AE911Truth backs plan to form 9/11 Truth party in Canada

Canada votes 911 at the polls
By Craig McKee
The planning process is under way to form a new political party to run on a 9/11 platform in Canada’s 2015 federal election.
Fifty potential candidates responded to an appeal to run in October of next year from AE911Truth’s Richard Gage on his recent cross-Canada Rethink 9/11 tour. Gage asked members of the audience at each tour stop whether they would be willing to put their names forward. At the Montreal presentation, I was one of four who did.
The only Canadian who has run for a major political party while supporting the 9/11 Truth movement is Bev Collins, who is co-ordinating this new effort. Collins ran in 2008 for the New Democratic Party (which is currently Canada’s Official Opposition, holding 99 of the country’s 308 seats in the House of Commons), and she finished a very respectable second in her British Columbia riding.
In an interview, Collins explained that she had been asked earlier this year by AE911Truth to consider running for Parliament again on a 9/11 Truth platform. She says she indicated at the time that she would much prefer that a team of candidates be put together rather than having her run alone. It was agreed that Gage would ask for volunteers during his tour.


Collins was backed by NDP leader Jack Layton in 2008 federal election.

Since the tour ended April 1, Collins, Gage, and potential candidates have discussed the plan on three conference calls (all of which I was part of). Four main options have been identified: forming a new party, supporting independent candidates, supporting candidates who wish to run for existing parties, or a combination of all three.
I believe strongly in the party option at this point, but I’m keeping an open mind. I acknowledge that some of the potential candidates have run in previous elections, so they have experience with the process that I don’t.
For me, it’s not about winning (which is a good thing, because we aren’t going to win). It’s about raising the profile of the fight for 9/11 truth. It’s about making some noise. It’s about the publicity that would come from seeing the words, “9/11 Truth” on a ballot in as many ridings across the country as possible.
My concern about a mixed approach is that we would be diluting our impact and making it much easier for the media to ignore us (Yes, I know they’ll probably do that anyway …) There is a novelty in creating a 9/11 party that just might get some attention from journalists. I’d rather have 75 candidates running for a 9/11 truth party rather than 35 for the party, another 25 as independents, and 15 more for existing, small parties.
Yes, I think we should put our eggs in one basket. It’s the only way we have a chance of being heard.
Another element to consider is that it is being made increasingly difficult for independents to be heard in Parliament as this article on the web site explains. Unlike registered political parties, independents are not allowed to raise money all year ‘round but only during election periods. And unlike with parties, if an independent does not spend all the money he or she raises, they are not allowed to keep it for a future campaign.
Collins says she gave up party politics after her 2008 experience – which included attacks from other parties for her 9/11 views and calls for her to be dumped from the NDP’s roster of candidates. Then party leader Jack Layton (who died of cancer in 2011) stood by Collins, something that his successor, Thomas Mulcair, would certainly not have done.
Collins, who had previously run four times for the Canadian Action Party (a small party that used to call for a new 9/11 investigation), does make a strong point when she says there are advantages to going the independent route. Not following the party system avoids the problem of your party being infiltrated and taken over by those who have their own agenda, and it means that candidates are free to express their opinions without having to follow a party line. The mixed approach has the clear advantage that it offers each candidate the choice of how they want to proceed.
But as someone who has worked in the media, I believe we need to maximize our impact and our visibility.
One thing that is clear from the discussions so far is that those involved come from across the political spectrum: everything from Libertarians to Greens to Socialists and everything in between. Also clear is that most of the registered parties in Canada – including all the major ones – want nothing to do with 9/11 Truth.
Obviously a great deal of work has to be done to set up a new party. In the UK, Simon Lane founded the Nine Eleven was an Inside Job Party and ran in a by-election in 2012 as its only candidate. He received 66 votes.
Turning to the electoral system to bring attention to 9/11 truth is not a new idea. There are a number of American political candidates who have run for state and federal office, including well-known Truth movement figures like Carol Brouillet and the late Dr. Robert Bowman.
Former six-term Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was first elected to Congress in 1992 and was re-elected another four times before losing her party’s nomination in 2002, after she had begun to question 9/11. She returned to Congress in 2004, which was significant given that her views about 9/11 were well known by this point. She left the Democratic Party some time after losing the 2006 nomination for her seat. She later ran as the Green Party’s presidential candidate in 2008.
An effort to gain acceptance for a 9/11 truth party in Canada would face some significant obstacles, particularly because a lot of Canadians are bound to wonder why they should consider a party whose existence is based on an event that happened in another country 14 years ago (by the time the election is held).
Besides the fact that 24 of the victims of 9/11 were from Canada, so much of what has transpired in the United States as a result of 9/11 has been felt north of the border (and around the world). We passed our own version of the Patriot Act, called the Anti-Terrorism Act, in December 2001. Some of the provisions of the Bill expired in 2007 and an attempt to renew them was defeated. But after Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party won a majority government, it came back with the Combating Terrorism Act. This was fast-tracked in 2013 as the result of the Boston Marathon bombing.
And some Canadians don’t think false flag operations in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world affect them?
Canada joined the U.S. in invading and occupying Afghanistan as well as bombing Libya. And our leaders, from all political parties, maintain the lie that 9/11 was a terrorist attack by extremist Muslims. Like the American people, Canadians are the victims of 9/11, and we share the guilt for 9/11 when we let the lie stand.
One of the biggest challenges in getting this new party off the ground will be agreeing on a platform. The AE approach of focusing on the evidence for controlled demolition of the three WTC towers has been mentioned during our discussions as has the work done by the Consensus 9/11 Panel, co-founded by David Ray Griffin and Canadian Elizabeth Woodworth.
But I believe that a 9/11-based platform must go beyond these two positions and these two organizations. Neither, for example, has come to terms with the overwhelming evidence that no large airliner hit the Pentagon. Ignoring this to focus only on the towers would be a big mistake, I believe.
Then, of course, there is the issue of whether the party would take positions on non-9/11-related issues – particularly given the diverse ideological positions of the potential candidates. But these are issues to be discussed in the weeks and months ahead as the effort to create the infrastructure for a new party goes forward.
It’s important to make this point: Forming a new party and running 9/11-truth candidates does not imply that the electoral process is the best way to overcome the lies and deceptions of 9/11 and the bogus war on terror that are driving our world towards disaster.
But we have to make enough noise to let people know we’re here and we’re not going away. This is a start.


