Part of being a father is making sure my kids have enough to eat, have a roof over their heads, are protected from harm in our neighborhood.
These are all fairly traditional notions of fatherhood.
But being a father means more than that . . .
Didn't See it Coming
Imagine that you're a father living in 13th century Mongolia. A farmer, you work hard, put plenty of food on the table, keep a waterproof roof over your kids' heads, and protect them from the local thugs.
Not if your village lay in the path of Genghis Khan 's invading army. Unless you get your family out of harm's way, or figure out a way to organize all of the villages together and train them up in warfare, your kids aren't going to have it very easy, and all of your fathering will be for nothing.
Okay, that was pretty obvious, right?
Let's talk about another hypothetical example. Let's say you're a father in Germany in 1930. A banker, you work hard, and give your kids the best of everything.
"It Would Be the End of His Business ... He Would Be Denounced as an Anti-American and Demonized as a Terrorist Sympathizer"
Now that many highly-credible scientists, engineers and architects have publicly questioned the official explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center (see this, this, this, this), government apologists are making the following argument:
"Yes, but there are many more scientists, engineers and architects who support the official theory".
Are they right?
Well, initially, there aren't that many people who have come out and publicly supported the official story. In fact, most scientists, engineers and architects have not made any public statement about 9/11 one way or the other.
Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that our country is going in the wrong direction. That the Iraq war was a mistake. And polls show that the majority of Americans questions the government's version of 9/11 and other basic tenets of the "war on terror".
So why aren't people doing anything to fix things?
It is largely because people are hopeless . . . they don't think there is anything they can do to turn things around and improve our situation. Also, many people believe that they should just "lay low" until things get better, and that the only thing that standing up will accomplish is getting whacked in the head.
While this essay focuses on Iran, the principals apply equally well to false flag attacks. In other words, if there hasn't been another large false flag since 9/11, it is because the public has remained vigilant in publicizing 9/11truth and the history of false flag terror.
A mountain lion wanders up to a rancher's property, looks in the direction of his sheep, and licks its lips.
The lion charges towards the sheep, but the rancher hollers loudly and scares it off.
Later that day, the rancher runs into his neighbors in town and tells them about the mountain lion. They say "Oh, we don't think he really wanted to eat your sheep. He was probably just being sociable and wanted to play".
The next day, the same lion came back. After circling the ranch twice, it charges towards the sheep, extends its claws, and with a fierce roar, attempts to lunge at the nearest sheep.
The rancher fires his shotgun up in the air, scaring the lion off.
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.
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?
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?
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
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 hundreds of top experts in relevant fields - military officials, intelligence officers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, etc. - publicly questioned the government's story, they said "well, no structural engineers question 9/11"
- 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"
- Then, when papers began to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they scrambled with new arguments . . .
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.
As a new article by investigative reporter Christopher Ketcham reveals, a governmental unit operating in secret and with no oversight whatsoever is gathering massive amounts of data on every American and running artificial intelligence software to predict each American's behavior, including "what the target will do, where the target will go, who it will turn to for help".
The same governmental unit is responsible for suspending the Constitution and implementing martial law in the event that anything is deemed by the White House in its sole discretion to constitute a threat to the United States. (this is formally known as implementing "Continuity of Government" plans).
There is great confusion about what Presidential declarations of emergency are currently in effect. After independently researching the issue myself, I have found the answer.
It is clear that pre-9/11 declarations of national emergency have authorized martial law. For example, as summarized by a former fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation, and the recipient of numerous awards, including the Gary Schlarbaum Award for Lifetime Defense of Liberty, Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties, Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty and Templeton Honor Rolls Award on Education in a Free Society:
In 1973, the Senate created a Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency (subsequently redesignated the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers) to investigate the matter and to propose reforms. Ascertaining the continued existence of four presidential declarations of national emergency, the Special Committee (U.S. Senate 1973, p. iii) reported:
Let's assume that I am incorrect in concluding that Continuity of Government (COG) plans -- which suspend the Constitutional form of government -- are currently in effect today. In other words, let's assume that while the U.S. has been in a continual state of emergency since 9/11, and COG plans were, in fact, implemented on 9/11, that they were secretly rescinded at some point afterwords.
