Saturday, September 11, 2010

9/11: The Fusion of Far Left & Far Right

While reflecting on how the world has changed since 9/11, one inexplicable event recently caught my attention.

That inexplicable event is the far left and far right pundits becoming forever fused together by the romance of all of the mystery of 9/11 into ideological Siamese twins who have nothing but disdain for "conspiracy theories".

That fusion was quite the miraculous event, never having occurred before, but yet that event is still denied to this very day.

I will let an able, aged gentleman explain it to those who still entertain explanations, a gentleman who wrote the detailed article:
An Open Letter to Terry Allen, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Chris Hayes, George Monbiot, Matthew Rothschild, and Matt Taibbi.

According to several left-leaning critics of the 9/11 Truth Movement, some of its central claims, especially about the destruction of the World Trade Center, show its members to be scientifically challenged. In the opinion of some of these critics, moreover, claims made by members of this movement are sometimes unscientific in the strongest possible sense, implying an acceptance of magic and miracles.

After documenting this charge in Part I of this essay, I show in Part II that the exact opposite is the case: that the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center implies miracles (I give nine examples), and that the 9/11 Truth Movement, in developing an alternative hypothesis, has done so in line with the assumption that the laws of nature did not take a holiday on 9/11. In Part III, I ask these left-leaning critics some questions evoked by the fact that it is they, not members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, who have endorsed a conspiracy theory replete with miracle stories as well as other absurdities.
(Do You Really Believe In Miracles?). Meanwhile, the government continues to prove each day that conspiracy theories are true enough to put people in prison for life, or in some cases conspiracy theories are true enough to put people to death, based upon the federal criminal laws against any criminal conspiracy.

A recent Dredd Blog post illustrated that point:
The government projects more conspiracy theories than any other single entity.

Of course their conspiracy theories are the "good conspiracy theories" not the bad conspiracy theories the media talks about when citizens of the United States suspect a criminal conspiracy.

In federal courts, one of the most popular charges is a conspiracy theory, that is, a criminal charge that the conspirators conspired to do thus and such.
(Election Conspiracy Theory Confirmed). Oh those twin far lefties and twin far righties, gotta luv 'em when they get along so well, eh?

The President called for "unity" today. Any resulting fusion based on fear or "groupspeak", mentioned in this post upthread, is not American unity, because that type of unity allows for different religions as well as tolerance for differing ideas.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Is Bigotry Or Our Constitution Wiser? - 2

The shrill Pat Buchanan of Richard Nixon fame, along with the constitutionally insecure Donny Deutsch were on Morning Joe today.

They both advocated authoritarian measures to illegally take out the Koran burning episode originally scheduled for tomorrow by the bigoted fake pastor down in Florida.

The book burning was evidently postponed yesterday.

Nevertheless, Morning Joe on MSNBC is falling all over itself to cover up the real source of the Islamic world's disapproval of U.S. imperialistic aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The invasions, torture, mayhem of the drones, along with the murder of innocent civilians by contractors and soldiers alike in Afghanistan and Iraq evidently are all neutralized by Joe Blow the "Christian" blow hard.

"Good job" nut bags in the main stream media, you have done your master's bidding to disrespect the U.S. Constitution once again.

Lawrence O'Donnell, the adult in the room, was also on the show explaining that the free speech of the First Amendment is the law.

Anyone violating the Florida church member's right to free speech or freedom of religion can and should be sued.

Likewise, the Islamic Cultural Center to be built in New York is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

That Constitution belongs to all and gives all Americans free speech rights and religions rights.

These fascist leaning nit wits like Buchanan and Deutsch are unpatriotic to the U.S. Constitution with their screaming meemie approach to law.

They want the President to exercise his "Commander-in-Chief powers", in NAZI Hitler fashion, to put the church leaders in jail or something to that effect, not realizing that the the U.S. Constitution only gives the president charge over the military as commander in chief, NOT over the civilian population.

That is why the Ku Klux Klan can march in parades, as can the NAACP.

We Americans are not afraid of ideas contrary to our own, and we require our leaders to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not tear it up.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Due Process Of Law Is A State Secret

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has moved to the right, along with other federal courts.

The federal judiciary is further right than it has been at any time since the late 1930's.

In a 6-5 decision, the en banc panel dismissed a lawsuit against the government and contractors where the government had tortured the plaintiffs in secret prisons around the world.

The dissent had the proper understanding of the fascist legal doctrine now developing a strong ability to do away with government accountability and due process of law:
The state secrets doctrine is a judicial construct without foundation in the Constitution, yet its application often trumps what we ordinarily consider to be due process of law. This case now
presents a classic illustration. Plaintiffs have alleged facts, which must be taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, that any reasonable person would agree to be gross violations of the norms of international law, remediable under the Alien Tort Statute. They have alleged in detail Jeppesen’s complicity or recklessness in participating in these violations. The government intervened, and asserted that the suit would endanger state secrets. The majority opinion here accepts that threshold objection by the government, so Plaintiffs’ attempt to prove their case in court is simply cut off. They are not even allowed to attempt to prove their case by the use of non-secret evidence in their own hands or in the hands of third parties.
(Ninth Circuit Opinion, page 42 of PDF, emphasis added). There is little wonder that poll after poll shows that the American people overwhelmingly see the nation going in the wrong direction.