Check out and “like” the Truth and Shadows Facebook page. It features lots of links to interesting articles, videos, discussion, and other content – with new material added daily.


  1. All this will be ridiculed but it sure does raise the profile of the issues. Good on them. Anything which means more awareness before the 50th anniv. (compared to JFK’s murder) is good.

      1. Craig: Do the Canadian representatives have to swear an oath of loyalty and fealty to Israel like the US Congress does? This is actually a not well known fact of our government. Of all the foreign aid given to other countries by the US, Israel gets theirs first, even if we have to print or borrow it. McKinney and the former senator from NJ Torecelli (sp) are victims of a system of bribery regarding their honest inquiry into 9/11.

        1. “McKinney and the former senator from NJ Torecelli (sp) are victims of a system of bribery regarding their honest inquiry into 9/11.”~owenmeister
          Perhaps you can cite something to verify these allegations?

        2. We don’t have to swear any loyalty to Israel, but we do swear loyalty to the Queen of England, if you can believe that. It took us until 1982 to get our own Constitution. Before that we used the British North America Act, which was passed in England. But the Queen is still technically our head of state.

          1. “But the Queen is still technically our head of state.”~Craig
            It is a complex argument historically, but it seems that the USA is still covertly under the thumb of British royalty as well. This has to do with ‘The United States of America Inc.” And the bankruptcy of the US in1791.
            There are two Constitutions, the original revolution inspired document, and the other when DC was incorporated as the seat of the national [not federal government].
            More to the essence of the situation is that even British Royalty appears to be under the thumb of ‘The City of London’, a square mile sovereign state smack dab in old London that houses the ‘Money Changers’.
            It is a fascinating and complex history.

