"... a story full of heroes, which the public loves, but no evidence that anyone died, let alone become the victim of a terrorist murder."
We are about to go through another onslaught of misinformation by much of the media. Here is what we are bound to hear about:
The brave passengers on Flight 93
Nineteen members of Al-Qaeda
Planes hitting the towers
Crazy conspiracy theories debunked
Here is the truth:
Flight 93 (aka United 93) on September 11 flew toward the West Coast long after its alleged "crash". There have never been any passengers verified for this flight, let alone anyone fighting hijackers.
There were no hijackings on September 11. Two of the flights alleged to have been hijacked NEVER EVEN TOOK OFF!
As there were no hijackings, there were no hijackings, let alone hijackings by Al-Qaeda.
No passenger planes hit anything that day.
People like me feel "crazy" listening to lies told by the media.
Source: Planes without Passengers (2nd edition) and Rumors Fly, Truth Walks, both by Dean T. Hartwell
After the shooting in Ferguson, who are the real winners?
As evidenced by this article on gun sales, gun sales are going way up in the area near Ferguson Missouri, where a police officer recently killed an unarmed young black man. Maybe this is not surprising.
But what if this event was staged? The possibility may shock you, but take a listen to this.
Staged event + escalating gun sales = a small group of people winning until society figures it out it has been had!
The best rivalries and best games in the National Football League Were in the 1970s!
The envelopes, please!
See no evil, fear no evil, speak no evil
See MH 370 fly
Don’t see MH 370 crash
Don’t see pieces of MH 370 plane
See the months go by
See MH 17 fly
See MH 17 veer from regular path
See MH 17 blown up
…in a war zone
…bodies said to be dead BEFORE the crash
See the flight listings
MH 17 was canceled that day!
Then it flew again the following day!
What's with that? MH 370 did not return for weeks!
Turn your TV off and find out more!
Years ago, I played Little League baseball. Those were good times. I was a pretty good player and I played on some winning teams. I learned about teamwork and sportsmanship.
I also learned a little about the dark side of some people. Not the players. They were kids like me, getting exposure to the kind of competition we would be accustomed to years later.
It was the parents, and specifically, some of the coaches. I will never forget what happened one season.
In Little League we had split seasons. There were two halves. Teams competed to win at least one of the half seasons to assure a spot in the championship. If a team won both halves, there was no championship – that team was declared the winner.
My team lost the first half narrowly to our rivals. In the second half, we were poised to win and face our rivals in the championship.
Then something happened.
Our rivals were set to play a game against another team. My brother, who was on my team, and I went to see the game. We hoped our rivals would beat the other team, which was challenging us for the second half.
We saw our rivals take the field. Some guy who had never pitched the entire season took the mound. He threw pitches in the dirt to a catcher who had barely gotten the equipment on! We tried to find our rivals’ best player, who had clobbered several home runs that season. He was not on the field: he was on the bench.
The other team came to bat. The first hitter grounded a ball toward the second baseman, who started to step toward it. Then he stopped and watched the ball roll by. The next batter popped the ball into the outfield. Two outfielders looked at each other and laughed as the ball dropped.
The game went on like this. My brother and I watched for a while, stunned that no one was stopping it. We went home and told my dad, who called the league commissioner’s office and relayed our account. The commissioner said he would get back to him. He never did.
Who would throw a Little League game?
People who put their self-interest before respect for the rules.
As I grew older, I realized this tactic was quite common. Friends shoplifted. Classmates cheated on tests. Co-workers embezzled money.
And this was small fish, compared to the prizes at stake in our society.
I have written three essays recently which accuse people of putting their self-interests before respect for the rules in presidential elections and other significant events in recent United States history:
The 1980 Election: How the Reagan Campaign Made History - and Foreign Policy
George W. Bush Wins Job in December 2000 to Play President in September 2001 Movie about Terrorist Hoax
Our Next President - and Who Will Pull Their Strings
Those who deceive and flaunt rules will always have the advantage. With no concern for ethics, they can achieve their goals using every option available.
So why do we, who are aware of these deceptions, bother to bring them to the attention of others?
Because life is a lot like baseball.
We may hit the ball or we may strike out.
But we won't let someone make a fool of us.
SEND THIS TO SOMEONE FRUSTRATED WITH OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM!
If we knew who decided presidential elections, we could determine who will win the Presidential Election of 2016.
I have pointed out in two recent articles that the decision makers are certainly not the voters or even the Electoral College. Groups of individuals have had enormous influence on election outcomes.
The 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign, a group of private citizens, effectively made foreign policy by convincing Iran to keep our hostages past the election in exchange for the promise of weapons. Twenty year later, groups of people determined to make war in the Middle East manipulated public opinion to help George W. Bush get “elected” president.
