My two cents worth: Would murders, thieves and evil doers broadcast their true intentions over loud speakers and publish in writing their double dealing deeds for all the world to see?

I'm not sure what the exact disagreement on this subject is, and I don't by any means want to stick my nose into a conversation that I wasn't part of but, If it is proof that secret societies exist, and strive to rule behind the scene for their own selfish gain someone desires proof of, let me share that proof with you;

No need for any of us here to say this or that, or to give our opinions on whether conspiracies exist, let's listen to someone who knew for sure.

[video=youtube_share;zdMbmdFOvTs]http://youtu.be/zdMbmdFOvTs[/video]

 

A piece of transcript from president Kennedy's speech;

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But 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 times 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.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion."

 

There are plenty of sources online that prove the existence of these secret groups working behind the scene, but what you are looking for is a major publication or news agency coming out and telling it like it is, well you didn't listen to the president close enough, he said;

"Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match."

It's like discovering how our universe works. Do you expect to find tablets on Mars that tell us all about physics, or does mankind have to search and discover? Things hidden are not going to be broadcast for all to see.

Why do you think Kennedy presented this speech to the press in the first place? It's because they were the ones not broadcasting the truth of which we are speaking. They are owned by rich families who are bent on controlling what is presented to the public, that was the whole purpose of the speech. In America we don't see world news as it actually is. The press in this country continue on about Kardashian this, home decor that, global warming and what fast food hamburger is better tasting.

If you go back and look at Kennedy's speech you will see how he foretold the future we live in today after 9/11;

"We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control."

Kennedy recognized that secret societies already in place when he took office were bent on shock and awe events that would allow law makers to take away civil liberties and freedoms this country was founded on. These oligarchy elitists fall under the category of the King of the North, while the republic being the King of the South. Britain and it's monarchy never liked the fact of losing what it had gained over the last few centuries, including the colonies, and especially after WWII.

You see, Kennedy knew that these evil men wanted to remove the first amendment through events of terrorism. What they learned through the American revolution was it would be easier to let Americans give up their freedoms voluntarily then it would be to try and force them militarily.

There is no doubt what Kennedy was speaking about when he said;

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."

There is no first amendment in this country like there was when Kennedy made this speech. There is no freedom of press like there was when Kennedy made this speech. You see, in my part of the country there are many men who well know what this country was founded on. More so then any other country in the world that word freedom is taken very literal. On a regular basis I will see men with flags on their clothing, carrying firearms on their belts and will tell you instantly about their rights as American citizens to bare arms, free speech and freedom to worship, but in the same breath these men will tell you all about how those freedoms are being taken away by those in charge who are more bent on world government, rather then the fundamental ideas put forth in the constitution of the United States by it's founders.

No disrespect but I don't think someone outside this country that does not live here can see the changes in governmental attitude on freedom that has changed over the years, especially since 9/11. We understand now that everything we say and write can be monitored at any given moment with no privacy. Out spoken descent in any public place is scrutinized, mocked, and papered. Even I myself have had to deal with discrimination in this country do to what is suppose to be my right to act. We have federal and state laws that allow certain exemptions, now try and act on those rights and see how you will be treated in your local city by those who are suppose to allow such exemptions. You are discriminated against, put down, berated, considered a conspiracy theorist and brushed off for the simple fact that you desire to practice your rights set out under the United States Constitution.

Those who refuse to recognize the Elitists one per-centers who own the Federal Reserve, the media, and energies and infustructure and I will say there is a depiction I can share with you that denotes the kind of attitude that this portrays;



In this country it is those who don't see the truth that are blinded and laughed at in the local pubs. When you pay property tax every year on items you already own, the government takes away your civil freedoms, when you are forced to search and seizure and detained against your will, your civil rights this country was founded on are taken away. You see these and many more changes have slowly crept into the American way of life when these things did not exist once upon a time, and when you live it, you recognize it.

How about the next possible president? Who does she says calls the shots?

[video=youtube_share;5RRWHDYM9w8]http://youtu.be/5RRWHDYM9w8[/video]

Due to the fact that we only allow one video per post I will post a couple more links to speeches by presidents and perhaps future presidents if you wish to see a little more proof from those who actually know.

George W Bush New World Order 1:13 min.

George W Bush New World Order 1:51 min.

Hillary Clinton CFR 1:30 min.

Joe Biden 1:49 min.

Barack Obama 3:31 min.

Etc...

 

So Communism was not a secret society at that time? You are saying that you would have believed in secret society conspiracies only in 1961 but not now? How does that work?

Kennedy didn't mention names of groups, because their agendas are all the same, to over throw democracy and to rule the world.

Maybe we aren't clarifying what we see. What I see in secret societies are the same things Kennedy spoke about in his speech. Men who gather together and plot for power and money. Surely no one is going to sit here and tell me men do not get together and discuss the best ways to achieve both. The CFR, Bilderberg, Federal Reserve, UN, these groups of men and women are secret societies when they meet behind closed doors, period. If foreign policy is discussed between to officials out of public view, and without official press release, in my book that is a "secret", and when they regularly gather or speak, or create a name for their think tank, that is a "society". I am of the opinion that these groups are bent on world domination, and I believe this more so because that's what Jehovah says and secondly from what I see around the world.

So in closing, to me it comes down to faith in Jehovah when he says the 8th king will rule and dominate the world, and the only way to get there is for men with this desire to position their pieces in such a way this shall take place.

I tend to think Kennedy knew what he was talking about;

"And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment."

"and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies,"

 

I tend to think she was talking about the UN.