JFK Died For This Speech

This speech was given on April 27th, 1961 before the American Newspaper Publishers Association at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. In it, a young JFK makes a plea for the press to expose a secretive threat to the American Republic. This speech coupled with Executive Order 11110 sealed his fate. He became too much of a threat to the Elite that control our world and he had to be eliminated. Today we can expose the Elite and buy silver on such a small level that the huge power of the Elite cannot stop it. (Full copy of text below. Full audio here.)

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

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.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

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.

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 is 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 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.

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.

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.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said–and your newspapers have constantly said–that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of the national security?” And I hope that every group in America–unions and businessmen and public officials at every level– will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation–an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people–to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well–the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news–for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security–and we intend to do it.

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news–that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

12 comments to JFK Died For This Speech

  • mike miller

    You need to see Stefan Molyneux on freedomainradio.com. You have a lot in common, and I always believe that we all need to gather those of a similar outlook,and help each other out. his background is very different than yours,but he is very brilliant,and his web site is also modeled as yours is. Let me know what you think. seekers after trut are rare.

  • Buddy Bishop

    Can someone explain to me how EO #11110 threatened the elite?

  • Chris

    I am a fan of your articles, Chris, but connecting this speech with the JFK’s Assassination, is ridiculous.
    For every person, who witnessed this speech, it had to be clear, the president was talking about the communists and Russia in particular.
    Please reread the whole speech with the fact in mind, that JFK’s era was about the cold war, nuclear threats and the cuban crisis.
    In trying to link this speech with the assassination is going one step to far.
    Like JFK I now cite: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” – please correct your mistake

    • Silver Shield

      Who funded the Communists? The Elite did. The Rockefellers.
      Who funded Hitler? The Elite did. The Rothschilds. http://dont-tread-on.me/8-things-kate-does-not-know-about-the-royal-family/

      The Elite are collectivists that will fund collectivist fascism or communism for them to get more power.
      The Elite want war because of the debts it produces and the resources it takes.

      We won the cold war right?
      Then why are all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto live and well in the United States?
      Why is the Constitution trashed?
      Why are we in the dire situation we are in?

      The answer I feel is that the same men that seek more power may have changed their flag but still want domination over their fellow man.

  • Chris

    Who are the people on those photos? What is the context? Forgive my ignorance, but I only recognize Chruschtchov.
    Why are they taken from a “reformation online” page “the superhighway to heaven”, which also claims, that the earth has stopped spinning???
    Listen Chris. I think you mean right but you are so convinced of all that you are talking about, that you may very well forget to question yourself.
    In the ton of material you have produced, how deep did your analysis of all of it go? How many sources did you really follow deep enough, to be anywhere of “sure”, about the extent of your findings?
    Sometimes it is enough to hide 1% of falsehood in 99% of truth, to put people on the wrong track. Remember Zeitgeist the movie as a perfect example?

  • Silver Shield

    I am sorry That is David Rockefeller hamming it up with Nikita “WE WILL BURY YOU” Krushchev.

    The Rockefellers were the only bank not nationalized in the Russian Revolution
    The Rockefellers and the Fed gave Lenin a train of gold to fund the revolution
    The Rothschilds raped the Soviet empire during the collapse.

    I spent a great deal amount of time researching all of this 240+ books and 6 years of obsessing on this. I start off with my Sons of Liberty Academy with the simple statement of Question everything including me. If I am proven wrong I will say so.

    I don;t claim to have all of the answers but I want to challenge people. I wish the Elite were more open about their plans so that I had more proof but then again they are not stupid.

  • Chris

    Thanks for the info, have to check that up to prove/disprove it :)
    I respect you and your work, Chris.
    What I am trying to warn you about is, that you are not immune to error or seeing patterns, where there may be none.
    What I was and am trying to tell you and to see for myself all the time is, that we have to be extra careful, on what is the truth about that what we discovered and what may be a misconception or worse yet: a deliberately planted idea/lie

  • Silver Shield

    Trust me I have eaten crow before but I am much more right on issues that matter than most. I appreciate you and everyone looking out for me and each other. Only through and educated discourse can we all move ahead.

    I will promise you that I am not trying to plant a lie like the Zeitgeist movement with their new age collectivism. I am trying to get to something the founding father would approve of.

    Keep that eye keen.


  • This is some outstanding spirited dialogue. Thanks. When I first heard this Kennedy speech I immediately assumed Kennedy was referencing the communists. However, as I’ve continued to piece together this very complex puzzle (reading “JFK and the Unspeakable” was of immense help), I’ve come to the conclusion that Chris is correct. The secret societies and clandestine operations have supported both communists and fascists. They know that interminable war will best serve their nefarious one-world government purposes.

    The reason I believe decent people refuse to buy into this sordid conspiracy is due to the fact that most of us simply refuse to believe that our government (or at least parts of our leadership) could possibly be that evil. It’s an assault on everything I’ve believed for my entire life. We’re the good guys aren’t we? We only fight in wars because of altruistic intentions, right? I’m finding that’s not the case. What a stooge I’ve been!

    Kennedy was well aware that he was going to be assassinated well in advance of Dealy Plaza. His anti-war policies and his unwillingness to nuke Cuba, did not sit well with his joint chiefs nor his upper echelon military commanders.

    At any rate, thanks for the illumination. :) In the right context, the speech makes a whole lot more sense.

  • […] When there is secrecy, it also allows the vast majority of Americans to passively accept the status quo. The truth is too scary for most people so they build a world in their head with bald eagles and American pie. They don’t want to know the truth because then they would have to do something about it. Americans were outraged at the torture techniques of the Vietnamese against American soldiers. Now through secrecy, we passively accept the much worse torture by American soldiers. Who are we if we accept this? Why should America continue to be, if we have turned to the dark side? (Watch and read JFK died for this speech.) […]

  • […] When there is secrecy, it also allows the vast majority of Americans to passively accept the status quo. The truth is too scary for most people so they build a world in their head with bald eagles and American pie. They don’t want to know the truth because then they would have to do something about it. Americans were outraged at the torture techniques of the Vietnamese against American soldiers. Now through secrecy, we passively accept the much worse torture by American soldiers. Who are we if we accept this? Why should America continue to be, if we have turned to the dark side? (Watch and read JFK died for this speech.) […]

  • […] When there is secrecy, it also allows a immeasurable infancy of Americans to passively accept a standing quo. The law is too frightful for many people, so they build a universe in their conduct filled with bald eagles and American pie. They don’t wish to know a truth, given afterwards they would have to do something about it. Americans were angry during a woe techniques of a Vietnamese against American soldiers. Now by secrecy, we passively accept a many worse woe by American soldiers. Who are we if we accept this? Why should America continue to be, if we have incited to a dim side? (Watch and review JFK died for this speech.) […]

Support our fight with a one time donation.


Over 300+ Videos