Tuesday, August 28, 2007

"Noooooooo, Robert Fisk. Don't go down the black hole!!!"

Robert Fisk is getting a lot of flack these days, and it is not coming from those one would expect -- those shrill "ravers" as Fisk likes to describe those people who like to throw chairs and tables around ranting about why nobody takes them seriously when they express their doubts about 9/11. No, this time the flack is coming from those esteemed defenders of the official myth of 9/11 in the so-called "left".

In case you missed it, Fisk wrote a quasi-polemic piece titled: "Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11," which generated a backlash from the keepers of the faith like Manuel Garcia Jr. and Andrew Bolt from the "Herald Sun."

Fisk's story can be read here: news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2893860.ece

Fisk starts his piece tepidly enough, saying how he doesn't think the Bush administration could have pulled off 9/11 because of their incompetence in the Middle East. He writes:
"the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?"
... however, Fisk proceeds to lay out a case for the opposite conclusion -- that maybe they are not as incompetent as they seem:
"I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field?"
Here Fisk, though not exactly practicing "doublethink" (the ability to hold on to two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and accepting both of them) is coming very close to practicing that talent.

But, I don't want to rant or "rave" on Fisk however. I actually admire him for taking a step into the "blackhole" with the rest of us "troofers," as the counter-9/11 conspiracy types like to call us (I am not sure what that implies, but I guess it is their lame attempt at humor). No, this article has to do with the attacks by the "left" on Fisk for doing "crimethink," which is the worst crime one can commit according to the Outer Party in Orwell's 1984. By Fisk thinking out of the box(cutters) and expressing doubts about the official story he is, in effect, committing a horrible, unspeakable act which must be rectified at all costs.

And, who should come to the rescue to save Fisk from his doubting-thomas self but Manuel Garcia Jr. who can barely contain himself in his latest piece posted on CounterPunch.org (ouch!): "You Are Now Entering a Black Hole: 911 Emergency! Calling Robert Fisk!"

("Fisk, grab my hand! don't go there, I can pull you baaaaaak!")

In this article Garcia shares his correspondence between Carmelita McQuillan with the readers of CounterPunch.org. McQuillan seems to be saying that "look, maybe there is something wrong with the official story because even Robert Fisk has his doubts about what happened on 9/11." Garcia counters that "Robert can find all of his answers (to his 9/11 Truth questions) at: wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

(This may come as miraculous news to all those Truth activists who for so many years were diligently looking for the fount of 9/11 truth. Now you have it. Garcia has found the oracle of truthiness, and it is just one web-link away. Hallelujah! Just make sure the fumes from the oracle don't knock you off your tripod into the abyss of dialectic sophistry.)

Garcia proceeds to enlighten Fisk in his article with his unparalleled logic and supernatural understanding of physics. Here he lays down an explanation for why debris from flight 93 was found over a wide area of Pennsylvania:
"On flight 93 parts spread over miles, not so surprising. When a big jet plows into the ground at full speed, one can expect a large explosive force that can scatter aluminum shrapnel far and wide. Also, when an airplane is overstressed (which may have happened with Flight 93, I don't know) it might begin to break up in flight, and pieces can fall off. I have seen a landing gear door on the freeway, from a small plane, clearly recently dropped (freeway next to an airport)."
Oh really, Garcia? So, if a plane hits at high speed into the ground you are going to have a debris field over many miles in a STRAIGHT LINE instead of radially spread out? Are you living on earth or on some parallel universe where metal, and organic debris, follow some other force of nature?

Also, Garcia's "over-stressed plane" scenario is just unsubstantiated speculation. When in history have we ever seen a plane begin to break up into small debris in mid-flight when it hasn't been hit by a missile? His small plane losing a door on the freeway doesn't cut the empirical-truth mustard either.

But, like so many other defenders of the official story of 9/11, cartoon physics are applied regularly to explain phenomenon that defy logic, and, because people are so desperate for someone to tell them that their government couldn't possibly do such an unspeakable act, they turn off that part of their brain that one would normally use for higher cognitive thinking.

