Wisconsin Truthers Rally for Cynthia McKinney

Our 11th of the month welcome for Cynthia McKinney at the Wisconsin State Capitol got mainstream coverage:


"Truthers" rally for Cynthia McKinney
By Patrick Marley
Tuesday, Dec 11 2007, 02:27 PM

Madison -- Former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney today didn't draw the crowds that other presidential candidates have seen in Wisconsin stops, but she did find support from a constituency that other contenders haven't tapped into:

Members of the 9/11 truth movement.

Those dismissive of the official explanation for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks rallied around McKinney today at a press conference, as did more typical members of the Green Party. Among the so-called "truthers" was Kevin Barrett, the former University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer who found himself under fire from state lawmakers last year for his view that the attacks were an inside job.

Barrett told reporters the former Georgia congresswoman was a hero of the movement as he passed out bootlegged DVDs of "V for Vendetta."

McKinney kicked off her press conference by taking roll of the media before addressing the heat she has taken for her criticism of President Bush over the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I asked a very innocent question," she said. "I asked what did the administration know and when did it know it about the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001. And I was excoriated; I was vilified. .... How could (the U.S.) fail four times on one day? That is a responsible question about the stewardship of our resources."

McKinney lost her seat in Congress last year after getting in a scuffle with a security guard at the U.S. Capitol. She switched from the Democratic Party to the Green Party after her defeat.

McKinney is one of eight Green Party candidates seeking that party's nomination for president.

# # #

Manski Complains About Media Coverage of Truther Turnout

by Kevin Barrett

Wisconsin Green Party activist Ben Manski apparently wishes that nobody had showed up to welcome Cynthia McKinney to the Wisconsin State Capitol and later the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Despite a snowstorm that made driving difficult, more than 15 hardcore truth activists, and many more closet supporters, filled the Capitol press room for Cynthia's appearance, and others later welcomed her to Milwaukee. (Videos soon to be available thanks to Josh of Snowshoe films.) It was, after all, the 11th of the month: http://www.truthaction.org And Cynthia, after all, is THE 9/11 truth heroine among US politicians! She kicked off my first 9/11 truth conference, the 2005 DC Emergency Convergence, by deconstructing the ludicrous 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.911truth.org/truthemergency/pages/dcSchedule1.html And her grilling of Donald Rumsfeld about the war games and terror exercises that enabled the 9/11 inside job is a wonder to behold: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eootfzAhAoU

Manski seems oblivious to all of this. Here is his petulant missive:

To: natlcomaffairs@green.gpus.org, greens@yahoogroups.com
From: Ben Manski
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:00:33 -0600
Subject: [greens] Media smear of McKinney began (again) today in Madison . . .

Greetings Greens -

Our press conference for Rep. McKinney was (gently) crashed today by a
couple of 9/11 truth people, and the media ate it up. All the 9/11ers
had to do was show up, and the AP, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and we'll
see who else - they gave them a megaphone. Nevermind that those folks
were not representatives of the McKinney campaign, of the Green Party,
etc, heck, they aren't even members of the Green Party. But if you read
below, you will see the coverage that McKinney's Madison stop has
already gotten.

This is just the (re)beginning of the smear campaign against McKinney.

- Ben Manski

p.s. - some journalists - most - who attended the press conference will
show some responsibility in their coverage, I'm sure. I'll send their
coverage along too.

# # #

Here is my response to Manski:


The fantastic turnout for Cynthia McKinney, in the middle of a snowstorm, happened for one and only one reason: Cynthia is a 9/11 truth heroine. I counted more than fifteen hardcore 9/11 truth activists in attendance, along with numerous closet supporters--in other words, a solid majority of those present. In fact, if you are not pro-9/11-truth yourself, you may have been the only one in the room! Patrick Marley's article accurately reflected that fact; any article that did not would give a false picture of the event.

Let me acquaint you with some simple political facts.

36% of of the American people--over 100 million Americans-- say 9/11 was an inside job (Scripps), a majority wants Bush and Cheney investigated for 9/11 (Zogby) and only 16% say the government is telling the truth about 9/11 (NY Times poll). Thus if even two-thirds of those who say "inside job" voted for Cynthia McKinney she would be elected President. Obviously a radically pro-9/11 truth Green candidate for President--ANY pro-9/11 truth candidate--would draw more than ten times the votes of any previous Green candidate. Cynthia McKinney, who has many other things going for her, might do even better.

