Blog Archives

A Dialogue, Not a Monologue

5/28/2010

What is the future of the society we live in?

It won't be about what laws to write, where bombs will drop or who will get elected. It will instead be about something we have known how to do our whole lives.

We need to ask the right questions of one another.
And we need to listen.

Instead of asking whether one believes in God,
we should ask whether our own actions are godly.

Instead of asking whether one is pro-choice or pro-life,
we should ask what we can do to make sure every child is wanted.

Instead of asking "Why Me?"
we should ask "What Can I Do to Help This Situation?"

Instead of demanding the truth from others,
we should tell it ourselves.

Instead of pushing to make more money,
we should ask what we can to do be more valuable to those around us.

Instead of condemning illegal immigration,
we should watch whom we hire.

Instead of blaming "the terrorists"
we should identify the term objectively.

Instead of reading history literally,
we should talk back to it until we are satisfied of its facts.

We can choose a future where we continue to divide ourselves by labels or one where we confront problems and work together to solve them. The economy will be bad for quite some time and political matters won't be much better so divisions will be costly.

0 Comments

How to Argue and Win...or at Least Be Right!

5/27/2010

1 Comment

Would you rather be happy or right? Obviously, it would be best if we could be both. But many times we argue with people who are just as convinced that they are right as we are. They may wind up playing a game of verbal “chicken,” in which they try to force you to get out of the way of their message and be declared the “loser.” When you get involved in a heated argument, consider your two choices. If you really, really need to be right all of the time, be prepared to do the following:

Determine why everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. When you debate person after person and keep declaring yourself unequivocally right, you will have to satisfy your own mind as to how this could be so. Are the other people stupid, uninformed, biased, bought off or perhaps playing the devil’s advocate to annoy you?
Always choose the subject for debates. You will need to determine how to keep those wrong-headed people on their toes and challenge them on issues you know something about. Remember that if they fire back at you about something you know nothing about, you’ll have to fake it or say those words you love to hear other people say “I don’t know.”
Borrow some stereotypes to help you when you get stuck in your righteous arguments. You can tell people their “liberal” ideas are against what they mainstream public needs. Or, if need be, you could tell people their “conservative” or “Tea Party” ideas are not what the mainstream public needs. Go ahead and be a “switch-hitter” - just keep track of your audiences!
Keep a few phrases handy when you fear you may be wrong, or, well, not quite right. Practice telling your opponents that they “don’t get it,” they “do not have one iota of proof” or they suffer from a disorder no one has heard of. The saying that "it is what it is" is perfect because it is so hard to argue with. If you can’t be right, you can at least sound like it.
Don’t forget to imply things. Telling the other side that people like them have “closed minds” or that they are borderline racist sends the message that they can fight back at their risk – you can always say you referred to other people and not them.

Being right all the time is difficult. Admitting that your opponent’s argument has any merit is for fools. You must not give in, compromise or say “whatever.” That is for those crazy people who want to be happy. Once you convince yourself that you have all of the answers, you’ll be too far gone to care!

1 Comment

To Solve the Crime of 9/11, Listen to Your Own Voice

5/21/2010

0 Comments

When I was a child, my parents would hide a gift for me in a large room. When I would walk away from the area where the gift lay, my parents would say “cold!” When I would walk toward it, they would say “warm!” until I got real close to the gift, whereupon they would say “hot!”

What I seek now is the truth about 9/11 and related events. The gift is the full proof of what happened and justice for those who planned and carried it out.

If I am correct, though, those in power are the same people who perpetrated the crime and they therefore know where the gift lies. They can, through their contact with much of the media, manipulate those who search for the hidden gift. I trusted my parents to give me the correct hints about where it was.

Those in power – our politicians, much of the media and the wealthy interests who support them, have long since wanted us to abandon questioning the official theory of 9/11. After the official report came out in 2004, for example, only a few members of Congress have said they see any need for a new investigation.

If I am correct, the truth is out there and there is a chance it will eventually slip out. So those in power have to be careful how they deal with this opposition. The best way to control opponents is to convince them to chase issues of relatively little importance and keep them away from the issues that, if revealed, would undermine the ability of the powerful to remain in control.

Issues of relatively little importance likely targeted by those in power as “decoys” are the cause of collapse of the World Trade Center and the identification of what hit the Pentagon. While these issues matter to determining what really happened that day, neither gets to the root of how the event was planned and carried out, nor the identity of who did it, the most important question of all.

We must listen to our own voice, our intuition, and ask the right questions. These questions form the basis of the whole event. There is nothing more basic to the official 9/11 story than airplanes, hijackers and passengers. Those who have questioned the existence of any of these three basic ingredients of the story, especially the airplanes, have been ridiculed in the media (namely the Internet media) as “no planers.”