          2. To lend credence to the comment above, let me offer this bit of history, which I think shows that the US and Canada have been more ‘two peas in a pod’ than most would have considered:
            . . . . . . . . . .
            “Few countries have emerged with less enthusiasm for unity than the United States. From the Stamp Act Congress in 1765 until the delegates convened in Philadelphia twenty-two years later, most Americans bore primary allegiance to the state within which they lived, and the notion of abandoning that identity to be part of a larger whole was preposterous. (p. 22)
            Not one of [the delegates to the Constitutional Convention] came to Philadelphia believing that he was there to create a new government—or reform an old one—only for the benefit of thirteen states on the Atlantic. (p. 43)”~Lawrence Goldstone
            . . . . . . . . . .
            It should be clear from the facts above that the Constitutional Convention was a Coup de Grâce by the Federalists; the Banker’s moles Hamilton and Jay in particular. The bankers here mean the central banks of Europe, headed by the Bank of England and it’s network of corporations. In other words a corporatist oligarchy. This is essentially fascism, as defined by Mussolini a couple centuries later. The symbol of the Fasces, bundled rods and a hatchet in bold relief in the chambers of the US Congress in DC is a significant reminder of this.
            “Same as it ever was…”

  2. Kudos to this effort, and all the other efforts that have involved REAL LIFE activism: the Building What? campaign, the ReThink911 ads, the NYCCAN effort to force the city of NY to investigate Building 7, and so on.
    I will admit (even if publicly saying this might cause a couple of Cointelpro agents to slap high fives with each other) that after being an activist on this topic for the past 9 (!!!) years now, I’m feeling pretty jaded. And I’m really sick of hanging among the choir. Sometimes we in the online blogging community get a little too insulated, only conversing among ourselves… while the lies continue and the masses are enthralled by Game of Thrones (I haven’t watched a single episode; like a lot of truthers I know, I don’t have a TV).
    Speaking of reaching out, I DID have some success with a professional colleague. Here is a post I made just today on the 9/11 Truth Movement’s FB page:

    I had a bit of minor success with a musical colleague a couple nights ago. We’ve been friends for years, and he’s known my 9/11 views for years, but is highly resistant. (Interestingly though, he’s a food truther [monsanto] and a psychiatry truther [big pharma].)
    He has always been convinced the official version of the twin towers’ ‘collapse’ is true, and I’d spoken to him about WTC7 in the past, but had never showed it to him, and he’d never seen it. Well that changed two nights ago. I showed it to him, and while he’s no activist yet, he did have to admit that WTC7’s fall was rather strange and does look like a demolition. I even showed him the “pull it” clip, and informed him about how ‘debunkers’ spin it to mean “pull the firefighters.” I asked him if LS’s words sound like he’s referring to the firefighters or the building. He responded: Clearly he’s talking about the building.
    Then I started showing him Szamboti and McIlvaine on Geraldo, he watched a few minutes and then said, “Okay enough,” and tucked in for the night. Clearly, it’s still too terrifying for him to accept the facts, but it does prove that WTC7 is the mother of all smoking guns.

  3. I have all sorts of mixed feelings about this idea, pro and con. But I end up on a pro attitude based on one flush point – ANYTHING that keeps the issue in front of public consciousness is a good thing.
    Craig is obviously very realistic about the likelihood of any major wins by candidates running on this platform, like he says winning seats really isn’t the point. But, if a charismatic person ends up running there could be surprises on that aspect as well.
    I think everyone who is a regular here knows my attitude towards ‘government’ in general. But I don’t think this is what this campaign is about, that is, ‘becoming part of government’.
    “Government” is just another ‘fictitious entity’ that is used in people’s imaginary landscapes to try to have effect on issues important in their lives and outlooks on ‘reality’.
    2015 seems like yet another lifetime away to me…and yet it seems like someone flicked a switch and ‘time’ has gone on FFWD >>
    Especially since the turn of the century. So before we know it, Craig could be the new Prime Minister of Canada bringing real and significant change to this mad world.
    Good luck in all your ventures Mr McKee.

