9-11 Commentary from reporter Shawn Hamilton, who covered the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth press conference in 2010. 1/30, 2014
9-11 Commentary from reporter Shawn Hamilton, who covered the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth press conference in 2010. 1/30, 2014
Note: Author Gerald Carroll discovered this photo in the archives of the San Francisco Examiner in 1989. Stephanie Caruana assured me this was the same Bruce Roberts she knew in San Francisco. It shows not only that Bruce Roberts existed but that he had knowledge and interest concerning artificial gems. SH
Released on March 24th, 2014 through Friesen Press: Be All You Can Be
“There is something sad about a person who blindly sacrifices his life ‘for his country,’ for he is unaware of the real issues. If a person can grasp the truth about war, it can’t help but color his thinking on such issues as draft dodging. The name draft dodger suggests the evasion of a just debt or obligation. In reality, a draft dodger is either a person who rejects military service on religious or moral grounds—or plainly doesn’t want to allow himself to be killed. Any of those reasons should be good enough, and I don’t think that he should be persecuted or prosecuted.
A person who is willing to sacrifice his life ‘for his country’ is merely a dupe in the profit game of the military-industrial complex. A man who has the courage to stand up against such twisted idealism and refuse to be sacrificed for profiteers is no coward. My opinion of the draft dodger differs from the opinion of many of my peers, but then, my generation is probably one of the biggest collections of fools on record.”
— Major Ralph E. Hamilton, WW2 Veteran, 1976
New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison prosecuted the only legal case in the assassination of President John Kennedy. He lost, of course, because th CIA was protecting certain witnesses and permanently silencing others. Still, Garrison was able to secure enough historic information in the public record that we can now form reasonable conclusions about what happened. What is so amazing is that Garrison is telling us this in 1967!
It took other researchers thirty or more years to reach similar conclusions. At the time, most citizens were simply intellectually or emotionally incapable of comprehending even a fraction of the truth Garrison revealed, and as a population we remain far too passive and naïve.
Hitler recognized this convenient truth as “The Big Lie (Große Lüge). Yet only four years after JFK was conveniently disposed of by “The Secret Team” (see Col. Fletcher Prouty), Garrison had essentially solved the mystery of who did it and why. Paid detractors and their unpaid volunteers continue to insult Garrison’s memory with the constant trivial dickering over inconsequential details (see Gerald Posner), yet this is what now passes for political discourse in the United States.
The media fawns and toadies that catered to the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about as he was leaving office really outdid themselves in their trashing of Jim Garrison, resorting to all sorts of dirty tricks, illegal or otherwise. Considering that those few of us who have examined the evidence have little trouble understanding the forces who killed JFK, RFK, MLK along with the acronymically unknown, it appears that much of their hush money was primarily wasted on fools.
Jim Garrrison was one American male with balls of brass. He knew the truth about what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and he tried to make people understand it even as his life was being threatened. He’s what I would call a hero if I engaged in that sport. He didn’t just stand up for what he believed in; any fool can do that right or wrong. Garrison verified the facts behind him, which made his pronouncements even more threatening, yet he shouted them to the nation anyway!
By George Sand
(Reprinted with author’s permission from Copblock.org)
There are countless laws. Literally.
Maybe not in the mathematical sense – it is technically possible to count the laws in existence, but based on a colloquial and general use of the term “countless” it is not really feasible for someone to count every law. Just this year, 40,000 laws were passed and are set to go into effect. On the other hand, we rarely hear news about laws being repealed.
Repeatedly, police and their apologists insist that police are held accountable regularly, and in fact are held to a “higher” standard than ordinary people. This simply isn’t the case, according to the law (and don’t police and their supporters care about the law?) Below are several provisions of the California Government Code, which are relevant to the police state, governmental lack of accountability, and why government services in this area are so poor. Similar provisions likely exist in other jurisdictions, and are supported by Supreme Court case law.
