Visión: Tributo a Kennedy.

La noticia que les presento esta en Ingles.

Antes de mostrarla quiero mostrar algunas diferencias claves en cuando al TRIBalance y el Sistema Anárquico.
Concepto En el TRIBalance En Anarquia
Critica Análisis Ético - Académico Extremismo puro
Libertad de Expresión Incluye libertad para analizar éticamente Excluye posibilidad de analizar
Democracia Sistema de Análisis Ético -Académico. (Sociedad en Academias) Sistema de esclavitud mediática (Sociedad para los medios).
     

Primero hace notar que Frida, la autora de la "opinión" unilateral impuesta sin debate académico es una de las extremistas - terroristas anti regulación que sale en CNN. Cabe destacar que si bien en Estados Unidos se dice que supuestamente hay libertad de expresión esta totalmente prohibido el analizar a los medios y sobre todo el analizar a medios como CNN.

Una de las razones principales por la cual no les conviene la regulación académica es porque eso les reduce el ingreso que perciben por sus circos de muerte, o sea el dinero que les produce el crimen en el mundo. Reportar, mostrar y escandalizar con crímenes internacionales en un negocio muy provechoso para ellos, a pesar de que ese tipo de noticias son altamente perjudiciales para la sociedad y no dejan nada bueno a la convivencia.

Se les permite que hagan show con la muerte, se les permite que exageren y así van acostumbrándose hasta que nos meten guerras en la cabeza y se arrastra al pueblo a guerras, un ejemplo fue la guerra en Irak con las supuestas Armas de Destrucción masivas que lograron meter en el imaginario colectivo porque la regulación ética estaba destrozada. Ahora parece que quieren hacer lo mismo con las armas químicas en Siria donde también se les permitió deformar los conceptos de ética básicos, convirtiendo a la critica en extremismo y a los activistas de ética en extremistas absolutamente intolerantes y todo en nombre de unos supuestos derechos humanos.

Para medios como CNN la muerte, mientras mas escandalosa sea mas negocio es por ende a esos medios le son un gran negocio que no se detengan las guerras y los crímenes atroces.

Frida es una Anti Ética pura, en una cruzada por intentar destruir toda regulación académica para que CNN básicamente haga lo que se le de la gana con la conciencia de las personas y en beneficio de los crímenes cometidos en la sociedad. Su premisa es destruir toda forma de regulación, moderación y análisis ético en la sociedad para básicamente esclavizar a la sociedad.

Eso de que quiere el fin de la regulación se muestra de manera mas que evidente en el titulo de su libro: "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television." que básicamente quiere decir: "El fin de la regulación, un mundo al servicio de la televisión en vivo". O sea: El mundo ESCLAVO bajo el poder de CNN, FoxNews, etc. Solo se le puede ocurrir eso a una mente retorcida, retrograda y enloquecida pero hasta allí llega la avaricia demencial de CNN y demás medios del club.

Últimamente como saben que lo que viene es regulación académica entonces andan en un show de crímenes de honor y eso ha sido frecuente últimamente en la pagina de CNN, huyendo, corriendo hacia adelante para evadir el juicio a sus crímenes de lesa humanidad y sus grotescas violaciones a la conciencia de las personas.

Pero veamos que dice el medio que pretende que todos seamos sus esclavos para sus mezquinos intereses y que a su vez pretende que se elimine toda forma de control o regulación a su corrupto poder.
Concepto En el TRIBalance En Anarquia
Critica Análisis Ético - Académico Extremismo puro
Libertad de Expresión Incluye libertad para analizar éticamente Excluye posibilidad de analizar
Democracia Sistema de Análisis Ético -Académico. (Sociedad en Academias) Sistema de esclavitud mediática (Sociedad para los medios).
     

He coloreado las líneas de descripción arriba y abajo resaltare la parte de la noticia que se corresponde con la línea resaltada arriba.

