JFK + Executive Order 11110 = Head Shot?

JFK was shot in the head by sniper fire in broad daylight in Texas. Can we all agree on that?

It is the rest of the puzzle that divides us - yes? Lone gunman vs. grassy knoll vs. someone in the storm drain etc... We don't have answers, it seems to me, because the evidence we need using todays technology is absent. By hook or by crook a story made its way to the populace. But conflicting accounts, omitted evidence, magic bullet theories and questions about means, motive and opportunity which accompany any crime naturally left doubt in the mind of the crowd. The mafia, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam military-industrial interests etc... - the question remains: Who HAD to kill JFK?

Please watch the video below - give it some thought - and ask yourself - why did JFK think it was so important to back our money? The man was brave and brilliant. Who stood to lose the most by JFK's actions regarding Executive Order 11110 - perhaps the Federal Reserve?



Silver coins and silver-backed U.S. Notes vs. Federal Reserve notes backed by NOTHING. A note that is A legal tender for all debts public and private vs. a note that IS legal tender for all debts public and private. Look (CLICK) HERE for previous post pics so you can see the words for yourself on real bills.

I've often heard there is no intrinsic value in a Federal Reserve Note. I disagree. The intrinsic value of a modern Federal Reserve note is the valuable unique paper. This paper existing as a one dollar Federal Reserve Note can be bleached then re-printed by a counterfeiter with a $100 dollar designation - multiplying its value by 100. Presto - money for nothing! Although this is illegal it doesn't seem to differ much from what the Federal Reserve itself does - stamp paper with a number and call it money!

Interesting pics of historical money here

JFK was for the PEOPLE it seems to me - NOT the entrenched elite powers. Means, motive and opportunity must be considered in any murder - this murder is no different in that regard.

Is Glenn Beck warning us that General Wesley Clark is a Whacko?

Please go to Patriots Question 911 Truth where you will find, among many, many credible 911 Truth advocates, the following:

"General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Additionally, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), which granted him overall command of NATO military forces in Europe 1997 - 2001. Awarded Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart for his service in Viet Nam and numerous subsequent medals and citations. Graduated valedictorian of his class at West Point.
Video interview ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos 3/5/06: "I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works. We need Congress to do its job. We need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch. ... We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time." http://securingamerica.com/node/692"

The Patriots Question 911 Truth site has this quote:

"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of
defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility. I welcome it. — John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address Jan. 20, 1961"

Check out the links on the left side of this blog for Firefighters for 911 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, Lawyers for 911 Truth and many others.

Now please watch the following video clip where Glenn Beck associates 911 Truthers with the Holocaust shooter. I didn't hear him make any exceptions, so I must conclude he means General Wesley Clark too.



Now from AE911Truth:


Now Glenn Beck again:


How does this fearmonger make such gratuitous assertions on national television? He brings up "Don't blame the messenger" while he commits the same crime by blaming the messengers bringing the truth about 911.
----------------

UPDATE June 21, 2009 911Truther to sue Glenn Beck/Fox
UPDATE JUNE 21, 2009 Jack Blood to Glenn Beck
UPDATE JUNE 22, 2009 Audio interview Dr. Griffin -includes this topic
UPDATE JUNE 26, 2009 Court upholds ban on words with NAZI link
UPDATE JULY 28, 2009 Silly Chris Matthews jumps on the "they're crazy" bandwagon -

UPDATE JULY 28, 2009 HAL TURNER A SNITCH FOR THE FBI?

The Smear Campaign vs. 911 Truth: All they've got!

Don't look at what David Ray Griffin has to say. Don't look at his facts. Listen to the gentleman in the smear video below as he attacks David Ray Griffin with a "paper" (as opposed to Griffin's numerous books) and complains that Griffin is somehow "hiding". If giving lectures at Boston University (video below) is "hiding" well... first some definitions about SMEAR (CLICK) campaigns.