Would it mean that we should ignore the whole issue?
Even if you (unlike the military leaders, intelligence professionals, scientists, engineers, and other highly-credible people who question 9/11) -- do not believe that elements within the U.S. government intentionally aided and abetted the September 11 attacks, or let them happen on purpose, you have to admit that the government failed to do its job of protecting the American people.
For example, 9/11 was completely foreseeable. U.S. and allied intelligence services had penetrated the very highest levels of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and heard the hijackers' plans from their own mouths.
Every time an important fact undermining the official story about 9/11 is raised, defenders of the government's version try to label it as an "old story" which is "not news".
Are they right?
You might assume that the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11 because of their design or because the fires were so hot or because of the damage from the hijacked planes. You probably assume that someone who knows alot more than you -- a structural engineer, or a fire expert, or a tall building designer -- has an explanation of why the towers collapsed, and that it all makes perfect sense. At the very least, you assume that you don't have the expertise to even think about why the Twin Towers collapsed, right?
Well, a contradiction in the way the towers collapsed shows that this is not so.
Specifically, there are two possibilities regarding the collapse of Twin Towers on September 11th:
Some people argue that questioning 9/11 is a waste of time -- which distracts us from the many real problems our country is facing.
There's the economic downturn, the Iraq war, terrorist threats, loss of liberties and a lot of other problems that need fixing. So stop wasting time and distracting everyone with all this stuff about 9/11, right?
Well, before I address that argument, let me ask you one question: how did we get here? How did we get into the economic downturn, the Iraq war, the war on terror, spying and the loss of liberties, and the other problems?
Let's start with Iraq. Why are we in Iraq? WMDs, you say!
Actually, President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.
Apparently, a number of articles and groups are discussing -- in one way or another -- violent revolution. See, for example, this essay.
Prominent impeachment activists argue that impeachment, rather than violent revolution, is the appropriate mechanism built into the Constitution to fight tyranny.
But some people respond that Congress won't impeach, and so that mechanism is not available. Specifically, House leader Pelosi has said "impeachment is off the table", Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers won't take action, and the Congress as a whole simply won't start impeachment proceedings. So they argue that with impeachment unavailable, the only option left is violence.
But I think that argument is missing a very important point.
Defenders of the official version of 9/11 claim that people who question the government's account are anarchists who want to tear down the United States of America.
This is important because many Americans in a position to be able to spread the truth or help to obtain justice will fight any effort which they think will destroy America.
Are 9/11 truth activists, in fact, anarchists?
Well, I've been involved in the 9/11 truth movement for years, have spoken with many of the leading advocates for 9/11 truth, and have been involved enough in various groups and discussion boards to have a sense of the types of people who question 9/11. Based on that experience, I would say no.
History proves that ideas are more powerful than weapons. Sure, in the short-term, those who possess the strongest military and the deadliest weapons will prevail. But powerful new ideas bring greater change over the span of a couple of hundred years than military might.
The wannabe-fascists in America, England, Israel and other countries have won in the short-term. For example, there already is soft fascism in America and England. Wars have already been launched just because America -- as sole superpower -- had the military strength to do it. The elections are already rigged, with only those hand-picked by the powers-that-be standing any chance of winning.
But people world-wide are waking up to the facts of manipulation of intelligence, false flag operations and rigged elections. This is a huge development.
Many times, when I explain to people what's going on in our country today, they at first argue that things aren't really that bad, and that America could never go fascist.
After a couple of examples about what's been happening recently, and a brief overview of what fascism actually means, they get it.
But then they shrug their shoulders and say "there's nothing I can do", hoping that that's the end of discussion.
Are they right? Is there nothing we can do about fascism? Should we just hunker down and try to survive it?
Well, first of all, there is something we can do to break free of the fascist concrete which has been poured over America, before it really hardens.
Here is just one example:
One of the arguments by defenders of the government's version of 9/11 is that 9/11 truth is "like a religion".