Similar efforts have taken place in other elections. Anna Chennault, a high level supporter of Richard Nixon, convinced her friends in the South Viet Nam government to withdraw from peace talks before the 1968 election. Consequently, the talks fell apart, which enabled Nixon to edge Hubert Humphrey, Johnson’s Vice President, in the election.
When we combine this type of interference in our elections with assassinations and assassination attempts, we see a clear picture of who is behind these actions and what they want. The assassination of JFK promoted Johnson to the presidency, whereupon he escalated the Viet Nam War. The war continued in large part because of the assassinations of two people who argued that it must end, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy.
The attempt on the life of candidate George Wallace knocked him out of the 1972 presidential race and with it any chance that Democrat George McGovern could win (with Wallace as a third party candidate siphoning votes from Nixon). A near-fatal shooting of President Ronald Reagan gave Vice President and former CIA Director George H. W. Bush control over the Administration long before he won election himself.
From these events alone, it should be clear (1) successful politicians are disposable puppets who represent interests (wittingly or unwittingly) and (2) the interests involve power, wealth and war. I refer to them as the “War Party.”
Why would those who control these interests allow elections to alter their control?
The simple answer is that they wouldn’t. They stand to lose too much.
Other events have influenced the selection of presidents. I have written extensively about the hoax of 9/11, in which the War Party planted stories of passenger flights hijacked by terrorists who flew them into buildings, including the World Trade Center.
The fall of the towers was planned well in advance, in part to give owner Lawrence Silverstein billions of dollars in insurance money. Whether anyone actually died as a result is in serious debate.
I suggested that the War Party needed a president who would not ask too many questions and would allow the hoax to play out in September 2001. They got their man in George W. Bush, who mysteriously won the election against a far superior opponent.
Two wars, which Bush and his Administration cited the events of 9/11 as reason to invade, followed.
In recent years, a war of sorts has been brought home to us. We keep hearing in the media about incidents of gun-related violence. Because of the media coverage of Sandy Hook and other events, the public perceives these shootings as commonplace. Some politicians, including President Barack Obama, have called for tougher gun control, while others calls for less or even no gun control.
As in war, truth is often the first casualty in this debate. The organization FactCheck.org called out Representative Donna Edwards for overstating the number of school-related incidents, Rep. Louie Gohmert for misleading statements about gun-concealment laws and Dan Gross, head of the Brady Campaign, for overlooking the fact that gun-related murders have gone down.
The debate over guns gets played over and over in the media and few, except for organizations like FactCheck, bother to challenge all sides. Why is that?
Someone is winning the real “debate” here. “Almost as many guns -- 26.1 million -- were produced during Democrat Barack Obama’s first term as president as during the entire eight-year presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the ATF data show,” says Bloomberg.com.
Townhall.com states that “The FBI has released new statistics on NICS background checks showing 2013 gun sales hit a new record.” After noting that Obama has used executive orders to attempt to implement gun control, Townhall goes on to note that “President Obama is indeed the best gun salesman in U.S. history.”
Obama, a two-term president, is a successful politician. Is he a puppet for the interests of power, wealth and war, like the gun sellers? Hoaxes often ask us to ignore facts and respond instead to perception, like the 9/11 hoax’s use of “phone calls” from relatives in passenger planes.
Was Sandy Hook another hoax used to promote the underlying interests in our society?
We should ask less about the next puppet who will reside in the White House and more about who controls public perception of events like Sandy Hook. Then, perhaps by 2016, we can get our view of those who pull the puppet strings.
George W. Bush Wins Job in December 2000 to Play President in September 2001 Movie about Terrorist Hoax
“OK George, this is your big scene. I pretend to tell you we are under attack. Just sit there and act clueless.” “Andy, I’m not acting.”
The Presidential Election of 2000 is best known for the lengthy process of recounts and court decisions which eventually gave the White House to George W. Bush. But in reviewing the two candidates, one should reasonably wonder why the election was so close. The real reason why should concern us.
Al Gore, who had served two terms as the Vice President of the United States, ran as the Democratic nominee. The issue voters tend to value most, the economy, favored Gore. So did the relative peace. Gore had tons of experience in public policy – not only through his time as the Vice President, but also eight years in each of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The Republicans nominated Governor George W. Bush of Texas. He had little public policy experience, just his six years as the governor. But even then, the Texas Legislature only met on odd numbered years and the state Constitution gave much power to the Lieutenant Governor. Before his time in elected office, Bush had run a number of failed businesses.
