Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts

Monday, April 05, 2010

Michael Medved On Birth Certificate Nonsense - A Liberal 9/11 "truthers" Started This



This subject has hurt the conservative cause. Many man hours were spent on this rather than fighting against Obama's agenda. One case in point is G. Gordon Liddy, whom I enjoy normally. But I would have rather had his voice already sounding the health-care alarm on the Chris Matthew's show rather than this crazy conspiracy stuff: "These Guys are Embarrassing Us!  G. Gordon Liddy Gets Worked by Chris  Matthews on Obama's Birth Certificate." Time and energy lost.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Rosie O'Donnell Still Pushing 911 Conspiracy Myths/Lies -- PNAC Her Biggest



Take note that some of these links are broken. Just shorten the link to its main website URL to explore. The following mainly comes from 9/11 Myths... Reading Between the Lies:
  • Misquote Example #1
The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about. 

  • Misquote Example #2
The victims of the 9/11 attacks have been disaster for Muslims because 19 Arabs were named as hijackers of the planes, but they've been a dream come true for the PNAC 'think-tank' whose 2000 Statement of Principles stated a "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would advance their policies, i.e. justify wars and "regime changes".

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_reichstag.html

  •  Misquote Example #2
There is circumstantial evidence that some part of the US administration was involved in the attack. It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor,3 in order to provide the impetus for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.

9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions
Frank Legge, Journal of 9/11 Studies

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Demol20Legge.pdf

These examples should suffice. So how does one respond to this tired old canard? with the real quote (the truth shall set you free).

So the first quote tells us it’s about war in Iraq and huge increases in military spending, the second says it’s about justifying war and regime changes, the third and fourth link the quote to war on Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems there’s broad agreement, so can they all be wrong? Let’s see.

First, the actual full quote is this.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".
The odd word here seems to be "transformation". What do they mean? Let's look back to the beginning of the same chapter.
"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".
So "transformation" refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC's pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs.
...(read more)...


Can you see why many get frustrated when talking to 9/11 "truthers"? They use the title without actually using the meaning... truth.

Dennis Prager Interviews David Aaronovitch, Author of "VooDoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory In Shaping the Modern World"

Some Bush Fallacies In 9/11 "truther" Movement Arguments -- Logical Conclusions (from March, 2010)

Monday, March 08, 2010

How Fast Did WTC-7 Collapse? Does It Fit with Conspiracies That It was Demolitioned?

This next video is from a larger post I did entitled, "9/11 Truthers Refuted"


I am including some edited comments I made from another post to make clear some thinking here:


Grant,

First off let me welcome you to this site. While I will disagree with you you must keep in mind your opinion is welcome here.

Secondly, did you even read my post? There was a destructive agent involved, and it wasn’t Bush! Could it be… “SATAN?!” No, it was probably the 15,000 gallons of fuel in WTC-7. There are two important things to remember: there hasn’t been a building (1) like the Twin Towers Complex built that had (2) this amount of damage done to them. Keep in mind that the other buildings often used as “caught on fire and didn’t collapse” as proof that the Twin Towers or WTC-7 shouldn't have were never hit by large debris [and in the case of the TT, planes] and then caught on fire with their particular architecture, 15,000-gallons of fuel in the building, and no water to fight it.

Another important thing to remember is that in those other buildings always mentioned, there was sufficient water to fight the fires and put them out or stop them from spreading. Most of the sites you probably visit do not show the photos and video I will show.

I will first – in the “UPDATE” section – show the photo most see on conspiracy sites, and then show some video and shots that tell the whole story. But first, let’s review how this is different, than say a plane hitting the Empire State Building:
1) About 15,000 gallons of fuel, some of it high pressured “spouts of flames;”

2) Little to no water pressure to supply the firefighters hoses to fight the fire (damaged from the massive amount of debris);

3) Yes steel used in WTC-7... but no, not same design. The support structure of this building was wildly different than any other building's design. So the factors of debris, architectural design, and fuel all were a deadly combination to any and all of these buildings.
 