Veamos la noticia:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/ghitis-press-freedom/index.html?hpt=hp_c4
New 'democracies' failing if speech isn't free
By Frida Ghitis, Special to CNN
August 22, 2012 -- Updated 1246 GMT (2046 HKT)

Frida Ghitis says when Russian authorities decided to throw the book at three punk-rock performers from the provocatively named group Pussy Riot, the issue was always democracy or, rather, lack of it..

Editor's note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer/correspondent, she is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television." Follow her on Twitter: @FridaGColumns

(CNN) -- How free are you to say what you think and what you believe? How free are you to hear the views of others, of those who challenge widely held beliefs or dare to criticize the powerful?

Upon the answer to that question lies the essence and the soul of democracy.

That's why today we have more conclusive evidence that democracy is faltering in Russia and why we see alarming signs that the revolution in Egypt may lead not toward, but away from, the democratic path.

It's also why we have reason to feel encouraged about the prospects for change in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) and why we know that, despite populist claims, democracy in places such as Iran, Venezuela and Ecuador -- the country that offered asylum to WikiLeaks' Julian Assange -- is either dead, dying or suffering a serious illness.

And it's why we know that China has not a shred of democratic rule.
When Russian authorities decided to throw the book at three punk-rock performers from the provocatively named group Pussy Riot, the issue was always democracy or, rather, lack of it.

Prosecutors charged the three -- Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova -- with hooliganism and religious incitement after they staged their iconoclastic show earlier this year in Moscow. The three burst onto the altar of the city's Cathedral of Christ Our Savior, wearing their trademark face covers and brightly colored balaclavas, and spent 40 seconds chanting their song "Mother of God, Cast Putin Out," which later became part of their YouTube hit "Punk Prayer."

The performance was meant to shock. But, more than anything, it was an act of protest. Like others in Russia, they were taking on the increasingly authoritative rule of President Vladimir Putin. And, in this case, they wanted to draw attention, they said, to the church's growing role in politics.

Normally, the disruptive show would have received a fine, charges of disturbing the peace or disrupting a religious service. But in today's Russia, you cannot take on the president without serious consequences.
The women of Pussy Riot gained notoriety partly for the name of their group and their colorful antics. But their case is only the most highly publicized of a number of terrible abuses of the law against critics of the president.

Alexei Navalny, one of the most popular of Putin's detractors, has been charged with embezzlement on what many people believe are trumped up charges. Kremlin critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky remains in a Siberian prison, where he has been since 2005 after daring to challenge Putin's authority. Countless Russian journalists have died mysterious deaths, as have anti-corruption crusaders, such as Sergei Magnitsky. Opposition leader Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion, has come under physical attack
Attacking the opposition, imprisoning one's critics is one way to tighten one's hold on power. But there is no better way to maintain the perception of democracy than by controlling what the people -- the voters -- are allowed to hear and read and think.

That's why restricting freedom of expression, especially media freedoms, is the favorite sport of authoritarian governments that want to preserve the appearance of democratic legitimacy.

Winning an election could confer democratic legitimacy. But what happens when the opposition doesn't have access to the media? What happens when journalists are not free to criticize the government?
That's when democracy dies, even if it lives in a zombie state, with leaders elected by voters with access only to views in support of the regime or where the president's critics are smeared, ridiculed and maligned, as happens in far too many places.

In Egypt, which has its first elected president, there is evidence of a move to stifle criticism and bring a single point of view to the public.
When the newspaper Al-Dustour ran a list of accusations against the Muslim Brotherhood, from whose ranks President Mohamed Morsy rose, authorities removed every issue from the stands. The paper's editor, Islam Afifi, is one of several journalists charged with insulting the president. Afifi says the Brotherhood wants to "silence any opposition to their policies."
The Upper House, dominated by Islamist legislators, just hand-picked 50 newspaper editors for state-owned publications. Morsy named a Brotherhood activist, Salah Abdel Maksoud, as information minister, adding to fears among many journalists that Islamists will gain control of the media.

