That's nice. The Eisenhower clip was a good touch. And short and to the point.

Wilson was another president that became keenly aware of what was going on in Washington before he left, when the Federal Reserve was just coming into power. Both of these men, and Washington and Jefferson at least too, left behind warnings of just how disastrously this country could become corrupted with an apathetic and lied-to public. Jefferson said a man who didn't read the paper was smarter than one who did, someone else said the only truth in a news paper was in the advertisements, and this is in the late 1700's/early 1800's. It was also said that banks are more dangerous to nations than standing armies, and a revolution would probably be needed every 20 years to keep our government on the same level of innocence as it was in some of the earlier years.

Why don't our leaders tell us these things anymore?

Is the threat of disastrous corruption from within a government now gone, only less than a hundred years after WW2 and the Holocaust?

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's nice. The Eisenhower clip was a good touch. And short and to the point.
...

Why don't our leaders tell us these things anymore?

Obviously a rhetorical question, but I'll bite. JFK was the last one to try, look where it got him. Ever since the MIC's been in power, and they and their puppets don't really want you to think.

And as for Ike, he already knew the jig was up in '61; that speech was as much to soothe his conscience as it was a warning.

Give 11Bravo his 250,000 points.

It's a great challenge and one I've undertaken in person more than one time. Once at a party attended by some journalists I took on an employee of the Toronto Globe and Mail ("Canada's national newspaper") with my 911 presentation and wound up by asking her why "you people" are not reporting on 911 issues. Her response floored me, "We'll start looking into this when someone tells us there is something there to look at." RIP journalism.

To me the most telling, although not always immediately obvious, point in favor of an "insider" conspiracy to bring down the towers on 911 is the simple and unassailable fact of their collapse at near (within a couple of seconds or so) free fall speed. When one gives that just a small amount of thought, it becomes obvious that more than planes plus fire on the upper floors of the building are required to bring about a "down to the ground" collapse so quickly. QED.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by ipsedixit]