America Has Gone Away

In a speech to National Press Club President Kennedy once said: “The word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society.”  The ideals that John F. Kennedy once stood for in preserving the right of the media and the American people to criticize it’s government died with him in Dallas, TX, November 22, 1963.

With the knowledge that is out there, I find it nearly impossible to believe that we are ‘fighting for our freedom’.  Remember, folks, The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.

Paul Craig Roberts
Thursday, December 30, 2010

Anyone who doesn’t believe that the US is an incipient fascist state needs only to consult the latest assault on civil liberty by Fox News. Instead of informing citizens, Fox News informs on citizens. Jason Ditz reports ( Dec. 28) that Fox News “no longer content to simply shill for a growing police state,” turned in a grandmother to the Department of Homeland Security for making “anti-American comments.”

The media have segued into the police attitude, which regards insistence on civil liberties and references to the Constitution as signs of extremism, especially when the Constitution is invoked in defense of dissent or privacy or placarded on a bumper sticker. President George W. Bush set the scene when he declared: “you are with us or against us.”

Bush’s words demonstrate a frightening decline in our government’s respect for dissent since the presidency of John F. Kennedy. In a speech to the Newspaper Publishers Association in 1961, President Kennedy said:

“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. . . . Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law makers once decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment.”

The press is not protected, Kennedy told the newspaper publishers, in order that it can amuse and entertain, emphasize the trivial, or simply tell the public what it wants to hear. The press is protected so that it can find and report facts and, thus, inform, arouse “and sometimes even anger public opinion.”

In a statement unlikely to be repeated by an American president, Kennedy told the newspaper publishers:

“I’m not asking your newspapers to support an 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.”

The America of Kennedy’s day and the America of today are two different worlds. In America today the media are expected to lie for the government in order to prevent the people from finding out what the government is up to. If polls can be believed, Americans brainwashed and programmed by O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh want Bradley Manning and Julian Assange torn limb from limb for informing Americans of the criminal acts of their government. Politicians and journalists are screeching for their execution.

President Kennedy told the Newspaper Publishers Association that “it is to the printing press, 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.” Who can imagine a Bill Clinton, a George W. Bush, or a Barack Obama saying such a thing today?

Today the press is a propaganda ministry for the government. Any member who departs from his duty to lie and spin the news is expelled from the fraternity. A public increasingly unemployed, broke and homeless is told that they have vast enemies plotting to destroy them in the absence of annual trillion dollar expenditures for the military/security complex, wars lasting decades, no-fly lists, unlimited spying and collecting of dossiers on citizens supplemented by neighbors reporting on neighbors, full body scanners at airports, shopping centers, metro and train stations, traffic checks, and the equivalence of treason with the uttering of a truth.

Two years ago when he came into office President Obama admitted that no one knew what the military mission was in Afghanistan, including the president himself, but that he would find a mission and define it. On his recent trip to Afghanistan, Obama came up with the mission: to make the families of the troops safe in America, his version of Bush’s “we have to kill them over there before they kill us over here.”

No one snorted with derision or even mildly giggled. Neither the New York Times nor Fox News (sic) dared to wonder if perhaps, maybe, murdering and displacing large numbers of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen and US support for Israel’s similar treatment of Lebanese and Palestinians might be creating a hostile environment that could breed terrorists. If there still is such a thing as the Newspaper Publishers Association, its members are incapable of such an unpatriotic thought.

Today no one believes that our country’s success depends on an informed public and a free press. America’s success depends on its financial and military hegemony over the world. Any information inconsistent with the indispensable people’s god-given right to dominate the world must be suppressed and the messenger discredited and destroyed.

Now that the press has voluntarily shed its First Amendment rights, the government is working to redefine free speech as a privilege limited to the media, not a right of citizens. Thus, the insistence that WikiLeaks is not a media organization and Fox News (sic) turning in a citizen for exercising free speech. Washington’s assault on Assange and WikiLeaks is an assault on what remains of the US Constitution. When we cheer for WikiLeaks’ demise, we are cheering for our own.


