With the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination I thought I would post something related to it. As with any large scale conspiracy there is just too much to talk about, and to many avenues to explore to really encapsulate what transpired in November 1963. That being said, the above speech by JFK to the American Newspapers Publishers Association is one that in many ways answers the question as to why JFK was murdered in a security service coup. In this speech JFK speaks out about the dangers of “secret societies.” Undoubtedly Kennedy was speaking about the ever expanding CIA, whose firm grip on society and geopolitics was starting to take form as he ascended to the presidency. He refers several times to the “cold war” but never specifically to the Soviets or Communism. He instead warns of a secret group of individuals who rely on subversion, propaganda, and guerrillas to achieve their agenda. JFK makes a point to convey how important a free unrestricted media is in order for America to survive. With the 50th anniversary of his murder there has been a concerted effort to paint any and all conspiracy theories about his death as completely bogus. The myth that Oswald was an unintelligent loner nut job still persists in the corporate controlled media. Yet, this speech shows that Kennedy was very well aware of the danger that was posed by the ever expanding security state, not just to himself, but to the very notion of freedom here in America. So take the time and listen to this startlingly candid speech. You will never ever hear a president make a speech like this now or in the future. As long as the CIA and their invisible government runs this country we will never be free.
According to a new book by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heileman Obama told aides that he’s “he’s really good at killing people.” This was allegedly discussed in connection to Obama’s illegal drone program. The question I am posing here is; should we believe something written by the mainstream corporate news that reinforces our beliefs?
Almost all if not everyone in the alternative media distrust the propagandists in the mainstream corporate media. Yet anytime we see a story in the MSM that is conspiratorial, or reinforces our assertions, we instantly proclaim it to be true. Now to some degree it is true that MSM gets it right every once in a while. There are journalists that work for big corporate news outlets that actually do speak truth to power on occasion. Nonetheless, we should still question the authenticity of reports like ones about Obama openly talking to aides about how great he is at murdering people. For a president obsessed with secrecy to be brazenly talking about how good he is at obliterating human beings to aides, who then talked to some mainstream reporters should sound alarm bells to those claiming to be in the truth movement. Now perhaps Obama did say this. Clearly he has no regards for human life so it’s not at all implausible that he would say this. My only issue with this is that we already know this. We don’t need some Time magazine writers to tell us that. The alt media needs to stop looking for the approval of the mainstream to justify their existence. Think for your self. Don’t listen to Mark Halperin or John Heileman, or Russia Today, or me for that matter. Instead free your own mind and discover the truth that is out there.
According to our political overlords the end of civilization has finally come to America. It has come in the form of a government shutdown. The hype surrounding the government shutdown is truly beyond comprehension. Warmonger John McCain described the shutdown by saying “The apocalypse is upon us.” Democratic Senator Tom Harkin echoed the same moronic hyperbole by stating:
“That is the path they see for taking over the government. It’s dangerous, very dangerous. … Every bit as dangerous as the break up and the Civil War.”
“I suppose if you are of an anarchist mind, which I believe some of them are, then you don’t want government, you want to create chaos…”
If you still read the corporate controlled media it would seem that this so called government shutdown is unprecedented in American history. While this narrative is being propagated by the main stream media it’s important to note a few things:
2. Despite the media spin most Federal activity will continue unabated. Taxes will be collected, people will be molested at the airport. And the military industrial complex will continue to profit off of death.
Indeed most Americans will go about their day and experience no change whatsoever. The elites in the imperial capital want to sow discord amongst the population, and further divide us into political teams. Ultimately both of the criminal factions that seek to control us will agree to lift the ever expanding debt ceiling, and go back to business as usual. The usual being the endless printing of money and the gradual destruction of our freedom and liberties. In the interim period they will attempt to score political points. Don’t fall for their lies. Clearly the government hasn’t shutdown. If it did then perhaps the warmongers in Washington would not be able to plan their next war, or continue to spy on all electronic communications, or force us to buy health insurance from the very same corrupt corporations that have been screwing us and paying for political campaigns for decades.
The Justice Dept (obviously at the behest of the President) will not bring charges against the CIA for torture. Federal prosecutor John Durham has been investigating the disgusting treatment of 101 detainees that were in U.S. custody. Thankfully for the government and all those who wish to continue the imperialist empire no one will be held accountable. The lamentable Eric Holder said that
based on the fully developed factual record concerning the two deaths, the department has declined prosecution because the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even more disturbing was the CIA Director David Petraeus’s message to CIA employees
as intelligence officers, our inclination, of course, is to look ahead to the challenges of the future rather than backwards at those of the past. Nonetheless, it was very important that we supported fully the Justice Department in its efforts
I would like to thank everyone who played a role doing so.
