The best way to influence a group is from within. He needs to get into power before outwardly talking of 9/11 truth. That is the sad fact of the matter. He should say no more than "I would initiate a new investigation to respond to unanswered questions". What a sleazebag Giuliani is. Ron has shown him up.
We either have to reassess our willingness to go along with Ron Paul's tactics on 9/11 truth or we need to apply the same license to others. Is anyone planning to truth squad Paul for publicly supporting the official al Qaeda line? (Rhetorical, for purpose of discussion.)
Any thoughtful journalist or media personality could say the same: "Going full bore on 9/11 truth is professional suicide, and if I am fired for it they will replace me with someone infinitely worse. Therefore, I'd better work it s-l-o-w-l-y from the inside. Besides, at least I'm covering other issues of importance that few will touch."
As long as we treat journalists and hosts as media personalities who are obligated to fall on the sword for 9/11 truth, we're not going to get anywhere. How many Ron Paul enthusiasts think he should do it now? Does anyone see a contradiction here?
I've often thought that we make simple assumptions about people's reluctance to talk about 9/11. (I'm not talking about neo-con shills and the Chomskys and Cockburns who publicly debunk without acknowledging the evidence they are required to vet before pretending to some authority.) I think there is a big difference between the gatekeepers who refute 9/11 truth and those who don't take a stand.
Do we allow leeway for those we are predisposed to like? If so, it follows that we are too harsh on others who take the exact same public positions. For example, Amy Goodman has had at least 3 9/11 truth programs (LC debate, Berg-Mariani, Griffin) and has covered the Israeli spy ring. Greg Palast has done yeoman's work on election fraud and has appeared in many truth documentaries. Sy Hersh is doing more than any other mainstream journalist to prevent a full Iranian conflict. But some attack or dismiss them because they won't publicly proclaim their support for 9/11 truth. Do we want them to stop what they're currently doing just to get flung on a dungheap? (Remember how they smeared and ruined respected reporter Pierre Salinger when he started to expose the truth about Flight 800? Journalists do, I assure you.) Rosie hasn't taken a position on 9/11 truth either -- remember? She just raised a question, and overwhelming support of that initial tiptoe has allowed everything that followed.
I want more news stories, interviews, debates, etc. on 9/11 issues. I don't want to turn off anyone who might pull them off because he/she won't declare a personal position that would, in the end, render them completely ineffective for my cause. Attacking people makes them dig in, it doesn't embolden them.
And I trust he knows WE are many, to back him up and feed him ammunition WHEN AND WHERE best appropriate. He simply CAN NOT carry it all at once, he's just one man. But he's a great example of one.
He is using the Commission report against them... brilliantly.
Al Qaeda, too. He said we should be going after al Qaeda, I agree... (but WE know who's up the ass of Osama bin The Donkey, and al Qaeda in turn.) Ron's the man.
The point was not to take a position on Paul, Erin, but rather to play devil's advocate to suggest that the same tactics might work for reluctant media and media personalities. I think supporting and encouraging them in the same way proposed for Paul, continuing to supply them with information and ideas, etc., is the best means of getting any traction. I DON'T think shouting them down, spewing vitriol, and permanently alienating them is going to do squat.
Think about it: Most people here crap all over Michael Moore, who exposed to worldwide millions the Bush catatonia in the classroom, the incestuous Bush-bin Laden relationships, and tremendous skepticism regarding al Quadea and terrorist threats. He took an unnecessary tangent in his new film to expose the plight of first responders. Yet the truth movement treats him as an adversary, rather than a guy going as far as he can within the limits which now seem necessary to stay relevant. We aren't building bridges and supporting the help his work has given to 9/11 truth. One could argue that he's done as much or more than Paul to expose certain truths about 9/11, yet one is a potential hero and one is a hack. Why haven't we treated limited hangout truthers with the same dexterity with which we treat Paul? It is my opinion that we should start.