And, Garcia isn't the only one who has taken a swipe at Fisk recently (and, I am sure there will be more of that to come). Andrew Bolt from the Herald Sun wants all such nonsense-talk nipped in the bud as it is upsetting liberals like himself and Tony Blair. He writes: "Are they all mad?":
"Unlike Sheen, Fisk can't be dismissed as just another crank who represents no one.

He is welcome in almost any ABC studio even today, his documentaries are reverentially presented on SBS, his books sell well in modish shops, and even at the end of his bizarre Sydney speech, the audience gave him a long and loving ovation.

This is the kind of madness in the Left that so worries Blair. And if it worries even a leader of that Left, it sure frightens me."

Now this may come as news to many readers: Tony Blair is the leader of the Left?! Wait, let me do some quick doublethinking to fully appreciate Bolt's assertion: Tony Blair's liberal government helped kill a million Iraqis; Tony Blair's liberal government is the Iraqi people's savior. 2 + 2= 5.

Ahhh, yes, that's better.

This is what is being asked of us today; the powers that be are hoping we will voluntarily do doublethink and turn off our capacity to question reality without having to resort to physical torture in Room 101.

But, if enough of us, especially those with Fisk's reputation and creditials begin to dig deep into the morass of 9/11, and, as a consequence excavate the horrible truth and are vocal about it, we will be a unbeatable force to reckon with.

• • •

For an excellent commentary on Robert Fisk and 9/11 censorship, see:

"Robert Fisk and the closet of media 911 self-censorship":

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Hollywood and Bioterrorism

Like the CIA-controlled cable news, I can't help but feel that Hollywood is just a conduit for Military Industrial Complex propaganda, and that the latest remake of classic "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers" called "The Invasion" is a celluloid version of a probable scenario that one can imagine that our Strangeloving overloads have dreamt up for us mere mortals.

I don't say this flippantly, but as a warning: When one understands that the terrorists in the DoD are weaponizing some of the worst viruses and plagues in the world and devising ways to best delivery these plagues to humanity, we should be paying close attention to what they -- and the propagandists in Hollywood -- are telling us. After all, these could possibly be test cases as to how they, the overlords, will spin a bio-terrorism event. Just substitute "aliens" for "Islamic terrorists" and you get my point.

But, having said that, I need to backpeddle a bit so as not to vilify the whole industry. There are a few examples of great films that really stand out for their bold, unflinching truth-telling. For example, the "The Matrix" and "V for Vendetta" written by the Wachowski brothers, and the British made "Children of Men" are just three of the best examples that cinema has given us to better understand unpleasant truths (like false-flag terrorism) in our world. I thank all of the producers, directors and writers involved in those films from the bottom of my heart for taking on such a daring projects. You are not the propagandists I speak of.

So, here is my first movie review. Remember: truth is sometime stranger than fiction

"The Invasion" - the non-official synopsis:

The movie begins with a space shuttle breaking up as it reenters the earth's atmosphere (it uses much of the same footage from the 2003 space shuttle Columbia disaster). We understand that the debris field covers a huge swath of the eastern United States with a mysterious organic material that begins to turn people who come into contact with it into emotional retards. (Here we can envision Fox News executives drooling.)

Our Barbie-doll-like protagonist, Carol Bennell, (played by Nicole Kidman) plays a Washington shrink who begins to notice that people are beginning to get less neurotic than usual, and hence, weirder by the day. Things get even stranger still when she hasn't quite figured out that the late-night census worker knocking on her door is one of THEM, even when his mouth does Edmund Munch's "the Scream" as he attempts to vomit the mind-controlling virus at her.

Over time, our hip-defying heroine begins to figure out, along with her doctor friend Ben Driscoll (played by Daniel Craig) and his microbiologist colleague, that the space shuttle brought with it what the Center for Disease Control calls a "mysterious flu," and, not-so-coincidentally, Carol's ex-husband, a CDC official, was one of the first infected. Eventually, everyone in the CDC becomes infected with the virus and becomes THEM, and proceed to craft a vaccine which is promoted as protection from the flu. But, of course, in actuality the vaccine continues to spread the virus, turning more and more people into vacuous zombies. Thank you CDC!