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Bedell Update -- Blog Wars: Was He Lib or Con, or Just Crazy? (Alex Jones, Joseph Stack, von Brunn, Charlie Sheen)

To my utter amazement, some left-leaning blogs and top MSM outlets this morning somehow managed to brand Bedell as a “right-wing extremist” anyway, despite the ever-growing pile of evidence contradicting this tired old narrative. The Christian Science Monitor titled its article “John Patrick Bedell: Did right-wing extremism lead to shooting?“, while top leftist blog Talking Points Memo ran with “Pentagon Shooter Worshipped Private Property Rights, Denounced Government ‘Schemes’ Like Public Education“. ~ Zombie


May I say most of the conspiracy theories lie on the left. Most presedential shooters were involved some way with the Communist or Marxist ideologies. Michael Medved points out the fact that Lane was a self-avowed Marxist. The guys behind the "Loose Change" "documentary" are also very involved in the Communist ideology. What does this,  being on the extreme left, have to do with conspiracies you might ask? Propaganda. Plain and simple. The NWO stuff is merely being pushed by person who wish to undermine the governments affairs instead of voting these bad policies out. I want to have the viewer look at the report on Bedell:




Now I want you to watch a video on Alex Jones, do you see what I am seeing?



Jones is crazier than Bedell. 

Zombie has gone off over at Pajamas Media (Anti-Bush Truther shoots up Pentagon; Should we play the political blame game?). Much of the below is from his article. After it I will post my old post on it, there may be some repeated info, but stuff that will help the layman counter arguments by the water cooler.
On Thursday, a “9/11 Truth” fanatic named John Patrick Bedell started shooting at the Pentagon and managed to wound two guards before they mercifully put him out of our misery.

We now know that the guy thought the government and the Bush family were behind the 9/11 attacks (or “demolitions” as he called them), and was basically frothing at the mouth with Bush hatred.

Now, I’ve been to innumerable “Truther” rallies over the last 8 years, and can say with some confidence that about 98% of folks who think 9/11 was a hoax are left-wingers, or at the very least fit in very comfortably in the left-wing milieu, since the impetus behind Truthism is to undermine the basis for Bush’s “War on Terror,” an impetus which is also a cornerstone of modern Leftist thought as well.
So far, however, I’ve noticed a deafening quietude on the left-leaning blogs about this guy’s affiliations and belief systems. Those brave enough to troll leftist comments sections have noted mumblings therein that the guy was probably a secret “teabagger,” despite all evidence to the contrary.

[....] 
Michelle Malkin uncovered a key inconvenient fact which doesn’t quite fit this predictable “right-wing extremist” narrative — that Bedell was a registered Democrat.

Ooops!
Bedell was also a marijuana smoker, grower and activist, as documented at Gateway Pundit.

Ooops!


Patterico has now posted a full transcript of one of Bedell’s internet rants — the same one cited by Talking Points Memo as evidence of his right-wing leanings — which has Bedell uncorking phrases like “economic justice” and paragraphs like (writing in 2006 during the Bush presidency) “This organization, like so many murderous governments throughout history, would see the sacrifice of thousands of its citizens in an event such as the September 11th attacks, as a small cost in order to perpetuate its barbaric control. This collection of gangsters would find it in their interests to foment conflict and initiate wars throughout the world in order to divert attention from their misconduct and criminality. The true nature of such a regime would find its clearest expression in Satanic violence currently ongoing in Iraq.” and anti-war conspiracy theories like “The political and military disasters such as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq that an illegitimate coup regime uses against the people…”.

Ooops!


Add all that to the previous discovery already linked above that Bedell’s Amazon “Wish List” featured the the left-wing conspiracy-theory books The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family and Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America.

Ooops!


And more evidence is being uncovered by diligent bloggers with every passing hour.
I post all this not to backtrack on my original wish to avoid the blame game, but to defuse the blame-the-right game now coming from the other side.
Tell me, Christian Science Monitor and Talking Points Memo (and the innumerable left-leaning sites which by now have surely followed in their wake): How many Tea Partiers or conservatives

- Shoot at the Pentagon and hate the military?
- Are registered Democrats?
- Hate George Bush and the whole Bush family?
- Think 9/11 was perpetrated not by Muslims but by Republicans?
- Grow and smoke marijuana?
- Read left-wing anti-Bush books?
- Are anti-war?
- Talk about “economic justice”?
- Think the Vietnam War and the Iraq War were not merely mistakes but were part of a government conspiracy?