Why is Ron Paul is drawing far bigger crowds than any other Republican and capable of raising 4.5 million dollars in one day? Because Paul is viewed as the strongest 9/11 truth candidate, and his core supporters are almost all truthers--who, as the Scripps poll and other polls have showed, represent more than one-third of the population, which happens to also be a very highly motivated one-third of the population. With one-third of the population strongly pro-truth, a majority demanding a 9/11 investigation focusing on Bush and Cheney, and only 16% on the other side, how can you imagine that Cynthia's status as the premiere political hero of the 9/11 truth movement is a negative?

The 9/11 truth movement is so much larger, more active and more powerful a political force than the Green Party, that to separate yourself from it would be to condemn yourself to continuing irrelevance, while to embrace it would be to launch the Greens to a new level of visibility and, yes, electability.

Dr. Kevin Barrett

Coordinator, MUJCA-NET: http://mujca.com
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth

Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie

9/11 & American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out

Radio host:
Dynamic Duo on GCN, http://gcnlive.com M-F 4-6 pm CT Network 4
Truth Jihad Radio on RBN, http://republicbroadcasting.org Sat. 6-8 pm CT
9/11 and Empire Radio on WTPRN, http://wtprn.com, Tues. 9-11 pm CT

MP3 Audio Clip - Kevin Barrett & Daniel Ellsberg

Saturday December 1, 2007
Vietnam Era Whistleblower and Scholar Daniel Ellsberg Talks With Kevin Barrett

* source = http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

More MP3 Audio Clips >

I hope you post audio to last night's show...

with Bob Bowman and Richard Gage. I heard 3/4th of it then had to retire.
What I heard was awesome.

Thanks alexjonesfan for all the great audio. Keep it coming!


MP3 Audio Clip - Robert Bowman - 2005

Thursday June 23, 2005
Colonel Bob Bowman, Reagan Star Wars Director, Speaks At LA 9/11 Truth Convergence

* source = http://www.kpfa.org

More MP3 Audio Clips >

Ellsberg and Watergate

Great interview and I was curious to hear Mr Ellsberg because I have recently read in Daniel Estulin's "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" that "as far back as the mid-1960's the Bilderbergers placed Kissinger in charge of a small group consisting of James Schlesinger, Alexander Haig, and Daniel Ellsberg" and that "once Kissinger was installed as National Security Advisor, he, Ellsberg, and Haig were then able to set in motion the Royal Institute of International Affairs' ["foreign policy executive arm of the British monarchy"] Watergate plan to oust President Nixon."

Mr Ellsberg comes off in Kevin's interview as a great asset to the Republic

McKinney Grills Rumsfeld

I say...

Cynthia for president!

continuing irrelevance?

>>The 9/11 truth movement is so much larger, more active and more powerful a political force than the Green Party, that to separate yourself from it would be to condemn yourself to continuing irrelevance, while to embrace it would be to launch the Greens to a new level of visibility and, yes, electability.

As an elected Green Party County Councilmember I have to say that this kind of public confrontation with the Greens will not help anything, but will mainly only stir up division and turn people against 9/11.

I'll do what I can to apologize to others and put the situation in context.

I'm not sure why would you publicly insult Green Party members who are speaking privately on Green Party forums. People will diagree on 9/11, but the way to their hearts is not to distort the facts (saying Greens are irrelevant suggests mainly that you buy into the Duopoly, rather than the actual powerful relevance of ANY political party outside of the D/Rs) and try to say they must succumb to the powerful 9/11 movement.

They way to people's hearts is not with threats, but with the B7 video, the standdown, the put options, the molten metal . . .

Greens, like all Americans, are diverse and of many minds.

Don't fight it, join it.

Oh come on!

Any Green Party member who'd bother boo-hooing over what Kevin Barrett wrote would represent the very personification of the wimpy drip progressives are made out to be by the corporate media. Green Party members have never struck me as remotely childish enough to throw a snit over the fact that millions of people are waiting to line up behind a possible presidential candidate of theirs. For goodness sake this is politics, and Mr. Barrett's was a little friendly advice. Where, pray tell, did he issue "threats" to anyone?

The way to people's hearts, at least those of adults, isn't through maudlin hand-wringing bordering on libel. The other methods you mention I approve of...

Snits don't elect people. Millions of people do. (At least they used to, but that's another matter, isn't it.) Grow up, and don't apologize on my behalf. Unless its to your constituents for underestimating their character and intelligence.

"Where, pray tell, did he

"Where, pray tell, did he issue "threats" to anyone?"

Perhaps you missed his "Amy Goodman" schtick.