"A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character. "Mud slinging", like negative campaigning, most often targets government officials, politicians, political candidates, and other public figures. However, private persons or groups may also become targets of smear campaigns perpetrated in schools, companies, institutions, families, and other social groups.
Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual and to attempt to undermine their credibility.
Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and are often distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip spreading. Even when the facts behind a smear are shown to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before the truth is known.
Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question and onto the individual or group. The target of the smear is typically forced to defend his reputation rather than focus on the previous issue.
Smear tactics are considered by many to be a low, disingenuous form of discourse; they are nevertheless very common."

Please consider the information at FIREFIGHTERS FOR 911TRUTH.

Given the above, please watch the videos below:
Griffin at Boston University:


then please watch the attack-notice the name-calling as in smear definition above:


Did you notice that 911Truth advocates, like Dr. Griffin don't stoop to tactics like name-calling? Why must their critics? From my experience name-calling and ridicule are last-ditch efforts required by those who've run out of rational argument ammo.

I heard Laura Ingraham, a Republican party shill on AM radio in Charlottesville, VA - two days in a row following the Holocaust shooting - equate 911 Truth activists with the accused shooter. NEWS FLASH - THERE IS NO CONNECTION! Laura Ingraham bragged that she went to UVA Law School (cue for reader to be impressed) and was considered an "elite" for some reason. I wonder how she is considered "elite" by anyone when she hasn't taken the time to read the DUST STUDY (CLICK) where ACTIVE THERMITIC MATERIAL WAS DISCOVERED IN WTC DUST. She even brought this up in front of George Will (Columnist) who also remained silent as she made these connections of 911 Truthers with white supremacists. Notice there is no connection.

911 Truth is a reality that must be faced - this means YOU! Please watch the video below:

Police Car hits Pedestrian in Wheelchair- charges against pedestrian dropped

Please watch this video of the incident involving the police vehicle:



You can read more about this case and another involving a truck and wheelchair pedestrian HERE. From the article:

"... the case of Gerry Mitchell, who was struck by an Albemarle County Police cruiser on November 5 and then ticketed. His charges were dropped on January 6, and Mitchell has not announced whether he’ll pursue a civil case against Albemarle County Police or Charlottesville Police who ticketed him hours after he was struck."

I thought the rule was that pedestrians had the right of way - I suppose there is an "unless" in there somewhere.

US Supreme Court gets it Wrong: No Right to DNA tests after conviction -Videos

update July 29, 2009 Cops frame girl
-------------------


I'm confused - my first exposure to DNA testing was a few years ago while listening to C-SPAN radio near Washington, D.C. with my friend Thom heading to work . We tuned in just as testimony was beginning of a man who had been imprisoned for almost his entire life. The speaker who had recently been exonerated for a crime he'd never commited was not bitter, angry or looking for revenge. He was simply thankful to get out of prison so he could enjoy what few years of his life remained. Many years have passed so I don't have particulars of that exact case - but I remember Thom and I were dumbfounded and shocked that our legal system was capable of such injustice. Fast forward to today - it's fixed right? NO - in fact we just took a step in the wrong direction.

I came across THIS STORY today regarding a recent decision by the Supreme Court ruling that:

"The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday ruled that a defendant does not have the constitutional right to demand DNA tests to prove his innocence after his case has already been tried.

In a split decision of five to four in a country which still carries out the death penalty, the nation's highest court said a federal Alaska tribunal was wrong to allow a man jailed for rape to have retroactive DNA tests.

"DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty," the court wrote in its opinion of the case of William Osborne, serving 26 years in prison for the 1994 rape.

At the same time, DNA testing alone does not always resolve a case. Where there is enough other incriminating evidence and an explanation for the DNA result, science alone cannot prove a prisoner innocent, it added."

Have we learned nothing? Why NOT allow testing? Cui bono? It seems to me that the DNA testing, in the case of a guilty person, would help remove any lingering doubt as to innocence, while in the case of a wrongly convicted person the DNA testing would be a valuable check on our legal system to do what we are supposed to aim for - protect the innocent. Instead we have a ruling from the Supreme Court that defies common sense by taking away one of our best scientific tools for finding the truth.

