JFK KILLED OVER UFOS!

WASHINGTON -  Secret CIA memos reveal that President John F. Kennedy was killed because he wanted to release the UFO files.

An uncovered letter written by John F Kennedy to the head of the CIA shows that the president demanded to be shown highly confidential documents about UFOs 10 days before his assassination.

The secret memo is one of two letters written by JFK asking for information about the paranormal on November 12 1963, which have been released by the CIA for the first time.

A second memo was released that details the findings of a report – confirming that JFK was killed by government officials covering-up the existence of UFOs and aliens.  It also details the UFO sightings over Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

Author William Lester said the CIA released the documents t under the Freedom of Information Act after he made a request while researching his new book ‘A Celebration of Freedom: JFK and the New Frontier.’
The president’s interest in UFOs shortly before his death confirms theories about his assassination  – that the CIA was worried about him making public the UFO files.

Alien researchers say the latest documents, released to Mr Lester by the CIA, prove that the president was shot to stop him revealing the truth about UFOs.  In one of the secret documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, JFK writes to the director asking for the UFO files.

In the second memo, sent to the NASA administrator, the president expresses a desire for cooperation with the former Soviet Union on mutual outer space activities and investigation to aliens on earth.
The previously classified documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act to teacher William Lester as part of research for a new book about JFK.
He said that JFK’s interest in UFOs could have been fueled by concerns about relations with the former Soviet Union.

Days before he was killed, JFK wrote to the CIA demanding access to their files about UFOs.

Unclassified: A second memo written by JFK on November 12 1963, 10 days before his assassination, which has been released by the CIA

One of his concerns was that a lot of these UFOs were being seen over the Soviet Union and he was very concerned that the Soviets might misinterpret these UFOs as U.S. aggression, believing that it was some of our technology,” Mr Lester said.

“I think this is one of the reasons why he wanted to get his hands on this information and get it away from the jurisdiction of NASA so he could say to the Soviets, “Look, that’s not us, we’re not doing it, we’re not being provocative.”

But conspiracy theorists said the documents add interest to a disputed file, nicknamed the ‘burned memo”, which a UFO investigator claims he received in the 1990s.

The document, which has scorch marks, is claimed to have been posted to UFO hunter Timothy Cooper in 1999 by an unknown CIA leak, but has never been verified.

Disputed: In the ‘burned memo’ the CIA director allegedly wrote: ‘Lancer [JFK] has made some inquiries regarding our activities, which we cannot allow’

In a note sent with the document, the apparent leaker said he worked for CIA between 1960 and 1974 and pulled the memo from a fire when the agency was burning some of its most sensitive files.

The undated memo contains a reference to ‘Lancer’, which was JFK’s Secret Service code name.
On the first page, the director of Central Intelligence wrote: ‘As you must know, Lancer has made some inquiries regarding our activities, which we cannot allow.

‘Please submit your views no later than October. Your action to this matter is critical to the continuance of the group.’

The current owner of the ‘burned memo’, who bought it from Timothy Cooper in 2001 told AOL News that it shows that when JFK asked questions about UFOs that the CIA ‘bumped him off’.

UFO investigator Robert Wood said he has tested the paper it was printed on, the ink age, watermarks, font types and other markings.

He said: ‘I hired a forensics company to check the age of the ink and check several other things that you can date, using the same techniques you’d use in a court of law.’

By Tap Vann

Criticism of Obama in the Black Community Grows Louder with Dr. Cornel West Leading the Way

 

Via BlackAmericaWeb:

Cornel West is turning up the heat on President Barack Obama.

West, the outspoken Princeton University professor and civil rights activist, is unabashedly unloading on Obama, and he doesn't seem to care if the White House is offended.

Once an eager supporter of the president, West has turned on Obama and refuses to hold his fire. He accuses Obama of not doing enough to uplift the America's black citizens. He called Obama a "black mascot" for Wall Street and described the president as a weak leader.

"I just haven't seen the kind of backbone," West told Politico Monday. "I just haven't seen the real spine, not just at the level of rhetoric, but in execution."

That's tough talk from West, who enthusiastically backed Obama in 2008 and helped elect Obama as America's first black president. But two years later, West has become one of the president's most vocal critics, insisting that Obama is a poor advocate for underserved communities and people of color.

"It's not just President Obama, but it's the whole [White House] team," West said. "They just tend to keep distance from black folk, politically" until election time; "then they come running back."

"There's too much social misery out there, man," West added. "The last thing we need is a weak and feeble reaction to the right wing."

