These masons are everywhere

reply to post by KSigMason


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.
John F. Kennedy
Read more: www.brainyquote.com...

Yes, I'm an American, albeit not proud to be one, but one anyways. I was especially happy when they disbanded the fraternity at Notre Dame because the guys were running around campus shouting "No means Yes and Yes means Anal".
Here's an article discussing it: www.time.com...

I believe that all individuals have a right to peaceful assembly as long as it is not in secret and not promoting physical and emotional pain.

In the name of God:

"And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah confirming what was with them, a party of those who were given the scripture threw away the book of Allah behind their backs as if they did not know. And they followed what the devils gave out falsely of magic of the reign of Solomon; for Solomon did not disbelieve but the devils disbelieved, teaching men magic and such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels Harut and Marut, but neither of these two (angles) taught anyone (such things) until they had said: we are only for trial, so don't disbelieve. And from them (magicians) people learn that through which they would cause separation between a person and his spouse, but they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah's authority; and they learn that which harms them rather than profits them. And indeed they knew that its practitioner would have no share in the Hereafter. And how bad indeed was that for which they sold their own selves if they but knew" (Qur'an, 2:101-2).



this following set of videos clarifies everything.
HUGE WEALTH OF INFORMATION HERE.
i pray that for your guidance. be open minded, empty your heart, and listen

this is why no masonic oriented government can allow for Islamic law in any other nation . The taliban had actually established afghanistan as the "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" before the United States marched in. It is because when the Qur'an is recited in arabic, it is the only thing that can stop there 'craft'

i've had my experiences in a courthouse in New Jersey.


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Afterthought


you should study up a bit on what you think is true. Kennedy's speech was meant for the press and was asking them to be cautious of what they printed. It wasn't about secret societies.

And to be clear, there is no pain or hazing in craft masonry.

reply to post by network dude


Thanks for your input, but can you offer proof of your claim?

Kennedy's quote specifically mentioned secret societies, so until it is proven otherwise, I'll stand by his words.

Let's also note that while he was President, he got rid of all the czars. After he was assasinated, they immediately brought back the czars. He knew what was going on and the secret government and those who hold secret proceedings were terrified.

reply to post by Afterthought


I am afraid to link to the actual speech for fear of Josh Norton's wrath! He will be along directly to link to the actual speech. I did a thread on it a while ago, but I linked to an abridged version. What happened over the years, is that people took select quotes form the speech and displayed it out of context in order to make it appear that it was against secret societies. Kennedy Himself was a member of a secret Society. The Knights Of Columbus. An organization that is very much like a version of masonry for Catholics. (since they aren't supposed to join masonry) I have a good friend who is in that organization and they do the same sort of things we do. (mainly philanthropy)

I am not skipping out of providing proof, I just don't want to give you the wrong proof. If he doesn't come by soon, I will put out the bat signal.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by network dude

 

Thanks for your input, but can you offer proof of your claim?

Kennedy's quote specifically mentioned secret societies, so until it is proven otherwise, I'll stand by his words.

Fine, then stand by these:
The entire speech (not one chopped up on YouTube by a conspiracy theorist trying to skew his words...)

Kennedy was talking to the American Newspaper Publishers one week after the failed Bay of Pigs operation—an operation that failed because Cuba knew about it ahead of time because of press leaks ala Wikileaks.

The president is essentially saying, I know you don't like secrecy, but I'm going to ask you to keep more secrets...

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
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.
...
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

etc

Originally posted by network dude
I am afraid to link to the actual speech for fear of Josh Norton's wrath! He will be along directly to link to the actual speech.

Dude, I just woke up. It took a sec...

reply to post by JoshNorton


and I didn't even need the bat signal.

thanks for being the super hero you are sir!

reply to post by JoshNorton


Thank you for attaching that quote. It's quite interesting and I'd never seen the full speech. I still have to stand by my opinion because we all know that the press and the media are controlled and organized by a few very wealthy individuals who do help form public opinion and release whatever news they deem appropriate at the time.

Was Kennedy speaking to the reporters or the ones who own them?

There's much to speculate about, but we are in the age of discovery and we all need to keep digging. Even then, we must be able to read between the lines, then decide what is being said.

Language is very difficult and has many layers. I still believe that Kennedy knew what was going on and was probably speaking to the media controllers, not the reporters.

reply to post by MuslimBrother


Yes, thank you. We saw your quote, but you need to relax and not repost. How long do you think it takes people to read everything you wrote and watch the videos?

Edit to add: Could you elaborate on your experience with the New Jersey court system?

reply to post by Afterthought

So, you are saying you're against the 1st amendment then? I'm confused.

I do like that you've brought out the misquoted JFK speech that was really about the freedom of speech/media and national security. If you actually read the entire thing its clear he is talking about the balance between Constitutional rights and the national security secrets. I do like you've pulled one sentence from a speech. Like picking one sentence from a book and judging it on that.

JoshNorton and Network Dude actually started threads on this very matter. ND's and JN's. Josh points out that JFK even met with a group of Masons that were in DC for a conference weeks before giving this very speech.

You're also mixing up secrecy and privacy.

In the opening paragraph of his speech he mentions this:

Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President VERSUS the Press" -- but those are not my sentiments tonight.

He goes onto discuss the balance between national security, the privacy of the 1st Family versus the Press. Again, you need to read the entire thing as it is several pages, not just a small quote from "BrainyQuote".

You also see this just prior to the who "secrecy is repugnant" paragraph:

I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

He is clearly talking about the government protecting the people and protecting their rights.