  4. Craig,
    I am all for this effort and I will tell you this if you build it they will come. What I mean to say is that there are a lot of talented people involved in the 9/11 truth movement and the people are ready for a spark to ignite them! Brazen truth told to their faces might just start a fire the powers that be can’t put out. If 9/11 truth candidates were to wage a different type of campaign it might just catch on. What if your whole campaign was WAC style confrontations with corrupt politicians who lie about 9/11? At the end of each video confrontation you could look at the camera and say “Are you as tired as I am of these crooks and liars running things? If you are vote for me Craig McKee this November!”. If you really nailed them to the wall in the confrontation trust me votes would flood in as the view counter went up. You can do it! Not only can you do it but you can win! Think big and let the alternative media (which is bigger and more powerful than the MSM anyway) take your message to the people. Be bold and kick their asses! For a little inspiration enjoy this watershed moment in American history!

    1. Mr. Ruff: You do realize that activists should be fighting the created (NWO) and its implementation and what created it – state machine and the 9/11 event. I think people have a tendency to forget that the purpose of 9/11 was to open the flood gates to the NWO, entrench power into fewer and fewer hands and make a whole lot of money in the process.

      1. Owen I agree that 9/11 was staged by the NWO or whatever you want to call the group of sick bastards who want to own and run the world. It was their most outrageous and terrible false flag ever and most if not all of their rotten plans for world domination today are based on the foundational lie that is 9/11. But even before 9/11 this NWO was doing their evil deeds all over the world. They are doing it from the right and from the left, for example the man made global warming hoax is part of their plan. Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombings are all part of the same thing, the NWO trying to seize total control. Once you realize the whole panorama of what they are really up to you realize what it will really take to stop them. It may seem a monumental task but it isn’t. Once you see behind the curtain you see how flimsy and tenuous their control really is. 9/11 truth can and will break them. Simple non compliance will break them, a good old fashioned tax revolt will break them. They are actually so vulnerable to defeat that we will have to go out of our way and actually try to lose in order to lose this fight. They (the NWO) are creating their own destruction in fact. Their media is in free fall collapse, their credibility as leaders is in free fall collapse, the people they hurt and oppress are waking up in mass. The fact is the NWO is getting their asses royally kicked. This upcoming Bilderberg meeting will be very depressing for the attendees believe me. The footsteps of doom are close and they know it, the dragon is waking up, and the reason it is waking up is because they in their hubris poked it one too many times.

    2. Thanks for those words of inspiration, ruffadam. You’re even more optimistic than I am! The seat I would contest is just to the west of downtown Montreal, and it encompasses Westmount, which is one of the most affluent areas in Canada (it reeks of old money). I actually live in an adjacent area called Notre Dame de Grace, which is mostly middle and lower class. The Westmount crowd would be a tough sell while the NDG side – who knows? But actually winning would be (it seems to me) virtually impossible. But one can try. I’d be happy to bring some attention to the issue. Much has to happen before we even have a party. So we’ll see. I’ll keep everyone posted.

      1. Dear Mr. McKee,
        Well, you certainly have your work cut out for you. “Wishing you lots of success”, however, could be a double-edge sword if you really won, which doesn’t appear to be on your list of expectations. So instead, I’ll wish you lots of fun in the campaign. Man, I am envious, because isn’t your campaign season only a few months, as opposed to 4 years in the USA?
        May the agenda of the campaign succeed!