The "backbone" reference was especially harsh – even for West – but the scathing critique does reflect real sentiment among some frustrated African-Americans who agree with West but prefer not to criticize Obama in public.

Some black professionals have told BlackAmericaWeb.com privately that they are livid about being asked to help raise an estimated $1 billion for Obama's re-election campaign at a time when so many African-Americans are out of work, behind on their bills and struggling to pay their home mortgages.

And others question whether voting for Obama in 2012 will actually translate into jobs.

"Are we voting for Obama simply because he's black?" one black professional asked. "Or are we voting for him because we honestly believe he can help make a difference in our lives? The jury is still out."

Meanwhile, the White House is puzzled about West's recent outbursts, and for the moment, officials have decided to ignore West and not respond publicly.

Administration officials are privately hoping that West will calm down because they realize he has a loyal black following. Some inside the administration are also questioning why West has taken his "moral outrage" with Obama to the media instead of meeting with White House officials to clear the air behind closed doors.

    
West's stinging criticism of Obama is a result of Obama's controversial deal with Republicans to cut $38 million in spending from the federal budget. West – and other black activists – viewed Obama's budget talks as capitulating to the GOP instead of standing his ground. Many of the budget cuts to social programs will adversely impact African-Americans, many of whom are already vulnerable as a result of a crippled economy.

Obama's solid approval rating among African-Americans slipped five percentage points to 85 percent last month, according to a new Gallup poll — the lowest rating since Obama's inauguration in 2008.

Via Politico:

He [Cornel West] told POLITICO he questions whether the White House mounted an "aggressive" fight against the abortion and school vouchers policy riders, adding, "I have no problem holding the president accountable" for it and other concerns of the black community.

While vowing to bring national attention to Washington's plight, he carefully avoided blaming Obama. But said he understands why others might not be as understanding, adding, "We need to have that discussion."
But West was unmoved, pointing to Obama's failure to tackle juvenile justice reform, his deal to extend the Bush-era upper-income tax cuts and the administration's hair-trigger firing of Shirley Sherrod, a black Agriculture Department employee who was dismissed after a videotape surfaced showing her apparently making racially inflammatory remarks. The videotape was later discredited, and the White House apologized, but West said the damage had already been done to Sherrod and the black community.

"We could just go on and on," West said, dismissing as "hypersensitive" Obama's apparent reluctance to being seen by white moderate voters as a strong advocate for black people. "That's the kind of moral outrage I have, and it's not the kind of thing that will in any way be appeased by one speech."

Back in Washington, black political figures such as Gray and Norton are walking a fine line between channeling the anger of their constituents and absolving Obama of blame.

A few days after his arrest, Gray hit the local airwaves, urging the president to "stand up" for his city; Norton, who has represented Washington in Congress for 20 years, wants her constituents to follow Gray's lead and hit the streets in protest. Anger at the deal, she told POLITICO, was "boiling over everywhere I went" in the city.

"We're giving politicians in our own party a pass," including the president, if Washington residents don't speak up, Norton said. But she emphasized that Republicans who pushed for the deal "are the real villains in this."
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, sounded a similar theme: While acknowledging that Obama can do more for African Americans, he said the president "has to balance a multitude of different issues and concerns. When he can lift up or promote issues that are unique to the African-American community, he has tried to do so, and he will continue to do so."

Nevertheless, the budget deal with Republicans left a bitter aftertaste, and "there's no doubt we would have preferred a different outcome," Cleaver said. The president may have had no choice, he added, but "we'll never know. We weren't in the room."

Posted by TheSavvySista

Post details: Special Relationship

Exclusive new cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the United States' heavy-handed efforts to help Israel at the U.N.

BY COLUM LYNCH | APRIL 18, 2011

In the aftermath of Israel's 2008-2009 intervention into the Gaza Strip, Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, led a vigorous campaign to stymie an independent U.N. investigation into possible war crimes, while using the prospect of such a probe as leverage to pressure Israel to participate in a U.S.-backed Middle East peace process, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables provided by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.

The documents provide a rare glimpse behind the scenes at the U.N. as American diplomats sought to shield Israel's military from outside scrutiny of its conduct during Operation Cast Lead. Their release comes as the issue is back on the front pages of Israel's newspapers, following the surprise recent announcement by Richard Goldstone -- an eminent South African jurist who led an investigation commissioned by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council -- in a Washington Post op-ed that his team had unfairly accused Israel of deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians.