Exactly as I had surmised, Bedell seems to be a nutcase who overwhelmingly tends to lean left but with a sprinkling of libertarian attitudes thrown in just to spice things up — and it is those exact libertarian sprinklings which the leftist mediasphere is focusing on, while completely ignoring the much larger pile of evidence on the other side of the scale.

Bedell may have been a left-wing conspiracy kook, but much more importantly: He was insane, and it was his insanity (not his politics) which led him to start shooting at the Pentagon.
Unfortunately, I can see now that the blame game is already in full swing and I am powerless to stop it, but at least I can say I tried.

UPDATE II:
Exactly as I had stated in my original post, we now know that Bedell was clinically insane:
The man who opened fire in front of the Pentagon had a history of mental illness and had become so erratic that his parents reached out to local authorities weeks ago and warned them that their son was unstable and might have a gun, authorities said Friday.
…
San Benito County Sheriff Curtis Hill told The Associated Press that Bedell, 36, had been at in-patient mental health institutions at least four times. Court records showed he was diagnosed as bipolar, or manic depressive.
…
The family put out a statement Friday saying they were “devastated as a family by the news from yesterday.”
“We may never know why he made this terrible decision,” it said. “One thing is clear though — his actions were caused by an illness and not a defective character.”
A completely crazy person goes berserk. That’s it. Can we for once not make this into a political boxing match?

UPDATE III:


Blogger “Ringo the Gringo” has this interesting and possibly on-target analysis of Bedell’s political outlook:
Seems to me that Bedell falls into the Alex Jones / Libertarian extremist camp. Contrary to what [some Web sites] are promoting, I know from first hand experience that these types of “truthers” are ubiquitous at all International ANSWER sponsored anti-war demonstrations, but I have not seen any of them at the handful of “tea parties” I’ve attended. You can call them “right-wing” if you like, but they are definitely not conservative. Actually, they are the exact opposite of conservative, they are radicals – and nuts. They’re anti-military, anti-war, anti-Bush, conspiracy kooks who often stink of marijuana.
If a group like this bunch Alex Jones supporters were to show up at any “tea party” I’ve been to, I suspect they’d be run out, or at the very least booed and heckled. At anti-war demonstrations these very same people are welcomed with open arms. In fact, it’s not uncommon to see followers of “Libertarian” Alex Jones and members of the Maoist group, The World Can’t Wait, marching together carrying the same “9/11 truth” banner.
Bedell may not have been a Leftist, but he was most certainly not a conservative either. And he was not a Republican.
=======================================
============================================
=======================================
As you read, keep in mind the following stat:
Also, keep in mind Obama put in as one of his Czars a 9/11 Truther. 

....Signs emerged that Bedell harbored ill feelings toward the government and the armed forces, and had questioned the circumstances behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In an Internet posting, a user by the name JPatrickBedell wrote that he was "determined to see that justice is served" in the death of Marine Col. James Sabow, who was found dead in the backyard of his California home in 1991. The death was ruled a suicide but the case has long been the source of theories of a cover up.

The user named JPatrickBedell wrote the Sabow case was "a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolitions."

That same posting railed against the government's enforcement of marijuana laws and included links to the author's 2006 court case in Orange County, Calif., for cultivating marijuana and resisting a police officer. Court records available online show the date of birth on the case mentioned by the user JPatrickBedell matches that of the John Patrick Bedell suspected in the shooting....
...(read more)...

This small UPDATE comes from HotAir and it comes directly after posting an example of a story pigion-holing Bedell's "right-wingism":

....No mention in the story of Bedell’s Bush-hatred or his party affiliation. It fell to the boss emeritus to dig that up, not for the purpose of indicting Democrats for what he did but to try to preempt the inevitable tedious attempts to lay this at the feet of conservatives. I don’t think she has much to worry about this time. It’s simply too far a logical leap to blame the military-loving mainstream right for an attack on the Pentagon, which explains why even noted “wingnut” critics like John Avlon and Sullivan staffer Patrick Appel are taking a pass on this one. If there’s any silver lining in the very dark clouds created by Bedell and Joe Stack (and even the Kentucky census worker fiasco), it may be that partisans on both sides have necessarily become more cautious about trying to divine coherent motives from incoherent minds. Not all partisans, natch, but some.