        1. Yes, our campaigns are just a few weeks long. Although we now have set election dates, so it could stretch out. Before, the government in power could call an election anytime it wanted. Now, majority governments have a set four-year term. Our recent Quebec election was called by the party in power (the Parti Quebecois), which only had a minority of the seats. They thought the conditions were ripe for a majority win so they called the election. Result? They’re out and the Liberals have a strong majority for four years. A calculated risk that backfired big time.

      2. So Craig,
        Have your thoughts on the issue of running for office developed to the point of deciding which post in government you would be campaigning for?
        How much involvement will AE911 have as this effort moves forward?

        1. Well, HR, I’m thinking Foreign Affairs Minister? Finance Minister probably requires better organizational skills that I currently possess.
          But seriously, anyone who runs is running first to be a simple Member of Parliament. Even the party leaders have to win their own seats to get into the House of Commons. Given that I would be running for a party that has zero chance of forming a government, then MP is it. My real goal would not be to win (I seriously think that would be an enormous long shot), but to let people know that this issue isn’t going away and neither are those of us who believe in its importance to the future of our world.
          As for AE, I don’t know how that will evolve. They have offered help with printed materials and web pages for candidates. They deserve credit for taking the initiative to get this going.

          1. Yes, I see. You would first be seated in Parliament. I am only somewhat familiar with that system, and in comparison to the US system.
            It is not so different in proximate trajectory from the House in most practical instances in US. Of course there is the occasional ‘celebrity’ that skyrockets to some high office here, and I can imagine in Canada as well.
            I know that the idea is at the core PR for 9/11 Truth. And I would say the odds are probably astronomical that the party would be successful in the arena of actual possession of the levers of government. That isn’t decided by popular vote in either nation. I suppose all of this know that North Amerika is a tyrannical police state driven by a small global oligarchy.
            I asked because most of us cannot help but dream impossible dreams, whether we take such fantasy serious or not.
            My personal fantasy would be to abolish ‘government’ – that being any organization with the monopoly on the use of force. It only seems impractical through a lack of imagination. I should think it obvious that there is nothing more evil and dangerous as government as we have conceived it.

  5. owenmeister,
    I suggest that you spend some time reading past threads of Truth and Shadows. Acquaint yourself with the place, and you won’t need to make comments that are obvious to all here.
    If you do this you will find that the regular members of this blog are pretty well up on the architecture of modern political power and the NWO agenda.
    Personally I have been studying this for some thirty something years.
    There have been many long discussions of this topic on Truth and Shadows.
    Perhaps you might find this thread interesting:

    1. Sorry, but I don’t need your advice. You want to know why? Anyone who would call another a terrorist after the second entry of a post and then a low-life pap smear later will not get rewarded with the courtesy of an okay. In the future, when you want to give advice to someone else, do it for yourself first. You are not the spokesperson for this blog and your shtick is getting old. You like to use words like “We” in your posts while telling others to grow a pair. I made my entry to Mr. Ruff and not you, unless of course, you’re Mr. Ruff too. I won’t be making further comments to you, thank god. You’re a migraine creator but for all the wrong reasons.

      1. There was the hope expressed that the disputes of the last thread would not carry over into this thread Owen.
        The fact is, that there is a “we” here, a ‘community’ of regular commentators to Truth and Shadows. I have never claimed to be the “spokesperson” for this blog. We are all equal in our right to free speech. We are all equal in our liability to challenge and standing to reason in debate.
        Another fact is that ‘we’ are all free to speak to and comment on any other comment here.
        If you will not be making other comments to me is no guarantee that I will not be making further comments to you. You entered this forum with a chip on your shoulder. Whether you wish to take my advice or not, the suggestion that you drop your attitude is good advice.
        If you feel that you already know everything there is to know, then you probably know very little but for the surging of your pride and ego.
        The bottom line is, you cannot partake in a forum and insulate yourself from the other members. It isn’t practical and simply doesn’t work.

