He had worked for the cia, much less his time in jack ruby cell ,which seems relevant. so you can see why non crazy people would wonder about what really happened.k and of course, many have wondered in nineteen seventy six long forgotten the house of representatives impaneled a special committee to reinvestigate the jfk tiveassassin. t th their bipartisan conclusion, jack kennedy was almost certainly murdered as the result of a conspiracy. but the question is as cons conspiracy. by whom? well, the obvious suspeccyy t wd be the cia. why else would the agency withhold critical evidence for investigators? is there a benign explanation for that, for maintaining this level of secrecy for this many years? level o not that we re aware. and it is illegal. s pa in 1992, congress passed the president, john f. kennedy assassination recordsk pres collection act. that act mandated full disclosure of all documents by twenty, seventeen, fifty four years after jfk was
Ex the government s explanation didn tpln didn t seem entirely . some tpln didn t seem entirely . and some people started asking obvious question s about it. it was at that point, as americans started to doubt the officialstarted to story, tt the term conspiracy theory entered our lexicon. as professor lance david smith points out in his book on the subject, the term conspiracy theory did not exist as a phrase in everyday americanpiracy conversation befe nineteen sixty four inbefore 19. year warreixty four inbefore 19. nineteen sixty for the year, the warren commission issued its report. the new york times issued publi five stories in which conspiracy theory appeared. now, today, of course, the termp conspiracy theory appears in pretty much every s new york times story about american politics. it s wielded an now as then as a weapon against anyone who asks questions.ks the government doesn t feel like answering. but despite sixty years oswef name calling, those questions o have n
We support, don t send them another red cent. i know i won t. and i hope nobody else does. either. wow, that s quite an indictment. ow, that is quite i mean, of cours e you need two parties. you need two party leaderships. you need to have a functioning party. right. are yoioning partyu convinced tu had better leadership, it would get betterd if? you know, i think if it s handled in the right way, ifd it you re not lying to people, i mean, tucker, you take two hundred million dollars out of the pockets of hardworking americans during a pandemi20c and say we re fighting for p trump. trump. the entirefi time. entire and the attorney that was sending those letters p campaign still works there, by the way. they said he was fired. he wasn t fired. he still works there. and you can t trust theseasn t people. listen, i m a regulafid.r guy. i have a i have a pretty incredible life, but i m a regular guy, as you well know.ur i don t like being lied to .like and i think i think we should hol
An american president , thosee same peoplsamee are now overseeg us involvement in the war in ukraine. americans fighting russia, and that involvement is escalating significantly. according to multiple reports tonight, the bush administration is preparing to sen pretod patriot missile ds systems to ukraine. now, these are not surface to air missiles. these are long range missile defense systems. long-rs that can shoot down bote missiles and aircraft. they are more advanced than any weapon this country has sent so far to ukraine. that s saying a lot. as recently as march, the pentagon denied that it would ever do anythingarch like this. a senior u.s. defense officialo said in march that, quote, e there is no discussion aboutt putting a patriot battery in ukraine. have t in order to do that, you would have to put us troops with it to operate it. americante it. in other words, you would have american troops directly fighting russia. congress does not authorize that. the american publ
Some old, very old media old, old owners of twitter. they wanted to create this illusion of consensus about the science. that s right. that s right. they they wanted to fool peope into thinking that we were following the science when, in fact, there was a robust debate among scientists about what the right thing to do was. and the consequence is schools closed, businesses closed,unvacn unvaccinated people lost their jobs. osbecause of mandates, even mandcause of mandates, even actually not none of the persuasive science actually supported any of those positions. peoplepported suffered as a a consequence of this censorship. and of course, it s an abstract violation of my civil rights, my first amendment rights. latin bu ot that s not the important ican the important thing is that people, american people were denied a debate, an honest debate. and i believe that had that honest debate taking place, none of those policies would have been put in place. and all of that suffering could have