Your exit question: Is it possible to be a “left-wing extremist” anymore or do nuts who embrace some lefty ideas before launching an attack automatically fall under the broader heading of “anti-government,” a term that’s conveniently also used to describe conservatives’ opposition to statism? That’s why CSM ended up labeling him a right-winger, I suspect. Righties want a smaller federal government and Bedell hated the military and the military’s part of the federal government. Voila!

UPDATE 2 (Gateway Pundit):

UPDATE: So… Will the state-run media report this? The Pentagon shooter is linked to several gay rights groups along with PETA, NPR, various drug legalization orgs, Greenpeace and Al Franken.
UPDATE: The media’s “right wing extremist” is a registered democrat.


 ============================================
===============================================


It was pointed out that much of what the IRS Joseph "the bomber" Stack talked about was directly from Michael Moore movies:

Have you noticed how things said in his manifesto seem to all be taken straight from Michael Moore movies?
Anti-health care system= Sicko
Anti-Capitalism= Capitalism, a Love Story
IRS cronyism with businesses= Capitalism, a Love Story
Anti-Bush= Fahrenheit 9/11
Blames Big Corporations for job issues= The Big One
(lots of debate here at the above quotes source) For a well thought out story string of stories, see Verum Serum's insights: Here, here, as well as the excerpt you see here:
One – Joe Stack was a liberal. As I pointed out recently, Stack:
Hates George W. Bush and his “cronies”
Hates Big Pharma
Hates Big Insurance
Hates GM executives
Hates organized religion
Refers favorably to communism
And in his last words before dying, denigrates capitalism.
...(read more)...

Remember von Brunn? He also was a bit left leaning in his understanding of politics and government:
...While Mr. von Brunn is currently being made out to be the poster child of the Republican Party, even a cursory look at his professed views shows he is the avowed enemy of the GOP in its current incarnation. Among many others, Mr. von Brunn hates Rupert Murdoch, Fox News (that means you, too, Shep!), George W. Bush and John McCain. And according to the FBI, Mr. von Brunn even had in his vehicle the address of the Weekly Standard, home base of the dreaded "neo-cons."


Seems Mr. von Brunn wasn't a big fan of the Iraq War and also believed that 9/11 was an "inside job." Given this political sketch, Mr. von Brunn would feel at home at Camp Casey, Cindy Sheehan's antiwar outpost in Crawford, Texas, and at the Daily Kos convention, rather than partaking in a National Review cruise with pro-Israeli war hawks Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson.

It's not Charles Lindbergh's Republican Party any more. And it hasn't been for more than a half-century. But don't tell that to the facile minds at the DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] and CNN.
...(read more)...

Friday, March 05, 2010

Pentagon Shooter a 9/11 Truther and Anti-Marijuana Laws -- What Is With These Lefties?!

As you read, keep in mind the following stat:
Also, keep in mind Obama put in as one of his Czars a 9/11 Truther. 

....Signs emerged that Bedell harbored ill feelings toward the government and the armed forces, and had questioned the circumstances behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In an Internet posting, a user by the name JPatrickBedell wrote that he was "determined to see that justice is served" in the death of Marine Col. James Sabow, who was found dead in the backyard of his California home in 1991. The death was ruled a suicide but the case has long been the source of theories of a cover up.

The user named JPatrickBedell wrote the Sabow case was "a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolitions."

That same posting railed against the government's enforcement of marijuana laws and included links to the author's 2006 court case in Orange County, Calif., for cultivating marijuana and resisting a police officer. Court records available online show the date of birth on the case mentioned by the user JPatrickBedell matches that of the John Patrick Bedell suspected in the shooting....
...(read more)...

This small UPDATE comes from HotAir and it comes directly after posting an example of a story pigion-holing Bedell's "right-wingism":

....No mention in the story of Bedell’s Bush-hatred or his party affiliation. It fell to the boss emeritus to dig that up, not for the purpose of indicting Democrats for what he did but to try to preempt the inevitable tedious attempts to lay this at the feet of conservatives. I don’t think she has much to worry about this time. It’s simply too far a logical leap to blame the military-loving mainstream right for an attack on the Pentagon, which explains why even noted “wingnut” critics like John Avlon and Sullivan staffer Patrick Appel are taking a pass on this one. If there’s any silver lining in the very dark clouds created by Bedell and Joe Stack (and even the Kentucky census worker fiasco), it may be that partisans on both sides have necessarily become more cautious about trying to divine coherent motives from incoherent minds. Not all partisans, natch, but some.