That I do not intend to permit. 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 press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

In the following paragraph he asks for the publishers to examine themselves to ensure that information doesn't get leaked to the enemy in a time of war. He goes on to discuss the enemy of the US during the Cold War. This speech he gave at "The President and the Press," Bureau of Advertising, American Newspaper Publishers Association, on 27 April 1961

If you actually read his speech you'd see he was clearly worried about freedom of the press and national security, not some philanthropic organization/fraternity. He himself was a member of a fraternity.

I believe that all individuals have a right to peaceful assembly as long as it is not in secret and not promoting physical and emotional pain.

The Constitution puts no such stipulation on the people to do it openly so who are you to say they do. Its a fundamental right to privacy (1st and 4th amendment) that our founders understood was needed to protect people from an intrusive government. Is it not our property? Are we not free men to do what we wish (within the confines of the law)?

Originally posted by Afterthought
Thank you for attaching that quote. It's quite interesting and I'd never seen the full speech. I still have to stand by my opinion because we all know that the press and the media are controlled and organized by a few very wealthy individuals who do help form public opinion and release whatever news they deem appropriate at the time.

That's more true today, but it wasn't necessarily the case in 1961 when the speech was made. Today, of course, all of the media is controlled by a handful of conglomerates, but in the 60's those monopolies didn't exist yet. Back then, it wasn't uncommon for major cities to have two or three competing newspapers, each with their own particular bias. Today, there's far less selection.

Just try to keep it in terms of who he was actually talking to, not what it might mean today 40 years later.

Was Kennedy speaking to the reporters or the ones who own them?

He was speaking to the publishers, more than the reporters, yes. He was talking to the bosses. So?

Also worth keeping in mind that JFK was a decorated member of the Knights of Columbus, a secret society...

Originally posted by Afterthought
Maybe the sex tape doesn't exist, but these guys, suspected Crips, obviously believed that it did as they were beating the crap out of the guy.

Sure, if you completely believe the guy making the accusation, which appears nowhere in his initial complaint and conveniently comes out at a time when a business partner with whom he's had a dispute enters the limelight. As a screenwriter, I'll let you in on a well-known fact within the entertainment industry: almost half people in the talent management industry are the absolute scum of the earth. They have no connections, no concern for best practices and no empathy for the people they're ripping off.

Also, I find it quite possible that suspected Crips can be counted on to beat the crap out of people for non-Shaq-related reasons.

Was it created for blackmail means?

Was it created at all?

But who discusses a sex tape at a business meeting?

A promoter who, failing to get what he wants honestly, resorts to blackmail. You'll notice that Ross publicly admits it was he, and not Shaq, that broached the subject.

I believe that all individuals have a right to peaceful assembly as long as it is not in secret

I agree. The meeting times, locations and financial transactions of a fraternity should be public domain. I do not agree, however, that anyone in the world has every right to attend should they so desire. To believe such is in conflict with the First and Fourth Amendments.

reply to post by Afterthought


I Was in and out of courts frequently that year because of a eye catching sports car that I purchased. Just all traffic violations. I had noticed one case in Newark court make sign with his hands and close his eyes in front of the judge. About 6 or 7 charges had all gotten dismissed. I was skeptical but gave it a shot anyway in another courthouse.

As i was doing it seemed as if the judge's words were on fast forward and that something was taking over me from my head all the way to my toes. I felt as if i was going to faint right on the spot .. But before i did, i felt an extremely strong shock from underneath my legs. The shock made me open my eyes and i realized that there was not a single spot of white in the judge's eyes. His eyes were just completely blacked out. I was effected for quite sometime afterwards ..maybe a week or two. insomnia, stuttering, hallucinations, and overall confusion.

Thankfully this situation made me turn to the light in my own home. Through the Quran and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) i have renewed my faith and re established my connection with God.

reply to post by MuslimBrother

And when there came to them a Messenger from Allah confirming what was with them, a party of those who were given the scripture threw away the book of Allah behind their backs as if they did not know. And they followed what the devils gave out falsely of magic of the reign of Solomon; for Solomon did not disbelieve but the devils disbelieved, teaching men magic and such things that came down at Babylon to the two angels Harut and Marut, but neither of these two (angles) taught anyone (such things) until they had said: we are only for trial, so don't disbelieve. And from them (magicians) people learn that through which they would cause separation between a person and his spouse, but they could not thus harm anyone except by Allah's authority; and they learn that which harms them rather than profits them. And indeed they knew that its practitioner would have no share in the Hereafter. And how bad indeed was that for which they sold their own selves if they but knew" (Qur'an, 2:101-2).

I don't understand how this verse is anti-Masonic. Devilry in the time of Solomon is punished swiftly and without mercy in the Hiramic Legend.

reply to post by MuslimBrother


I hate that you think masonry is evil and all, but anything to make a person stronger in their relationship with the creator is a good thing.

Peace.

Congratulations to Shaq!

I hope he finds his membership in the fraternity rewarding and that he will take a active role in his lodge. I believe he made a great choice.

Can anyone refer me to a good chiropractor, I know this guy in Mass. that has a goat with one messed up back...

Originally posted by Advantage

Originally posted by AdamAnt

I wonder if he actually rode the goat?!?!?

Sniffle

That poor, poor goat!!

If he did, I would NOT want to be on the wrong side of the business end of that goat.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by network dude

 

Thanks for your input, but can you offer proof of your claim?

Kennedy's quote specifically mentioned secret societies, so until it is proven otherwise, I'll stand by his words.

Let's also note that while he was President, he got rid of all the czars.

You might want to check your sources on that claim. Kennedy was about 4 decades late for that. Try Woodrow Wilson.