Take a look HERE where you can read about Curtis McCarty who was exonerated based on DNA evidence:

"OKLAHOMA CITY, OK; May 11, 2007) – Curtis Edward McCarty, who was convicted twice and sentenced to death for the same murder in verdicts that were both thrown out based on evidence of his innocence and an extraordinary pattern of government misconduct, was released from prison this morning after a judge dismissed the indictment against him that would have led to a third trial. The prosecution said today that it will not appeal the decision – finally clearing McCarty after 21 years of wrongful incarceration, more than 16 of them on death row."

Am I correct in my understanding that this recent ruling could have prevented justice in the McCarty case? Is the goal really justice? Consider this logic from article:

"Robert H. Macy, who was the Oklahoma County District Attorney for 21 years, prosecuted McCarty in both of his trials. Macy sent 73 people to death row – more than any other prosecutor in the nation – and 20 of them have been executed. Macy has said publicly that he believes executing an innocent person is a sacrifice worth making in order to keep the death penalty in the United States. "

Am I naive in my old-fashioned way of thinking that our justice system is based on the protection of the innocent - that it is better to let the guilty free than to punish an innocent person? What happened? Why do I continue with this belief while events demonstrate over and over again that convictions regardless of guilt are more important to our legal practitioners than protecting the wrongly accused?

Please watch John Grisham, a fellow Charlottesvillian, continuing his heroic fight for justice:



I'm not a lawyer - but do I have to be a lawyer to know this ruling is simply crazy?

U.S. Money: Will Pay to the Bearer on Demand ? Two Photos

Please examine the bills above - notice the change of wording between the two bills: "Will pay to the bearer on demand" appears on the older bill, but not on the second bill. Then notice the dates the bills were printed. What is the significance?

What would be payed to the bearer on demand?

I should add that I was inspired to drag the bills out for the pic by a discussion on the "What Really Happened Radio Show" this evening.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT THE BILLS ABOVE...

UPDATE AUGUST 1, 2009 MONEY IS WEALTH blog - check it out
UPDATE NOVEMBER 6, 2009 ANOTHER TWO DOLLAR BILL HERE TO LOOK AT




UPDATE JUN 16, 2009 in silver payable...

UPDATE FEB 13, 2010 TEN DOLLAR BILLS WILL PAY
---------

Test Your Lie Detection Skills - Video

UPDATE JUNE 17, 2009 LOOK WHO REPRESENTS AMERICANS IN IRAQ !
UPDATE JUNE 19, 2009 Torture-coerced confession of supposed 911 mastermind "made up"
-----------------
Please watch the video below. Can you determine who is lying? Can you see who the hero is?

I feel it is important to bring attention to the video below for two reasons: First because it provides more evidence that torture in fact does NOT work. Secondly to publicly applaud Matthew Alexander, former USAF interrogator, in the video for stepping up and speaking out against torture for what it really is - an enemy generator. Hopefully his heroism will serve as an example to embolden more to come forward and make America great again.



No torture required for this confession: Confession during therapy session

Public Outcry in America: The Sound of ONE HAND clapping

A friend of mine posed a question to the American public this evening: When will you get ANGRY? This question baffles me as well as I reflect on current events in the U.S..

I don't know if my answer carries any more weight than yours so instead I'm going to type out a list as quickly as possible from memory of things that have NOT moved the public to action:

Loss of Retirement

Loss of Equity in Home while responsible for mortgage at bubble market price

Torture

Health Care

Police Brutality

Institutionalized Usury

Militarized Police

Spying and Wiretapping

Border Control

911 Truth

Torture

Katrina

Economy

Wars of Aggression Based on Lies Based on Torture

Soldiers having to steal water to survive in Iraq due to supply failure

Going to war with no armor

Security problems blamed for 911 remain unaddressed

Repeated Attacks on the 2nd Amendment

Hate Speech legislation proposals that threaten 1st Amendment

U.S. media beholden to corporations must serve their true masters. (Not the Public)

Did I leave anything out?

-------------

UPDATE JUNE 11, 2009 Colossal Waste of Public money
UPDATE JUNE 11, 2009 Dollar-Based Representation
UPDATE JUNE 12, 2009 ...outsource such sensitive homeland security duties...
UPDATE JUNE 12, 2009 That dick Cheney invading Iraq despite... video
UPDATE JUNE 12, 2009 USS LIBERTY attack/coverup