The next post in this series is here.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Cut The Greatest Entitlements Now!

The military, the oil companies, and the media complex (MOMCOM) harbor a subconscious myth that they are the beautiful ones who bring the primitive citizenry its food, shelter, wisdom, and security.

Another of the more prevalent myths in today's neoCon cacophony, masking as a debate on national issues, is that wars are free, costing the nation no tax dollars.

The institution that gets the greatest entitlements is the military portion of MOMCOM.

Oil barons of the oil companies struggle to take over first place in that race for entitlements.

Additionally, the neoCon regime of the past decade gave the rich 1% of MOMCOM the greatest tax cuts, along with the greatest war profiteer contracts, covering all that up by not putting war costs in the budget figures.

It was covered up and hidden even from John McCain, who continually said "what economic problems?" up until the economy went over the cliff into oblivion, together with his and her presidential aspirations.

Voodoo Economics finally became well defined by Bush II and the neoCon elements who have infected the national thinking with deceitful propaganda up to this day.

It, the main stream media portion of MOMCOM, the wannabe water boy of despotism, dutifully carries the evil propaganda brew to the four corners of the Empire, yelling "take off your clothes, trust us."

But the changing of the diapers and the guard still must meet the smell test, which is simple arithmetic, not complex algebra.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

How Do You Identify A Truther?

Yes, how do you identify a "Truther"?

The main stream media has often projected the image of a cave man as the antithesis of the Truther.

The "cave men did it" is the essence of the official 9/11 story, but the Truther finds that to be an improbable story.

Recently a well known New York Times reporter wanted to know more about the answer to the question, so he surreptitiously went to a gathering of those folks to find out:
... on Aug. 15 I got an up-close look at the phenomenon when I attended a meeting of Truthers that just happened to be held ... about 20 miles from my house.

The thing about people who hold beliefs you find unbelievable (in two senses) is that they are in most other respects just like you and your friends.


The star turn was taken by architect Richard Gage, founding member of Architects & Engineers for Truth, a group, he said, of 1,200 experts in the area of the construction and destruction of tall buildings. It was Gage, the man of science and the scientific method (another stock character), who laid out the basic thesis from which everything else grew. The twin towers could not have been brought down by fire. A fire, however intense, would have left the steel girders standing, perhaps at an odd angle. The way the towers fell — in free fall, straight down, in only 7 seconds — shows clearly, Gage declared, that the cause was controlled demolition by explosives placed next to the support structures and detonated in a precisely timed sequence. In short, destruction from the inside by insiders and not by a rag-tag group of fanatics who were incapable of flying the planes they supposedly deployed with incredible skill.


At the end of the afternoon and before the conference-ending dinner, I slipped away. I thought about identifying myself before leaving. I should have, but I didn’t. Instead I drove home to a small dinner party: my wife and I, another couple and a friend. I told them about what I had seen and heard. The man of the couple said that on Sept. 11, 2001, when he heard the news, “inside job” was the first thought he had, although he hadn’t bothered much with the thought since. Our other guest told us that her brother-in-law was even more a partisan of the “government-did-it” view than those I had listened to. I guess you never know.
(NY Times). One thing is for sure, there were no cave men at the meeting the journalist attended.

A couple of other things for sure about 9/11 is that there is wide spread misinformation about 9/11 and always has been, and there are a lot of psychological problems surrounding those events.

For example, a judge hearing a case about 9/11 spoke for the nation when he heard the words "Building Seven", then replied "Building What?"

Most people in the U.S. think that the "twin towers" means two buildings, which is true, however, three major buildings came down on 9/11, not two, as is commonly believed.

The third main building that collapsed on 9/11, Building 7, would have been the tallest building in 66% of the states (33 out of 50).

A new website "Building What" has been created to make that knowledge more readily available.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Add It Up And It Still Smells - 2

Labor Day.

It seems like a different holiday during times when labor has been shafted for years now by the elite 1%, working top hat and white glove with the federal and state governments, doesn't it?

Some time back in a post Add It Up And It Still Smells we looked at some numbers to show what would happen here in the U.S. if we spent as much money on middle class and poor citizens as we did bailing out reckless banksters.

In this post we will look at some numbers to show what would happen here in the U.S. if we spent as much money on middle class and poor citizens here as we now spend for warsters who are waging seemingly endless wars around the globe "to insure our security".

