Monthly Archives: February 2009

Happy Birthday, Teddy

A BIRTHDAY TRIBUTE TO TEDDY

* As Senator Edward M. Kennedy continues to battle terminal brain cancer, The Boston Globe paid homage’ to this icon of American politics with a lengthy biography published just before his 77th birthday.

Edward Moore Kennedy, ninth child of Joseph P. and Rose Kennedy, was born on Feb. 22, 1932 – which just happened to be the 200th anniversary of George Washington’s birthday. Whether or not he took it as an omen, the proud father, who already envisioned a Kennedy becoming the first Catholic president, often pointed out the felicitous date to others.

Ironically, the presidency would not be bestowed upon Teddy, of course. Nor would it be in the destiny of JP Kennedy’s eldest son Joe Jr., the one his father had always predicted would be president.

As fate would have it, the only member of the Kennedy family who achieved that goal was the one assumed least likely to make it: Joe’s second son, the chronically (and often seriously) ill John F. Kennedy.

And as fate would also decree, President Kennedy’s time in that high office would be tragically cut short by an assassin’s bullet after little more than a thousand days.

Jack’s younger brother Robert, attorney general of the United States, was next in line to lead the family political dynasty. Bobby picked up the torch and attempted to reclaim the presidency in his brother’s memory. After being elected senator from New York in 1964, RFK ran for the White House four years later and may well have completed the journey had it not been for his ill-fated campaign stop at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on June 4, 1968.

Ted (L), Jack (center) and Bobby (R) in Washington, D.C., 1958

Ted (L), Jack (center) and Bobby (R) in Washington, D.C., 1958

After losing all three of his elder brothers and seeing his father incapacitated by a stroke, Ted Kennedy, then-senator from Massachusetts, suddenly became the unlikely patriarch. For the next 40 years, not a day would pass that Teddy didn’t have someone approach and ask him to run for the presidency.

Despite a 1964 plane crash that almost killed him and the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident which nearly ruined his political career, Ted Kennedy did make a run for the White House in 1980, but lost the Democratic nomination to President Jimmy Carter. Well, he gave it the old college try, as they say, then he wisely chose to spend the rest of his years focusing on the responsibility of being a U.S. Senator. Ted seemed happy with his choice and never looked back.

But that didn’t stop people from asking. Would he ever run again? Why not the Presidency, they asked him over and over again as the years turned into decades. He’d say no a thousand times, and still the question was repeated.

Well, they finally stopped asking one day last May. When it became known that Senator Kennedy had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, that long-held dream of putting the last Kennedy brother in the White House was over.

As Ted Kennedy prepares to sail on his final voyage, heading for that bright horizon where he will reunite with all of his beloved friends and family who sailed before him, we’d like to encourage our readers to honor his birthday and celebrate his remarkable life. One way to do it is to take some time out of your busy day and read this well-researched and often moving tribute to Senator Edward Kennedy in the Boston Globe. Highly recommended.

Click here for full size image

3 Comments

Filed under JFK, John F. Kennedy, media, politics, president kennedy, RFK, RFK Jr., robert f. kennedy, robert kennedy jr., senator robert kennedy, the kennedys, Uncategorized

News Cameras Barred From RFK Jr. Event

By Tiger Haynes, Editor 

RFK Jr. speaking at Purdue University earlier this week. Although still photography was permitted, the news media was not allowed to take audio or video of his remarks.

RFK Jr. speaking at Purdue University earlier this week. Although still photography was permitted, the news media was not allowed to take audio or video of his remarks.

MEDIA COVERAGE RESTRICTED AT RFK JR. EVENT

While browsing the various news wires this week, I was somewhat taken aback to find precious little coverage of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Thursday speech at Purdue University. Then I found out why.

Turns out, the news media’s access to this event was severely restricted: no audio or video recordings allowed.

One of the local television channels, WLFI-TV, tried to cover Kennedy’s speech, but their cameras were turned away at the door. As pointed out in both the text of that station’s web site story, and by a seemingly annoyed anchorman on the evening news that night (watch the video here), “News Channel 18 was not allowed to capture video of his (Kennedy’s) presentation.” 

From what I gather so far, the news media were allowed inside the auditorium. Still photographers were allowed to snap a few flash-free pictures during the first three minutes of Kennedy’s speech. Journalists were allowed to take notes by hand. But they were not allowed to document and verify the accuracy of their quotes with an audio or video recording, thus rendering them unable to produce coverage of the event which meets current legal and industry standards.