      2. Owenmeister, you were unhappy that hybridrogue1’s “pap smear” insult was repeated here after it had first appeared on his blog. But you keep mentioning it. I can only assume you are not so much wounded by this insult as you are finding it useful to strike back at him.

        1. There is a substantial font of knowledge to be shared on Truth and Shadows considering the varied experiences and research of the members here.
          I should think that anyone who wishes to learn would take advantage of such a strong base of knowledge.
          I have been at my studies for a great many years, and yet I learn new things every day from various sources, this blog being a fine example.
          Despite the fact that several of us have butted heads in the past; through dialog we came to understand each other and come to grips with our various deficits in certain areas. The whole issue revolves around debating in good faith, in standing to reason, and trying to actually grasp what another is saying, whether opponents or not.
          Not all issues have been resolved here to be sure. There is a great deal of antagonism between a few of the regular members. Some things can never be resolved. We have to face that. But with effort most can be.
          There will always be the problem of trolls, and shills who pop up from time to time. There will always be problems of figuring out just who is and isn’t sincere. And there will always be the problem of unfortunate first encounters that put someone off.
          It is a fact, not simply this speakers opinion, that Truth and Shadows is almost unique in having a host that is just and fair – almost to the point of too much lenience. This is the reason that some of us who initially had misunderstanding were able to work things out, despite some very hot initial flame wars.
          Nevertheless, there will be those who refuse to stand to reason, who are unaware of their own hubris and stubborn pride, that will never come to grips with what is offered here. There is no way to sum up here for such as these, other than to say that they should perhaps reassess the mote in their own eye before attending to the eyes of others.

  6. Comment intended for deletion – just want to see if Craig has turned on moderation (he’s probably asleep on the east coast now) or if my recently submitted comment went into moderation because I mentioned the founder of the pilots organization. If this posts immediately that’s why.

    1. Off topic, but since this is arguably the most active and hottest 9/11 truth blog: reactions on the news of Michael C. Ruppert’s suicide? FTR, in this instance I don’t suspect a conspiracy. Here is what I posted to the FB Truth Movement wall:

      Folks: Before rushing to the conclusion (with no supporting evidence) that Michael Ruppert was murdered, please consider that he moved out into the wilderness some months back to get away from what he perceived to be the unbearably hopeless human condition. He knew too much about the shit that goes on the in the world, what is in store for humanity, and it drove him to mental torment. He moved out into the wilderness some months back and said he went there to either die or kill himself; I’ve got the video conveniently set at the 5:03 mark where he says this. Why has Richard Gage not been “suicided,” or David Chandler, or CIT’s Craig Ranke [especially]? Paul Craig Roberts, father of “Reaganomics,” hasn’t been suicided. Ruppert hadn’t even been visible on the movement scene for some years now. Sometimes a spade is a spade.

      My apologies Craig if you don’t want to go off topic and have this discussed here. You have my blessing to delete.

      1. Michael Ruppert – RIP
        Thank you Mr Syed for bringing the sad news, I had not heard.
        Suicide is a complete mystery to me. I do not understand it. All of us who know this reality to the core know the emotional pain that Mr Ruppert knew.
        A line from a Pink Floyd album comes to mind…
        “Don’t you worry, nobody lives forever,” and to me this is a reminder that regardless of how tormented we may be over the fate of the Earth, we must let nature take it’s course.
        Even if at dark moments it seems and feels like Nature is hijacked and is not on course…is out of balance [Koyaanisqatsi], there is a larger perspective; that being that mankind only has the power that is given by the Creator. In this larger perspective nothing can possibly be out of place spiritually in the Universe [1≡∞] — EXCEPT our perception of it.
        A single moment of joy missed because of the impulse to suicide is the error. Regardless of the darkness of a moment, there will be other moments, and many of those will be moments of joy, regardless of the pain.
        These are only my personal views, I cannot judge Michael Ruppert, for I know not the whole story.