Analogy: I work with a lot of teenagers on essays. Most of their submissions are just awful. If I really want to help them improve I'll find one sentence that I think has merit, praise the hell out of it, build it up as the key to the entire essay, and encourage a reexamination of the essay in light of that praise. Having shown a student where the potential lies, he becomes motivated -- and starts to think of himself as a potential writer. If I say what I really want to say -- which is that it needs to be burned -- I get a grumpy, defeatist kid whose second product is no better than the first.
Thanks. I'm just male, always itching for a fight and talking like I'm in the middle of one... but women like you do so much better at moderating with inspiration (the breath of life).
Hummm... hey there all my fellow helmets... look what women can do!
Good point.... if we really want to be "fair" then I'll just note that BillO is one of our biggest supporters ;-) We would be well served treating others like we treat Rep. Paul. From me, Rep. Paul has special status due to his long and never ending fight to protect the Constitution. His track record really does set him above everyone else in congress. For me at least, shutting down the federal reserve system is the ultimate goal of the 9/11 truth movement, and that's been Ron Paul's goal for as long as I can remember. We have accomplished next to nothing if everyone knows it was an inside job and does nothing, like the Kennedy head shot.
Anyone with Ron Paul's record deserves special status, but we would help our selves considerably if we treated others like Michael Moor ect ect with more respect. The outrage we all feel is quite a useful tool, we need to use it carefully.
It's about becoming tactical and effective, rather than just masturbatory.
"Inside Job" t-shirts and chants allow us to vent righteous anger, but don't necessarily invite people in. Very, very few people flip to govt. complicity based on those tactics. What we need is for people to do the online research WE needed to do to decide for ourselves. We think the relevance of 9/11 truth should be self-evident (such as to the peace and impeachment movements), but clearly it's not. That shows me we haven't been as effective at communicating it as we could have been. Disparaging them won't get the job done -- and it won't make them want to hang out with us.
I'd like to see the NY contingent try this for a week: lose the banner and distribute helpful information while dressed like young professionals. Mix it up. Test credibility and effectiveness.
There are side issues and backdoor issues to 9/11 truth that media might be convinced to cover if approached professionally. For example, the first responder health issues are in the media right now. We should be encouraging Goodman et al to see "Dust and Deceit" and have some of the participants on.
If there is a chance to have family members in the spotlight, don't push the Jersey Girls. They've had their say, bless 'em, but the world needs to be introduced to the likes of Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle and Donna Marsh O'Connor so that it can see that irate familiy members are not limited to what the media has already portrayed as "grieving widows who will never be satisfied." If Rosie wants to have filmmakers on her show, invite Mike Berger or Sofia and Brad, rather than the LC boys. This movement is huge, but if we always go with the same spokespeople iit appears marginal.
Let's think about rolling Leo in his grave and using Straussian strategies, 9/11 truth style. "By any means necessary" for US means swallowing anger and betrayal to work tactically, economically, and effectively for the greater goal
Ron Paul is the only Republican running right now that I would consider voting for but your right about his quoting of the 9/11 Commission. I think we would have a better chance with Mike Gravel.
Complacency is the demise of us all, the power is with the people.
You know how this works. Even dark-horse libertarian candidates can't jump out and start spewing "conspiracy talk". There are at least a year's worth of major events before this hits a tipping point (The View debate, several national/international conferences, LC Final Cut and 9/11/2007 among them). Give the guy a break. Respectfully, he makes Kucinich look like a pansy; plus, he's going head to head with Giuliani, Blitzer, and the entire Republican establishment. How bout a pat on the back, no?
He's gotten pretty specific here. At what point do you envision him saying, "Everything I said about 9/11 before was a lie. Remember that 6 minute interview with Wolf Blitzer? Lie Lie Lie. I lied my way through the entire interview."?
What makes you think he agrees with you about 9/11? He was just on CNN, for six minutes, specifically saying that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. Why do so many people assume that he thinks otherwise?