Freedom of Speech will be reduced to a dull whisper

The only government can do in ‘regulating’ something is to ultimately destroy what it was ‘trying’ to protect.

Kurt Nimmo
Wednesday, December 29, 2010

According to a recent Rasmussen’s poll, most Americans understand the FCC’s internet regulations will be used by the government to push a political agenda.

54% of respondents oppose the FCC effort to regulate the internet while 21% support it. 25% are not sure. By a 52% to 27% margin, Rasmussen reported on December 28, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting internet users. Most Democrats see an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.

In April, a Rasmussen poll revealed that just 27% of Americans believed the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the internet like it does television and radio.

Internet regulation was the hallmark of Obama in 2008 as he ran for president. After installing Genachowski as FCC chairman, the Obama administration started to move on its promise to regulate the internet. The FCC began to act like a fiefdom and told a federal appeals court it had the power to impose regulation on broadband rates, even though Congress had not given the agency the power to do so.

In fact, 300 members of Congress, including a large number of Democrats, told the FCC in no uncertain terms to stop its attempt to grab power over the internet. The FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of internet regulation.

In August, the FCC worked with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules.

The FCC decided before Christmas to make its move. Obama said the new government regulation will “help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet.” In fact, it would do just the opposite.

Genachowski and the FCC naturally try to make this unwarranted move look like a white knight government protecting consumers against greedy telecommunications companies and ISPs. Beyond the rhetoric about “net neutrality,” however, lies the real purpose of the FCC regulations – government control and censorship.

“What governments around the world are suddenly beginning to realize is that a free internet is ultimately incompatible with government secrets, and secrets are essential to any government that wants to remain in power,” writes Mike Adams of Natural News. “As part of a long-term plan to control content on the internet, the FCC is now attempting to assert authority over the internet in the same way it has long exercised content censorship authority over broadcast television and radio.”

Adams argues that the FCC is attempting to assert its authority over the internet. “By asserting its authority with net neutrality, the FCC will establish a beachhead of implied authority from which it can begin to control and censor the internet,” he writes.

Obama’s FCC commissariat is not losing sleep over the First Amendment. It was the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd who said that “blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies,” namely converting the internet into the same government regulated medium as television and radio.

Prior to the FCC vote, the United Nations announced its plan to regulate the internet.

“The United Nations is also aiming to run the Internet for you,” warns Joseph A. Klein. “With the backing of governments around the world who don’t mind free-riding on American investment and know-how in the Internet while seeking as many ways as possible to usurp control over its governance, the UN establishment has been trying for years to move control of the Internet’s day-to-day management to some sort of global governance forum.”

Efforts by the FCC and the United Nations at the behest of the globalists are contrary to the model that has emerged since the technology was invented in 1973 and became public in the early 1990s.

“The beauty of the Internet is that it’s not controlled by any one group. Its governance is bottoms-up – with academics, non-profits, companies and governments all working to improve this technological wonder of the modern world. This model has not only made the Internet very open – a testbed for innovation by anyone, anywhere – it’s also prevented vested interests from taking control,” wrote Vint Cerf, who is often called the father of the internet, in response to the UN proposal to regulate the internet.

A free and open internet is anathema to government as it moves to control nations, populations, and telecommunications. In order to succeed and build world government and its accompanying control grid, the internet must be tamed and folded into the established propaganda apparatus.

The machinations of the FCC and the United Nations reveal once again how worried the establishment is about a free and open internet. The internet cannot be allowed to be a primary and growing source of alternative information that challenges daily the corporate media propaganda system that acts like a megaphone for a control freak government.

Megyn Kelly has nothing else to talk about, so lets take a jab at Vick and Obama

You know, Megyn Kelly tries really hard to be a journalist, but she inevitably

Conservative?...What's next, Playboy...We hope so!

falls flat on her face.  Isn’t it so sad?

President Obama called the Philidelphia Eagles owner to praise him for trying to use green energy to power their stadium, and in the course of things, I guess, the President praised him for giving Michael Vick ‘a second chance’.