Here the movie also presents the audience with a enticing proposition about the benefits to humanity of such an emotion-lobotomizing virus: consent to getting the virus and having world peace or be forever doomed by endless war and conflict. (There is a scene in which Nicole is sitting with others pondering their fate and in the background the TV news is broadcasting miraculous peace accords breaking out in various war-torn parts of the world, including a "let's-all-be-friends" scene between Hugo Chavez and "el diablo" George W. Bush.)

Okay, so here's were it gets good (or depending your understanding of recent history, bad). Guess who comes to the rescue? That's right, the "good guys" from Fort Detrick (the DoD's home of the deadly anthrax Ames strain that was sent conveniently to Tom Daschle's and Pat Leahy's offices [the congressmen who were probably not going to sign the Patriot Act] and terrorized the East Coast shortly after 9/11.) Yes, the military saviors of humanity from Ft. Detrick have discovered humanities hope in the form of the blond messiah child of Nicole Kidman, who has a genetic permutation that gives him immunity from the mind-controlling virus. The DoD guys go to work isolating the permutation and creating an aerosol-based vaccine that will get sprayed over humanity from military helicopters and turn people back to their old neurotic ways and warlike behavior (how convenient for the DoD).

Alas, near the end of the film, Carol rather blandly reflects on a newspaper on a table in which war and chaos are featured prominently in the headlines. We, the audience, wonder if she is thinking that maybe the virus wouldn't have been such a bad idea after all. But, we quickly banish such a thought from our minds. Really the obvious choice is a no-brainer (no pun intended): emotionally retarded but peaceful zombies running the planet or neurotic, emotionally complex, yet bloodthirsty humans in control. We can't but feel a sigh of relief that humanity has been saved by the good guys from the Military Industrial Complex who will ensure that humanity will continue to experience bloodshed and mayhem -- all the stuff that make us truly human -- for the foreseeable future.

• • •

I wrote this piece as both as satire and as a warning. I believe there is a high probability that our next terrorist attack will come in the form of bio-terrorism, and you can bet that it won't be created out of a cave in Afghanistan by a skinny man on a dialysis machine. This hypothesis is based on the theory that a typical false-flag event, like the one we had on 9/11, will not work with a wizened citizenry anymore. Today people in this country are so distrustful of the government that it will make it necessary for the planners of the New World Order to have a fail-safe plan to get Americans [and the world] to give up their freedoms and go along with their agenda. By creating a pandemic where only the military has the vaccine to cure a person it would require that dissenters give up their resistance or face certain death.

If one takes into account all the money going into bio-terrorism research today one cannot but help being scared for humanities future, especially after knowing how the Ft. Detrick's Ames strain was used to kill for such blatant political reasons shortly after 9/11. See (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/01/26/assaad/index_np.html?pn=2). Also, the Machiavellian Neocons who run America have written their twisted thoughts in their documents, in case you are having a hard time believing this. Here's a quote from their internal document "Rebuilding America's Defenses":

"...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

You can't get anymore evil than this.

This requires us to spread awareness about this issue and to do whatever we can to stop the illegal and offensive work being done at Fort Detrick and at other bioweapons labs across the U.S. [For evidence that this work is being done for offensive purposes see, http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/new-fort-detrick-biodefense-laboratory-may-reflect-a-bush-germ-war-effort).

Please spread the word and demand that these installations be closed down.

Friday, August 17, 2007

A Disneyland of Militant Ignorance

(Editor's note: This article by Phil Rockstroh demands that the left examine militarism in America as well as their beliefs that the troops are just innocent victims in the imperialistic games that they are obliged to play out.)

By Phil Rockstroh

Given the nation's tottering infrastructure, imperial overreach abroad and vandalized constitutional process by a lawless executive branch, what will it take to scare the general public, mainstream press and political classes into immediate action to bring about meaningful change?

At this twilight hour of the American republic, there must come a paradigm shift of seismic proportions or else the republic will perish. I'm less than optimistic.

Insomuch as, I suspect, that if, during a rare press conference, George W. Bush's face were to suddenly shed its skin, right on camera, live on national television, on all channels, broadcast and cable, to reveal the countenance of a Gila Monster -- the elitist beltway punditry would begin to catalog the merits of his reptilian single-mindedness.

Then proceed to an interview with an "expert" from a right-wing funded, zoological think tank, "The American Institute for the Advancement of Predatory Policy," who would assure us that: "...in an era when evil is as proliferate as flies around the stinking dumpster of the world, Americans will be kept safe by a lizard-faced leader who eats flies for breakfast."