I DON'T assume Paul agrees with me or any of us. I do assume he would wield the power of the US government with less corruption, more accountability, and certainly more constitutionality than any other candidate in the running bar none. With that as a start, he'd be in the right position to head an investigation that could enlighten the entire nation. I don't assume anything about him, mainly because I don't assume that he knows anything most educated americans know. I think he would learn from an investigation and that he would have the integrity and the character to lead the entire country in changing his mind about 9/11.
I think Ron Paul's tactic on this issue is brilliant.
Whether you believe the 911 commission report or not, the fact is that the majority of our public have been brainwashed by the media and corporations like Popular Mechanics to believe the report is true and factual. We, truthers know that it is full of holes.But what Ron Paul is doing is using their "Bible" against them. He is exposing how they are using rhetoric and how they demonize people that ask questions.
He is opening the door for our right to ask questions. I personallly dont think he believes the 911 commission report, but hes doing a nice ass job of using its lies and discrediting people like Rudy.
Be patient everyone..I think Ron Paul is a deeper thinking man than you give him credit for.
If you watch this interview carefully, he is defending our right to ask the critical questions about 911, Iraq ect...that will undoubtably be asked after he becomes President.
If the early polls are any indication of who is going to win, they will have to really come up with a good one to take this away from Dr. Paul.
Each debate, he shows that he not only belongs in the top tier, but he is deserves serious consideration to be our next President. If he holds true to his convictions, he could be the greatest President this country has ever seen.....and there has never been a time in our history, that we needed a man like him as President, more than now.
Many people here and elsewhere, might have noticed Ron's comments about the Abortion Issue. As a doctor, and a damn good one I suspect, Ron HAS defined the fetus as a living organism (yet growing WITHIN another) deserving of protection as best can be offered or persuaded.
When we get down to those brass tacks... I trust Ron will agree, that the most powerful choice of procreation (or termination, for whatever reason may be wrestled with) will ALWAYS be in the hands of who? Women.
Whom then should be protected FROM GOVERNMENT, by strong AND wise men who know where true choice resides... with women.
The Fox news guys are trying hard to explain away Ron Paul's huge poll ratings as web conspiracy fanatics. The truth is that people are mad and want to know more about 911. Anybody who comes forward and states flat out that 911 was an inside job is going to have poll numbers that suprize the hell out of everyone!!
Breath in, exhale slowly, and squeeze the trigger... don't 'pull it'.
No need to drop bombs on the same people you need as allies. Dropping bombs from high altitude is a coward's game.
The "9/11 was an inside job" thought-bomd, is hair-trigger bomb... still.
A wise general would capture such a device, dissect it, redistribute its total energy over longer time and space... and snip the enemy with patience and precision. We've got more useful ammo and CONTROL by this method, than Dick-n-Bush have with their entire foolish command over tanks, gun-ships, carriers and even "Rods From God".
Yes, the poll numbers could be surprizing...
But the Law of Unintended Consequences warns that you might not want such a surprise. As Ron said.
I like the thought "bombs" you planted in your post. Took me a few minutes of thought to digest what you were saying.
And yes, Ron Paul knows very well he is placing himself in the line of fire. You would have to be a fool not to know. Thats another reason I have great respect for him.
We all have seen the headshot JFK took..Im sure Ron Paul has seen it too. He knows the demons lurk in the shadows of our corporate and military institutions..and hes calling them out. He is blatantly challenging them in the fashion that hasnt been seen since JFK was alive. When he called for the dismantle of the Federal Reserve and ablolishment of the IRS in the recent debates, it was a clear and cold challenge to the group of men that has been feared by all our Presidents, Generals since we became America.
Yes indeed, Dr. Paul is a hero. I cant imagine a clearer defination of one.
In talking with my local acquaintances, be they heart-felt allies or enemies alike... many have yet, it seems, to appreciate the massive Army of truth-tellers oiling up the guns of information. Each and every one willing to pick up the banner and continue a march forward... should our Paul take a head shot, or just stumbles.