That certainly explained why the only two articles written about Kennedy’s Purdue speech were riddled with inaccurate and indirect quotations.

As someone who has attended Mr. Kennedy’s speeches enough times to practically have his prepared remarks memorized by now, I spotted the misquotes right away. Before learning of the “no audio or video” policy at Kennedy’s Purdue event, I wondered why my fellow journalists were resorting to 1930s-era newsgathering methods (frantically scribbling on a notepad and hoping to hell they got it right) when more modern technology is readily available to help them do their jobs. 

Justin Mack of the Journal & Courier only used two direct quotes from Kennedy in his article, resorting to paraphrasing and comments from audience members to fill up the remaining column inches. 

In the Exponent, Purdue’s campus newspaper, staff reporter Nisha Deo wound up roughly paraphrasing the majority of Kennedy’s remarks — because the reporter apparently had no other choice.

This is not indicative of press laziness or negligence, but rather points to something much darker and far more troubling: a disturbing national trend towards restricting media access at public events.

DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF “FREEDOM OF THE PRESS” IS

On college campuses, this trend has escalated in recent years to the point where most major universities now have policies on media access. These rules (disguised by the more friendly-sounding and legally nonbinding word “guidelines”) are published in campus policy memos and posted on the university’s websites so that journalists, faculty, staff and students can be familiar with them. While most of these “media guidelines” are just common-sense stuff that responsible journalists don’t have to be told (for example: don’t follow a professor into the bathroom with a camera rolling. Duh.), all this legalese plays fast and loose with the First Amendment and the right of a free press.

Recognizing that no public institution which recieves public funds has any legal right to restrict press access to their campuses, most of the guidelines set forth by universities are indeed reasonable. In general, most policies agree that the news media does not need permission to videotape on campus, except in areas not typically open to the public, such as dorms or classrooms. Most campus policies also convey the understanding that if a press release is issued regarding a specific event (such as Purdue’s press release for RFK Jr.’s appearance), the media does not need special approval to cover that event. (The press release itself is considered an invitation to do so, although some colleges require additional credentialing for specific events.)

Nonetheless, these “reasonable” rules are sometimes perverted and twisted to deny access to certain media organizations who might provide unfavorable coverage or reporters who may be known to ask tough questions, for example. In other words, the “media guidelines” set forth by a university can be used to bar members of the press for any number of arbitrary reasons. This would be clearly unconstitutional.

After doing a thorough search of Purdue University’s website, I found that Purdue (unlike the majority of American universities today) does not have an official policy regarding news media access to the campus. Or if they do have such a policy, it is not available on their website.

I did, however, find a news release put out by Purdue’s News Service in advance of a speech given by Colin Powell on campus in February, 2007. Powell’s appearance was sponsored by the Purdue College of Engineering, who also sponsored Mr. Kennedy’s recent speech as part of their annual National Engineers Week celebration. 

In that news release, the same media “guidelines” for Powell’s 2007 event appear to be exactly the same as those employed for Kennedy’s event this week. Although in that case, the university makes it clear that the media restrictions were at the personal request of Colin Powell — not the university itself — as a condition of his appearance on the campus:

Please note the following stipulations by Powell (emphasis mine – Ed.) concerning his 8 p.m. address:

At the event, journalists:

• May take video of the lobby of Loeb as attendees enter the playhouse. No video may be taken in Loeb Playhouse.

• May take photos at the photo opportunity and during the first three minutes of Powell’s talk. No flash photography is permitted.

• May not take any audio.

• May not direct any questions toward Powell.

Now of course, most seasoned journalists would read these rules and laugh out loud, “are you freakin’ kidding me?” Problem is, neither Powell or the university are kidding around here. They’re quite serious. And if you don’t abide by these “media guidelines,” you’ll be out on your bum…or at the very least, you sure won’t get much of a story.

But as a journalist, if you can’t tape record the speaker’s remarks or even ask a question, then why are you there

This is exactly the question my editor would ask me if I returned to the newsroom empty-handed after being assigned to cover a certain event. If my news organization had gone to the time and trouble to set up media credentials for a reporter and/or a photographer and set aside space for that story to run, you’re damn right they’d be pretty annoyed with me when I shrugged and told them I didn’t have a story because “someone said recording devices were not allowed.”