This is more of a chance to blast the President than it is to smear Michael Vick.  Given that what Vick did was disgusting and cruel, but should a celebrity having such a glorious chance come as a surprise?  Evidently, Kelly and any other avid Fox News viewer thinks that Vick should be castrated and hung out to dry.

Never mind the fact that Eagles fans love him, he is having a record year, and he will be going to the Pro Bowl.  And could we see a Super Bowl ring in the making?

Michael Vick did his time.  But, of course, in America, we don’t like to forget the mistakes of others.  The old saying ‘paid his debt to society’ holds no weight.  But, again, this was more of a smear campaign on the President than it is Mr. Vick.

Michael Vick, I wish you well.  Even if you did beat my Colts.

Are the Globalist’s begging for War between the Koreas?

The ‘Forgotten War’ has been over for the last fifty years, so why is there need for U.S. involvement?  By being on the Korean peninsula and trying to be the intermidiary, the United States has contributed to an already fragile situation.  Maybe the greatest thing that can be contributed to U.S. foreign policy is that on the day that we turn away from out interventionist foreign policy, we will find that the world can take care of itself.


Seoul, Dec 23 (DPA) South Korea held large-scale ground and air live-fire drills Thursday close to the border with North Korea, which sharpened its tone and threatened a ‘sacred war’ with nuclear weapons.

The manoeuvres at a firing range in Pocheon, around 30 km from the inter-Korean border, involved more than 100 types of weapons, officials were quoted as saying by the South’s Yonhap News Agency.

Artillery, anti-aircraft guns, attack helicopters and fighter jets took part, the report said. Around 800 troops were involved, and the firing lasted about two hours, a military spokesman said.

Thursday also saw the second day of a three-day firing exercise by the navy in the Sea of Japan to the east of the peninsula, about 100 km south of the maritime border with North Korea.

Kim Young Chun, minister of the North Korean People’s Armed Forces, accused South Korea of preparing for war with the Sea of Japan exercises, according to the North’s official Korean Central News Agency.

‘The revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK are getting fully prepared to launch a sacred war of Korean-style justice based on the nuclear deterrent at any time necessary to cope with the enemies’ actions, which are deliberately pushing the situation to the brink of a war,’ Kim was quoted as saying, referring to his country by the acronym of its official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Seoul has been toughening its stance against its neighbour after domestic criticism over what was perceived as a weak response to the shelling of a South Korean island by the North Nov 23, which left two soldiers and two civilians dead.

South Korean President Lee Myung Bak said Thursday that a tough response to North Korean attacks was necessary to maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula.

‘I thought patience would bring peace to this land, but it was not so,’ Lee said on a visit to troops in Yanggu and a post about one kilometre from North Korea.

The president said he then came to realise that only a strong reaction to North Korean attacks would deter it from further belligerent acts and stave off war.

The US, a major ally of South Korea, had urged the North not to respond to Thursday’s drills.

‘I think exercises that have been announced well in advance, that are transparent, that are defensive in nature should in no way engender a response from the North Koreans,’ White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said late Wednesday.

He added that Washington was ‘obviously supportive of the Republic of Korea,’ using the formal name for South Korea.

South Korea has held a series of live-fire exercises since the artillery bombardment of Yeonpyeong island. This week also saw live-fire exercises off the country’s west coast.

North Korea does not recognise the maritime border, drawn up by the UN, the US and South Korea after the 1950-53 conflict with the North ended in a ceasefire, not a peace treaty, leaving the two Koreas technically still at war.

The South Korean military, meanwhile, lowered its level of readiness along the border by one notch from the top level, a Joint Chiefs of Staff official was quoted as saying Thursday by Yonhap.

The forces had been on highest alert for live-fire drills Monday at Yeonpyeong and for the illumination of a large Christmas tree near the North Korean border, which Pyongyang has denounced as psychological warfare.

A little boy’s Christmas

Years ago I found this story on a message board.  It was during the Christmas of 2003 and it was going to be the first Christmas that I was going to be spending without my father; he died earlier that year.  As I read on…well, you’ll see what happened.

With a little bit of searching on Google I was able to find that story.  However, I was able to find the video on Youtube.  So I’m gonna go with the video.  Enjoy.