[More:]

The new documents, though consistent with public U.S. statements at the time opposing a U.N. investigation into Israeli military operations, reveal in extraordinary detail how America wields its power behind closed doors at the United Nations. They also demonstrate how the United States and Israel were granted privileged access to highly sensitive internal U.N. deliberations on an "independent" U.N. board of inquiry into the Gaza war, raising questions about the independence of the process.

In one pointed cable, Rice repeatedly prodded U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to block a recommendation of the board of inquiry to carry out a sweeping inquiry into alleged war crimes by Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants. In another cable, Rice issued a veiled warning to the president of the International Criminal Court, Sang-Hyun Song, that an investigation into alleged Israeli crimes could damage its standing with the United States at a time when the new administration was moving closer to the tribunal. "How the ICC handles issues concerning the Goldstone Report will be perceived by many in the US as a test for the ICC, as this is a very sensitive matter," she told him, according to a Nov. 3, 2009, cable from the U.S. mission to the United Nations.

Rice, meanwhile, assured Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman during an Oct. 21, 2009, meeting in Tel Aviv that the United States had done its utmost to "blunt the effects of the Goldstone report" and that she was confident she could "build a blocking coalition" to prevent any push for a probe by the Security Council, according to an Oct. 27, 2009 cable.

Israel launched a three-week-long offensive into Gaza in late 2008 in an effort to prevent Hamas and other Palestinian militants from firing rockets at Israeli towns. The Israel Defense Forces killed as many as 1,400 Palestinians. Thirteen Israel soldiers were also killed during Operation Cast Lead, and a number of U.N. facilities faced repeated attacks. The military campaign raised calls at the U.N. for an investigation into reports of war crimes.

In response, Ban commissioned a top U.N. troubleshooter, Ian Martin, to set up an independent U.N. board of inquiry into nine incidents in which the Israeli Defense Forces had allegedly fired on U.N. personnel or facilities. The U.N. probe -- which established Israeli wrongdoing in seven of the nine cases -- was the first outside investigation into the war, with a mandate to probe deaths, injuries, and damage caused at U.N. locations.

The board's 184-page report has never been made public, but a 28-page summary released on May 5 concluded that Israel had shown "reckless disregard for the lives and safety" of civilians in the operation, citing one particularly troubling incident in which it struck a U.N.-run elementary school, killing three young men seeking shelter from the fighting. Israel denounced the findings as "tendentious, patently biased," saying that an Israeli military inquiry had proved beyond a doubt that Israel had not intentionally attacked civilians.

But the most controversial part of the probe involved recommendations by Martin that the U.N. conduct a far-reaching investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by Israeli forces, Hamas, and other Palestinian militants. On May 4, 2009, the day before Martin's findings were presented to the media, Rice caught wind of the recommendations and phoned Ban to complain that the inquiry had gone beyond the scope of its mandate by recommending a sweeping investigation.

"Given that those recommendations were outside the scope of the Board's terms of reference, she asked that those two recommendations not be included in the summary of the report that would be transmitted to the membership," according to an account contained in the May 4 cable. Ban initially resisted. "The Secretary-General said he was constrained in what he could do since the Board of Inquiry is independent; it was their report and recommendations and he could not alter them, he said," according to the cable.

But Rice persisted, insisting in a subsequent call that Ban should at least "make clear in his cover letter when he transmits the summary to the Security Council that those recommendations exceeded the scope of the terms of reference and no further action is needed." Ban offered no initial promise. She subsequently drove the point home again, underlining the "importance of having a strong cover letter that made clear that no further action was needed and would close out this issue."

Ban began to relent, assuring Rice that "his staff was working with an Israeli delegation on the
text of the cover letter."
After completing the cover letter, Ban phoned back Rice to report that he believed "they had arrived at a satisfactory cover letter. Rice thanked the Secretary-General for his exceptional efforts on such a sensitive issue."
At the following day's news conference, Ban flat-out rejected Martin's recommendation for an investigation. While underscoring the board's independent nature, he made it clear that "it is not my intention to establish any further inquiry." Although he acknowledged publicly that he had consulted with Israel on the findings, he did not say it had been involved in the preparation of the cover letter killing off the call for an investigation. Instead, he only made a request to the Israelis to pay the U.N. more than $11 million in financial compensation for the damage done to U.N. facilities.

When contacted about the cable by Turtle Bay, a U.N. spokesman, Farhan Haq, declined to comment on its contents, noting only that the original investigation was designed only to resolve a dispute with Israel over the damage done to its facilities and seek restitution.