And Paul knows this. And the Deep Enemy knows this too. The Enemy will struggle within, thus our most prescient danger for us to be mindful of its emerging likely-hood to swing with sharp claws... as the conner approaches from its behind.
Someone asked me yesterday who do I think pulled off 9/11, and I responded by saying:
I think it's a combination of different members of our Government, different members of foreign Government(s), western intelligence influencing real "terrorists", certain members of America's military, and ultimately, it is the American people's fault for allowing things to get so corrupt in our Government.
We, the people, do share a certain level of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. We let things get the way they are by not caring what our Government does. We stopped reading. We let ourselves be "hypnotized" by the television to the point of thinking our media pundits' "talking points" were the critical issues of the day, and completely disregarded other things taking place. We made our world's revolve around us, and anything happening outside our world we looked at as somebody else's problem. We have been brainwashed into thinking you "can't fight city hall" when the fact of the matter is one person can make a difference.
Part of the reason I fight this fight is to make up for my involvement in the attacks.
Owned! If only he was tuned
Owned!
If only he was tuned into the truth of 9/11....soon enough hopefully.
Careful on 9/11 truth
The best way to influence a group is from within. He needs to get into power before outwardly talking of 9/11 truth. That is the sad fact of the matter. He should say no more than "I would initiate a new investigation to respond to unanswered questions". What a sleazebag Giuliani is. Ron has shown him up.
We either have to reassess
We either have to reassess our willingness to go along with Ron Paul's tactics on 9/11 truth or we need to apply the same license to others. Is anyone planning to truth squad Paul for publicly supporting the official al Qaeda line? (Rhetorical, for purpose of discussion.)
Any thoughtful journalist or media personality could say the same: "Going full bore on 9/11 truth is professional suicide, and if I am fired for it they will replace me with someone infinitely worse. Therefore, I'd better work it s-l-o-w-l-y from the inside. Besides, at least I'm covering other issues of importance that few will touch."
As long as we treat journalists and hosts as media personalities who are obligated to fall on the sword for 9/11 truth, we're not going to get anywhere. How many Ron Paul enthusiasts think he should do it now? Does anyone see a contradiction here?
I've often thought that we make simple assumptions about people's reluctance to talk about 9/11. (I'm not talking about neo-con shills and the Chomskys and Cockburns who publicly debunk without acknowledging the evidence they are required to vet before pretending to some authority.) I think there is a big difference between the gatekeepers who refute 9/11 truth and those who don't take a stand.
Do we allow leeway for those we are predisposed to like? If so, it follows that we are too harsh on others who take the exact same public positions. For example, Amy Goodman has had at least 3 9/11 truth programs (LC debate, Berg-Mariani, Griffin) and has covered the Israeli spy ring. Greg Palast has done yeoman's work on election fraud and has appeared in many truth documentaries. Sy Hersh is doing more than any other mainstream journalist to prevent a full Iranian conflict. But some attack or dismiss them because they won't publicly proclaim their support for 9/11 truth. Do we want them to stop what they're currently doing just to get flung on a dungheap? (Remember how they smeared and ruined respected reporter Pierre Salinger when he started to expose the truth about Flight 800? Journalists do, I assure you.) Rosie hasn't taken a position on 9/11 truth either -- remember? She just raised a question, and overwhelming support of that initial tiptoe has allowed everything that followed.
I want more news stories, interviews, debates, etc. on 9/11 issues. I don't want to turn off anyone who might pull them off because he/she won't declare a personal position that would, in the end, render them completely ineffective for my cause. Attacking people makes them dig in, it doesn't embolden them.
Just food for thought...
Ron is a spear point...
And I trust he knows WE are many, to back him up and feed him ammunition WHEN AND WHERE best appropriate. He simply CAN NOT carry it all at once, he's just one man. But he's a great example of one.
He is using the Commission report against them... brilliantly.
Al Qaeda, too. He said we should be going after al Qaeda, I agree... (but WE know who's up the ass of Osama bin The Donkey, and al Qaeda in turn.) Ron's the man.