Under other circumstances your criticisms might have merit. But Barrett has a voluminous history of "foot/mouth" disease. The highlights of which you can see here:

How he's gotten away with this for this long in 911Truth, I don't know. But it's ending soon...one way or the other.

{edited bad tag--sorry about that)

What the...?

"How he's gotten away with this for this long in 911 Truth, I don't know. But it's ending soon...one way or the other."

And it's Kevin Barrett who issues threats? It sounds like some regular tag-team posters to these pages are pretty quick to accuse others of what they themselves are guilty. But we've had seven years under Bush to get used to that, haven't we?

As for the site you link to above, on it you order Mr. Barrett, under point of threat, to obey the following edicts:

"-No babbling about Jews/Holocaust or mixing it with 9/11 Truth
-No more interviews of members of the No-planes, TV-fakery crowd
-No more spreading unfounded hysteria about 'imminent false flags'-ever
-No more threatening people with execution, unless you can make a court case against said individual for a specific crime, punishable by the death penalty. And if that's the case, go to the DA.
-And stop mixing Rense shite with 9/11 Truth"

Jeesh, you forgot to ask him if he's stopped beating his wife yet. Meanwhile, in point of fact:

a) Mr. Barrett has clearly acknowledged the historical reality of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Have the decency to judge the man by his own views, instead of condemning him of guilt by association.

b) He has a perfect right to interview whomever he darn well pleases. Especially as a public figure who's paid a high price for his stance on 9/11, and who's one of the hardest working members of 9/11 Truth. You may feel you know all there is to know about what happened on 9/11, but there remain some of us who aren't quite as sure that we have the most elaborate and deadly false-flag attack in history completely figured out yet.

c) The concern over "imminent false flags" as voiced by Misters Tarpley and Barrett is anything BUT hysterical, especially in the wake of the early September incident in which six nuclear warheads were flown from Mynot AFB to Barksdale AFB. Anyone inclined to dismiss that event is referred to the detailed articles on the matter at Michel Chossudovski's highly reputable website, Globalresearch.ca. But of course Mr. Tarpley has put us on notice of your own suspicious history of belittling public concern over war-games. As far as that matter goes, unless I've missed something the ball has remained in your court for some time, especially when it comes to the Mynot/Barksdale loose-nuke fly-over. What is it, Ms. "Sparks"? Six dead service members associated with those bases and a possible missing nuke...Nothing to see here?

d) Mr. Barrett NEVER threatened people with execution; he pointed out, based on historical precedent, a frighteningly real potentiality should 9/11's nature as an act of state-sponsored terror become widely accepted by the US and world population. In such an event, it is not unreasonable to expect that those perceived as collaborators in 9/11--and the mainstream press has certainly been that--stand to pay a heavy, perhaps lethal, price. This is merely observing what has happened in the past when countries have found themselves liberated from murderous tyrannies and applying these lessons to our own possible future. Unlike you, Mr. Barrett seems aware, quite literally, of the stakes. I have never heard him relish such a possibility, only dutifully warn of it.

e) I don't agree with a number of things I've heard on Rense, but the man has a large audience and one worth reaching with the matters Misters Tarpley and Barrett bring to them. Why all of us should be confined to the 9/11 choir, and the politically correct 9/11 choir at that, is beyond me.

Now I'll tell you how Kevin Barrett has "gotten away with it for this long in 9/11 Truth." Because he has the guts to stand up in public, with a name to his face, and say what he means. And he's been doing it for quite awhile now. And while many, nay most of us don't expect to agree with every single thing someone else in this movement says or does, on the whole we're damn glad to continue hearing from Kevin Barrett.

Now how YOU'VE been getting away with concocting smears, issuing threats to Mr. Barrett and others, and belittling public concern over war-games given their clearly apparent role in the 9/11 attacks--all while posing as 9/11 Truth's in-house dominatrix--is another matter entirely.

While I respect the decision of people to post anonymously on these pages, when it comes down to brass tacks, a real person, warts and all, beats a cartoon pseudonym any day, no matter how many times the latter cracks her little whip.

My, you seem to feel strongly about all this

Yet, strangely, you've kept quiet until now. Not like you could have missed the lot at the time.....

Interesting you want to frame this as all being me saying this. Only one group of people I know trying to do that...

Not so strange really...

For technical reasons it's been awhile since some of us have been able to post to these pages, as many who follow them regularly know. These seem to have been cleared up. Believe me, it was painful watching what unfolded.

I also have a job that keeps me from dedicating all the time I'd like to to internecine 9/11 struggles.

I have no interest in "framing" you. Are you sure that's not a bit of projection on your part?