The idea that planes were not used may not have even caught the attention of many people. In watching the replays, the public collectively expressed its shock when it saw the figure of the planes hit the towers and then vented its anger at the “terrorists.” It was time to drop the bombs and then send troops over “there” to teach “them” a lesson. The voice of those in power had no trouble convincing most people to look away from the truth.

Those in power likely knew that most people will react to hearing about traumatic events in this manner. Most people do not react with inquisitiveness. Nor do many prepare ahead of time to hear about traumatic events by studying history. It is this small group of people that those who ponder “no planes” fit inside and it is they who get special treatment from the liars in power.

Through the media, those in power use their voice to call no-planers other names as well: like “disinformation agents.” What better way to mislead others who question 9/11 than by labeling the ones who are on to something in this manner? The ultimate truth may thus be covered up brilliantly because most people will be discouraged from even mentioning ideas that would lead to it.

So here we are. It has been nine years and we continue to use the military to solve the problem of 9/11. We have needed the detective skills of a Sherlock Holmes who would probably tell us it is time to re-visit the crime scene and ask the questions that people were too scared to ask before. We have needed our own knowledge of history – of the lies those in power have told us about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the slogan “Remember the Maine” and the “spot” resolutions that led to the Mexican-American War.

And before we get caught up going down the road of believing that all of our elections are free and fair or that the next terrorist incident was conducted by a terrorist, we ought to ignore the voice of those who are so willing to lead us on.

0 Comments

A Public Liaison Would Give Us a Dialogue with Our Leaders

5/17/2010

2 Comments

For almost fifty years, researchers of the JFK assassination not convinced that our government has provided satisfactory answers about this event have petitioned representatives for satisfactory answers. But no one has provided those answers.

Officially, our leaders still believe in the long-discredited single bullet theory, the guilt of an innocent man, Lee Oswald and have not released information such as Oswald’s last tax returns, which would likely confirm his status as a government informant.

Other controversies have come up since then as well, such as the events of 9/11. But the government has done no better in providing information requested by the public than it did with the JFK assassination. Authorities have still not released video footage of the Pentagon, which could help determine what really struck the building that day.

No one can seriously regard our leaders as honest partners in their informal contract with us. Those of us who work, pay taxes and better our society deserve something more than reports that whitewash what really happened.

We deserve, at the very least, a dialogue with those who serve us.

Not a ten second “meet-and-greet” handshake from our representatives, not a form letter from the White House thanking us for our concerns or assurances from anyone who won an election that they will work for us. These things have their place but we need to know that we have recourse if we are not satisfied with what those who govern us say.

A single person could serve as our liaison to the government. They could be appointed by Congress or the President. And every Friday, they could be required by law to stand in a city hall or other public building anywhere in the United States and answer questions that people ask them.

Undoubtedly, the liaison may well be tempted to dismiss questions about Oswald or the 9/11 Pentagon on the grounds of “national security.” But it would be much harder to give this answer in front of hundreds of people in person (and, perhaps, television cameras). Especially when they know they are going to hear it over and over again.

The liaison could also be requested to provide documents, tapes, photographs, etc. And they could explain what they are able to release and what they are not. And the public who attend the meetings could ask why.

A dialogue, not a monologue like the speeches we have been given about lone assassins who fire more bullets than their guns have available.

A real person to approach, not a report to mislead us into accepting whatever our leaders tell us.

Answers, not just questions that merely assure us we are on the right track.

Appointment of a Public Liaison will not answer our questions by itself, but it would give us the standing to ask the right questions and to continue to stand until we are given the respect we deserve and which we give to our leaders.

2 Comments

Help Wanted: Find Proof of 9/11 Hijackings

5/15/2010

1 Comment

WE ARE LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE OF 9/11 HIJACKINGS

The FBI changed its list of 19 hijackers and has never acknowledged that at least seven of those named are still alive, even when factors like birth dates, home towns and residences were checked!

What do hijackers need?

Planes!

Were there planes on 9/11?

There was more evidence of plane fakery than actual planes in New York

There have been no positive identifications of any uniquely identifiable component parts of planes alleged to have been hijacked that day.

Two of the planes allegedly used were not de-registered until 2002 and the others not until 2005.

What about the passengers?

None of the phone calls allegedly made from any of the four planes that day have been authenticated as having been made from the planes as we were told originally.

What about the airlines?

The airlines have still not been allowed to testify in court. Why is that?

WAS 9/11 A “HIJACKING” WITHOUT HIJACKERS, PASSENGERS OR PLANES?

We demand to know the truth from the courts and our Congress. Please help us by spreading this message around the Internet!

1 Comment

9/11: Indictment of Conspiracy

5/12/2010

0 Comments

From Dead Men Talking: Consequences of Government Lies (c) 2009

The United States government prides itself in having an open form of government. Members of Congress debate in front of spectators and television cameras the laws that they propose. The President of the United States publicly declares signings and vetoes of those bills from Congress. The Supreme Court publishes its opinions on legal issues. Federal agencies usually must release requested information to the public.