And the general public would only be concerned because the broadcast happened to preempt the finals of American Idol.

To survive as a republic, a great many American idols will have to topple, and not only those inane, fame-obsessed clowns and crooners sharp-elbowing each other on the Fox Network's televised exercises in Pop Stardom for Dummies.

As far as idolatry goes, by far the most pervasive, ruinous, and in need of toppling is the position of unquestioning worship the U.S. military holds in American life. One would think that after the Götterdämmerung of macho folly we've witnessed over the past half-decade that the country would have had its fill of self-proclaimed alpha male posturing and adolescent-minded, military hagiography.

The media is rife with right-wing fantasist nonsense about the "feminized" American male, when, in fact, the country has grown outright psychotic from testosterone-induced toxicity (TIT).

In the 1960s, hippies were ridiculed for their naive assumptions that life on earth could be magically transformed into an egalitarian paradise of free love, good dope, waterbeds and Lava Lamps for all, if "the straights" could simply be induced to "raise their consciousness" by the engagement in and the utilization of the erotic acts, illicit substances and goofy, counterculture accouterment mentioned above.

Accordingly, the current fantasy -- that all US soldiers are good, righteous and brave, standing ever vigilant against all threats to the Homeland -- could be regarded as a kind of Woodstock Militarism.

Thus, this puerile glorification of American servicemen and women is a view of human nature that is every bit as naive as the hash-pipe dreams of Sixties idealists involving peace, love and flower power -- and one that can't be blamed on a communal use of L.S.D.

Excuse me, but why should the military establishment and its foot soldiers hold a position of being beyond scrutiny or even reproach? The last I looked "our troops" were being used as mindless instruments of our country's imperialist aggression.

Moreover, the perpetually pimp-slapped and habitually on-their-knees before Bush's macho-narcissistic bluster, congressional Democrats, who gained a legislative majority on the strength of the anti-war vote, are up to their lickspittle lips in the legalized mass murder being perpetrated in the name of our nation.

It is time to see through and reject the right-wing propaganda and liberal paternalism of viewing the soldiers of the U.S. military as victims ... Oh cry me a river of Iraqi blood ... When the truth is: We are a nation of people possessed of Bronze Age minds, who are armed with 21st Century weapons. Ergo, our soldiers are the delivery system of said weaponry.

This is the reason the American military machine exists on such a massive scale: Our leaders wish to establish, by force, if necessary, global hegemony.

Accordingly, what do platitudes such as, "I support the troops" translate to when those troops are engaged in an illegal and immoral occupation of a foreign land, invaded under false pretenses? Where is the line to be drawn between having empathy for an army comprised to a large degree of economic conscripts and giving tacit approval to the war crimes they commit?

Since the enacting of the Nuremberg Laws, the claim of "I was only following orders" has been ruled an inadmissible defense. Shouldn't the plea of "I couldn't get a good job after high school, so I joined the military, was shipped off to Iraq, where I grew so scared, frustrated and angry, that, every once in a while, I lit-up a few Haji civilians, with my M16, turning them into twitching jellyfish" be regarded as equally inadmissible?

To bestow unquestioning and unilateral support for the soldiers of a ruthless empire's immoral invasion of a sovereign nation is a recipe for war crimes and atrocities.

Soldiers represent a cross-section of a nation's population, evincing a mix of human traits and characteristics, some admirable and worthy of support and others reprehensible and deserving of condemnation and contempt.

Accordingly, many soldiers are not heroes and all heroes need not be soldiers. Resistance and the refusal to fight immoral wars constitutes bravery as well.

This most recent version of the proto-fascist glorification of the military has its origins in the rightist revisionist history of the Vietnam War. Over the decades, the right has deftly and dishonestly framed the narrative and succeeded in foisting its mythos of unquestioning loyalty to all things military upon the history-bereft, reality-resistant American populace.

At its dark and deceitful heart, this is a fantasy that is as fact free as it is invidious. Accordingly, the public of the United States was bilked into believing conservative propaganda such as the preposterous urban legend involving hippies spitting on returning Vietnam vets.

