With the recent online release of the digitized Kennedy Archive, we have been able to see some nice photos. Some of the photos include JFK welcoming some Masons and their wives in the Rose Garden on April 10th, 1961. http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-View...KN-C17478.aspx http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-View...KN-C17481.aspx The many Freemasons were in town for the International Council of Supreme Councils (Scottish Rite Masons). The House of Temple located in DC is well known as the HQ for the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction. What many don't know is that there are many Supreme Councils located around the globe. This conference that I talked about in the previous post was a International Conference of all those Councils; men who have dedicated a lot of time to the Craft. I would consider them to be high ranking officials within the Scottish Rite. As a Mason, I do laugh at the "high level", "low level" nonsense that so many anti-Masons throw around. I will say however, that a 33rd is somebody who has devoted his life to Freemasonry, particularly to the Scottish Rite. We have some similar degrees/orders and honors in the York Rite. Here is also a link to the JFK speech that is so often misquoted and used against the Freemasons in an endeavor to label them a "secret society". His speech was about the press and the wanted privacy of the First Family in the White House. Hell he even says there is a need for secrecy, but that it was a taboo to discuss it as the word was cursed if you will. Nor was he talking about civil organizations. He was talking about balancing personal freedom with freedom of the press and national security versus freedom of the press. This speech was given at a dinner to Bureau of Advertising, American Newspaper Publishers Association.
So many use to condemn it, but when the true context of the speech comes out no one wants to discuss. How odd.
the speech is addressing the failed 'bay of pigs' invasion and communism, not any freemason, nwo or illuminati nonsense "Convinced that the Bay of Pigs failure could be attributed partly to press stories that had alerted Castro to an invasion, Kennedy used an April address to the American Newspaper Publishers Association to urge the country to sacrifice some of its traditional freedoms." source: 'An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963', By Robert Dallek, page 374
Either another shill that has penetrated this site or someone afraid of the truth.everybody that knows anthing about this case knows that it was a home grown plot.the fact that the ss agents destroyed and removed evidence and nobody got fired for that or their incompetence despite violating ss regulations and protocols is proof that it was a hime grown plot.go to a crime scene sometime and destroy and remove evidence.next phone call you make will be from jail. also,you are not awre that when the HSCA investigations was winding down two CIA men came forward and said-we did it,where do you want to go with this investigation? since the investigation pointed towards government involvenment,they ignored it and did not pursue it.a member of that team wrote a book about it.thats why he resigned from that commission in disgust because they had no intention of finding the truth. also,E Howard Hunt,a CIA man,confessed on his deathbed he was in dallas that day and the CIA was involved.thei aftery ears of denying he was in dallas that day.checkmate.
Unless you can post your source(s), your post has no credibility to it. Its nothing more then unsubstantiated theories and as you know, everyone has a theory.
someone afraid of the truth who only sees what they WANT to see.next time do some reasearch that way moronic posts like these dont surface. we both know you wont do any though because as we both know,you want to keep your head buried in the sand.
read the book THE LAST INVESTIGATION by gaston fonzi.He talks all about it in his book.He was a senator who got disgusted with the HSCA investigation and resigned because of that cause anything that pointed towards government involvement,they ignored.before I go any further with you,tell me,do you support the lone gunman theory that oswald did it? if so,you are in the minority,even in the specials that PBS airs that defend that fiary tale.they announced-despite all this evidence against oswald"fabricated and unsubstantiated of course," 80% of americans think there was a conspiracy to kill him. what they failed to mention is that even the HSCA said it was a conspiracy and the warren commission was wrong concluding there must have been a probable conspiracy but were unable to locate the other shooter.yet there are at at least two paid trolls that come on here and toot the horn of the governments that oswald did it,cracks me up.
I at least cite my sources which you have not done and at least have first hand knowledge while you do not.
Yes but this poster hit the nail right on the head.oh and you did not answer my question of are you one of those lone nut theorist who thinks oswald did it? Actually JFK's "secret society" speech was about national security, classified information versus freedom of the press. If one actually reads the entire speech its quite obvious. Also note that he gave it at a dinner for journalists. Yes but he is also opposing the abuse of classifying information to the extent that TPTB keep the public in the dark about matters they should know about. 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. And he directs this speech to journalists to inform them that a secret conspiracy does exist, and it is up to them to expose it. 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. In the full speech it is quite obvious that he was addressing Communism as a particular threat. However, his remarks regarding secret societies, secret oaths and secret proceedings were separate but applicable to the context of his speech in general. The manner in which he made those statements was not by accident nor incidental, and separately, the application of those statements to communism and to the freedom of the press, which was the target of the context, was equally deliberate. After all, the speech was aptly titled "The President and the Press". JFK's remarks regarding the opportunistic nature of those in power to seize upon times of strife and anxiety to gain a foothold against liberty are timeless and need not be reduced to a specific threat from "long ago". To do so is to reduce his words to mere anti-communism talking points. Besides, we must remember that communism is but a tactic used by those whom would fulfill their goal of a New World Order, all the while using the press as a tool for control while implementing planks of the Communist Manifesto.-Monkey Puppet PNAC, Zionism (Communism), anyone? THIS POSTER TOOK K MASON TO SCHOOL Yes but he is also opposing the abuse of classifying information to the extent that TPTB keep the public in the dark about matters they should know about. 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. And he directs this speech to journalists to inform them that a secret conspiracy does exist, and it is up to them to expose it. 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. In the full speech it is quite obvious that he was addressing Communism as a particular threat. However, his remarks regarding secret societies, secret oaths and secret proceedings were separate but applicable to the context of his speech in general. The manner in which he made those statements was not by accident nor incidental, and separately, the application of those statements to communism and to the freedom of the press, which was the target of the context, was equally deliberate. After all, the speech was aptly titled "The President and the Press". JFK's remarks regarding the opportunistic nature of those in power to seize upon times of strife and anxiety to gain a foothold against liberty are timeless and need not be reduced to a specific threat from "long ago". To do so is to reduce his words to mere anti-communism talking points. Besides, we must remember that communism is but a tactic used by those whom would fulfill their goal of a New World Order, all the while using the press as a tool for control while implementing planks of the Communist Manifesto.-Monkey Puppet PNAC, Zionism (Communism), anyone? __________________ s __________________
secret societies like the ones in the kremlin, secret oaths like the ones castro made with the kremlin and secret proceedings like the ones that lead to missiles being shipped to cuba the speech had nothing to do with nwo delusions, the failures of the soviet union just illustrate that no singular group, country or organization has enough power to control the world, new world disorder is the dominant force