Any decent editor would probably tell me to go get another job. Followed by this old saw:

Look kid, when you’re assigned to cover a story, we expect you to get that story. If we can send journalists into a frickin’ war zone and get amazing stories out of them daily, we think you can handle filing footage of someone speaking at a local college campus. This ain’t rocket science, son, and your assignment could be a lot tougher. So quit whining about how some rent-a-cop wouldn’t let you in the door, already. We don’t pay you a salary to stand around looking good. We pay you to gather and report the news!”

Yep, that’s what any wizened, no-nonsense editor worth his or her salt would say to me, allright. And of course, I’d go home, crack open a six-pack of beer (to cry in) and pour through the help wanted ads hoping there might be a news organization out there in the world somewhere who might just hire me to not report the news.

“WHAT PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?”

I thought I would pose the question to my “boss,” New Frontier, founding editor of this blog. She’s been my editor and mentor for nearly three years now, helping me navigate the often murky waters of obtaining my degree in journalism. After all, she been working as an editor in print and broadcast newsrooms since before I was even born, so surely she’d have an opinion on this whole Purdue/Kennedy situation, right?

Well, she sure did, and her passionate argument of “what part of the First Amendment do you not understand?” made me damn glad she’s not that poor cameraman at WLFI-TV’s editor! (I might also add that I’m damn glad that I’m not the cameraman at WLFI-TV, or I might just be standing in the unemployment line right now.)

So, I asked her, what should a reporter do under those circumstances? What is the proper procedure to follow when you or your organization is denied access to cover a public event? Then, just to draw a good hypothetical, I used this week’s Purdue/Kennedy incident as an example. If I had been the reporter assigned to the story, and I was told upon arrival at the event to put my camera or tape recorder away, what would she, as my editor, advise me to do?

She laid out a time-proven battle plan for journalists. And it goes a little something like this:

* If you are a credentialed member of the press, on assignment to cover an event, and you are denied access or the ability to fully do your job, the first thing you do is complain. Find an event manager or better yet, a media relations representative for the university and tell them you wish to be admitted and to perform your duties without unreasonable restrictions.

* If that doesn’t work, and the event is still in progress, call your editor immediately. You’d be amazed at the results a good editor can get in these situations with just a few well-placed phone calls. Chances are good that you’ll be in the door, camera in hand, within 5-10 minutes.

* If it is an after-hours event, or no responsible person to make decisions on the university’s behalf can be located in person or by phone, you may have to resort to less-desirable tactics, such as yelling in a crowded room of students that your First Amendment rights as a member of the press are being infringed. That tends to get the attention of higher-ups rather quickly. The downside is, it may also get you arrested for disturbing the peace! So if you have to use this tactic, be prepared to go to jail for a few hours until your editor can bail you out. Make sure you have your editor’s permission to engage in this act of civil disobedience and your news org’s solemn pledge that they will defend you legally as a representative of that news organization.

* If you have the support and backing of your editor and your news organization, go to court. A precedent-setting case will help future generations of journalists have free and fair access to cover public figures in public places.

* Make a story out of the fact that you have no story. If you are denied the ability to produce your story (for example, if you work for a TV station and can’t really produce a story without video footage), that is a story in itself. Write about the resistance you encountered as a member of the press and let the people decide in the court of public opinion.

* As soon as possible after the event, contact the university spokesperson and ask them to comment on why your organization was denied access, and what the university’s media access policy is. Publish that comment in your story and also try to obtain official statements on the matter from the university president or college dean. 

In the specific case of what happened at Purdue Thursday night, my “editorial guru” was very adamant that the first thing that must be determined is exactly who was responsible for the decision to prevent media from taking audio or video of the event. Was this Purdue’s policy, or were the press restrictions imposed at Mr. Kennedy’s request?

As the founding editor of this blog, New Frontier found it very hard to believe that any of this was Kennedy’s idea. Knowing Bobby somewhat, she didn’t think such actions to be indicative of his character. We have covered several of his public appearances in the past (some on university campuses) and never experienced any difficulty obtaining media access or credentials. No restrictions were placed upon us; we were always allowed to tape and photograph freely. So while she couldn’t say for certain if this Purdue media blackout was at Kennedy’s request, she did encourage me to do some research and get to the bottom of it. 