And Ron asked that Rudy himself make the apology.
The point was not to take a
The point was not to take a position on Paul, Erin, but rather to play devil's advocate to suggest that the same tactics might work for reluctant media and media personalities. I think supporting and encouraging them in the same way proposed for Paul, continuing to supply them with information and ideas, etc., is the best means of getting any traction. I DON'T think shouting them down, spewing vitriol, and permanently alienating them is going to do squat.
Think about it: Most people here crap all over Michael Moore, who exposed to worldwide millions the Bush catatonia in the classroom, the incestuous Bush-bin Laden relationships, and tremendous skepticism regarding al Quadea and terrorist threats. He took an unnecessary tangent in his new film to expose the plight of first responders. Yet the truth movement treats him as an adversary, rather than a guy going as far as he can within the limits which now seem necessary to stay relevant. We aren't building bridges and supporting the help his work has given to 9/11 truth. One could argue that he's done as much or more than Paul to expose certain truths about 9/11, yet one is a potential hero and one is a hack. Why haven't we treated limited hangout truthers with the same dexterity with which we treat Paul? It is my opinion that we should start.
Analogy: I work with a lot of teenagers on essays. Most of their submissions are just awful. If I really want to help them improve I'll find one sentence that I think has merit, praise the hell out of it, build it up as the key to the entire essay, and encourage a reexamination of the essay in light of that praise. Having shown a student where the potential lies, he becomes motivated -- and starts to think of himself as a potential writer. If I say what I really want to say -- which is that it needs to be burned -- I get a grumpy, defeatist kid whose second product is no better than the first.
You say it much better.
Thanks. I'm just male, always itching for a fight and talking like I'm in the middle of one... but women like you do so much better at moderating with inspiration (the breath of life).
Hummm... hey there all my fellow helmets... look what women can do!
Logical.
Good point.... if we really want to be "fair" then I'll just note that BillO is one of our biggest supporters ;-) We would be well served treating others like we treat Rep. Paul. From me, Rep. Paul has special status due to his long and never ending fight to protect the Constitution. His track record really does set him above everyone else in congress. For me at least, shutting down the federal reserve system is the ultimate goal of the 9/11 truth movement, and that's been Ron Paul's goal for as long as I can remember. We have accomplished next to nothing if everyone knows it was an inside job and does nothing, like the Kennedy head shot.
Anyone with Ron Paul's record deserves special status, but we would help our selves considerably if we treated others like Michael Moor ect ect with more respect. The outrage we all feel is quite a useful tool, we need to use it carefully.
It's about becoming tactical
It's about becoming tactical and effective, rather than just masturbatory.
"Inside Job" t-shirts and chants allow us to vent righteous anger, but don't necessarily invite people in. Very, very few people flip to govt. complicity based on those tactics. What we need is for people to do the online research WE needed to do to decide for ourselves. We think the relevance of 9/11 truth should be self-evident (such as to the peace and impeachment movements), but clearly it's not. That shows me we haven't been as effective at communicating it as we could have been. Disparaging them won't get the job done -- and it won't make them want to hang out with us.
I'd like to see the NY contingent try this for a week: lose the banner and distribute helpful information while dressed like young professionals. Mix it up. Test credibility and effectiveness.
There are side issues and backdoor issues to 9/11 truth that media might be convinced to cover if approached professionally. For example, the first responder health issues are in the media right now. We should be encouraging Goodman et al to see "Dust and Deceit" and have some of the participants on.
If there is a chance to have family members in the spotlight, don't push the Jersey Girls. They've had their say, bless 'em, but the world needs to be introduced to the likes of Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle and Donna Marsh O'Connor so that it can see that irate familiy members are not limited to what the media has already portrayed as "grieving widows who will never be satisfied." If Rosie wants to have filmmakers on her show, invite Mike Berger or Sofia and Brad, rather than the LC boys. This movement is huge, but if we always go with the same spokespeople iit appears marginal.