Instead of paying corrupt politicians in Kabul or Baghdad, what if we targeted Americans to be recipients of U.S. tax dollars?

A simple hypothetical and some simple arithmetic show that something may be fishy in warster land.

For sake of the hypothetical, assume that there are 2.5 million homes in foreclosure. Further, assume $2,000 as the median monthly mortgage payment for each home.

In this hypothetical, to get money into banks, and to prevent foreclosure on those homes, assume further that we (government) as a financial rescue plan send a check with the home owner and the bank as payees.

That is, both have to negotiate it. The home owner signs the check and gives it to the bank as the mortgage payment. It is deposited and thus it is in the bank.

In this scheme, the home owner owes the U.S. that amount and will pay a small interest over time; and a lien attaches to the home. It can be paid off early if the home owner wants to and can do that.

Finally, assume that we will do this long enough to get the home owner through the recession; which we will assume will be a 3 year period of time.

The arithmetic on this hypothetical would be: 2,500,000 * $2,000 * 12 * 3 = $180 billion.

Hypothetical results: 1) the housing crisis would be substantially eased because foreclosures would go down and property values would be positively affected (even if the property value holds even); 2) money would go into the banks; 3) which the banks could then loan out; 4) and the government would have a lien on the property for security.

NOTE: the example is not for the purpose of advocating socialism or the like, it is simply to show a contrasting equation and methodology to assist in the housing crisis.

Instead, under the current bailout plan the government has given ten times that amount or more ($750 billion plus annually) to failing warsters who profit on war.

Those institutions spend taxpayer dollars overseas, same as the corrupt foreign governments we give billions to.

The government is not in a secure position on that expense / debt either, home owners have been bypassed, not included, so no foreclosures are prevented by wasting money on war.

As to the auto industry. Use the same formula for 7,000,000 vehicles a year with a $900 monthly median payment, and the arithmetic results in $226.8 billion going into the banks, and the auto industry sells 7 million cars a year.

So the total looks like $226.8 + $180 = 406.8 billion, which is about half of the annual give away for whoopee wars figure, and we will have put $406.8 billion into the banks, induced 21,000,000 vehicle sales, and saved 2.5 million homes as well.

Add some infrastructure spending such as power grid upgrade, wind farms, solar thermal power generators, other renewable energy projects, and soon enough the unemployment figures decrease as tax revenues increase.

Surely, then, there must be 50 American ways to do it better than the foreign way it is now being done?

The next post in this series is here.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Democrats Pay How Much For War? - 2

About a year ago Dredd Blog wondered how much Democrats were willing to pay for war.

Bloggers here and elsewhere wondered why they did not get "it", it being that the American majority was against the wars.

It seemed to us that the Democrats were under the mistaken impression that the neoCon base of the right wing Republicans were who voted those dems into office.

I explained what was meant by "how much would the wars cost" the Democrats:
I mean in the upcoming elections, since they have shown, up until this point, that they will pay any amount for war, but very little for domestic needs.

The people have polled against the wars for years now, to no avail. The people overwhelmingly voted the neoCon republican hawks out, to give the democrats a chance to do what the people want.

Nevertheless, the wars continue, now having lasted longer than WW I and WW II combined.
(Democrats Pay How Much For War?). A study on the polling shows the majority has been sick of the wars for longer than WW I and WW II lasted:
Although some polls show Americans have already decided against a second Obama term in 2012, there remains much time for recovery, although the economy shows signs of even further weakening and war losses are growing.

Langer sets June 2004 as the first time a polling majority (52%) decided the Iraq war was not worth it. And numbers went downhill from there, not coincidentally, as casualty figures rose. The Afghan war, which was tied so closely to Sept. 11 and its planning, has gone on more in the background.

However, recent polls show dissatisfaction mounting.
(LA Times). Obviously those in the U.S. government who promisingly lie during campaigns could care less what the people think or want, so the question arises, "Who are these people?"

That was explained in the post Circle W Cowboys.

UPDATE: For an example of the antithesis to The Circle W Cowboys, I offer a response by Noam Chomsky, who has remained humane in the face of government depravity:
I had taken dozens of journalists, peace activists, diplomats, experts and others out to camps of refugees who had fled U.S. saturation bombing. Chomsky was one of only two who wept openly upon learning how these innocent villagers had seen their beloved grandmothers burned alive, their children slowly suffocated, their spouses cut to ribbons, during five years of merciless, pitiless and illegal U.S. bombing for which U.S. leaders would have been executed had international law protecting civilians in wartime been applied to their actions. It was obvious that he was above all driven by a deep feeling for the world’s victims, those he calls the “unpeople” in his new book. No U.S. policymakers I knew in Laos, nor the many I have met since, have shared such concerns.
(Truthdig, emphasis added). We have all chosen sides in the recent wars that continue to do the same thing. Weep if you are humane, but if you can't yet, keep trying.