No, you're not the only one who's chimed in on the recent controversies. There have been plenty of pseudonyms smearing and barking threats at public persons who've long risked much in standing for 9/11 truth. You (and a handful of others) merely took the lead in doing so, and continue to chime in nastily whenever Mr. Barrett posts to these pages.

Also, I actually feel that much of the frustration that's been expressed is understandable, as I'll comment on some other time, as and if it's appropriate.

Meanwhile, I think I've expressed myself pretty clearly now. And as always all those other pseudonyms are perfectly welcome to chime in. But you've been left with more to chew than you've nibbled on so far...

Maybe we'll even be able to work all this out.

Whatever floats your boat, guv


col. j. sparks

i don't know about you, British colloquialisms, policing a website or three, wasting away thread after thread with pointless arguments, and on. pharisaic comes to mind...and i'm not even sure what that means.

Which threads were you thinking of?

Why don't you list them for us so we can address your precise concerns.

Don't recall properly arguing with anyone recently. Fact, don't recall seeing your cheerful comments for going on three weeks now.

Maybe you should have spoken up sooner, mate. ;-)

the facts and the guts

>>Because he has the guts

How much 'guts' does it take to publicly support TV Fakery? To publicly say on film that pods might have been attached to the planes? To support a person who says that Cindy Sheehan is a liar?

These are serious issues. When someone makes public statements like these they are a public problem for everyone else who is working to expose truths, not hoaxes.

What is the purpose in giving a public mic to Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer and Jerry Leaphart? These are the hoax advocates who told NIST that real planes didn't hit the WTC and that space weapons destroyed the buildings. These are the people that Kevin Barrett gives a public podium to on his radio program. Yet you defend this blithely as "he can interview whomever he wants"?

Guts and "freedom to interview anyone" have little to do with the facts and a lot to do with making us look idiotic to the public. TV Fakery, DEW and pods are not part of the facts, they are part of the campaign to discredit us, if by ignorance alone.

I'm glad you think we might work things out Tom. That's a positive attitude.

If you haven't kept up with things until recently, it's only in the past year or two that things took a turn for the worse in terms of internal discrediting efforts -- when Steven Jones came onto the scene and things became more real with credentialed scientists, engineers, etc coming onto the scene. Then, the efforts to discredit his work went into high gear.

If you need an update, please see:
The STJ911 FAQ

Recommended reading:

Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11

Please stop maligning Dr. Barrett.

Kevin Barrett's opinion on TV Fakery and exotic technologies being involved in the WTC demolition has, at present, been clearly stated. While it may have wavered once over the years he's been a public 9/11 Truth figure, Barrett is on record, in his book and elsewhere, as strongly supporting the views of mainstream 9/11 truth advocates. Anyone who's been willing to hear him out knows this.

On a recent radio program Dr. Barrett has also announced taking back the "mean things" he's said about Cindy Sheehan. I do agree that his comments about Mrs. Sheehan represented Dr. Barrett at his least becoming. But her backing out (or appearing to do so) of the Kennebunkport Memo was a bitter disappointment to many; that doesn't make them bad people. For her part, Cindy Sheehan isn't making hay over the recent flap, and she seems perfectly capable of speaking for herself. This is a hatchet long overdue for burial.

Dr. Barrett has caught heck from the Morgan Reynolds camp as well, as you can see on Reynold's website. That Dr. Barrett still talks to the other camp is a sign of his magnanimity. I'm not one of those who's convinced we know all we need to know about the most deadly and complex false-flag operation in history. I also think the arguments and science presented by Dr. Jones are strong enough by far to weather the various criticisms being aimed at it.

Mine is anything but a "blithe" defense of Dr. Barrettt, Victronix. I think, rather, that it is careful and qualified. On the other hand, I happen to think the belittling of concern over another false-flag attack, including concern over various war-game/terror exercises and drills, is far more damaging to our movement, as well as to our security, than ANYTHING Dr. Barrett has ever said or done. What do you think?

Now talk about "blithe," "whatever floats your boat"?! Ms. "Sparks" would seem to have more to answer for in my reply than she's dared so far. But I'm not holding my breath.

Also, I never meant to imply that I haven't "kept up with things until recently." I've been keeping up with them as closely as just about anyone I'd guess, I just haven't been able to post to these pages until recently, when the technical problems with new passwords on 911blogger were resolved.

