic' Concept Of Imminent Threats
Ladies in Pink Slips: 10 Years of CODEPINK Creativity
Monday, February 25, 2013
Project Truth (WTC) - No Sound Claim (Audio Comparisons)
As I've written about the last comparison clip shown:
Note: "Debunkers" will point out that the audio of the Tower "collapsing" in the above video, which comes from the Discovery Channel's Inside the Twin Towers documentary, is not the correct soundtrack. There has been dispute about this, but I have it on good authority that one of the people involved in the capturing of the video did say the audio on the Discovery Channel piece was not correct. A "debunker" victory? Not so much, because this person also stated the following, "Both myself and the senior fire officers who were with me at the time mentioned in our written statements to the NYPD that we thought their had been an explosion before the tower collapsed.
The "debunkers" can call me a liar if they want, but I'm not, this conversation did take place, unfortunately no agreement was made on quoting this person by name.Related:
Question:
Why weren't the sounds that were heard during the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11 as loud as the blasts heard in videos of acknowledged controlled demolitions?
FAQ #4: Sounds of Explosions?
Book Launch - Postmark 9/11 - The Lost Letters that Reveal the Untold Story
"…a fascinating story that I hope will awaken the imagination of the American people to the truth about what really happened on 9/11. It has been the failure of the public to imagine the `inconvenient truth' that is the major challenge — not a lack of explosive evidence. This story may just be the lightning rod."
— Richard Gage
aia, architect
ae911truth.org
Postmark 9/11 The Lost Letters That Reveal The Untold Story
"On February 21, 2012 a young lady, whose identity we've chosen to keep private, arrived in our office with a box of letters she found in an old farmhouse she recently purchased. The letters capture correspondence between Tara Young and her boyfriend, Blake Watson. "
And so the story begins. We learn through Tara and Blake's letters what transpired after that night Blake saw something he wasn't intended to see. We learn what happened to turn their world upside down. Their love tested, the mystery unfolds with a chilling realization and an explosive reveal. What we never learn is what happened to Tara Young and Blake Watson.
In our fictional account, we provide truther information encased in a love story and mystery. We decided to write in this vein in order to attract those who refuse to read all the scientific information and documentation available. Movies, books, interviews, conferences have all laid out the truther story. We thought casting this in a love story would help reach more individuals.
We hope we are right.
http://postmark911.com
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Debunking False Arguments
Great article on ae911truth.org right now teaching "How to Handle False Arguments Used to Reject the WTC Evidence." The piece notes, "Links to AE911Truth.org and the informative FAQ responses listed on the website can also be utilized."
Another good idea for refuting false arguments is to come here and use our internal search function, because of their 8 FAQs, blog contributor Adam Taylor and I wrote two apiece and helped on at least 3 others. :)
Another good idea for refuting false arguments is to come here and use our internal search function, because of their 8 FAQs, blog contributor Adam Taylor and I wrote two apiece and helped on at least 3 others. :)
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Richard Gage Debunks Popular Mechanics, AE911Truth
Antonello talks with Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth about the "official story" of September 11, 2001 and debunks NIST and Popular Mechanics attempt to debunk them. The Twin Towers, Building 7 and much more.
Related:
Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality
Related:
Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Michael Isikoff To Rachel Maddow: Obama Has 'More Elastic' Concept Of Imminent Threats
Published on Feb 5, 2013
YouTube - ThePrincessHira
Rachel Maddow spoke to NBC News' Michael Isikoff Monday night about his acquisition of a Justice Department white paper that lays out some of the Obama administration's thinking behind its practice of killing American citizens with drone strikes.
Isikoff landed a major scoop for NBC, which immediately splashed the white paper on its website. In it, the Justice Department says, according to Isikoff, that: The U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaida or "an associated force" -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
Although evidence suggests that the paper is not the official memo which laid out the administration's guidelines for the killing of Americans such as Anwar al-Awlaki, it does provide a partial look at how Obama justifies such strikes.
Maddow noted that the details of the paper, as well as other questions surrounding the Obama administration's policy, are certain to come up when his counterterrorism czar John Brennan faces Congress during his confirmation hearing for CIA director on Thursday. She wondered, in particular, whether the administration thought its rights to kill Americans extended to people inside the United States.
"Could the CIA or any other intelligence agency come kill you if the appropriate high-ranking official in the Obama administration -- say, President Obama -- decided that you were affiliated with al-Qaeda and you were a threat and you might act imminently to endanger this nation, could you then legally be killed as you laid in your bed?" she asked.
She then turned to Isikoff, who said that the paper "fleshes out some of the arguments that have been made publicly, and in ways that in some instances contrast with what has been said publicly."