Former CIA Director Micheal Hayden gave a similar response, saying he was
heartened that the investigation is complete, and I’m heartened by the results. I had great confidence in Mr. Durham. I just regret that many CIA officers had to go through yet another review of these activities.
Blowhard racist, Newt Gingrich, has a wonderfully moronic OP-ED in Politico in which he defends Congresswoman Bachmann’s witch hunt against the Muslims Brotherhoods supposed infiltration of American politics. In the article he urges the American people to open up their eyes to the fact that radical Islam is infiltrating American politics. Gingrich claims that our political correctness has made it impossible for us to ask the hard hitting questions about Islamic infiltration. According to Newt it is the goal of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to destroy Western civilization. But this supposed student of history fails to understand how Americas historical role as an oppressor of Muslims has led the Muslim Brotherhood to dislike America.
No where in the article does Newt mention why Muslims groups like the Brotherhood or Hamas hate the West. Newt uses the same idiotic argument that all neocons use; Muslims hate the West because of our freedom. He claims that “Munich in 1972, New York City on Sept. 11, Hasan at Fort Hood, the Times Square car bomber, the bombings in Iraq this week” are all the result of Islamic fundamentalism, not the result of decades of American oppression and murder of Muslims worldwide. The killing of Israeli athletes in Munich was a response to Israel’s murder of Palestinians, and colonization of their land. 9/11 happened because America had been killing Muslims for decades. Fort Hood and Times Square happened because two individuals were fed up with Americas attitude towards the Muslim people. Newt later makes this point as more justification of the Brotherhoods evil plans against the West and our cronies:
Just Friday, the Dubai chief of police warned about a Muslim Brotherhood effort to take over the emirates and seize their oil and natural gas wealth.
The UAE is an undemocratic human rights abusing monarchy. What is so terrifying about the Brotherhood taking control of the oil and gas reserves? Might it be that Newt doesn’t want to disrupt the flow of oil to America. The man who attacked Obama for bowing to the Saudi oil kings seems fine with bowing to the Emirati oil kings.
Newts whole argument revolves around the fact that he does not like that Muslims democratically elect groups like the Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has not seized power in Egypt. The Egyptian people voted them in to office. While Newt is to much of a coward to simply admit it, he does not like that free people freely elect their leaders. Neocons like Newt bemoaned the Palestinians for not being democratic enough. But when they democratically elected Hamas the West turned of them. Countries like Tunisia and Egypt elected Islamist political parties as a direct response to Americas oppressive policies in the Arab world. If you don’t want the Brotherhood to come to power than stop oppressing Muslims.
It is a real tragedy that a decade after the 9/11 attacks politicians like Newt Gingrich are still espousing this kind of false rhetoric. It seems that our elites, yes Newt your an an elite, are still trying to trick Americans into thinking that Muslims hate us because of who we are, not because of our actions. The sheepish American public need to actually understand how our policies effect the rest of the world. If they don’t, and instead listen to racists like Newt Gingrich, then we are destined for another terrorist attack on American soil.
The influential Drudge Report had an article the other day claiming that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was on the top of the short list for Vice President. What are we to make of this? Conservative bloggers have been in an uproar over this idea. Erick Erickson wrote in Redstate:
I don’t know who is hitting the crack rock tonight in the rumor mill, but bull shiitake mushrooms.
Condelizza Rice is pro-abortion. She worked for George Bush for eight years.
Rice’s legacy as a war criminal in the Bush administration will be hard to shake off. A lot of political capital will be spent defending Bush and abortion if Secretary Rice is picked. Conservative activists might be naive though in thinking that Romney wouldn’t pick Rice as a running mate. Presidential elections are less about ideals, and more about winning. Candidates will do what they need to do to win. In theory, the Republican nominee is supposed to unite all Republicans, not just ultraconservative activists.
Establishment Republicans on the other hand seem to like the notion of Rice on the ticket. The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan gushed at the idea:
Consider: A public figure of obvious and nameable accomplishment whose attainments can’t be taken away from her. Washington experience-she wouldn’t be learning on the job. Never run for office but no political novice. An academic, but not ethereal or abstract. A woman in a year when Republicans aren’t supposed to choose a woman because of what is now called the 2008 experience-so the choice would have a certain boldness. A black woman in a campaign that always threatens to take on a painful racial overlay. A foreign-policy professional acquainted with everyone who’s reigned or been rising the past 20 years. I should add here the look on the faces of the people who were applauding. They looked surprised by their own passion
Matt Drudge’s close personal relationship with Mitt Romney suggests that he would not print something false that could hurt his candidate. So if this is true, why would Romney pick Sec. Rice? The simple answer is that Rice is a black woman. Romney is struggling with both of these electoral blocks. But if he thinks that picking a black woman will help, he is even more stupid and condescending than John McCain was. Warmonger McCain though that picking a woman would help steal Clinton votes away from Obama. Obviously this failed miserably. If Romney thinks that women and blacks will vote for him because of his running mate he does not deserve to win.