For the record, I strongly support Dr. Jones and STJ911. I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Jones a few days ago, at the Boston conference. It was a wonderful and deeply moving event. A friend of mine and I were actually in the extremely fortunate position of being able to help facilitate Dr. Jones' research, and were blessed to have taken part in one of two breakthroughs he announced on Saturday. I wouldn't have contacted Dr. Jones in relation to his research if I hadn't found him credible, in spite of the criticisms aimed at him, which I've listened to closely.

I think we all may have learned something in light of the passionate arguments of the past few months. For one, it isn't best to "lead" with anything that's likely to strike the public as especially outlandish. That is, more outlandish than official involvement and deep complicity in 9/11.

Thanks for your encouraging words, Victronix. And as I've indicated, I really respect your efforts to defend Cynthia McKinney.

About the Boston conference, I think we can all count as a victory that Ray McGovern was the host of the event, which focused on the destruction of the WTC. Mr. McGovern has been accused of being hesitant when considering the "physical evidence" school's arguments, but on Saturday he was warm, funny and otherwise genial, with especially kind things to say about Dr. Jones. It looks like, in many respects, our movement keeps coming together, and Ray McGovern strikes me as a hugely credible ally.

And I do sincerely hope we can work things out. That is, those of us who are willing to...


"Now talk about "blithe," "whatever floats your boat"?! Ms. "Sparks" would seem to have more to answer for in my reply than she's dared so far. But I'm not holding my breath."

Don't see why I should keep repeating myself for the lazy blokes what don't remember what I wrote--or bother to follow the links in my blog. You did read me blog--nothing else to add, really. That was just the tip of the iceberg, mate.

Next move is up to our Kev--if he hasn't fumbled the ball already.

correction hon, you're the fumbler...

see my comments below, lovey...

wimpy drip progressives,

wimpy drip progressives, maudlin hand-wringing, snits, "grow up" . . . have you forgotten "cowards"? That's KB's favorite.

Sorry, no plans to apologize on your behalf.

well if the shoe fits...

No, I didn't forget coward. I just preferred leaving it to the imagination.

I totally agree with Tom

The Green Party platform has 9/11 Truth in it, it is part of the party platform so IF you are a Green Party supporter you should know that going in.

The Green Party is anti-politics as usual and wants to bring "STATESMEN" back to Congress not these pure garbage political hacks selling their souls for money which are infesting it now.
All Barrett did was state a FACT, if all 9/11 truthers voted for a REAL candidate such as McKinney she would win hands down (in a fair election), sadly though elections in this country are rigged.

And what about alienating truthers?

As a Green since before 9/11 even happened, I see no hope for alternative political parties and movements in a climate in which the official 9/11 story continues to hold sway. Just as the unchallenged official account has enabled the agendas of militarists and authoritarians (just as PNAC anticipated it would before the events had even occurred), so it has proved disastrous to those with a different vision (notwithstanding your election to county council). Accordingly, it was Manski's e-mail, not Barrett's reply, that alienates me--as does anything from people who present themselves as a challenge to the duopoly while apparently failing to appreciate the significance of 9/11 truth in challenging the current system.

'They way to people's hearts is not with threats, but with the B7 video, the standdown, the put options, the molten metal . . .'

That is, with people whose 'hearts' (and minds, we hope) are open--which is not how Manski sounds in his e-mail. Talk about these things to him, or to the reporters who covered the event, and you might find yourself dismissed as another of those '9/11 truth people'.

Manski should know that negative coverage by the corporate press (something Greens should be well familiar with!) means you're doing something right.

So as you 'apologize' and 'put the situation in context,' do you think you could get across (as I keep trying to) that Greens would only be hurting themselves if they distance themselves from the 9/11 truth issue?

Manski may be rude in his

Manski may be rude in his email, but is that what we want to be?

My apologies are to those who will be offended by the claim that the Greens are a party of "continuing irrelevance."

This is untrue and mainly will trigger anyone with an ego to reject 9/11 truth efforts.

The heart I'm talking about is not Manski's, but his likely large audience -- he has posted to 3 different listserves of leadership in the Green Party.

Greens are hardly distancing themselves from 9/11 issues -- they are running a presidential candidate who is very powerful in this area and openly defending her positions. Manski speaks against the larger will of the party and is in the minority. But responding with exaggerations and confrontational challenges won't get us there. The facts will.

The main reason 3rd parties have no chance

is the way out dated Electoral College, abolish the EC and things would change over night.
Of course the scumbag politicians in Congress know this all too well which is why they refuse to change it.