Yep, that sounds plausible: scrawny hippies, afflicted with pot-induced cotton mouth, expectorating on trained killers, just returned from the killing zones of Southeast Asia. If you believe that nonsense, I'll sell you, on Ebay, the Stairway To Heaven -- the very one that inspired the Led Zeppelin song.

Almost every utterance on the subject by conservatives is either bullshit or an outright lie.

The biggest of the Big Lies was and remains roughly as follows: The Vietnam War was lost, not during the battles and skirmishes fought in that country's emerald jungles and muddy rice paddies, but in the privileged confines of college campuses and in the sun-drenched enclaves of Hollywood liberals.

To hear conservatives tell it, the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong guerillas were all but on their knees, beaten, on the verge of surrender, when Jane Fonda flew to their side, rallying their flagging spirits with the succor of her American troop-hating, commie-suckling sedition, hence rallying them on to final victory.

Next, under the influence of that cultural laughing gas known as Reaganism, Hollywood created a Vietnam mythos even more preposterous than the one chronicled above. Whereby, in the nineteen eighties, Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone refought the Vietnam War and won.

In these epics of testosterone-poisoned kitsch, Norris and Stallone, freed of government restraint and hippie bad mojo, reaped revenge on the godless, yellow hordes, by deploying the terrible weaponry of their male pheromonal musk defoliates and hairstyling jell napalm.

It would seem, from the POV of these movies, that the Vietnamese communists were brought to heel with prop automatic assault weapons and blow dryers. On the screen of suburban cineplexes, Asian extras, costumed as Vietnamese soldiers, fell before Norris' and Stallone's barrage of blanks like Hollywood Indians of old.

Once again, the world had been set right; those runty, upstart, Southeast Asian bastards had been put in their place. The United States was victorious.

Of course, not in historical truth -- but in the only place that mattered to us -- in our Cold War fevered minds, a place where Americans believed that the "Evil Empire" plotted to invade our post-war, consumer paradise, because the commie hordes lusted to collectivize our Buicks, our blondes, our pool furniture and our lawn statuary.

All in the same insane way, we hallucinate, at present, that "Islamo-Fascists" scheme to invade us and put Lindsey Lohan in a Burka.

In truth, the only place the people of Vietnam ever constituted a threat to the United States was within the toxic mindscapes of paranoid cold warriors. This death-enamored realm -- where the most psychotic is king -- is the place (and only place) where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction existed, and is where, at present, Iran's threat to the United States looms.

Resultantly, we have erected this walled and fortified domain of delusion, this heavily armed Disneyland of militant ignorance, with all its attendant, noxious myths of the sacrifices of its noble warriors, for a less than noble reason and purpose.

The purpose of this jingoistic blarney is to shield the general public from the ugly reality of how and why an empire's armies exist; because an empire's armies are mustered -- not to protect the Homeland -- but to secure plunder for its ruling elite and provide mollifying bribes for its hoi polloi.

By necessity, the fantasy must be large and all pervasive. Within it, a frightened citizenry must believe that all its potential leaders must embody the traits of a bona-fide, baptized in blood, warrior king.

Ergo, the gun-caressing, bible-clutching, dog-baiting, "the-ruling-class-took-everything-leaving-me-with-nothing-but-my-masculine-pride" crowd is never going to accept the junior senator from the state of New York, currently vying for the throne -- even if she has re-branded herself as Hillary W. Bush.

At this point, it is imperative that we let the world in on a dirty, little secret that many naive liberals have managed to lockout of their minds: (Bill) Clintonism was a continuation of Reaganism, sans the Grecian Formula and pomade.

Furthermore, Bill Clinton was the diametric opposite of FDR, not in personal style -- but in his administration's domestic policies and social priorities. While Roosevelt was accused of being a "traitor to his class," for betraying his aristocratic ilk, by the enacting of The New Deal, Bill Clinton, also, proved to be a traitor to his class, by betraying those who shared his laboring class beginnings, by means of his ruinous neo-liberal trade policies and his anything-for-the-boys-on-Wall-Street economics.

As far as his relationship with the nation's military/industrial complex, Clinton, because he had avoided military service during the Vietnam War, had to prove he wasn't a patchouli-reeking peacenik by constantly kowtowing to the Pentagon establishment.