Let’s start with the police –
Copblock posted a quote by Becky Akers on the Facebook page recently –
”We all need to recognize cops are the enemy. They’re not just the enemy of the black guy. They’re not just the enemy of Miguel who came across the border without a bureaucrats permission first. They are our enemy too, they will pick on us as well. When we allow government to prey on societies least liked memebers, it’s only a matter of time before they prey on us too” – Becky Akers
In response, one reader replied, “They are your neighbors and the person your standing in line with at the grocery store. Educate yourself and get to know them and we can all be on the same page. Have you ever taken a ride along with your local PD? Have you ever went to a pancake breakfast and learned what they talk about? Do you even know one personally? Didn’t think so. You are depending on a story or some third party blurb to make drastic decisions about your viewpoints are without taking the time to form your own opinions with real data imo. I have some of those things planned in the near future to learn about them. I don’t know enough yet to form a valid firm opinion but plan on learning and talking with them.”
by George Sand
I don’t understand American admiration of the lone man who stood in the path of a tank in the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989 – that is, unless you are a police-hating American. If you are an American who hates, dislikes, or mistrusts police or outright advocates the abolition of government police, then certainly I can understand why the famous image of a lone man standing against uniformed authority would be an inspirational one.
Michael Moore has told Radio 5 live that Barack Obama is not the person he thought he was when he campaigned for him in 2008.
Speaking to Richard Bacon, he also described the US President’s first term in office as “heart-breaking.”Michael Moore
Michael Moore on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, October 27th, 2011:
“I think what they’re really worried about is that you, or I, have money … Nobody can come down here in the next segment and say, ‘Keith, we don’t what you to do what you were going to do.’ Because – where I’m from in Michigan – we call that FU money. It allows you to have that freedom.”
I had great fun reading David Ray Griffin’s Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. Brilliant and funny, this artful explication of Constitutional law scholar Cass Sunstein’s essay, “Conspiracy Theories,” conveys important legal points while treating readers to enjoyable satire. As several talented reviewers have noted, many public figures, including Associate Justice Elena Kagan and President Barack Obama, consider Cass Sunstein, the current Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, to be the preeminent, most widely cited Constitutional law scholar in the country. Consequently, we who feel concern for civil rights naturally feel perplexed that the nation’s leading expert on the Constitution would propose such profoundly unconstitutional policy. That Sunstein appears intent on resurrecting COINTELPRO—the FBI’s counterintelligence program of the 60s and 70s that targeted citizens and activist groups—should concern everyone regardless of political ideology.
COINTELPRO mainly attempted to discredit antipoverty resistance movements such as the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam along with Vietnam War resistors and activists. Agents would routinely go undercover as “agents provocateurs” who would infiltrate groups, incite trouble, and then blame the groups. Naturally they got lots of help from the ever eager-to-please McMedia. COINTELPRO was an illegitimate method of discrediting legitimate political and social activities. Activists who were harassed, surveilled, or killed because of FBI COINTELPRO activities include antiwar activist Father Phillip Berrigan, John Lennon, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark (shot and killed about 4:40 AM in the presence of their lawyer, Charles Garry), and others we will never hear about.
Griffin cites former ABC correspondent, John Stossel, who brilliantly criticized Sunstein’s plan in a FOX business blog entitled, “Stealth Propaganda.” Stossel commented, “This reads like an Onion article: Powerful government official proposes to combat paranoid conspiracy groups that believe the government is out to get them…by proving that they really are out to get them.” Yet this is what Sunstein wants to reestablish in America. “Conspiracy Theories,” which appeared on January 15, 2008 (Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday), makes it clear that he specifically intends to discredit the “9/11 Truth Movement,” which appears to be quickly growing in popularity as did COINTELPRO ‘s original targets.
Sunstein proposes several ideas for dealing with such organizations although he never really explains why these people are so threatening. The idea that “Truthers” as a group will become violent is a figment of creative imaginations. He’s evidently given this issue a lot of thought, yet he seems to resist facts that threaten the inflexible paradigm he’s chosen to adopt. Sunstein operates from the notion that nearly everyone suffers from a “crippled epistemology,” which apparently means that anyone who suggests there are problems with the official government version of 9/11 events simply lacks good information, while the Sunsteins and similar elitists possess it. If that’s true, they should disclose it. The 9/11 Commission thought so too. Commission vice-chair Lee Hamilton and senior counsel John Farmer both admitted the Bush Administration had delayed, stymied, and underfunded their investigation. Apparently, many of the government officials with the epistemologically superior knowledge weren’t all that willing to share it.