So I tried to obtain a comment from someone at Purdue University today. So far, no response to my written request for a clarification on the matter. As soon as we recieve definitive word from Purdue as to which party imposed these restrictions on the press, we’ll post an update here. Stay tuned…

UPDATE: (Monday, Feb. 23, 2009): According to Jeanne Norberg of Purdue’s News Service, the decision to prohibit audio and video recordings of RFK Jr’s speech was made by Mr. Kennedy’s representatives at Keppler Speakers. Keppler is the agency that exclusively handles all of Kennedy’s speaking engagements.

5 Comments

Filed under climate change, environment, global warming, media, politics, RFK, RFK Jr., robert f. kennedy, robert kennedy jr., the kennedys, Uncategorized

Remembering Beverly Eckert: 9/11 Widow and American Patriot

FAREWELL, BEVERLY

It is with great sadness that I report the following news to our readers: we just learned that Beverly Eckert, widow of the late Sean Rooney (who died in the WTC on 9/11) was one of the victims in the Continental Airlines commuter plane crash in Buffalo. Flight 3407 mysteriously fell out of the sky at around 10:20 p.m. last night and crashed into a private home, killing all 47 persons on board and one person on the ground.

This news just breaks my heart. Although I never had the chance to meet her personally, I exchanged several emails with Beverly over the years in regards to her outstanding work as a victims’ advocate, and as a leader for the 9/11 widows who continued to seek answers from the government as to what REALLY happened to their loved ones on that horrible day. I had tremendous respect and admiration for the lady and her work, and of course, just naturally assumed that our paths would eventually cross one of these days. Unfortunately, that will not happen now.

Beverly Eckert was a key member of the now-defunct 9/11 Family Steering Committee, an offshoot of the Coalition for an Independent 9/11 Commission, which advocated the creation of an independent commission to investigate the intelligence failures that made 9/11 possible. The coalition represented a wide array of 9/11 families’ organizations, including Families of September 11, Sept. 11 Advocates (also known as “The Jersey Girls”), and Voices of September 11. Although the call for a commission was initially resisted by the Bush Administration, the coalition eventually prevailed in the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

Beverly cooperated with and monitored the 9/11 Commission, but later criticized the commission’s final report, claiming that commission members had only selective memories of all the evidence they had been presented. She also later complained publicly that many of the protective measures recommended by the 9/11 Commission were never implemented.

In 2006, Beverly was prominently featured in the 9/11 documentary film, On Native Soil, a must-see for anyone interested in learning the facts of that fateful day in our history.

Most recently, Beverly joined forces with the ACLU in December 2008 to challenge the legitimacy of the Guantánamo military commissions and their ability to achieve justice.

A week before her death, Eckert met with President Obama at the White House as part of a group of 9/11 families and relatives of those killed in the bombing of the USS Cole, discussing how the new administration would handle terror suspects.

Beverly Eckert, left, of Stamford, Conn., Valerie Barbella, center, and James Barbella, right hold up signs during a rally regarding the search for human remains at the World Trade Center site Thursday, Nov. 2, 2006 in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II) From AP Photo by Frank Franklin II.

Beverly was not only a sweet lady who gave so much of her time, money and effort to this cause, she was also tremendously dedicated to her late husband’s memory, and to seeking justice for ALL 9/11 victims and their families. She has spent nearly every day of her life since 9/11/2001 in pursuit of the truth and government accountability.

Feb. 12, 2009 was no different for Beverly. Late yesterday evening when she hurriedly boarded the last flight out of Newark in inclement weather, she was on her way to Buffalo to present a Sean Rooney scholarship at his former high school (Rooney was a Buffalo native) which had been established in her late husband’s memory. To further compound the tragic irony, this weekend would have marked her late husband’s 58th birthday, and she was planning to mark the occasion with his friends and family in the city of Buffalo.

It’s sad and certainly strange enough that the woman who fought such a long and tireless battle for truth and justice for all victims killed in the fiery plane crashes of September 11, 2001 would meet her own fate in another fiery plane crash. That in itself I can barely comprehend. But when I think of where Beverly was headed, going back to Sean’s hometown on his birthday to give a scholarship in his name, my brain locks up and my heart sinks into the pit of my stomach.