Your exit question: Is it possible to be a “left-wing extremist” anymore or do nuts who embrace some lefty ideas before launching an attack automatically fall under the broader heading of “anti-government,” a term that’s conveniently also used to describe conservatives’ opposition to statism? That’s why CSM ended up labeling him a right-winger, I suspect. Righties want a smaller federal government and Bedell hated the military and the military’s part of the federal government. Voila!

UPDATE 2 (Gateway Pundit):
UPDATE: So… Will the state-run media report this? The Pentagon shooter is linked to several gay rights groups along with PETA, NPR, various drug legalization orgs, Greenpeace and Al Franken.
UPDATE: The media’s “right wing extremist” is a registered democrat.

 ============================================
===============================================


It was pointed out that much of what the IRS Joseph "the bomber" Stack talked about was directly from Michael Moore movies:

Have you noticed how things said in his manifesto seem to all be taken straight from Michael Moore movies?
Anti-health care system= Sicko
Anti-Capitalism= Capitalism, a Love Story
IRS cronyism with businesses= Capitalism, a Love Story
Anti-Bush= Fahrenheit 9/11
Blames Big Corporations for job issues= The Big One
(lots of debate here at the above quotes source) For a well thought out story string of stories, see Verum Serum's insights: Here, here, as well as the excerpt you see here:
One – Joe Stack was a liberal. As I pointed out recently, Stack:
Hates George W. Bush and his “cronies”
Hates Big Pharma
Hates Big Insurance
Hates GM executives
Hates organized religion
Refers favorably to communism
And in his last words before dying, denigrates capitalism.
...(read more)...

Remember von Brunn? He also was a bit left leaning in his understanding of politics and government:
...While Mr. von Brunn is currently being made out to be the poster child of the Republican Party, even a cursory look at his professed views shows he is the avowed enemy of the GOP in its current incarnation. Among many others, Mr. von Brunn hates Rupert Murdoch, Fox News (that means you, too, Shep!), George W. Bush and John McCain. And according to the FBI, Mr. von Brunn even had in his vehicle the address of the Weekly Standard, home base of the dreaded "neo-cons."

Seems Mr. von Brunn wasn't a big fan of the Iraq War and also believed that 9/11 was an "inside job." Given this political sketch, Mr. von Brunn would feel at home at Camp Casey, Cindy Sheehan's antiwar outpost in Crawford, Texas, and at the Daily Kos convention, rather than partaking in a National Review cruise with pro-Israeli war hawks Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson.

It's not Charles Lindbergh's Republican Party any more. And it hasn't been for more than a half-century. But don't tell that to the facile minds at the DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] and CNN.
...(read more)...

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Crazy 9/11 Truthers (Medina, now Shami -- or, SHAM WOW!)

This is with thanks to Libertarian Republican. The question (low volume) and answer precedes the video:

INTERVIEWER: The question was posed [to Debra Medina] whether the United States was involved in the attacks on 9/11. Let me pose that question to you?

DEMOCRAT FAROUK SHAMI: I was told that is what she said. Well, you know, there's no smoke without fire. We heard the commission on 9/11. But ya know, somehow people are not believing that. I'm not sure. I'm not going to judge on something I'm not sure about. But the rumors are there. True or not, it's hard to believe what happened... The possibility is there. The jury's still out.

INTERVIEWER: Let me be very clear, understand what you are saying. Do you think it's possible?

DEMOCRAT FAROUK SHAMI: Well, so many people have talked about it. Professors have written books about it. So many people overseas talk about it. And whenever I go overseas people ask me these questions... Do they know something we don't know?

Would we ever find the truth about 9/11? That's a very dangerous subject to get into. It's hard to make judgement. I'm not saying yes or no.

Friday, December 18, 2009

We Are Change Chicago Making Their Usual False Connections -- Rod Blagojevich and Conspiracies


 
I am posting two videos here, one is from We Are Change Chicago, the other is a satirical video that makes my point.  Do celebrity concerts kill people? The same type of connective value are on display. Blago knew he was in trouble and going to be arrested, so the Bank of America fiasco was merely a smoke screen to get support from the "people."  Another aspect We Are Change cannot seem to grasp is that Blago did want the money, but for the "people," there would still be politically correct/big government strings attached, just directly to "the people."  When Blago uses these terms, he is speaking from a more socialist aspect and wants universal health-care, more government control, on-and-on.  We Are Change is against the Global Warming debacle... but a broken clock is also right twice a day. (By-the-way, "thermite" is brought up in the video, here is a great, in-depth, response to this supposed "proof." There are also multiple posts at Screw Loose Change's blog, as well as 9/11 Myths... Reading Between the Lies site.)