And that's not all

Also highly relevant in this regard are the absence of any runoff system (which could be taken care of on a single ballot, through ranked choice voting) and of proportional representation--things which are taken for granted in a number of countries. There's no mention of ANY party system in the constitution, but a duopoly emerged, wrote the laws to suit itself, and has achieved a stranglehold over the political process--one of the most potent tyrannies ever devised, the moreso for being disguised under the appearance of having a 'choice'. If a monarch had the record that these major parties have, he/she would have been deposed long ago. Instead, people think the possibilities of change are limited to alternating back and forth between these two electoral cartels.

A Canada blog "Cynthia McKinney for President"?

Richard D. Brinkman www.edmonton911truth.com

Hey If Ron Paul can have a CANADA FOR RON PAUL?

Geez, they even have a Ron Paul Club in Edmonton...

A Canada blog Cynthia McKinney for President?

Well perhaps not just yet, but it's the first thing I though of when I learned of Cynthia's prospect of running for top office. Sorry Ron Paul Canadian Supporters but I waited so patiently for Cynthia to continue her momentum to grow and now its looking the reality that American's will have a choise...THIS GAL ROCKS EH!, It is a toss up for me because I've been a long time Ralph Nader fan but without been able to participate in America's democracy (Being a territory of the USA with-out a vote---okay I'm kidding OR AM I? NAU-cough spit-ahem) I would definitely throw my support behind Cynthia against the wishes of my family ties in Minnesota and Ron Paul supporters here and abroad... You Go Girl!

Federal Matching Funds

One way to support Cynthia McKinney is to donate to her campaign so that she can qualify for Federal Matching Funds --

"Money is the Mother's Milk of Politics. Money is necessary to buy the yard signs and handbills, pay the airfare necessary for Cynthia's travels, meets the payroll necessary to staff her campaign and makes it possible for Cynthia to get her Green message out to the voters of this nation.

With your help, Cynthia McKinney can qualify as a candidate eligible for these Federal matching campaign funds. To do so, she must certify that she has met the 'threshold requirement' for eligibility by raising at least $5,000 in each of at least 20 states."

Donor Form:

Or write a check made payable to "The Power to the People Committee, Cynthia McKinney for President" and send to:
The Power to the People Committee
Cynthia McKinney for President
Post Office Box 311759
Atlanta, GA 31131-1759

Thankyou Victronis! This is

Thankyou Victronis! This is something we Canadians can do!

Yes, and remember the Canadian $ is worth more than the U.S. $

More bang for the buck!

While 9/11 truth is a non-partisan issue and I generally try to keep partisan politics out of 9/11 truth activism, everyone should send as much as they can to Ms. McKinney, it's time we get four square behind a candidate who is 100% for the truth (and a Green!) and has demonstrated that she is not afraid to speak truth to power, in the halls of Congress, no less!

Let's give her the ability to wage a serious national campaign and make the corrupt Democrats and Republicans actually work for their fraudulent "elections" for a change.

The truth movement and the Greens combined can do for her what the netroots have done for Dr. Ron Paul.

Instead of a "money bomb", let's plant her a money tree this winter, a beautiful, flowering fruit tree that blooms in the spring and bears the sweet fruit of truth all summer and into next fall.

Time to get busy, brothers and sisters.

Cynthia McKinney for President 2008!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Per "Col. Jenny," Sorry deary, but you ain't cutting it...

C'mon Sparky, you're missing the boat here! What's the matter, cat got your whip?

I have put direct questions and challenges to you which you have clearly failed to address. As for your sorry blog, I've refuted the points you raise against Dr. Barrett one by one and you have clearly failed to defend them here. Which means, at least according to the rules of rhetoric and rational discourse as they've been understood since ancient Greece, you lose.

You have also failed to answer my direct question about the Mynot/Barksdale AFB nuke fly-over scandal. It's a lynchpin in your dispute against Mr. Tarpley and Dr. Barrett and the whole issue of concern over false-flag attacks. You are obviously afraid to be seen belittling a scandal of such magnitude, or to recognize the damage it has done to your cause of belittling concern over military drill and exercise scenarios and their relation to false-flag terror/attacks.

When someone has advanced against you the charge that you are seeking to divide our movement by willfully misconstruing and otherwise smearing the efforts and reputations of others who've given so much to it, such as Dr. Barrett, it's not enough to retreat into cutsie pie accents and snotty deflections, claiming you've defended yourself elsewhere against charges that have only here been pointed so directly at you. Because if you had defended yourself elsewhere against these charges we all know, given that you're such a stickler for links, you'd have shown us where.

Strike three, Sparky. Points for sass, though...if only attitude were everything, darn it!

Need some help getting your replies in the proper places?