Let's think about rolling Leo in his grave and using Straussian strategies, 9/11 truth style. "By any means necessary" for US means swallowing anger and betrayal to work tactically, economically, and effectively for the greater goal
Digg It Up
Digg It Up
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/VIDEO_Ron_Paul_to_Rudy_Read_the_9_11_R...
So now can we stop
Pretending that Ron Paul is on our side for 9/11 Truth?
He's quoting the 9/11 Commission, and he's gone the 'blow back' route.
We should immediately stop getting our hopes up on this front.
Agreed
Ron Paul is the only Republican running right now that I would consider voting for but your right about his quoting of the 9/11 Commission. I think we would have a better chance with Mike Gravel.
Complacency is the demise of us all, the power is with the people.
9/11 Truth is mainstream political suicide...be patient
You know how this works. Even dark-horse libertarian candidates can't jump out and start spewing "conspiracy talk". There are at least a year's worth of major events before this hits a tipping point (The View debate, several national/international conferences, LC Final Cut and 9/11/2007 among them). Give the guy a break. Respectfully, he makes Kucinich look like a pansy; plus, he's going head to head with Giuliani, Blitzer, and the entire Republican establishment. How bout a pat on the back, no?
-"Johnny"
How can he walk back from this?
He's gotten pretty specific here. At what point do you envision him saying, "Everything I said about 9/11 before was a lie. Remember that 6 minute interview with Wolf Blitzer? Lie Lie Lie. I lied my way through the entire interview."?
What makes you think he agrees with you about 9/11? He was just on CNN, for six minutes, specifically saying that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. Why do so many people assume that he thinks otherwise?
(This might sound insane) Because it doesn't matter...
I DON'T assume Paul agrees with me or any of us. I do assume he would wield the power of the US government with less corruption, more accountability, and certainly more constitutionality than any other candidate in the running bar none. With that as a start, he'd be in the right position to head an investigation that could enlighten the entire nation. I don't assume anything about him, mainly because I don't assume that he knows anything most educated americans know. I think he would learn from an investigation and that he would have the integrity and the character to lead the entire country in changing his mind about 9/11.
-"Johnny"
Brilliant tactic
I think Ron Paul's tactic on this issue is brilliant.
Whether you believe the 911 commission report or not, the fact is that the majority of our public have been brainwashed by the media and corporations like Popular Mechanics to believe the report is true and factual. We, truthers know that it is full of holes.But what Ron Paul is doing is using their "Bible" against them. He is exposing how they are using rhetoric and how they demonize people that ask questions.
He is opening the door for our right to ask questions. I personallly dont think he believes the 911 commission report, but hes doing a nice ass job of using its lies and discrediting people like Rudy.
Be patient everyone..I think Ron Paul is a deeper thinking man than you give him credit for.
If you watch this interview carefully, he is defending our right to ask the critical questions about 911, Iraq ect...that will undoubtably be asked after he becomes President.
If the early polls are any indication of who is going to win, they will have to really come up with a good one to take this away from Dr. Paul.
Each debate, he shows that he not only belongs in the top tier, but he is deserves serious consideration to be our next President. If he holds true to his convictions, he could be the greatest President this country has ever seen.....and there has never been a time in our history, that we needed a man like him as President, more than now.
Not so off-topic:
Many people here and elsewhere, might have noticed Ron's comments about the Abortion Issue. As a doctor, and a damn good one I suspect, Ron HAS defined the fetus as a living organism (yet growing WITHIN another) deserving of protection as best can be offered or persuaded.
When we get down to those brass tacks... I trust Ron will agree, that the most powerful choice of procreation (or termination, for whatever reason may be wrestled with) will ALWAYS be in the hands of who? Women.
Whom then should be protected FROM GOVERNMENT, by strong AND wise men who know where true choice resides... with women.
I'm just saying.