We Are Change argue against themselves when they put up people like Blago very similarly to when Alex Jones puts people like Cynthia McKinney in his "documentaries." Both Cynthia (who is a black nationalist, racist, Marxist politician) and Blago are for big government, period! Implicitly and explicitly We Are Change and people like Alex Jones want more government by propping up anarchists and Marxists, thus, allowing their boogieman (the New World Order) more headway and control of the people.


(Side note: I post links to these horribly inaccurate sites because I welcome bad thinking here. It offers examples some may hear at work and gives some well meaning, thoughtful replies for the person to respond to these 9/11 "truthers." It also shows the depth of bad thinking in our nation. I also have noted that this thinking will end our Republic if it metastasizes into a more popular view. What then? Here are some links on my site I recommend:)

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Debating Conspiracists -- NWO & 9/11 Truthers Confronted

There is one thing I know from debating person's of differing views than I, the debates disappear.  So I wanted to get this early spar in my "record books" for memory.  Enjoy.
 
Post #1
You [Papa Giorgio] wrote on December 4, 2009

I was happy to see Gore confronted, however, the flap about the NWO bummed me out. So I posted my feeling at the We Are Change Chicago's site, but people who cry about others not debating and answering questions didn't allow the following to be posted:

I was happy about this until the NWO stuff started. Too bad. I have about 4,000 books in my meager condo. I started out on my reading career by reading many of the top NWO authors and books. I even became involved in the John Birch Society for a while, met Ezola Foster and Ron Paul… yada, yada. This view seemed to fit my eschatology as well, however, after much deliberation, wrestling with the Conspiracy Show (every full moon for three hours — Michael Medved). Tracking down and the following through the many references used in these books as well as the ideas espoused by many of the charlatans (like bombs being planted in the Oklahoma Federal Building, both parties being the same, etc., etc.), to the most recent ones (the Twin Towers being brought down by this secret cabal, ala Bush, WTC-7, birth certificates for Obama)… proved to me that this idea is bankrupt of anything substantive or that it has explanatory powers that should be taken seriously, and thusly, I have totally rejected this idea. In fact, I would posit that this unstable belief may in fact be the destabilizing factor that undermines governments in the future — since the Left is now the leader in this “conspiracy” arena and anarchy circles as well. What you are seeing in Gore and the U.N. is simply people living out a worldview, an ethos. If they are statists and socialist in their core, then they simply function in that way and fashion their affairs as such. This isn’t a giant conspiracy; it is people living out their existence with a set of beliefs that are shown to not work by shedding truth on them. Bankers in Germany and the U.S. are not the bad-guys. Neither is the Council of Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission. Yes there are statists in all organizations (just more-so in the TC & the CFR), hell, there are liberal socialists in my church (the emergent movement ala Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and other liberal influences). You see, it is merely people living out a reality they see… people like Alex Jones (who rubs shoulders with Marxists in case you didn’t know) merely distort the power behind influencing rightly these worldviews. If you do not even know what a worldview is, may I suggest you read a hefty book — you will thank me later in life — by David Noebel, “Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today’s Competing Worldviews.” Although I agree that Al Gore needs more confronting, not only for his skewed PowerPoint presentation, but also for his very left-leaning political views. For this I commend you. However, all the wind left your sails as soon as you connected this to Alex Jones type thinking.
Here is a short synopsis of my understanding as it stands now. Please read the comments as well, some more debate on my thinking happens there:

Here is a good post I did on what a worldview is (connected to the post above this):

Papa Giorgio


 
Post #2
Kevin McAlpine (Alabama) wroteon December 4, 2009
 
I totally understand where you're coming from. I know that about a year ago I would have also balked as soon as NWO talk started up. A year later and a year wiser, I do agree with much of Alex Jones's views, but I can understand where you come from.