Threaded comments can be a bugger if you're not familiar with them. ;-)

BTW: none of us have to answer bugger all re: Our Kev. It's Kev what needs to explain himself--not getting you or anyother fan to do it for him. And hopefully he's apologized to Cindy by now. I haven't heard anything, but one can hope...

Now I've things to do. Working on a big finish this year--hope you like it!

No hon, it's still you who doesn't get it.

Poor lost little lass, Kevin Barrett hasn't gotten me to explain his positions; I've scarcely even met the man. In fact, his views seem self-evident to anyone who isn't bent on maliciously construing them for the purpose of dividing our movement. I'm calling out you as a malicious divider of 9/11 truth out of my own volition.

You can't even explain yourself when clear questions are put to you, yet you attack and threaten people who've been deeply involved in this movement longer, who've sacrificed far more for, and who've given far more to it than you ever have or, one imagines, will. Yet you continue with these divisive tactics in the face of pointed, clear and sensible rebuttals to your complaints against the likes of Dr. Barrett.

The question about the loose nukes fly-over doesn't even directly pertain to "Our Kev," and yet you still fail to address that issue. Presumably, ONCE AGAIN, because you have no answer, because you have been caught belittling an issue of enormous gravity and relevance to overall cause of 9/11 truth. Because you've made a vicious, carping and snide ass of your smug little self.

And I'm not posing this to any "us," luvy, but to YOU. It's YOU, Sparky, who's attempting to divide the 9/11 truth community, for no good reason that I can see or that you are able to defend. If you can't even answer my question about the loose nuke fly-over, why in the hell should anyone, especially Kevin Barrett, pay the slightest attention to anything you have to say, ever?

"Now I've got things to do." More divisive attacks, perhaps? More snotty back-biting you'll refuse to answer for? More sassy style over substance? More of the rhetorical equivalent of gum snapping? Oh goody! As far as your "big finish this year," so long as it involves more unfounded character assassination and ugly smears, behavior clearly condemned by David Ray Griffin and other fine leaders in our movement, I'll be sure to let you, and anyone else in your phantom posse, know just what I think of it. In case you're missing the point, deary, I'm becoming one of your biggest fans.

Blah, blah , blah--bored now

"If you can't even answer my question about the loose nuke fly-over, why in the hell should anyone, especially Kevin Barrett, pay the slightest attention to anything you have to say, ever?"

1: Nuke flyover = overblown bunch of tot reverse engineered to salvage Tarpley/May's cred. As you well know.
2:They're paying attention whether you like it or not--and that's what really bothers some, don't it?
3: Keep pretending its only Jenny if it helps you sleep better, luv.

Now I'm busy--got to get my blog ready for a Christmas Truce.

You coming?

"Col. Jenny Sparks" is dangerous and damaging to 9/11 truth.

"Nuke flyover = overblown bunch of tot reverse engineered to salvage Tarpley/May's cred. As [I] well know."

So let me get this straight, Sparkles. Are you alleging that the military staged the whole nuke flyover to salvage the career of two folks on record as believing that 9/11 was an inside job? (And they call me a "conspiracy theorist"!) Or that six dead soldiers, a possible nuke left unaccounted for, and the illegal and unauthorized transport over the US of six nuclear warheads affixed to the bottom of a bomber's wings is simply "overblown tot." In other words, those who listen and agree with you would have the rest of 9/11 truth, and the country and world, believe that we shouldn't be concerned that the government which engineered 9/11 is flying around the country with unauthorized nukes attached to the wings of a bomber. We shouldn't be concerned about the untimely deaths of six servicemen attached to the bases involved, or the suicide of a high-ranking acquistions officer in the Air Force. After all, Nutty Ginny Sparkles assures us, on the authority of anonymity, that it's all just an "overblown bunch of tot reverse engineered to salvage" the credibility of folks that she and a small coterie of vicious, intellectually dishonest and largely anonymous backbiters are attacking. Nothing to see here, you folks concerned about revealing official involvement in 9/11. No reason to think that loose nukes being flown over our heads is any big deal worthy of being investigated. Just limit your concern to the past and never focus on anything other than thermite and the events of the morning of September 11, 2001. Dead soldiers don't matter. A possible loose nuke doesn't matter. The detailed analysis provided by reputable, longstanding sources such as Globalresearch.ca and Michel Chossudovsy don't matter. All that matters are the snotty, unsubstantiated opinions of chiruppy little Sparkles and her legion of phantom fans.

It might bother me that "they're paying attention," but really I'm not at all sure anyone really takes you seriously, other than a buch of empyty pseudonyms who so far have failed to back up your dangerous opinions with any more meaningful analysis than you've offered, Sparky...