      2. No, I’m glad you brought this subject up. I’m actually much more flexible about the topic than you might think based on the last thread. I just don’t like it when old arguments derail a thread. I would be very glad to hear what others think about what happened with Ruppert. I did not realize he was in difficulty; it’s very sad to hear about his death. And I agree with you, Adam, that it does not appear that his death was other than a suicide.

        1. I would posit that Mr Ruppert had some mortal problem with his health. As I understand it, he made prior arrangements with those close to him for the eventuality of him taking his own life, rather than suffer out whatever ailments were already bringing him to a certain death.
          From what is known, I would rule out foul play in this instance as well.

  7. You know the dynamics of this blog and within the truth movement never cease to astound me. I know so little about what makes people tick, about what sets them off, or about how they perceive me. I thought I knew painter for example and I thought we were friends and mostly on the same page yet oh how wrong I was. My views on Sandy Hook and Boston set painter off and now we don’t talk at all, such a loss. I thought I knew so many people so well and as it turns out I don’t know them at all really. I thought I knew Michael Ruppert at least a little bit of what he was all about but again I was wrong, so totally and completely wrong. I had no idea he was hurtling down this road of pessimism and depression.
    Michael Ruppert it seems to me fell victim to fatal pessimism and the belief that humanity can’t or won’t change. The truth is humanity can change and sometimes it happens suddenly and dramatically. Michael Ruppert is an example of why I wrote not long ago about the morale of the truth movement and how we need victories even small ones. I can’t help but feel that a small victory would have gone a long way to help Michael Ruppert. I know it helped me a great deal to see the Bundy’s victory. I know it would help us all to see Craig achieve a victory with the new 9/11 truth party or the proper dressing down of Coren etc. It is important we get a victory my friends we all need it. I don’t want to see anyone else go the way of Michael Ruppert. Let us band together like all those different people did to help the Bundy’s, let us put aside our little differences and focus instead on how we are the same and how we can make a difference. In that effort I choose to offer encouragement and help to Craig in his efforts. Perhaps if we all decide to do something small individually to help Craig it will result in something big we can all celebrate together. Sign me up Craig I stand ready to help. I can make phone calls, write letters, make videos, pester, annoy, and generally irritate the shit out of all the right people. Give me a small action plan and I will run with it, expand it, and recruit others to take part. I think the truth movement and humanity in general is ready for some God damned victories so lets do it!

    1. Ruffadam, you’re awesome. I love your fighting spirit and your idealism. And it was your mention of “small victories” a couple of weeks ago that really got me thinking about how important it is not only to make concrete gains in the fight but also to feel like you’re making gains. Without that hope it is hard to keep pushing. The complaint against Coren is an attempt at one of those small victories. But I think that just going after him IS a victory because it means standing up against ignorance and hate. That’s worth doing whether you achieve something concrete or not.
      As for the idea of running in the election, there is a lot that has to be done before that happens. Some of those involved in the effort think it is best that people feel free to run as independents, for an existing party, or for a new 9/11 party. I don’t. I think spreading ourselves thin will defeat the purpose. We all need to find a way to come together in a party that will maximize our impact and visibility. Obviously, making this work will be a challenge. We’ll see how that goes in the weeks ahead.
      Thanks so much for your offer of help. I appreciate it on so many levels. We’ll keep in touch on this subject.

  8. The pro-Israel Canadian government is modifying the country’s criminal code to ban any criticism of the Zionist regime for atrocities against Palestinians, an analyst says. Cyber-Bullying Law (Bill C-13)
    “The Zionist ruling clique of Canada, through their front-man Stephen Harper, is seeking to beef up the already-existing Orwellian ‘hate propaganda’ law, which has been primarily used to curtail criticism of Zionists and Israel,” wrote Martinez.
    He said Canada’s criminal code is to ban criticism or promotion of “hatred” against people distinguished by “national origin.”
    “This means, say, if you condemn Israelis for their inhumane treatment of Palestinians, you could find yourself in court facing down the self-appointed thought police and commissars of political correctness,” wrote Martinez.
    He singled out the case of German-Canadian publisher, Ernst Zundel, who has been facing court and jail due to his criticism of Zionists who are “the self-appointed architects of public discourse, the self-declared arbiters of truth and morality.”