In Ecuador, the country whose democratically elected president has embraced WikiLeak's Assange, a self-described champion of freedom of expression, journalists say President Rafael Correa has launched a campaign of fear and intimidation to stifle criticism.

Ecuador's mind-boggling media law prohibits reports and even editorials that "have a bearing, in favor of or against a specific candidate, proposal, option, electoral preference or political thesis."

The Committee to Protect Journalists calls it "coerced pre-emption" and says it adds to a program of smear campaigns and defamation laws aimed at producing self-censorship.

Self-censorship, of course, is the ultimate desired result. When the government doesn't have to imprison or harass its critics anymore because no one dares criticize it, then democracy is only skin deep, no matter how free elections appear.

Then, few dare to criticize the government, and voters are exposed to glowing reviews of their leader's prowess and wisdom. It's easy to win elections that way.

Ecuador is following the model put in place by Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez imposed the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, complete with multimillion dollar fines and shutting down of outlets that run afoul of the government.

To keep a patina of democratic freedom, some opposition is allowed to function, but the playing field is sharply tilted.

Those tactics are much more subtle than Iran's, where the government has thrown scores of journalists in prison.

The regime has not only imprisoned and tortured journalists, it has also shut down newspapers, blocked websites and jammed satellite signals. The government now says it plans to stop using the Internet by 2013 because it is "untrustworthy."

Sadly, restrictions on freedom of expression, one of the most fundamental of all human rights, are much more widespread than most people realize. According to Freedom House, a human rights advocacy group, only 14.5% of the world's people live in places with true media freedom.

The encouraging news in all of this is that the efforts of authoritarian regimes to silence their critics highlight the power of words, the power of free expression and the importance even they place on having democratic legitimacy.

That remains a powerful incentive for advocates of democracy to keep up their fight.

If they lose the battle to pry open the flow of ideas, they will lose the struggle for democracy, because even when a president is elected, if the people are not free to criticize him and his policies, then democracy is a mirage -- and so is freedom.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

Hablan de críticos... Prohibido analizarlos éticamente por ley.

Hablan de Libertad de expresión... Siempre y cuando no te expreses sobre ellos...

Hablan de democracia... Siempre y cuando no se les pueda cuestionar éticamente y con regulación académica.

Los medios de comunicación luchando por acabar con la libertad de conciencia y esclavizar a la humanidad en favor de sus intereses, tratando de darle legitimidad a sus mercenarios extremistas llamándolos críticos, tratando de hacer ver que la libertad de expresión es en verdad la libertad de ellos para expresarse y que nadie se atreva a cuestionarlos y hablando de la democracia como un sistema donde son ellos los que mandan y esclavizan a la sociedad. En todos los casos esta prohibido analizarlos, en todos los casos esta prohibido cuestionarlos y en todos los casos esta prohibido regularlos porque la meta es una sola: El que hagan lo que les de la gana con la conciencia de los pueblos.

Por eso pone:

The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television.

El fin de la Regulación: Un mundo cambiante bajo el control de la Televisión en Vivo.

true media freedom

Verdadero control por parte de los medios.

No hay libertad para analizar a los medios en Estados Unidos.

No hay libertad para analizar a los medios ni siquiera en las Academias de Estados Unidos.

No hay libertad para criticar a los medios de manera ética en los Estados Unidos.

Todo es una estafa, una gran mentira, un circo criminal que solo persigue seguir los intereses de las grandes mafias mediaticas que se quieren repartir el poder en los Estados Unidos y que pretenden esclavizar al mundo.

Los medios de comunicación corruptos a espaldas de la Academia, violando a la academia, teniendo secretos a espaldas de la academia con sociedades secretas para la academia y los académicos.