In fact, one writer argues that blind patriotism, rather than 9/11 truth, is the "religious" belief system:
Investigation of a crime means reading the evidence, first. 9-11 was spectacular crime leaving behind spectacular evidence. Spectacle was the whole thing—give people visions they would never forget, embed fears to shadow them forever. Deep cracks penetrated the American psyche on 9-11, some possibly too deep to heal; therein lies perhaps the greatest ally of 9-11 perpetrators, the collective desperation of Americans for no more damage. We’ve been hurt enough!
Former Air Force Colonel and Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski -- who was the key whistleblower who revealed that the Pentagon had a special division producing cooked intelligence on Iraq -- recently wrote:
"The republic is dead. Not sick, not dying, not failing, or in a gradual decline, not waiting to be resuscitated, but already stone cold dead."
Is she right?
I've previously written about the importance of 9/11 polls, as most people follow the herd. In other words, since polls show that the majority of people doubt the government's version of 9/11, citing the polls is very important in convincing people who are not yet aware that the official explanation makes no sense.
Well, I just read a study which says that even one dissenting voice can give people permission to think for themselves. Specifically:
Exposing the evidence which proves that 9/11 was an inside job is not enough. Believe it or not, that is the easy part.
Why? Because you can cite all the facts in the world, but unless the person you're talking with has some motivation to really listen, the facts will bounce off your listeners like bullets off a Kevlar vest.
Psychologists tell us that unless we give people a reason to want to know the truth about 9/11, they won't be open to changing their mind.
Indeed, some very smart people have said that propaganda is not aimed at actually convincing people, but of giving an excuse for people to believe what they want to believe.
Why Will People Want to Know the Truth?
Who's got the power? Is it those who own the weapons? Those who own the media? Those who are the most ruthless? Those with the most money?
History shows that -- in the long-run -- power is with those who think for themselves and chart their own course. Those who have truth on their side. Those with passion. Those with hopefulness and courage. Those with persistence and patience.
Those fighting the battle to disclose the truth about 9/11 and other things which the powers-that-be are trying to keep hidden have true power on our side . . .
We've Got the Numbers On Our Side
Those who want truth and justice outnumber those fighting to maintain the cover-up by millions-to-one.
You let one ant stand up to us - then they all might stand up.
When a suspect who is confronted with a direct question repeatedly tries to change the subject and refuses to answer the question, that's evidence that he's guilty.
For example, if a suspect is repeatedly asked "did you stab Mr. Roberts?", and he replies "I didn't take the money!" every time he is asked, that is proof that he did in fact stab Mr. Roberts. That's especially true if no one asked him whether he took any money.
NIST is doing the exact same thing in regards to the basic questions which 9/11 activists keep asking.
For example, NIST's new factsheet contains the following question and response:
2. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?
Scientists, engineers and architects will pick apart the factsheet in detail in the coming weeks. However, I'd like to address one particular misleading statement by NIST in the meantime.
According to a former "senior intelligence official", the White House knew of the existence of the CIA interrogation tapes since 2003, at the very latest, and tacitly approved the destruction of the tapes in 2005.
Indeed, former CIA agent and State Department counterterrorism official Larry Johnson said that it was “highly likely” that President Bush himself had viewed the videotapes of the 2002 interrogations that were later destroyed (that's probably why the White House has instructed its spokesperson not to answer any questions on the subject).
And according to the Director of the CIA, Congress was also informed about the existence of the tapes, and -- later -- of the CIA's intention to destroy them.
The 9/11 Commission Report states:
The best quarterback in the NFL can't score if he's getting sacked every play. He's got to have good offensive tackles to keep the hounds away from him long enough to make the play.
The same principal applies in 9/11 truth.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and 911Truth.org are helping to spread the truth about 9/11 in an effective way. And yet both groups have been accussed of being "homegrown terrorists", or at least radicalizing people and tending to create terrorist sympathizers. See this and this.
If we don't get some offensive tackles in to support ae911truth.org and 911truth.org, they won't be able to keep on spreading truth and demanding a new investigation.
What to do?