But the issue was far from over. The U.N. Human Rights Council, which the United States has long criticized for singling out Israel for censure, had already established its own commission headed by Goldstone. Goldstone agreed to take on the assignment after he revised the terms of reference to allow for investigation into both Israel and Hamas. The Goldstone investigation coincided with U.S. efforts to reinvigorate the Middle East peace process. Israel was livid over the development, warning that it could undermine peace prospects.

In a Sept. 16 meeting with Rice, Danny Ayalon, Israel's deputy foreign minister, called the Goldstone Report, which had been released the day before, "outrageous," according to a diplomatic cable, adding that it would give Hamas a "free pass" to smuggle weapons into Gaza. Rice agreed, calling the report deeply flawed and biased. But she also saw its release as an opportunity to convince Israel to pursue a U.S.-backed peace process. She asked Ayalon to "help me help you" by embracing the peace process and highlighting Israel's capacity to hold its own troops accountable for possible misconduct. She underscored that the Goldstone Report could be more easily managed if there was positive progress on the peace process, according to the cable. She also advised Israel that it "would be helpful" if it would emphasize its own judicial process and investigations" into the matter.

Rice reinforced that position a month later in a meeting with Lieberman, but the foreign minister was skeptical about the prospects for peace in the Middle East. "Israel and the United States had a responsibility not to foster illusions. A comprehensive peace was impossible," said Lieberman, who "cited Cyprus as an example that Israel might emulate, claiming that no comprehensive solution was possible, but security, stability and prosperity were."

The release of the cables comes as Rice is very publicly sticking with her position taking on the Goldstone Report. "The United States was very, very plain at the time and every day since that the Goldstone report was deeply flawed, and we objected to its findings and conclusions," Rice told the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week. "We didn't see any evidence at the time that the Israeli government had intentionally targeted civilians or intentionally committed war crimes."

http://thecornerreport.com/

US Aids Islamic Jihad in Libya

Obama's actions in Libya lead to this mass carnage. WTH was President Danger thinking? This is a civil war. Worse still, we are aiding jihad. Why Libya? Why did Obama commit to Libya? Seriously. And why isn't the media reporting on his billion-dollar bloody disaster?

Robert Spencer today writes here: U.S. Intervention In Libya Aids the Jihad
"Libya rebels raise concern about Islamic extremism," from AP. "Extremism." There is that nonsensical term again. it is authentic Islam and everywhere there is Muslim control, there is the sharia. Period.

NATO says it cannot stop shelling of Libyan city Yahoo
TRIPOLI, Libya – NATO military commanders conceded Tuesday they are unable to stop Moammar Gadhafi's shelling of the rebel-held city of Misrata, where hospitals are overwhelmed with casualties, while Britain said it will dispatch senior military officers to advise the opposition.
Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, has been under siege for nearly two months, with rebels holding on to seaside positions in the port area. In recent days, Libyan troops have pounded the city with shells and rockets.

Rebels and troops clashed Tuesday in central Misrata, and explosions and gunfire were heard. NATO strikes only targeted radars and air defenses, said Abdel-Salam, a resident who identified himself only by his given name for fear of retaliation. Hospitals are filled with the wounded, and 120 patients need to be evacuated, the World Health Organization said.
A United Nations' humanitarian agency was cool to an idea by the European Union to deploy an armed force to escort humanitarian aid in Libya, saying it was still able to use civilian assets on the ground. The proposal also drew a warning from Gadhafi's regime that this would be tantamount to a military operation.

The fighting in Libya has been deadlocked for the past month. Gadhafi is holding on in the west, while the rebels control the east. NATO airstrikes have kept Gadhafi loyalists in check, but the rebels, poorly trained with little military experience, have not been able to score military gains, either.

As the allies seek to break the battlefield stalemate, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain will send a team of up to 20 senior military advisers to the rebel stronghold of Benghazi to help organize the haphazard opposition forces.

Hague said advisers would not supply weapons to the rebels or assist in their attacks on Gadhafi's forces but would work with British diplomats already cooperating with the National Transitional Council, the political wing of the rebel movement, which has been officially recognized by Italy, France and Qatar.

Posted by Pamela Geller

Did BP Have Special Reason to Worry about the Iraq War for Oil?

The Independent reveals what we’ve always known: the Iraq War was about oil. Or rather, there were significant discussions in Fall 2002–the period when the US and UK were busy lying us into war–about who would get Iraq’s oil. (h/t Susie)

The article describes BP’s judgment that Iraq was “the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there” and “more important than anything we’ve seen for a long time.”

Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP’s behalf because the oil giant feared it was being “locked out” of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: “Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis.”