Ahora para aquellos que saben ingles:
 
New 'democracies' failing if speech isn't free
By Frida Ghitis, Special to CNN
August 22, 2012 -- Updated 1246 GMT (2046 HKT)

Frida Ghitis says when Russian authorities decided to throw the book at three punk-rock performers from the provocatively named group Pussy Riot, the issue was always media control government or, rather, lack of it..

Editor's note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer/correspondent, she is the author of "The End of Academic Regulation: A Changing World under the control of Live Television." Follow her on Twitter: @FridaGColumns

(CNN) -- How free are you to say what you think and what you believe? How free are you to hear the views of others, of those who challenge widely held beliefs or dare to terrorize the powerful?

Upon the answer to that question lies the essence and the soul of a media controlled government.

That's why today we have more conclusive evidence that the media controlled government is faltering in Russia and why we see alarming signs that the revolution in Egypt may lead not toward, but away from, the media controlled government path.

It's also why we have reason to feel encouraged about the prospects for change in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) and why we know that, despite populist claims, media controled government in places such as Iran, Venezuela and Ecuador -- the country that offered asylum to WikiLeaks' Julian Assange -- is either dead, dying or suffering a serious illness.

And it's why we know that China has not a shred of media controlled government rule.
When Russian authorities decided to throw the book at three punk-rock performers from the provocatively named group Pussy Riot, the issue was always media controlled government or, rather, lack of it.

Prosecutors charged the three -- Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova -- with hooliganism and religious incitement after they staged their iconoclastic show earlier this year in Moscow. The three burst onto the altar of the city's Cathedral of Christ Our Savior, wearing their trademark face covers and brightly colored balaclavas, and spent 40 seconds chanting their song "Mother of God, Cast Putin Out," which later became part of their YouTube hit "Punk Prayer."

The performance was meant to shock. But, more than anything, it was an act of protest. Like others in Russia, they were taking on the increasingly authoritative rule of President Vladimir Putin. And, in this case, they wanted to draw attention, they said, to the church's growing role in politics.

Normally, the disruptive show would have received a fine, charges of disturbing the peace or disrupting a religious service. But in today's Russia, you cannot take on the president without serious consequences.
The women of Pussy Riot gained notoriety partly for the name of their group and their colorful antics. But their case is only the most highly publicized of a number of terrible abuses of the law against extremists of the president.

Alexei Navalny, one of the most popular of Putin's detractors, has been charged with embezzlement on what many people believe are trumped up charges. Kremlin extremist Mikhail Khodorkovsky remains in a Siberian prison, where he has been since 2005 after daring to challenge Putin's authority. Countless Russian journalists have died mysterious deaths, as have anti-corruption crusaders, such as Sergei Magnitsky. Extremist leader Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion, has come under physical attack
Attacking the extremists, imprisoning one's extremist is one way to tighten one's hold on power. But there is no better way to maintain the perception of a media controlled government than by controlling what the people -- the voters -- are allowed to hear and read and think.

That's why restricting freedom of media mafia, especially media freedoms, is the favorite sport of authoritarian governments that want to preserve the appearance of media controlled government legitimacy.

Winning an election could confer a media controlled government legitimacy. But what happens when the extremists doesn't have access to the media? What happens when journalists are not free to terrorize the government?
That's when the media controlled government dies, even if it lives in a zombie state, with leaders elected by voters with access only to views in support of the regime or where the president's extremists are smeared, ridiculed and maligned, as happens in far too many places.

In Egypt, which has its first elected president, there is evidence of a move to stifle extremism and bring a single point of view to the public.
When the newspaper Al-Dustour ran a list of accusations against the Muslim Brotherhood, from whose ranks President Mohamed Morsy rose, authorities removed every issue from the stands. The paper's editor, Islam Afifi, is one of several journalists charged with insulting the president. Afifi says the Brotherhood wants to "silence any extremism to their policies."
The Upper House, dominated by Islamist legislators, just hand-picked 50 newspaper editors for state-owned publications. Morsy named a Brotherhood activist, Salah Abdel Maksoud, as information minister, adding to fears among many journalists that Islamists will gain control of the media.