Yet a number of governmental actions did not come to the public’s attention at the time they were taken. For instance, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a part of the federal government, overthrew Iranian President Mossadegh in 1953. Very few outside the CIA knew of this coup until the Church Committee of the United States Senate uncovered it in 1975.

So, our government acts secretly in some matters. Reasons for secrecy include potential opposition from the public or from other nations whose support we seek, our intent to blame another party or nation for the action and the interest in protecting the actors from criminal liability. To work around these obstacles, the government would need to devise a plan if it wanted to avoid public scrutiny, frame another party and cover up the tracks of federal officials and others who assist.

The Bush Administration insisted that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned and carried out exclusively by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, al-Qaeda. However, evidence exists to show that members of the Administration did, in fact, conspire with others to plan and carry out the attacks, which took the lives of almost 3,000 people. To this day, they have avoided substantial public outcry, they successfully pointed the finger at bin Laden and they have produced, through public statements and the creation of the 9/11 Commission, an official explanation that completely exonerates all of them.

As one of the leading conspirators, former Vice President Richard Cheney deserves special attention. He held several responsibilities directly relevant to our nation’s response to airplane hijackers. With President Bush hundreds of miles from the command center where Cheney spent much of 9/11, the Vice President took the role of acting Commander-in-Chief and made a crucial decision about whether to shoot down a hijacked plane.

He also, through an executive order signed by Bush just four months earlier, controlled all federal agencies in their response to attacks with weapons of mass destruction (which airplanes qualify under). Since this order gave him control over the war game simulations taking place that day, his judgment in allowing the simulations to go on despite credible warnings of the attacks should also be questioned.

Three actions by the conspirators enabled them to complete a crime that had already begun with its planning and its initial stages. The conspirators ignored the specific foreknowledge given to them about 9/11. By ignoring it, they failed to warn the air defense, which protects us from hijackings. If the conspirators had not confused the air defense with war game simulations, the air defense would have intercepted or even shoot down hijacked planes before they hit crowded buildings. And the conspirators, as authorities, covered up evidence, which prevented the public from suspecting the conspirators much sooner.

History suggests that we may have a window of opportunity to try high-ranking individuals for criminal conduct. After a similar period of time, official investigators stopped pursuing criminal charges for those who may have been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. If we do not objectively look at the case against the conspirators now, we risk the type of complacency about our government that makes it easier for them to commit other secret criminal acts without any accountability.

0 Comments

Hartwell's Dead Men Talking Calls for Indictment of 9/11 Plotters

5/2/2010

0 Comments

Even in the midst of a deep recession and with concerns over immigration, the United States public has not forgotten the tragedies of 9/11 and the murders of the Kennedy brothers. We are constantly reminded of threats to our national security and to the current President.

Author Dean Hartwell tells us in his book, Dead Men Talking: Consequences of Government Lies, that we cannot understand future threats without first understanding why we feel fear. And he says that our fears over terrorist attacks are justifiable but focused on the wrong people.

Most people believe the official government story that Osama bin Laden conspired with others, including nineteen hijackers who took over four planes and used them to kill approximately 3,000 people. If they are correct, then war policy in Afghanistan, security measures and the rest of the “War on Terrorism” would be appropriate.

But Hartwell says it is time to identify and indict the real culprits. Dead Men Talking puts to rest any idea that bin Laden participated by proving that the deliberate avoidance of warnings of the attacks, the delayed air response to the planes and the swift removal of crime scene evidence were engineered by those in a position and with reason to act: our government.

The truth of what happened to President John Kennedy and his brother Robert, according to Hartwell, should have alerted the public to official acts of murder. The book shows the impossibility of either of the officially declared murderers, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan, to have committed the crimes they have been accused of. Hartwell again depicts the government and its agents as the only ones with means, motive and opportunity to not only carry out the crimes, but to engineer the cover-ups.

Dean Hartwell has the right background to use to write about truth in government. He has degrees in political science, public administration and law. His employment resume includes over fifteen years experience serving the public for three Southern California cities. Perhaps most importantly, he has the willingness to challenge authority when it is wrong.

Click here to go to Amazon to buy a copy of Dead Men Talking

0 Comments

A Dialogue, Not a Monologue

How to Argue and Win...or at Least Be Right!

To Solve the Crime of 9/11, Listen to Your Own Voice

A Public Liaison Would Give Us a Dialogue with Our Leaders

Help Wanted: Find Proof of 9/11 Hijackings

9/11: Indictment of Conspiracy

Hartwell's Dead Men Talking Calls for Indictment of 9/11 Plotters

Author

Categories

Archives