My feeling on this is mixed. Picking a former Bush official is a pretty stupid tactic. Her involvement in the illegal Iraq war will take the focus off of economy. In fact her involvement in numerous foreign policy blunders will shift the conversation away from the economy. On the other hand Romney has not shied away from surrounding himself with former Bush administration officials. His entire foreign policy team is composed of Buh era war criminals. So picking Rice may not be a big leap for him. And again, why would Drudge print something that would hurt Romney? Team Romney said that they will announce their pick or Vice President in the coming weeks. So we will just have to wait and see.
This years NAACP convention has received a great deal more attention this year. Presidetial candidate Gov. Mitt Romney’s speech before the civil rights organization was not received well. Aside from telling the audience that he would be better for black Americans than our black president, Romney also got booed after saying he would repeal the Affordable Care Act. The governor really missed an opportunity here to broaden his base.
Romney is already struggling to shake off the image that his candidacy is built on rich white men. Support among women is low for the Republican; with minority support even more embarrassing. If Romney wants to win he needs to appeal to a larger audience. His speech has only sowed more discord amongst black voters. The Governor could have at least tried to pander to his audience. He might still have been booed, but at least he could have said he tried. Now he is stuck looking like a rich out of touch white guy. The speech seemed designed more for his white base than for his black audience. Governor Romney wanted to assure the conservative white electorate that he still has their interests at heart. He is terrified of upsetting his base. So terrified he is willing to go before the most prominent civil rights group in America and berate the first black president. It is fair to say that the strategy being used by Team Romney is one based solely on the white vote. It will now be that much harder for Romney to demonstrate he will be a President for all Americans.
Perhaps more interesting was the Presidents absence from the convention. Administration officials claimed that a scheduling problem prevented the President from addressing the NAACP. This is quite a weak reason for not attending the convention. How could President Obama, in an election year, not have marked this day on the calendar? Obama has been criticized by many as taking the black vote for granted. Missing the NAACP reinforces this notion. Perhaps it was a smart political move though. Using Vice President Biden allows for the president to send a message he may not politically get away with. True to form, Biden gave a vociferous speech on the dangers of electing Romney. Listening to him you might think that Romney is the second coming of the Klan. Biden took particular care to mention that a vote for Romney would result in policies that would restrict the voting rights of Black Americans. If the President had made a speech like Biden’s he would undoubtedly be attacked for playing the race card.
While his speech was received with great fanfare, the presidents absence is still a negative. There’s no doubt that President Obama will win the lions share of the black vote; if not the whole vote entirely. The issue is whether the black vote will be as large as it was in 2008. The alienation that many Black Americans feel towards the President is real. So real that it could effect the election. No politician should ever take a voting block for granted. Black Americans are in much more dire economic shape than whites. While they won’t vote for Romney, they may not vote for Obama in the same numbers they did in 2008. The President has made overtures to the Hispanic vote with his executive order of the dream act; his decision to not uphold DOMA has helped him among the gay community. Where is his political gesture to the black vote? Most black voters, if not all, will vote for
Obama. But if black voters stay home it could be the nail in the coffin for President Obama’s reelection.
Thank God for McClatchy. They truly are the one western news outlet that is actually engaged in serious reporting. Their newest investigation has to do with the National Reconnaissance Office’s collection of personal information through polygraph tests. The NRO is in charge of maintaining the United States spy satellites. An exhaustive investigation by McClatchy has revealed that NRO polygraphers have been obtaining “intimate details of the private lives of thousands of job applicants and employees, pushing the ethical and legal boundaries of a program that’s designed instead to catch spies and terrorists.” This desire to catch spy’s is so great within the NRO, that cash bonuses are handed out to polygraphers who ask personal questions, known as Code 55 admissions. This is all illegal. The NRO has no jurisdiction or authority to ask personal questions such as, have you ever used marijuana, has you attempted suicide, do you suffer from depression. Several whistle blowers from with in the NRO have come forward to expose what has been going on. Of course the NRO has denied any wrongdoing with how they conduct polygraph tests. Here are two wonderful gems from the McClatchy article. Both of these examples demonstrate how ridiculous the NRO’s poygraph testing is. They also show how unconcerned they are over real criminal conduct.
Last September, a woman who’d held a clearance for more than 15 years and already had passed a national security polygraph was interrogated for more than four hours over two additional polygraph sessions, said Hinshaw, who said he’d been ordered to do it. Hinshaw’s supervisors launched the aggressive inquiry because they suspected that the woman had smoked pot more than the one time years before that she’d admitted to, records show. In the end, however, the only other information the National Reconnaissance Office extracted from her was that she’d been molested at age 16.