Griffin’s refined humor had me for a few brief moments hoping that Sunstein really is a clever ally of civil rights and the truth. Using political philosopher Leo Strauss as his model, Griffin proposes that Sunstein’s writing, like that of Strauss, can be interpreted on two levels—a more obvious exoteric level meant for a broad general audience and an esoteric one meant only for those few sufficiently astute or connected to accurately interpret the clues. As Griffin presents Sunstein’s esoteric message, it sounds a lot like the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. He portrays the Bush Administration’s version of 9/11 events as too ridiculous to be true and suggests, comically, that Sunstein is only pretending to agree with the official conspiracy theory involving 19 Arabs, a few of whom turned up alive. As Griffin demonstrates, the accusations Sunstein levels at the Truth Movement more easily and convincingly apply to the official conspiracy theory, which is largely nonsense. Sunstein’s esoteric message then, Griffin tells us, confirms that the Truth Movement is right.
In order to better understand Strauss and the idea of an esoteric dimension in literary interpretation, I interviewed political philosopher, Dr. Robert Abele, whose book, The Anatomy of a Deception: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq, addresses Strauss’ role in neoconservative thought. Abele told me that Strauss never explicitly claimed to be writing anything at an esoteric level but rather maintained that the best philosophy is philosophy like Plato’s: always concealing something ‘between the lines’ to make readers carefully contemplate the meaning.
“This emphasis Strauss placed on ‘true’ philosophy has resulted in his being taken by many to be a writer who was attempting to emulate the best philosophy of esoterica. In short, where other interpreters of the great philosophers saw them contradicting themselves, Strauss saw them as saying something more profound, ‘beneath’ the contradiction that mundane philosophers read,” Abele explained. As an example he cited John Locke who, in his Two Treatises of Government, unequivocally asserts his Christianity and his concern that government take into account Christian virtues. “Because Locke is inconsistent in his argument concerning this use of religion in politics, Strauss takes him to be an atheist, concealing that atheism,” Abele said, adding, “One thing is quite clear in Strauss—and this motivates the likes of the Bush gang: Strauss was no friend of liberalism.”
Abele’s depiction of Strauss helped me to more fully appreciate Cognitive Infiltration since it explains the contradiction of a Constitutional scholar’s willingness to subvert the Constitution. “Strauss emphasizes Plato’s concept of the ‘noble lie’ in The Republic, where the leader must do what is necessary for the proper functioning and the preservation of the state. The Bush neocon Straussians see themselves as the elite enlightened that they ‘read’ in Strauss.” Abele added that whether or not Strauss himself wrote in such a style is open to some debate, but that he recognized it in the great philosophers is beyond question. “It is perhaps this method of seeing the esoteric in the great thinkers that his followers, such as [Paul] Wolfowitz, see in Strauss the hidden message of neoconservative thought,” Abele said.
This explains a lot—about Sunstein particularly and the governing elite generally. Sunstein knows he’s lying, but he’s doing it for our own good.
The neocons’ greatest impediment is the Constitution; it keeps getting in their way. Who is better-suited than a Constitutional scholar to dance around it? Griffin notes, “The FBI’s COINTELPRO was eventually declared illegal because it violated the rights of free speech and association. Given its strong similarities to that program, Sunstein’s proposal would seem to be equally illegal.” Griffin cites Glenn Greenwald who suggested that another reason for such a program’s illegality is “that it appears to violate ‘long-standing statutes prohibiting government propaganda’ within the U.S. aimed at American citizens.”
Media Studies professor Mark Crispin Miller has argued, Griffin tells us, that if Sunstein and his allies cared about the truth, “they’d try to test those dreaded ‘theories’ in the most effective way—not by setting up a covert force of cyber-moles, but by joining all the rest of us in calling for a new commission to look into 9/11, airing all of the evidence that’s been so long ignored and/or suppressed, and entertaining all those questions that the first commission either answered laughably or just shrugged off. That would be the democratic way to deal with it,” Miller said.
Griffin points out that if Sunstein’s goal is to arrest the spread of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s pernicious theory, and if that theory is “demonstrably false” as Sunstein claims, then why would he feel the need to silence 9/11 conspiracy theorists? “The government would only need to discredit their theory so publically and severely that it would win no more converts and would even lose many of its previous converts,” Griffin declares, saying that the government should rely on the power of truth rather than COINTELPRO-like tactics. “An excellent way to do this would be through a new investigation, carried out by credible, independent people, and mandated to answer all the questions that have been raised by the 9/11 Truth Movement,” Griffin says. “If Sunstein is right in saying that this movement’s theories are ‘demonstrably false, then the questions raised by this movement will be easily answered, and the investigation will demonstrate to the American people, and also people around the world, the falsity of the claim that 9/11 was an inside job.”
It makes one wonder what they’re so afraid of.