As the impeachment of President Clinton had taken place just a year before, Bush frequently made mention of how he would bring back “honor and dignity” to the White House. The Clinton scandal for his lie under oath about an affair he had with an intern may have harmed Gore, but not to a great extent.
Gore should have won in a landslide. But he had to claw in the last few days to catch up to Bush, thanks mostly to Bush’s belated confession that he had been guilty of driving under the influence a number of years before.
WHY WAS THIS ELECTION SO CLOSE?
Some observers point out that Gore ran a lackluster campaign. A Slate magazine article which appeared shortly after Election Day elaborated and called Gore out for his stiff personality, his distancing from Clinton and his “angry” populist tone.
But how much of the defeat can be attributed to these problems? So Gore did not always appear to be at ease. He could also be funny. He came across as a much deeper person intellectually than Bush, which I would hope most voters would prefer.
It would have been great for Gore to appear frequently with Clinton, probably the best campaigner of his generation. But if Gore, as reports from insiders have indicated, was indeed furious at Clinton for his behavior, he should be given credit for his sincerity.
He stood by Clinton when it was difficult and shunned him when it would have helped. This speaks well of his convictions and shows he was not a “fair weather”
His focus on attacking corporations may have turned some people off. The Slate article cites Michael Kinsley’s comment on Gore’s tone, that the voters “have never had it so good, and I'm mad as hell about it."
What these three complaints of the Gore campaign suggest is a candidate who did things the hard way. Talking about peace and prosperity all the time would have been much easier. Swallowing his pride and getting Clinton out campaigning for him more frequently could not have been so hard to take, knowing it would have made the difference,
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?
The fact is, there is no way that Gore could win. Not even losing the popular vote stopped Bush from taking office.
Never mind Bush had avoided service in Viet Nam and had gotten suspended from the Air National Guard. The military embraced him and many retired members of the military supported his candidacy. So did the media, which ignored his many gaffes and substandard English. The media also picked up many criticisms of Gore, accusing him of exaggeration by exaggerating grossly themselves.
On Election Day, thousands of voters were turned away at the polls because their
names had not been added to the voter rolls by Kathleen Harris, Florida’s Secretary of State. She also happened to be a co-chair of Bush’s campaign. Other voters were turned away because they were wrongly labeled as felons. These kinds of problems happened quite a bit in Democratic-leaning
George Bush’s cousin who worked at Fox News convinced his employer to call the election prematurely for him and the rest of the media fell in line, guaranteeing his “win” in public opinion. Members of the military attacked Gore for saying that ballots from people overseas that came in late should not be counted. Gore’s recounts were stopped in the courts, ultimately by a Supreme Court consisting of five Republicans. The vote went 5-4 for Bush.
The real story of the 2000 Election makes sense if we start with an event that took place just eight months after Bush took the presidential oath of office. Popularly known as “9/11,” a group of people who control popular opinion staged a hoax and convinced a majority of the public that a group of terrorists had attacked the United States by hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings, including the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The media repeated that “planes hit the towers” and followed the lead of government experts in blaming Al-Qaeda for a terrorist attack planned out years before by insiders. The refrain of “3,000 deaths” convinced the public that the solution for this hoax was to fight two wars for the next decade plus.
The hoax plotters could not afford a president who might have noticed the deception played and told the public. They needed someone who would take orders, blame the patsies he was told to blame and otherwise not cause any trouble to the plan to make war. They found their man in George W. Bush.
Gore’s behavior of doing things the hard way makes sense from this point of view as well. The mere fact that Bush led him in the polls at all was probably a sign to Gore that he was not going to get the job.
Simply put, as I pointed out in a recent article about the 1980 Presidential Election, the people whom we elect are not running this country. We may not know their names, but we know they want war and will do anything to get it.
President Carter faced a difficult primary challenge from Massachusetts Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy in 1980. While Carter emerged with enough delegates to claim his party’s nomination for a second term, the attacks by the Kennedy campaign, combined with a popularity steadily dropping from the Iranian takeover of the United States embassy in Tehran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, made Carter vulnerable, allowing Ronald Reagan to score an easy victory in November.
This is the popular memory of the election. And it rings true, for the most part. But Elizabeth Drew, who covered presidential elections, recently brought up something often forgotten:
People think of the 1980 election as this huge landslide for Reagan, which in terms of the numbers, it was. But I saw the numbers on the Friday before the election -- and both sides will tell you this -- it was a tie.
Above is a graph by John Sides of a series of polls with data provided by Robert Erikson and Christopher Wiezien. The graph shows Carter about three points behind Reagan on the day of their lone debate and a greater distance for the last week.