Dammit, it’s just not fair, I tell `ya. It’s not fair.

If, as they say, there ain’t no justice in this world and we’ll have to wait until we reach the next world for that, I suppose the only real consolation is that Sean and Beverly are finally together again now.

Beverly and Sean were high-school sweethearts. Their marriage lasted for 34 years, until his death on September 11, 2001.

Beverly and Sean were high-school sweethearts. Their marriage lasted for 34 years, until his death on September 11, 2001.

Sadly, 8 1/2 years after the Sept. 11 tragedy, so many of the 9/11 commission’s recommendations have still not been implemented. So much of Beverly’s tireless effort was never fully and officcially recognized, except by those within the 9/11 Truth activist community, who saw her as one of their heroes.

Beverly Eckert was not a 9/11 Truther. She was not a conspiracy nut. She never wore a tinfoil hat or stood on a streetcorner with a bullhorn yelling, “9/11 Was An Inside Job!” She was a respectable insurance professional who lived a quiet, unassuming life with her beloved husband in Stamford, CT until 9/11 changed everything. She felt compelled to speak up and demand a REAL investigation and JUSTICE, as any reasonable, concerned American should. She always spoke eloquently and truthfully, never showing any flashes of temper, but plenty of righteous anger. She was a woman of great courage and many of us will dearly miss her energy and leadership.

But we must press on. We must move forward in our search for the truth. We must honor her by continuing to demand real answers and accountability from our government officials. If it was in fact an inside job, we must chase down the real terrorists who did this dastardly deed and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. We must do all that we can to ensure that it NEVER happens again. That’s all Beverly was saying: that the most patriotic thing we as Americans can do is to raise legitimate questions and expect honest answers.

Summing up Beverly’s mission in life these past eight years is an extremely difficult task upon learning of her death first thing early this morning. I can’t even comprehend it yet, let alone begin to process it. Words elude me.

But while I was reflecting on the meaning of Beverly’s life and her ironic, tragic death, the words of President Theodore Roosevelt suddenly popped into my mind. This particular quote from T.R. seemed to me a perfect way to describe what motivated Beverly to do what she did — and the lasting contribution she made to our understanding of what really happened on 9/11. It also reminds us to keep seeking the truth, and to never give up the fight for justice, despite forces who seek to oppose and silence us:

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.”

— Teddy Roosevelt
26th President of the United States

But I’ll give Beverly the last word.

In a 2006 interview with the BBC, Beverly related the heartwrenching story of her husband’s final moments on September 11, which she unfortunately “ear-witnessed” over the phone. After the South Tower was hit by a plane, Sean tried to escape but became trapped on the 105th floor. Once he realized that he probably was not going to make it out alive, he called his wife and they began to say their goodbyes to one another.

“We were just remembering how happy we were. I just wanted to crawl through the phone and hold him but then there was an explosion (emphasis mine – Ed.), followed by a loud crack and a sound like an avalanche. That was the tower coming down. He was gone.

I try not to look at what I lost but what I had. We had 34 very good years together – we were together since we 16 – and there are not many people who have had that.

I felt that the best way to honour his memory and the life we lived was to live a good life, to be strong and to inspire people.

I can tell Sean’s story so that people understand his bravery in the face of death. Sean died without regrets and that helps me get through the day. “

Beverly Eckert lived and died without regrets. Her courage and strength will continue to inspire and motivate us all for decades, perhaps even centuries, to come. It is my hope and indeed a fervent prayer that one day in the distant future, after the haze of emotionalism has cleared, her name will go down in the annals of history as one who dared to take a stand against the incompetence which resulted in the preventable loss of nearly 3,000 innocent lives on 9/11.

Farewell and God Bless You, Beverly!

— Tiger Haynes

Editor

54 Comments

Filed under impeach Bush, media, politics, Uncategorized

What Advice Would JFK Give President Obama on the Economy?

MEMO TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

 

RE: HOW TO FIX THE ECONOMY

FROM: PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

If passed by the senate this week, your economic stimulus bill will not fix the nation’s problem.

It’s the Federal Reserve, stupid.

TIME FOR A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON

President John F.Kennedy,
The Federal Reserve
And Executive Order 11110

by Cedric X

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve.

Mr. Kennedy’s order gave the Treasury the power “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.” This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything.

Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the current $10 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level.

Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve’s control over the creation of money.

Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt – war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment.

As America’s debt reaches unprecedented numbers and we wage an international war on terror which is further increasing America’s debt, one is forced to ask, will President Obama have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, if so, is he willing to pay the ultimate price so that the average American can pay for food and shelter?

Original JFK-era United States Treasury Note. Notice they almost look like todays bills, except one says “Federal Reserve Note” on the top while the other says “United States Note”. Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.

Original JFK-era United States Treasury Note. Notice they almost look like today's bills, except one says “Federal Reserve Note” on the top while the other says “United States Note”. Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.

Here is the text of Kennedy’s original Executive Order:

Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289

AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-

By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):

(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption

and —

By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.

Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln tried this (and both met the the same end) is a mere coincidence.

Abraham Lincoln’s Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)

Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.

Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.

Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.

No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.

The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.

The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and credit of the Nation.

Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.

Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and creditas money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issueing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.

By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.

WHAT IS THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND WHY DO WE NEED IT, ANYWAY? 

What most Americans don’t understand is that the Federal Reserve is not Federal (look for it in the blue government pages of your local phonebook. It’s not there because it is a private corporation), nor does it have a reserve

One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, “Will keeping my money hurt the government’s ability to pay it’s bills?” As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn’t designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the “Federal Reserve System” as, “Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves.”

Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank’s nine member board of directors.

Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black’s Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:

Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).

The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:

The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine.It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving to print them.

As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.

No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn’t be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:

“Mr. Chairman,we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the UnitedStates; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.”

Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who camehere from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.

The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt.

On this point, it’s interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs’ 1990 book, Crossfire:

Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy’s attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.

Kennedy’s comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.

A number of “Kennedy bills” were indeed issued – the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading “United States Note” – but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy’s death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.

Story originally published at:

 http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

From: The Final Call, Vol. 15, No.6, On January 17, 1996

Editor’s Opinion:

With regard to our present economic crisis alone, Treachery and Treason take on a much more dire meaning and the consequences for our not paying close attention to our being warned, in terms of heeding our patriotic  leader’s from the past such as JFK, that enemies from within are seeking to undermine our very way of life and are active in undermining our civl liberties as well as our monetary system. Not to mention our once democratic operation’s of government.

It is with this in mind that beseech the politically active reading this blog, to carry the torch of reason and better judgement to those who may have contact with political representitives who may be in position to accomplish real change in our nation’s direction both politically and morally.

Information similar to the article posted above is shocking and leaves me wondering about why accountability and even objective / investigative reporting isn’t done anymore. In what is the most progressive and technically savvy time of mankind’s history… we are as in the dark as ever. We are as under-represented and hog-tied as ever in our history and we are effectively at the mercy of an oligarchy, which has blatently lied and outwardly refuses to cooperate with our rules of law.

Isn’t this the kind of thing Ron Paul lways warned us about? (Funny, not long ago, people thought he was a nut. Now, they turn to him for advice like the economic sage he is, because all Rep. Paul has been saying all these years has finally come to pass.) Have we reduced ourselves to being so terrified… that we don’t bare to look at our dirty laundry or talk to bother anymore to confront what is looking like really bad leadership and dare I say treason or treachery? When was the last time you heard anyone convicted of treason or treachery?

No, now it’s gonna be prosecutions of U.S. Citizens who are acting out (badly) in un-patriotic manners who will be thrown in jail for speaking their minds… Tick Tick Tick… Constitution’s burning folks…

Mr. Obama, will your administration deny these realities? Will you pick up the torch you were ceremoniously handed by JFK and RFK’s living legacies? You asked for these legacies to carry you to the office you now hold… will you now deny the weight and obligation, as well as the ominous responsibility to follow through with the Kennedy spirit you have channelled or the legacy of which that spirit holds to ultimatley finish the job that was started in the early 196o’s? You have the energy and support of Rev Dr. Martin Luther King, JFK and RFK.

President Obama, please dismantle the Federal Reserve. The only way to stop this economic bleeding is to go right to the source. Take the creation of money away from the private, run-for-profit central bank and restore our Constitutionally-mandated financial system. Bring back the Greenbacks!

And while you’re working on that massive to-do list, Mr. President, please prosecute Bush, Cheney and Rove for international war crimes, High Crimes & Misdemeanors!