I am interested in the subject of a truce, but the terms had better be fair, deary, since you are hardly in a position to bargain. Interesting that we're only hearing talk of "truce" from you now, sweetie, that your number is clearly up.

Trying too hard, you are, luv ;-)

So are you coming or what? Or would you rather whinge away the holiday?

9/11 X-mas Truce Blog


Sweetie, YOU remain an "obstacle to 9/11 truth activism."

Checked out your "truce" blog. Trite. Even forbids discussion of controversy. Typical, especially now that you've made such an abysmal show of yourself, Sparky.

And typical as well of the faction of 9/11 "truth" activism you represent, which would reduce genuine attempts to save our republic and achieve justice for those slain on 9/11 and in the unjust wars since to an egregiously tawdry form of entertainment. You attempt to reduce what we're involved in here to the conspiracy theorist equivalent of American Idol, where we simply advance snotty little one-ups and vote anyone who makes us uncomfortable off the island. (Forgive my mixing "reality TV" metaphors, but it's all the same, ain't it Spunky?)

This isn't a junior-highschool popularity contest, sweetheart, in spite of your inability to sustain a critical dialogue that's higher than the sixth grade level. (My apologies to sixth-graders, I just wanted to tie in the junior high analogy.)

You, sweetcheeks, aren't trying hard enough. And it's showing.

It is good to have you so clearly on record disparaging the deaths of six soldiers and belittling concern over the nuke-flyover scandal. It'll come back to haunt you, Sparkles, or at least so much of a you as there is. Webster Tarpley, in the height of his efforts to prevent World War III, may have unfortunately (if indirectly) referred to a beloved peace activist as "wretched," but he never stooped to disparaging the death of Cindy Sheehan's son. Yet you mock the deaths of not one but six soldiers, deaths I'm betting the mainstream of 9/11 truth damn well wants investigated.

Since you have chalked up their deaths, in the context of a possible missing nuke and the unauthorized flyover of the US of five others, as "overblown tot," I think you owe it to dedicated 9/11 activists to explain whether or not there is any relevance, in your view, to our concern over war-games/drills/excercises and their apparent role in the 9/11 false-flag attacks?

Yes or no, toots? Do speak up, sweetie-pie, especially since you feel everyone else has so much to answer for.

If yes, then why, pray tell, shouldn't we be concerned about unauthorized nuclear missles transported across the US during a period of heightened military drill and excercise activity, which included nuclear attack scenarios?

If no, then, hon, I dare say, in attacking one of the central pillars of 9/11 truth you've provided the final nail in your own coffin. Of course it's my bet that, whatever way you attempt to answer now, my job has gotten a whole lot easier, since all I'm left to do is stand back and watch you dig your own grave even deeper. With all the dirt you've talked, honey, it'll be a pleasure watching you pull it back in over yourself. Don't worry, I'll do my best to check in now and then to help make sure you don't miss any.

It's only a matter of time until the reasonable voices who've been swayed by your pied-piper routine see you for the dangerous fraud you are. No doubt you'll continue yapping snottily away, spouting the rhetorical equivalent of touching your finger to your tongue and arcing it back to your ass while hissing "tsssss," impressed with just how hot you think you are. It's how we'll always remember you, shnookums.

But anyone else who remains impressed with that at this point has no place in the 9/11 truth movement, whose own Tokyo Rose (that's you, luv, in case you missed it) has just been plucked.

As far as enjoying the holidays goes, for some of us they're less a chance to bask in fuzzy Martha Stewart reveries involving syruppy jingles than a profound spiritual call to renew of our commitment to truth. 9/11 truth isn't the mutual ass-scratching coffee-clatch you've made it out as, where we all get together to watch the popular girl make fun of the weirdos, dear. At least in my view, it's a movement engaged in the fight of, and for, our lives.

Make peace with that.

Merry Christmas.

It's sad

Our Tommy takes over 500 words to tell me and mine we aren't doing anything worth noting. Word to the wise, luv--unless you can link to proof supporting your ramblings, less is always better. ;-)



I think it's Col Jenny here by more than a nose . . . she kept it short and sweet, entertaining, and wasted no one's time.


Truth Action Madison Capital - very short vid of the 9-11 Truthers outside the capital bldg..
Dec 11, 2007 Madison - 1min35seconds

Press Conference part 1 snowshoefilms.com - 10min video -
McKinney's response to the question.. why are you running for president as a Green?

visit www.snowshoefilms.com for documentary video exposing deception