Not brilliant
The Fox news guys are trying hard to explain away Ron Paul's huge poll ratings as web conspiracy fanatics. The truth is that people are mad and want to know more about 911. Anybody who comes forward and states flat out that 911 was an inside job is going to have poll numbers that suprize the hell out of everyone!!
When sniping...
Breath in, exhale slowly, and squeeze the trigger... don't 'pull it'.
No need to drop bombs on the same people you need as allies. Dropping bombs from high altitude is a coward's game.
The "9/11 was an inside job" thought-bomd, is hair-trigger bomb... still.
A wise general would capture such a device, dissect it, redistribute its total energy over longer time and space... and snip the enemy with patience and precision. We've got more useful ammo and CONTROL by this method, than Dick-n-Bush have with their entire foolish command over tanks, gun-ships, carriers and even "Rods From God".
Yes, the poll numbers could be surprizing...
But the Law of Unintended Consequences warns that you might not want such a surprise. As Ron said.
Good post Erin
I like the thought "bombs" you planted in your post. Took me a few minutes of thought to digest what you were saying.
And yes, Ron Paul knows very well he is placing himself in the line of fire. You would have to be a fool not to know. Thats another reason I have great respect for him.
We all have seen the headshot JFK took..Im sure Ron Paul has seen it too. He knows the demons lurk in the shadows of our corporate and military institutions..and hes calling them out. He is blatantly challenging them in the fashion that hasnt been seen since JFK was alive. When he called for the dismantle of the Federal Reserve and ablolishment of the IRS in the recent debates, it was a clear and cold challenge to the group of men that has been feared by all our Presidents, Generals since we became America.
Yes indeed, Dr. Paul is a hero. I cant imagine a clearer defination of one.
Welcome, but as for head-shots...
In talking with my local acquaintances, be they heart-felt allies or enemies alike... many have yet, it seems, to appreciate the massive Army of truth-tellers oiling up the guns of information. Each and every one willing to pick up the banner and continue a march forward... should our Paul take a head shot, or just stumbles.
And Paul knows this. And the Deep Enemy knows this too. The Enemy will struggle within, thus our most prescient danger for us to be mindful of its emerging likely-hood to swing with sharp claws... as the conner approaches from its behind.
Ron Paul on the 9/11 report:
Mike can be VP. We need a candidate that can pull votes from both sides. It's Ron or we are going into 1984 with Hillary.
Here he is talking about 911: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VIZSCHAS
If the man wants to win he cant just come out and say "they blew up the twin towers and control the news" now can he?
Fox News calls Ron Paul a
Fox News calls Ron Paul a 9/11 Truth Conspiracy Theorist and then just starts attacking him and 9/11 Truth. Completely fabricated.
http://digg.com/politics/FOX_News_Does_It_Again_Video_Link
Al Qaida blowing up the Towers?
Freudian Slip?
Dirty Tricks...
Could they put a worse description of what Ron Paul was saying on the screen? They are trying desperately to paint him as a Conspiracy Theorist.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
I love the
CNN=Politics graphics they keep flashing...
Will people someday become immune to this cheap type of mind control? (assuming we win that is)
I hate the media...
Someone asked me yesterday who do I think pulled off 9/11, and I responded by saying:
I think it's a combination of different members of our Government, different members of foreign Government(s), western intelligence influencing real "terrorists", certain members of America's military, and ultimately, it is the American people's fault for allowing things to get so corrupt in our Government.
We, the people, do share a certain level of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. We let things get the way they are by not caring what our Government does. We stopped reading. We let ourselves be "hypnotized" by the television to the point of thinking our media pundits' "talking points" were the critical issues of the day, and completely disregarded other things taking place. We made our world's revolve around us, and anything happening outside our world we looked at as somebody else's problem. We have been brainwashed into thinking you "can't fight city hall" when the fact of the matter is one person can make a difference.
Part of the reason I fight this fight is to make up for my involvement in the attacks.
It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up
...
""Part of the reason I fight this fight is to make up for my involvement in the attacks.""
And its the right thing to do. Thanks for your efforts Jon. I love your posts.