The issue is this though: whether the evil is coming from a global NWO conspiracy or is simply the result of people living out their shoddy ethics, the evil still exists. We cannot get hung up on disagreeing with each other, we simply cannot afford it. I believe the NWO exists. However, the important thing is to combat the evil that we both agree exists.

Maybe it's all an orchestrated plot. Maybe it's not. I personally believe the former, but we have to band together to fight it - whether it is a plot or not. Where the evil comes from is subject to debate. Its existence, though, is not: and that is where we must band together and fight.

"We must hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately".

Stay free, friend.

Post #3
You [Papa Giorgio] wroteon December 5, 2009

Thank you for your thoughts.


Post #4
You wroteon December 7, 2009

Kevin, may I add to my "Thank you for your thoughts" post. It is important that we arrive at the same place with truth on our side. In philosophy - for instance - you can have a syllogism that is sound, or one that is false but reaches the same conclusion, for instance:
All dogs are animals.
Lassie is an animal.
Therefore, Lassie is a dog.
Here the conclusion is correct as well as the premises. However, the logic or truth of this deductive argument is false. Here is a true syllogistic argument:
All humans are mortal.
Socrates is a human.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Truth is outside the realm of personal belief. You may "personally believe" in the former, however, speaking un-truths has no power in the world of ideas, outside of power. Let me explain with a quote from Mussolini:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
This understanding of truth is, unfortunately, the "ethos" of yours and my generation. Professor Allan Bloom agrees when he said that "there is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative." So us walking lockstep towards the same goal is a fantasy that persons like myself, who have read hundreds of books by NWO authors on the NWO just cannot accept. Which is why "Loose Change" has been revamped and altered many times... because their stated propositions just didn't fit the facts.

You don't trust your government, maybe I don't as well (at least in its current form), neither do anarchists. However, I can only join hand-and-hand with people whom define liberty and government thusly:
"Old-fashioned liberalism embraces neither statism nor libertarianism, whether in social and economic policy or on lifestyle issues. Though it insists on constitutional checks on government to protect honorable liberties and the integrity of the family and other institutions of civil society, it does not regard government as an evil. Rather, it understands well-functioning and limited government as indispensable to the common good. While principle dictates government involvement in some matters and forbids it in others, old-fashioned liberalism emphasizes the prudential nature of most policy judgments concerning the regulation of markets or morals. Though they reject unprincipled pragmatism, old-fashioned liberals prize moderation and caution in the vast range of political decision-making that is not determined by principles alone."
(source: http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-is-conservatism-is-it-liberal-or.html)

(In other words, I cannot walk hand-in-hand with an anarchist even though we both do not trust our government.) So again, confronting Al Gore with proper science and "rousting" him in his comfort zone is great. Following it up with clap-trap about the New World Order undermines the entire presentation of him not debating the issues at hand. Truth is powerful, cases built on false logic and facts are not.
"…right and wrong
(Between whose endless jar justice resides)
Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Then everything includes itself in power,
And appetite, and universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself."

~ Shakespeare
Papa Giorgio

Friday, December 04, 2009

"We Are Change Chicago" Doesn't Live Up To What They Profess

Conspiracy Buster Recommend: Confessions of an Ex-Truther



I watched a video by We Are Change Chicago, a group of 9/11 Truthers that believe that our government took down the Twin Towers, WTC-7, and the like.  This is an idea I would have whole-heartedly agreed with about 10-or-so years ago.  So after watching their video, I posted this on their site and it was not allowed to be posted.  What they complain about in the video they in actuality practice.  That is, censorship.  So after I post their video and what I posted that was not allowed on their site, I will post some links and a video to respond to much of what these youngsters believe.  Enjoy open debate, not on their site, but here, on mine.  Allowing views that disagree with yours (like I do here at Religio-Political), merely shows that this is a man's site.




