GeorgeWashington's blog

Newest Ad Hominem: Those Who Question 9/11 Are Creationists

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/newest-ad-hominem-those-who-question.html

The newest attack strategy against those who question 9/11 is to say that we are creationists. If you regularly read social networking sites, newsgroups, or bulletin boards, you will see this slur being used regularly.

Is it true?

Well, initially, everyone who believes in creationism started with a religious belief, and then tried to make arguments which fit that belief.

On the other hand, every single person I know who questions 9/11 initially believed the government's version of events.* However, once we looked at the evidence of what happened - the documentary, audiovisual, physical, chemical, and historical record - we began to realize that the government's story has more holes than swiss cheese.

New Rules: Don't Talk About 9/11 Until You Learn Some BASIC History

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/new-rules-dont-talk-about-911-until-you.html

Matt Taibbi and his buddies are making complete fools of themselves by trying to mock those who question 9/11:

The same people who had managed in the 2000 election to sell billionaire petro-royalist George Bush as an ordinary down-to-earth ranch hand apparently so completely lacked confidence in their own propaganda skills that they resorted to ordering a mass murder on American soil as a way of cajoling America to go to war against a second-rate tyrant like Saddam Hussein. As if getting America to support going to war even against innocent countries had ever been hard before!

The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it's based upon the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq.

Um . . . haven't you guys ever cracked a history book?

Don't you know that virtually every war is preceded by either a false flag attack or fake intelligence, so as to trumpet an imminent threat from the folks that is going to be attacked?

Haven't you heard of the Maine, fellas? How about the Gulf of Tonkin? The Iraqi incubator story?

Didn't you learn about Operation Himmler? The Reichstag fire? The Lavon Affair? Operation Gladio? Northwoods? Ajax?

Is the U.S. the World's Largest State Sponsor of Terrorism?

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/us-is-clearly-worlds-largest-sponser-of.html

Four headlines this week make it clear that America may be the world's largest sponsor of terrorism:

I Agree with Bush . . . Stop Appeasing the Terrorists!

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-agree-with-bush-stop-appeasing.html

A lot of people, including Senator Biden, are criticizing Bush's statement to the Israeli parliament that Democrats are like those who tried to appease the Nazis. Bush - apparently incensed that people are trying to frustrate the Neocon plan to bomb Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon in order to "protect" Israel and seize a little oil in the process - accused the Democrats of trying to negotiate with terrorists.

But who is really appeasing who?

It is Congress that is trying to appease the terrorists in the White House. After the 9/11 false flag attack, and the attack on Congress with U.S. military anthrax, and the attack on liberty and privacy, and the attack on the U.S. economy, Congress has done nothing but role over and play dead.

Programs Which the Government Claims Are Aimed At Foreign Enemies are being Used Against American Citizens within the U.S.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/can-anyone-see-pattern.html

The U.S. government has repeatedly claimed that it was launching aggressive programs solely at foreign enemies, and then launched them at American citizens. For example:

Who Are the Gitmo Defendants?

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/who-are-gitmo-defendants.html

Today, the U.S. dropped charges against the so-called '20th hijacker'.

That got me wondering, who are the remaining Guantanamo defendants?

It turns out that they are not "Al Qaeda terrorists", but a bunch of kids, a car pool driver, and others who may have been involved in a civil war within their own country, but not a war against the United States.

For example, an article written by former Wall Street Journal editor and influential conservative Paul Craig Roberts includes the following bombshell:

The six that the United States are bringing to "trial" include two child soldiers for the Taliban and a car pool driver who allegedly drove Osama bin Laden.

The Neocons are RIDICULOUS!

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/neocons-are-ridiculous.html

It turns out that ridiculing tyrants is the most effective way to stop them. Why? Because ridicule can persuade all 3 of our brains - reptilian, mammalian and human. (People won't put up with tyrants if they can see that they are tyrants, and ridicule is the best way for people to be able to take in the fact that the Neocons are tyrants).

How can we ridicule Bush, Cheney and the other anti-American Neocons?

Well, they have done so many things that leave them open to ridicule that it would be child's play to make fun of them.

I have previously written on some approaches to parodying the Neocon agenda. That took me all of twenty minutes.

But how can we ridicule the Neocons themselves?

"Continuity of Government Planning has ... ALREADY Superseded the Constitution as a Higher Authority"

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/continuity-of-government-planning-has.html

UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott has warned:

"If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.

To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority."