Jack Mosel

Contributing editor

6 Comments

Filed under barack obama, jackie kennedy, JFK, JFK Jr., John F. Kennedy, john f. kennedy jr., media, politics, president kennedy, RFK, RFK Jr., robert f. kennedy, robert kennedy jr., senator robert kennedy, the kennedys, Uncategorized

NY Gov. Confirms Staffer Leaked Caroline Dirt — And Gets To Keep Her Job!

PATERSON: “I’M NOT THROWING ANYBODY UNDER THE BUS”

* This just in from the Hey-I-Know-The-Economy’s-Tough-But-This-Is-Ridiculous Dept.:

Judy Smith, the former BUSH WHITE HOUSE STAFFER and paid PR flack for Gov. David Paterson, is not only responsible for leaking those nasty rumors about Caroline Kennedy, the governor now says Smith gets to keep her job! For reasons that still mystify, it seems Gov. Patterson doesn’t plan to take any disciplinary action against the Guv’s now-infamous “leaker.”

If there’s any good news in this story, it is that Paterson may now be facing an investigation by the Public Integrity Committee over the leaking incident, on the grounds that Mrs. Kennedy’s privacy rights were violated. We’ll take it a step further and ask Albany to investigate whether or not some kind of pay-to-play scheme was a factor in the Governor’s choice for Hillary Clinton’s senate seat.

Dammit, where’s Patrick Fitzgerald and a wiretap when you really need one?

Story from the Associated Press below:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Gov. David Paterson’s revelation that he is responsible for a campaign staffer who leaked unproven personal accusations about Caroline Kennedy after she withdrew from Senate consideration could lead to a state privacy investigation, experts said Wednesday.

The Democratic governor wouldn’t name the staffer. He said he’ll keep the consultant on his campaign payroll.

The claims surfaced just after Kennedy abruptly withdrew from Paterson’s secretive selection process to fill Hillary Rodham Clinton’s New York Senate seat. The anonymous leaker said Kennedy “wasn’t ready for prime time” and faced possible tax, nanny and marital problems.

Asked if the campaign staffer, identified a week ago by The Daily News as consultant Judith Smith, acted alone or as part of a broader effort to discredit Kennedy, Paterson said: “I’m not going to go into those kinds of conversations. Any involvement with what my staff does is my fault because to do something like that, people working for you should know better. … I’m just going to tell you the responsibility is ultimately mine.”

Smith is still on the campaign payroll.

“She’s still retained,” Paterson said to questions about the fate of Smith, a top communications strategist. “I’m not throwing anybody under the bus.”

He wouldn’t confirm or deny whether Smith directed the leak of unsubstantiated claims.

If the person who leaked the unsubstantiated claims on Jan. 22 got the information from confidential questionnaires Paterson asked every Senate hopeful to complete, then it could violate the state personal privacy protection law, said Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government.

The state Public Integrity Commission has jurisdiction over a similar measure in the state Public Officers Law that bars state employees from disclosing confidential information. Commission spokesman Walter Ayres wouldn’t comment on whether an investigation into the Kennedy leak has been requested or started by the commission.

“I think the issue is worthy of review by the Commission on Public Integrity,” said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group, a government watchdog.

Paterson has refused to release the candidates’ questionnaires, or even a blank one, which good-government experts have said is an apparent violation of the state Freedom of Information Law. Paterson has maintained the leaked information wasn’t taken from the confidential questionnaire.

After more than a week of denying he was involved in the leak, Paterson told reporters Tuesday that he is responsible for the actions of his employees.

Republican state Sen. Martin Golden said the case should be investigated.

“At the very least, (the staffer) should resign,” he said Wednesday.

Golden said he’s unsure there is any “criminality” to warrant an investigation like the one launched by Republicans in 2007 when aides to former Gov. Eliot Spitzer were accused of misusing state police to provide and recreate travel records to embarrass then-Senate Republican leader, Joseph Bruno.

Republicans lost control of the majority and the Senate Investigations Committee in the November elections. The Democrat-controlled Senate Investigations Committee has no plans to investigate, a spokesman said.

4 Comments

Filed under caroline kennedy, election 2008, hillary clinton, jackie kennedy, JFK, JFK Jr., John F. Kennedy, john f. kennedy jr., media, politics, president kennedy, robert f. kennedy, robert kennedy jr., senator robert kennedy, the kennedys, Uncategorized