In Ecuador, the country whose democratically elected president has embraced WikiLeak's Assange, a self-described champion of freedom of expression, journalists say President Rafael Correa has launched a campaign of fear and intimidation to stifle extremism.

Ecuador's mind-boggling media law prohibits reports and even editorials that "have a bearing, in favor of or against a specific candidate, proposal, option, electoral preference or political thesis."

The Committee to Protect Journalists calls it "coerced pre-emption" and says it adds to a program of smear campaigns and defamation laws aimed at producing self-censorship.

Self-censorship, of course, is the ultimate desired result. When the government doesn't have to imprison or harass its extremists anymore because no one dares terrorize it, then media controlled government is only skin deep, no matter how free elections appear.

Then, few dare to terrorize the government, and voters are exposed to glowing reviews of their leader's prowess and wisdom. It's easy to win elections that way.

Ecuador is following the model put in place by Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez imposed the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, complete with multimillion dollar fines and shutting down of outlets that run afoul of the government.

To keep a patina of media controlled government freedom, some extremism is allowed to function, but the playing field is sharply tilted.

Those tactics are much more subtle than Iran's, where the government has thrown scores of journalists in prison.

The regime has not only imprisoned and tortured journalists, it has also shut down newspapers, blocked websites and jammed satellite signals. The government now says it plans to stop using the Internet by 2013 because it is "untrustworthy."

Sadly, restrictions on freedom of mafia media, one of the most fundamental of all human rights, are much more widespread than most people realize. According to Freedom House of Criminal Media, a human rights advocacy group, only 14.5% of the world's people live in places with true media freedom.

The encouraging news in all of this is that the efforts of authoritarian regimes to silence their terrorists highlight the power of words, the power of free mafia media and the importance even they place on having media controlled government legitimacy.

That remains a powerful incentive for advocates of a media controlled government to keep up their fight.

If they lose the battle to pry open the flow of ideas, they will lose the struggle for a media controlled government, because even when a president is elected, if the people are not free to terrorize him and his policies, then the media controlled government is a mirage -- and so is the freedom of the media mafia.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.
Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

Para entender mejor porque mataron a Kennedy y quienes fueron.

Aquellos que no le rinden cuentas a la Academia tienen un secreto corrupto, es lo que Kennedy llamaba "Secrecy".

Kennedy pidiendo mas regulación académica:

http://www.blatantworld.com/speech/jfk_the_word_secrecy_is_repugnant.html#text_transcript
Entire Text Transcript Of Speech
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.

Una pista mas:
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.
Ningún presidente debe temerle al escrutinio de su programa. De ese escrutinio viene el entendimiento y de ese entendimiento viene el apoyo o la oposición. Y ambos son necesarios.

Eso incluye el Presidente de la S.I.P.

Indignación ante la mafia de los medios y sus crímenes:
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.
Todo periódico debe preguntarse, con respecto a cada historia: "¿Es noticia esto?" Todo lo que sugiero es que le agreguen esta pregunta: "¿Es del interés de la seguridad nacional?" Y yo espero que todos los grupos en América-- Sindicatos, hombres de negocio y funcionarios  públicos en todos los niveles-- se pregunten las mismas preguntas sobre sus actuaciones y que sometan sus acciones a esos mismos exámenes.

Decreto poco visto de Kennedy donde casi decreta que es un crimen que cualquier medio de comunicación evada la Regulación Académica:
That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.
Es por eso que los hombres de ley de Atenas decretaron que es un CRIMEN para que cualquier ciudadano evada la controversia (Análisis Académico).

Como se puede ver, Kennedy expreso claramente que los medios estaban en poder de criminales al margen de la Ley y de la Regulación Académica.

Pero vamos a entender un poco mejor sobre la Conspiración S.I.P. de la mafia mediática que era uno de los temores de Kennedy.