WANTED: Dead or Alive . . . REWARD!

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/wanted-dead-or-alive-reward.html

WANTED: Confirmation of whether or not the Constitution is DEAD or ALIVE.

Your REWARD: Become a hero and save the nation.

Details: This website provides evidence that Continuity of Government plans were actually instituted on 9/11, and may still be in effect. If true, America will not be able to end its nightmare until this fact is revealed to the public and until the COG plans are rescinded.

The entire Homeland Security Committee of Congress asked the White House to see documents related to Continuity of Government Plans, and the White House refused to share them, even though that committee has full security clearance to view such plans. Here is a brief video of DeFazio's testimony to Congress on the topic (or here is the transcript).

In addition, Professor Peter Dale Scott asked Congressman DeFazio whether or not Continuity of Government plans were currently in effect, and that DeFazio responded that he did not know.

How to Claim Reward: Find out the answer to the simple question: are Continuity of Government plans currently in effect? No executive branch waffling or double-speak. Just a yes or no answer.

Ask your Congressman. Ask your Senator. Ask someone who would know.

Then let us know.

Neocons ADMIT that “War On Terror” is a Hoax

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/neocons-admit-that-war-on-terror-was.html

Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the so-called War on Terror is a hoax.

In fact, starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has always been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And the goal was never really to destroy Al Qaeda.

As stated in an article in Asia Times:

How to Beat the Matrix

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-to-beat-matrix.html

The main problem isn't that we are up against superior forces.

The main problem is that most people are asleep, and don't even realize that our flag-waving leaders are hell-bent on taking away our freedoms, our options and our money.

The main problem is that most people are still in the matrix, dreaming that the powers-that-be are on their side.

Once Neo woke up to the reality of the matrix, he had a fighting chance of doing something about it.

(If you haven't seen the movie The Matrix, let me put it in a more day-to-day context: If you're camping, and a tick is burrowing into your finger, and you're dreaming that a puppy is licking your finger, the problem isn't that the tick is an overwhelming opponent. The problem is that you're dreaming, so you can't do anything to shake off the bugger.)

Some Powerful People Have Challenged the Matrix - And Failed

Tell Me Again Why "Conspiracy Theory" is a Dirty Label

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/tell-me-again-why-conspiracy-theory-is.html

Whenever any claim is made that the government has done anything wrong, government apologists say "that's a conspiracy theory!"

Well, let's examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about "conspiracies". Let's look at what American judges think.

Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the word "Conspiracy". This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw. Specifically, I got the following message:

"Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents."

From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term. There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the request.

Government ITSELF Won't Swear To Official Theory of 9/11

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/government-itself-cant-swear-by.html

While many people question the government's conclusions about 9/11, rest assured that the government agencies tasked with investigating 9/11 are confident that the government's answer to the following questions is correct:

(1) How could a rag-tag bunch of hijackers penetrate the strongest military in history and disable normal defensive procedures?

(2) How could 3 super-strong, over-engineered buildings become the first modern steel-frame high-rises in history to collapse due to fire, falling at virtually free-fall speed, and exhibiting many indications normally associated with controlled demolition?

At least the government itself is confident about the answers to these questions, right?

Well, actually:

Government Apologists Keep Moving the Goal Posts

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/governement-apologists-keep-moving-goal.html

Folks who are trying to defend the government's version of 9/11 have continuously moved the goal posts:

  • Initially, the government apologists pretended that everyone believed the "official story" of 9/11
  • Then, when the family members of the victims and every day Americans started publicly question the government's story, they said "but, all of the experts confirm the government"
  • Then, when numerous structural engineers decided to risk their careers to question the official version of events, they said "yeah, but no criticism of the government's claims has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"

They keep moving the goal posts, which is a sign of dishonesty. Its the old bait-and-switch - come up with one argument, and when it is shot down as false, make up a new one.

Indeed, if Bush, Cheney, and Rummie all confessed under oath that they carried out 9/11, the defenders of the official version would probably try to move the goal posts yet again:

"true, but no one checked to see if they had their fingers crossed behind their backs at the time.

And they've been under alot of stress recently. Maybe they've suffered from short-term memory loss.

And you don't have any video actually showing them ordering the stand down, do you?! Why should we believe you if you don't have video of them doing it?!"

If you have questioned 9/11 for a couple of years, you'll know that the above-described history of goalpost-moving is accurate. If you haven't, google around and you'll probably see what I mean.