Here is the other more disturbing aspect of the NRO’s polygraph testing:
Despite the agency’s interest in criminal behavior, those who confess to serious offenses aren’t always criminally prosecuted even when child molestation is involved, McClatchy found.
In one case, a contractor who was a former Escondido, Calif., substitute teacher admitted to molesting a third-grade student in 2005 during outside tutoring sessions paid for by the girl’s immigrant parents. In a 2010 polygraph session, the man said that if he were asked, “ ‘Have you ever molested a 9-year-old?’ I’d have to say yes.”
The Escondido Police Department and school district where he’d been employed weren’t notified of the incident. After being contacted by McClatchy, the school district called the Escondido Police Department to file a report.When National Reconnaissance Office polygraphers asked supervisors in a meeting last summer why people weren’t being arrested on the spot after such confessions, they were told that the allegations were referred to the appropriate authorities, Phillips and Hinshaw said.
The agency refused to answer McClatchy’s questions about the molestation confession, saying in a statement only that its polygraph program “is in compliance with the law.”
I would urge everyone to read the full article. The recent purging of whistle blowers, and the current administrations desire for secrecy, must be exposed for what it is.
The above video was produced by the security apparatus of the Defenses Intelligence Agency (DIA) as a training video on the dangers of espionage. The short video was made after Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987. Pollard stole and transferred one million classified intelligence documents to the Israeli government. Grant Smith of the Institute of Research: Middle East Policy obtained the video under a Freed of Information Act (FOIA) request. The video is hokey and very 80’s, but it shows just how serious DIA took this incident. Smith believes that President Obama may be close to pardoning Pollard from prison. A pardon for Pollard would show just how willing the US is to please Israel, and represent how Israel is totally above the law when it comes to spying on their closet ally.
The circus that has surrounded House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa’s investigation into the Fast and Furious gun walking program is soon to enter the grand finale. The House floor will vote today on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. Now I am not going to sit here in judgement of AG Holder or Rep. Issa. Did Holder lie to Congress about what he knew? Of course he lied but that wouldn’t be the first time an official lied during a Congressional hearing. Is Issa pursuing Fast and Furious for political points? Well of course this is Issa’s ultimate goal, and yet this wouldn’t constitute the first instance of a Congressman hounding someone for political purposes.
All fights like this in Washington miss the real root of the problem. Instead of dealing with the very real and dangerous problem of Mexican cartels buying guns just across the border Congress is more concerned with seeing if Holder lied. This is similar to the current leaks investigation. No one seems to care that the President has a death panel to decide which “terrorist” to kill. They care only that the media and public found out about it. Any time that Fast and Furious is discussed in the media or in Congress it is only to denigrate AG Holder for not telling the truth, not on the fact that hundreds of guns cross the border and into the hands of the cartels. There are no voices within the GOP railing about the ease with which cartels can legally purchase guns in the U.S. for transport to Mexico. On the contrary, many Republicans view what the ATF does as counter to the rights of gun owners. They cite ludicrous reports that cartels purchase arms in Guatemala not the US. Ludicrous because no business minded cartel would go through all the trouble and money of transporting guns from their southern border up to the north where the fighting is when the US is spitting distance away. Again all Republicans seem concerned with is embarrassing the administration.
Democrats play a part in this three ring circus as well. Several Democrats in conservative leaning distracts are being leaned on by the NRA to vote in favor of contempt. Afraid of losing their seats some Democrats will break party lines and vote in favor of contempt. Further politicizing the scandal are those calling the attack on Holder racial. The Congressional Black Caucus plans to walk out of the House during the vote. While some sort of racial component might have something to do with going after Holder, although it seems like a bit of a stretch, the CBC are blindly defending Holder simply because of this race. They fail to see the problem and fact that Holder probably did lie to Congress. More importantly they are shifting the discussion away from arms trafficking. Democrats in general have been too eager to support the administration on this. As with all of the criminal things that the administration has done i.e. signature drone strikes, Democrats have somehow been able to justify this to themselves. Many seem to think that Holder not telling the truth is somehow different because he is a Democrat and not a Republican. And while some Dems have been bringing up the real issue of how these guns make it into Mexico their calls are fewer and fewer. Instead they are just as caught up in the political food fight that their counterparts across the aisle are. Coming out on top in the battle over who did or didn’t lie is more important. They care as much about arms trafficking and the death of Border Agent Brian Terry as Republicans do, not at all. In the end the arms trade that fuels the violence over the drug trade will continue with no change from Washington.
Porkins Policy Review 