I was happy about this until the NWO stuff started. Too bad. I have about 4,000 books in my meager condo. I started out on my reading career by reading many of the top NWO authors and books. I even became involved in the John Birch Society for a while, met Ezola Foster and Ron Paul… yada, yada. This view seemed to fit my eschatology as well, however, after much deliberation, wrestling with the Conspiracy Show (every full moon for three hours — Michael Medved). Tracking down and the following through the many references used in these books as well as the ideas espoused by many of the charlatans (like bombs being planted in the Oklahoma Federal Building, both parties being the same, etc., etc.), to the most recent ones (the Twin Towers being brought down by this secret cabal, ala Bush, WTC-7, birth certificates for Obama)… proved to me that this idea is bankrupt of anything substantive or that it has explanatory powers that should be taken seriously, and thusly, I have totally rejected this idea. In fact, I would posit that this unstable belief may in fact be the destabilizing factor that undermines governments in the future — since the Left is now the leader in this “conspiracy” arena and anarchy circles as well. What you are seeing in Gore and the U.N. is simply people living out a worldview, an ethos. If they are statists and socialist in their core, then they simply function in that way and fashion their affairs as such. This isn’t a giant conspiracy; it is people living out their existence with a set of beliefs that are shown to not work by shedding truth on them. Bankers in Germany and the U.S. are not the bad-guys. Neither is the Council of Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission. Yes there are statists in all organizations (just more-so in the TC & the CFR), hell, there are liberal socialists in my church (the emergent movement ala Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and other liberal influences). You see, it is merely people living out a reality they see… people like Alex Jones (who rubs shoulders with Marxists in case you didn’t know) merely distort the power behind influencing rightly these worldviews. If you do not even know what a worldview is, may I suggest you read a hefty book — you will thank me later in life — by David Noebel, “Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today’s Competing Worldviews.” Although I agree that Al Gore needs more confronting, not only for his skewed PowerPoint presentation, but also for his very left-leaning political views. For this I commend you. However, all the wind left your sails as soon as you connected this to Alex Jones type thinking.

Here is a short synopsis of my understanding as it stands now. Please read the comments as well, some more debate on my thinking happens there:
Here is a good post I did on what a worldview is (connected to the post above this):
Papa Giorgio

Here are a few sites I recommend:


~ 9/11 Myths ~


Here is a video response (about 3-hours long) to "Loose Change," a truther video:



Here is some input on the We Are Change movement from Screw Loose Change blog:

What Is We Are Change?


They may be getting sudden attention on the right side of the blogosphere with this confrontation with Al Gore, which (I have to admit) is entertaining as hell:

--- video posted near top ---

But anybody endorsing this action should understand the story behind We Are Change. It's actually nothing more than a splinter group of 9-11 Truthers. Initially based in NYC, it has gained national notoriety due to confrontations like those with Gore, usually involving some sort of argument about nanothermite or the like. But apparently they are on a new kick, and one that might gain them some fans due to the current ClimateGate scandal (about which I take no side here).

We Are Change is made up of crazy people. An early member of We Are Change Colorado (WAC-CO) murdered his own father. Another We Are Change member is currently serving 20 years in federal prison for his role in the Ed Brown tax evasion case. Here's a pic of Brown and WAC founder and president for life Luke Rudkowski:



Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Jim Norton Almost Gets Jesse "The Body" Ventura to Hit Him... Jesse Is A Dumb, Dumb 9/11 Truther

I posted audio from the Opie & Anthony Show back in 2008 when they first met up with Jesse Ventura.  (You have to pause the three players, as they start automatically, and then listen to them.)  It was a revealing show because Jesse Ventura just had this belief bu really no backing to this "feeling" he had.  So this new installment is interesting, as it shows the same.  Can I note that I love TrueTV, however, as a consumer I will refuse to watch them on the same day Jesse's show is on.  Its a matter of wierd principle to me.  (Language Warning)  Jim Norton and Jesse go at each other, in fact, Jesse "the Body" Ventura looked like he was going to hit that little retard of a man -- whom I really like by the way!






Some old Jim Norton on Colin Quinn's "Tough Crowd."  The best talk show ever on TV!


Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Crazy Conspiratorial Democrats and Alex Jones (Alan Grayson)

Grayson Putting His Foot In His Mouth - Again. The point I want to emphasise here however is that Grayson was on the Alex Jones show... you know, the guy that thinks that Bush took the Twin Towers down. Obama comes from a church that has almost codified such a belief, that ius, that Bush took down the Twin Towers. Another person Alex Jones has in one of his "documentaries" and has on as a guest on the Alex Jones Show is Cynthia McKinney, a Marxist liberal Democrat who likewise believe Bush was involved in 9/11. So it doesn't surprise me that this matastitisation of conspiracy has infected almost all corners of the liberal left, for instance:

Just more examples of extremism from the left... in the Presidency, the Congress, and the Courts.