The paper says that anyone targeted for killing must present an imminent threat and that their capture must be unfeasible before they can be hit with a drone. Isikoff noted that the interpretations of what a threat means are "a bit more elastic and open to interpretation" than previously known.
"They refer to a 'broader concept of imminence' than direct active intelligence of a plot against the US," he said. "In fact, it explicitly states that imminence does not mean that the United States has to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons or interests is underway. If the US believes that the target has in the past been involved in such violent activities and the target has not renounced such activities it can be assumed that they are an imminent threat now and that that would justify an attack."
"The definition for why a capture [instead of a killing] is impractical also seems to be very, very wide," Maddow said.
Related:
Drones protest gains local and national support
7 March 2013 Drone Strikes To Kill U.S. Citizens on American Soil Legal Status
YouTube - ThePrincessHira
Rachel Maddow spoke to NBC News' Michael Isikoff Monday night about his acquisition of a Justice Department white paper that lays out some of the Obama administration's thinking behind its practice of killing American citizens with drone strikes.
Isikoff landed a major scoop for NBC, which immediately splashed the white paper on its website. In it, the Justice Department says, according to Isikoff, that: The U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be "senior operational leaders" of al-Qaida or "an associated force" -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
Although evidence suggests that the paper is not the official memo which laid out the administration's guidelines for the killing of Americans such as Anwar al-Awlaki, it does provide a partial look at how Obama justifies such strikes.
Maddow noted that the details of the paper, as well as other questions surrounding the Obama administration's policy, are certain to come up when his counterterrorism czar John Brennan faces Congress during his confirmation hearing for CIA director on Thursday. She wondered, in particular, whether the administration thought its rights to kill Americans extended to people inside the United States.
"Could the CIA or any other intelligence agency come kill you if the appropriate high-ranking official in the Obama administration -- say, President Obama -- decided that you were affiliated with al-Qaeda and you were a threat and you might act imminently to endanger this nation, could you then legally be killed as you laid in your bed?" she asked.
She then turned to Isikoff, who said that the paper "fleshes out some of the arguments that have been made publicly, and in ways that in some instances contrast with what has been said publicly."
The paper says that anyone targeted for killing must present an imminent threat and that their capture must be unfeasible before they can be hit with a drone. Isikoff noted that the interpretations of what a threat means are "a bit more elastic and open to interpretation" than previously known.
"They refer to a 'broader concept of imminence' than direct active intelligence of a plot against the US," he said. "In fact, it explicitly states that imminence does not mean that the United States has to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons or interests is underway. If the US believes that the target has in the past been involved in such violent activities and the target has not renounced such activities it can be assumed that they are an imminent threat now and that that would justify an attack."
"The definition for why a capture [instead of a killing] is impractical also seems to be very, very wide," Maddow said.
Related:
Drones protest gains local and national support
7 March 2013 Drone Strikes To Kill U.S. Citizens on American Soil Legal Status
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Operation Gladio Revisited
As one of the most thoroughly-documented examples of a decades-long program of officially-sanctioned false flag terror, Operation Gladio remains a woefully under-reported piece of the War on Terror puzzle. Today we go behind the trite summarizations of this program to look at it in-depth, examine its roots, and discover how it is continuing to operate right through to the present day.
______________________________________________________
Essential information to help understand the present War on Terror. False Flag terror is real. Elements inside Western Governments do organise murder. This has been going on for many decades.
From blog contributor John-Michael Talboo's post "The CIA Commits Over 100,000 Serious Crimes Each Year."
______________________________________________________
Essential information to help understand the present War on Terror. False Flag terror is real. Elements inside Western Governments do organise murder. This has been going on for many decades.
From blog contributor John-Michael Talboo's post "The CIA Commits Over 100,000 Serious Crimes Each Year."
One of the CIA's atrocities that we are aware of still proves the point about 9/11. Operation Gladio was a false-flag terror program set up by the CIA and NATO. Although Gladio was eventually exposed, it was not just a single event, but an ongoing operation that remained secret for decades, in which hundreds of innocent people were killed and injured in terrorist attacks that were blamed on other groups.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
New Conspiracy Funhouse: Parody Interview with Skeptic Shermer, Doomsday Preppers, and more...
Stew's Conspiracy Funhouse Audio podcast,(conspiracy based sketch comedy,) Kicking off our 3rd year with our best episode yet! Doomsday Preppers gets blasted, a game show parody exposes the Bush family, and an interview with Skeptic Michael Shermer. Plus new parody commercials and music from Slang Girl.
http://conspiracyfunhouse.libsyn.com