Withal, the situation will be worse with Hillary, who, time and time again, will have to establish her macho credentials by bombing somebody, anybody, anytime and anywhere.

In this way, due to his charm, intelligence and his almost preternatural talent to feign empathy -- Bill Clinton was more dangerous than George W. Bush -- because Bush, at least, reveals to the world the true face of empire. Although, at present, most Americans are unwilling or unable to face our true face.

Accordingly, the crack-brained narrative of the present moment goes: to be viable as commander-in-chief, Hillary must prove her toughness, preferably, in some he-man display of resolute stupidity.

Since the flight-suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier gambit has been played-out, perhaps her handlers could set-up a photo-op involving the masculine iconography of the World Wrestling Federation. It should be arranged that she wrestle and then body slam two midget wrestlers portraying Dennis Kusinich and Ron Paul. Such an act of political stagecraft could prove to be Hillary Clinton's so-called "Sister Souljah moment."

Sarcasm, you say? Barely. Our collective mindset regarding the nation's pernicious militarism rises to about the level of thoughtful insight and searching introspection that is on display in the realm of professional wrestling.

Furthermore, at least, the wrestlers themselves (and most of their audience) know the violence of the sport is staged. Unfortunately -- while the political theatre of US politics is fake as well -- in Iraq, the blood isn't.

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at philangie2000@yahoo.com.

The video below shows vets speaking of randomly killing civilians and how the army instructed them to look at Iraqis as non-human. One vet says: "Hey, if you start looking at them as human, and stuff like that, how are you going to kill them."

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Terrorism in America - a win-win proposition for Republicans

The sixth anniversary of 9/11 is only a month away and I hope everybody is making plans to mark this day of infamy in some special way. As for me, I am working with my local 9/11 Truth group in promoting events in our area. I hope you will too.

Speaking of 9/11, today it has come to my attention that another right-wing windbag is wishing for another 9/11-like event to occur. Under the headline, "To save American, we need another 9/11," Stu Bykofsky, opines that Americans will rally around our President and Thief and his phony "War on Terror" if only we had another major terrorist event. He writes:
"America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.

Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."


Can you f@#ing believe this! In a sane society this guy would not have a column in a newspaper, but a straightjacket in a padded cell.

Strangely enough, these lunatic-fringe comments seem quite in vogue these days and are uttered regularly by various political/media/military nutjobs. Here's a dandy one from the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan:
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."


And, Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario is quoted in the Toronto Star as saying:

The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago."

"If nothing happens, it will be harder still to say this is necessary," adds Delaney.


Even fetalphobe Rick Santorum thinks that if we have a terrorist event before the elections it will help get Republicans elected.
"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view."

He later goes on radio to say Americans will instinctively vote in a Republican for president instead of a spineless, snot-nosed, wimpy Democrat (who might hesitate before dropping a nuclear bomb on Tehran [who will most likely be blamed]).


What's so weird about this ghoulish talk is that in their twisted, blood-splattered world-view a terrorist attack is a win-win proposition for Republicans, election year or not. For instance, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani was recently quoted as saying that if a Democrat gets elected in 2008 America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept.11, 2001. Yet, ironically, if such and event were to happen today, when we have a Republican in charge, Americans, for some reason, will rally around the Republicans? Does that make any sense? Only if you have been in room 101 for too long and your torturer has finally convinced you that the four fingers he is holding up in the air are really five.

All I can make from all this fear-based rhetoric is that the rogue elements in our government are planning a major terrorist event in America in order to stay in power. And, if we let them get away with it, we will probably see roundups of people like me and you, truthseekers, who are dissenters in this fraudulent "War on Terror."

Because the fearmongers are also ramping up the tempo considerably -- from phony NIE reports that say Al CIAduh is fully reconstituted and ready to attack, to Michael Chertoff's "gut feeling" that something big is going to happen this summer, we need to ramp it up too, quickly.

Please, get out there and do something to educate people today about false flag terrorism today!

Visit www.truthaction.org and www.911blogger.com to find a 9/11 Truth group in your area.

Check out this short video of an interview with Webster Tarpley, who wrote one of the best books on false flag terrorism: "9/11: Synthetic Terrorism Make in the USA."