Veamos:
http://www.sipiapa.org/espanol/history.cfm
El concepto de la SIP se desarrolló en 1926, cuando unos 130 periodistas de las Américas, reunidos en Washington, D.C. para el Primer Congreso Panamericano de Periodistas, adaptaron una resolución que aprobaba el establecimiento de una organización interamericana permanente de periodistas. El Congreso se reunió posteriormente en la Ciudad de México en 1942, cuando se creó la Comisión Permanente, que se convertiría en la SIP durante la conferencia realizada en La Habana al año siguiente.

En reuniones subsiguientes en Caracas, Bogotá y Quito, la SIP gradualmente se convirtió en una institución establecida. Aunque en esta época era una organización predominantemente latinoamericana, en 1946 un pequeño grupo de editores y directores de periódicos de América del Norte fundaron en Estados Unidos un capítulo nacional de la institución hemisférica.

Quizás el año más importante en la historia de la SIP fue 1950.

Hasta ese año, las conferencias de la organización se celebraban bajo los auspicios del gobierno del país anfitrión, con fondos de éste y a su conveniencia. Las delegaciones se limitaban a sentarse y a votar por países, y los miembros no siempre eran periodistas.

Los delegados cambiaron la situación cuando adoptaron nuevos estatutos que evitaran tales patrocinios. Desde entonces, la SIP se convirtió en un ente independiente que no responde a ningún gobierno ni interés especial.

La organización sólo cuenta con los fondos que aportan las cuotas de sus miembros. Igualmente importante fue la cláusula que contemplaba que los delegados a las reuniones representarían sólo a sus publicaciones, cada uno con un voto.

Inicialmente, estos grandes cambios provocaron una enorme carga económica, a medida que la organización se reestructuraba, casi desde cero, con un número limitado de miembros y sus arcas vacías. No obstante, una nueva SIP independiente - alimentada por un puñado de miembros-floreció y ha crecido sin cesar desde entonces.

La SIP cuenta con dos organismos afiliados autónomos: el Instituto de Prensa de la SIP, que ofrece a los socios latinoamericanos asesoría técnica sobre temas del sector y el Fondo de Becas de la SIP, que ofrece fondos para actividades educativas.

La organización está gobernada por una Junta de Directores, que rinde cuentas a todos los socios durante la Asamblea General anual, cuyas sedes alternan entre Norte y Sudamérica. Un Comité Ejecutivo supervisa las actividades diarias del personal de la organización, que labora en la sede de la SIP en Miami, Florida.

Como se ve la S.I.P. es autónoma del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos y cabe dentro de la categoría de organizaciones secretas a la que se refirió John F. Kennedy como una amenaza a las sociedades abiertas y libres así como independientes.

La Fecha de la "Independencia" de la S.I.P. fue 1950.

Ahora vean:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
John F. Kennedy

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (Brookline, Massachusetts, 29 de mayo de 1917 – † Dallas, Texas, 22 de noviembre de 1963) fue el trigésimo quinto presidente de los Estados Unidos. Fue conocido como John F. Kennedy, Jack Kennedy por sus amigos y popularmente como JFK.

Elegido en 1960, Kennedy se convirtió en el segundo presidente más joven de su país, después de Theodore Roosevelt. Ejerció como Presidente desde 1961 hasta su asesinato en 1963. Durante su gobierno tuvo lugar la invasión de Bahía de Cochinos, la crisis de los misiles de Cuba, la construcción del Muro de Berlín, el inicio de la carrera espacial, la consolidación del Movimiento por los Derechos Civiles en Estados Unidos, así como los primeros eventos de la Guerra de Vietnam.

Durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, destacó por su liderazgo como comandante de la lancha torpedera PT-109 en el área del Pacífico Sur. Realizando un reconocimiento, la PT-109 fue impactada por un destructor japonés, que partió la lancha en dos y ocasionó una explosión. La tripulación a su cargo logró nadar hasta una isla y sobrevivir hasta ser rescatada. Esta hazaña le dio popularidad y con ella comenzó su carrera política. Kennedy representó al estado de Massachusetts como miembro de la Cámara de Representantes desde 1947 hasta 1953 y luego como senador desde 1953 hasta que asumió la presidencia en 1961. Con 43 años de edad, fue el candidato presidencial del Partido Demócrata en las elecciones de 1960, derrotando a Richard Nixon en una de las votaciones más ajustadas de la historia presidencial del país. Kennedy había sido la última persona en ser elegida ejerciendo como senador hasta la elección de Barack Obama en el 2008. También ha sido el único católico romano en ser elegido presidente de EE. UU. hasta la fecha, así como el único nacido durante la Primera Guerra Mundial y también el primero nacido en el siglo XX.

El presidente Kennedy murió asesinado el 22 de noviembre de 1963 en Dallas, Texas, Estados Unidos. A Lee Harvey Oswald lo detuvieron y acusaron del homicidio, pero fue asesinado dos días después por Jack Ruby por lo que no pudieron someterlo a juicio. La Comisión Warren concluyó que Oswald había actuado solo en el asesinato. Sin embargo, el Comité Selecto de la Cámara sobre Asesinatos estimó en 1979 que podría existir una conspiración en torno a su asesinato. El tema ha sido muy debatido y existen múltiples teorías sobre el magnicidio. El crimen fue un momento importante en la historia de los Estados Unidos debido a su traumático impacto en la psique de la nación.

Muchos han considerado a Kennedy como un icono de las aspiraciones y esperanzas estadounidenses; en algunas encuestas realizadas en su país continúa siendo estimado como uno de los mejores presidentes de los Estados Unidos.2

En 1963, habiendo tomado lugar la Invasión de Bahía de Cochinos y la crisis de los misiles en Cuba el Cubano Americano Presidente de la S.I.P. entra en desespero por la Presión de Kennedy al escrutinio del papel de la S.I.P.

En 1963, poco antes de dejar el cargo José A. Bustamante, Cubano Americano Presidente de la S.I.P. es el que tenia mas motivos para mandar a matar a John F. Kennedy retirándose el mismo año en que mataron a Kennedy ya que Kennedy era según su ángulo la resistencia mas grande que existía para evitar una guerra mediática a toda escala contra Cuba ya que Kennedy estaba hablando de moderación.

Todavía hoy en día, como vimos en la primera parte, la Mafia S.I.P. sigue siendo un organismo supranacional, independiente de los Estados Unidos y sus intereses orientado a destruir toda la regulación académica y esclavizar al mundo en favor de sus intereses criminales con al apoyo de la Sociedad Interamericana de Psicología, una oscura organización Intelectualista y mafiosa que es responsable de llevar las operaciones de guerra psicológica y que es poco conocida pero forma parte del Core central de la mafia Intelectualista.

Ese monstruo no responde a nadie, a país alguno, es como un gigantesco tumor y amenaza incluso la propia existencia de Estados Unidos por eso es que es necesario la Regulación Académica en todos nuestros países para protegernos de esas Organizaciones Criminales Internacionales. No será lo mejor para los mafiosos pero sin duda es lo mejor para los pueblos para evitar que colapsen en la barbarie que de todas maneras acabaría con la S.I.P. por eso yo hago un llamado a la Conciencia Académica.

CNN debe ser llevado a la Corte Penal Internacional y juzgado por sus graves crímenes contra la humanidad si es que el pueblo de los Estados Unidos quiere sobrevivir en paz en un futuro cercano porque con esos incendiarios anti-regulación allí el futuro de ese pueblo y de parte del mundo esta en grave peligro y de todas maneras no hay forma que ganen a largo plazo. Hago un llamado a la sensatez.

Yo solo hago un llamado a que se active la Regulación Académica para evitar que el sistema colapse inevitablemente de la peor manera posible.