The minister then promised to “report back to the companies before Christmas” on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq “post regime change”. Its minutes state: “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity.”

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office’s Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: “Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future… We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq.”

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had “no strategic interest” in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was “more important than anything we’ve seen for a long time”.

But the article doesn’t comment on why BP might be so concerned that the US would lock BP (and Shell and British Gas) out of Iraqi oil development.
Perhaps this might explain it:

From the beginning, it was clear that Cheney was running the show, chairing meetings of the task force — comprised of about a dozen Cabinet officers and senior officials — in his ceremonial office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Much of the task force’s work was done by a six-person staff, led by its executive director, Andrew Lundquist, a former aide to Republican Sens. Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski of Alaska. In 2000, Lundquist was the Bush campaign’s energy expert; Bush nicknamed him “Light Bulb.”

Today, Lundquist is a lobbyist and has represented some of the companies who appeared before the task force, such as BP, Duke Energy and the American Petroleum Institute. He did not return phone calls for this article.

[snip]
Cheney appears to have played a more behind-the-scenes role in the task force’s deliberations, the document indicates, listing only a handful of meetings with the vice president. Those included a previously reported meeting with Lay, who died last year; a meeting with officials from Sandia National Laboratories to discuss their economic models of the energy industry; and two sets of meetings with lawmakers. Cheney had other meetings, such as with John Browne, then the chief executive of BP, that were not listed on the task force’s calendar. [my emphasis]

So in addition to the March 22, 2001 meeting that a bunch of BP folks had as part of the “official” Energy Task Force meetings, BP’s CEO John Browne had his very own meeting with Cheney during the Energy Task Force discussions. And among other things the Task Force was discussing were Iraq’s oil fields and the companies already trying to develop them.

Now, frankly, it wouldn’t take a smarty pants to worry about Americans seizing Iraq’s fields. Only very naive people believed the Iraq War was not about oil. But BP, which–aside from a number of Canadian companies–was almost the only nominally foreign company to be included in the Energy Task Force discussions (two Shell people had a meeting after the report was substantially finished), almost certainly had its own reason to worry about Americans looting Iraqi oil after regime change.

By: emptywheel

Third Child In Three Weeks Served Alcohol In Restaurant

» by Randy Roper April 19, 2011, 13:02pm

Another Child Mistakenly Served Alcohol In Restaurant
For the third time in as many weeks, reports claim a child was accidentally served alcohol at a chain restaurant.

This week Tyree Davis' daughter Brooklynn was given an alcoholic drink at a Chili's restaurant in Chicago, just weeks after similar incidents accorded in an Olive Garden in Lakeland, Florida, and in an Applebee's restaurant in Detroit, Michigan.

The 4-year-old Brooklynn was rushed to a hospital, after she was given a mudslide vodka cocktail, instead of what was believed to be a chocolate shake.

“How can you make that mistake,” Mrs. David questioned. “I don't want it to ever happen again … to any child, because I know this just happened last week to someone, and I heard about it, and it's crazy that it just happened to us yesterday?”

In the hospital Davis' daughter was diagnosed with an alcohol overdose.

“While we were at the hospital, they said that her chest was tight,” Davis told CBS Chicago. “They called respiratory, they came down and gave her a breathing treatment. Since we've been home, she did vomit.”

Although none of the incidents where children were served alcohol are related, and occurred in different restaurant chains, the recurrence of these events within the last month is a safety issue that needs to be addressed in all restaurants.

“I know you're busy, I know things are going on. I know it's crowded, and it was crowded. But you served my child an alcoholic beverage. That's not good,” Mrs. Davis added.

Chili's has yet to use a statement or contact the Davis family about the incident.
The restaurant was also in the news last month when a New Mexico woman filed a lawsuit after finding a needle in her ribs and mashed potatoes last July.

UPDATE: SHOOTING AT BETSY ROSS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!

FROM HISD: A Ross kindergarten student brought a loaded handgun to school today. The weapon fell to the ground and fired in the cafeteria during the lunch period around 10:22 a.m., injuring three kindergarten students, including the child who brought the gun. None of the wounds are considered life threatening. One 6-year-old boy was wounded in the foot. One 6-year-old boy was wounded in the leg. One 5-year-old girl was wounded in the foot. All three children have been taken to the hospital and their parents have been notified. HISD police are investigating how the child, a 6-year-old boy, obtained the gun. Ross Elementary is located at 2819 Bay.

Posted by Isiah Carey AKA The Insite at 1:15 PM