During this debate, on October 28, 1980, Carter gave detailed answers to the panelists’ questions, while Reagan came up with the sound bite of the evening. When Carter reminded the audience of Reagan’s prior opposition to Medicare, Reagan opened his rebuttal by saying, “There you go again.”
Interestingly, the phrase does not appear in the transcripts available on line.
At another point in the debate, Reagan called for an investigation of the Carter Administration’s handling of the hostage crisis in Iran:
What I do think should be done, once they are safely here with their families, and that tragedy is over - we've endured this humiliation for just lacking one week of a year now - then, I think, it is time for us to have a complete investigation as to the diplomatic efforts that were made in the beginning, why they have been there so long, and when they came home, what did we have to do in order to bring that about - what arrangements were made?
Though Republican pollster Richard Wirthlin thought the debate clinched the election for Reagan, Carter pollster Patrick Caddell said, ''It was all related to the hostages and events overseas.” The Iranian parliament had finally given their conditions for the hostages’ release on November 2, just two days before the election.
If most polls showed Reagan leading Carter from May (shortly after a failed attempt by Carter to rescue the hostages in Iran), was there anything Carter could have done?
The late William Safire had an answer straight from the mouth of Ronald Reagan:
On Oct. 1, an Associated Press reporter asked candidate Reagan if he expected President Jimmy Carter to take some action to try to influence the election, and Reagan replied, ''I'm just bracing myself for an October surprise.”
The phrase, by its context, refers to an incumbent official acting to give themselves an advantage right before an election. But incumbents have the right to use their authority under the law.
I wonder if Reagan, and others associated with this campaign, simply deviated from their usual talk of patriotism and spoke candidly. A real patriot would want the hostages brought home at once, regardless of who took the credit for it. But, of course, candidates want more than anything to win.
Reports have since surfaced that the Reagan CAMPAIGN, as private citizens, intervened to talk Iran into keeping the hostages until after the election in exchange for the promise of weapons (a big deal, as Iran was fighting Iraq in what would be an eight-year war). One source for these reports has been the president of Iran at the time, Abolhasan Bani-Sadr:
It is now very clear that there were two separate agreements, one the official agreement with Carter in Algeria, the other, a secret agreement with another party, which, it is now apparent, was Reagan. They made a deal with Reagan that the hostages should not be released until after Reagan became president. So, then in return, Reagan would give them arms. We have published documents which show that US arms were shipped, via Israel, in March, about 2 months after Reagan became president.
Others, including Barbara Honegger, who worked for the Reagan-Bush campaign and the Reagan Administration, and Gary Sick, who worked in the Ford, Carter and Reagan Administrations, have alleged the Reagan campaign’s interference with the release of the hostages.
A Congressional taskforce met for a few months and rejected the “October Surprise” theory, though the chairperson, Lee Hamilton, thought the conclusion would have been different had the committee been given suppressed information verifying that Reagan campaign director William Casey had made a trip to Madrid to make a deal with the Iranians.
Reagan appointed Casey to be his CIA director.
THIS SOUNDS CRIMINAL. WHY DID IT GO UNPUNISHED?
There are laws against private citizens interfering with legally authorized government actions. But laws do not call out people for breaking them. Sometimes those who break the laws have the power to cover up what they do.
The Reagan campaign took risks to make this deal, but they also had some advantages. With Reagan’s victory in the election, many of the same people who participated in the deal were put in government positions where they could control much of the information about it.
Also, the Reagan campaign could, had Carter decided to pursue the matter, simply have called him a sore loser. And the majority of voters who preferred Reagan were not likely going to want to hear allegations about how their candidate cheated.
But, ultimately, the gain from this illegal act benefit a great many people who had no reason to talk about what happened. And it had victims, the Carter campaign to be sure, but none of the victims had enough information to make any specific allegations.
Iran received shipments of weapons from Israel. Israel received shipments of weapons from the United States.
The mainstream media, who relied upon the Reagan Administration for information, chose not to give the story much coverage. Politicians, even Democrats, failed to connect the Iran-Contra scandal, in which people went to jail for the Reagan Administration’s sale of weapons to Iran in exchange for cash that went to help the Contras in Nicaragua, a violation of two laws.
The October Surprise of 1980 matters. If we were not sure before, we now could understand that the voters do not really have the final say in elections (confirmed with the 2000 Presidential Election). And if the surprise of possibly treasonous behavior is kept from the public, we cannot help but wonder what else is hidden from us.
John Lennon was murdered shortly after the election by a mysterious “lone nut.” Then minutes after Reagan is sworn in, the hostages are announced as coming home. Then Reagan is shot by yet another “lone nut.”
For those of us who refuse to bury our heads in the sand, our heads still spin over this period of time.