    1. The issue of the Bundy Standoff is one of those that falls into the category of the false concept: ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’.
      I think we would do well not to fall into such a cognitive trap as this. It is part of the Hegelian Dialectic to see things in pure black and white, and refuse to nuance our thinking with a broader perspective.
      . . . . . . . . . .
      Left Wing Dialectical posture:
      “Do laws no longer apply when the radical right no longer agrees?” said Ryan Lenz, a writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors militia group activity.”
      This is of course rhetoric in blithertone. The honest question is; Do laws no longer apply when the government itself is unconstitutionally ultra vires? When there is no longer even a pretense to adhering to constitutional restraints on authority, what is left of “the law”?
      . . . . . . . . . . .
      Right Wing Dialectical posture:
      “Few people had heard of Bundy and his ranch until a few days before the stand-off. Right-wing websites and advocacy groups such as Americans for Prosperity, founded by one of the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, cast his tale in a folksy David and Goliath light and helped spread it online.”
      The fact that a Koch brother is involved in the PR of this incident is strong support for the contention that this whole issue is being manipulated, and is part of the agenda being driven to a totalitarian police state. This can be seen as akin to the ‘color revolution’ template used throughout the rest of the world.

    1. I have been following this closely and I have to say David Knight is doing an excellent job of reporting on this. The way I frame the Bundy case is simple: the Federal government is grabbing up land everywhere like a greedy child reaching into the candy bag on Halloween. They simply steal the land under color of law. If they want the land your on they simply reclassify it under some BS pretense so you are forced off. This is what happened with 52 of the 53 ranchers in Bundy’s area. Bundy is literally the last man standing. Anyone who sides with the feds on this 1. doesn’t grasp what is really happening. 2. Is unwittingly helping the same monster which is squeezing the life out of them and all their fellow Americans. The federal government owns nearly 90% of Nevada. In my book Nevada isn’t a state at all. CA is 45% federal. Christ how far are we going to let them go? They are taxing us all into the ground hundreds of different ways. Reminds me of this quote:
      “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson

      1. To be clear Mr Ruff. I have never ‘stood with the feds’ on this issue, I have merely pointed out that the kneejerk reaction of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a fraudulent concept.
        Like Mr Bundy, I do not recognize the federal government as legitimate. My concern originally was one for the environment. But I think that was due to spin now, and don’t see the cattle grazing as having the impact the PR from the left is espousing.
        I still think it important to recognize the “color revolution” template being hoisted here, with the Koch brother input pushing the Bundy story forward. It is being aware of being played by the Hegelian dialectic that I am mainly concerned with.
        Remember, the real enemy [the banking cabal] promotes and funds each side in all battles.

      2. For more clarity on my position here, I do not conflate Mr Bundy as being in anyway associated with the Koch brothers or any of their enterprises. What I am saying is that Koch is attempting to ‘steal the thunder’ of this event and frame it to the advantage of the false right paradigm.
        It is such framing that tends to the ever driven agenda to synthesize the all powerful god-like state.

        1. Oh I agree that forces on both “sides” are trying to make this another divisive left vs. right scenario. That is clearly their playbook but my point is that their playbook doesn’t work anymore. At least it doesn’t work on me and a whole lot of people who are aware of it. If Koch is involved I am inclined to ignore it because I simply do not care what the Koch agenda is, it has no impact on my decisions. I think the Bundy issue is important because it shows two things. 1. Many American people have had enough of the power grabbing oppressive government trampling all over the Constitution and trying to intimidate us into submission. 2. The government can be beaten if enough of us stick together.
          This is the small victory I was talking about before and it will do wonders for a lot of peoples morale. It did wonders for mine. The meme from the left is that Bundy is a dead beat tax dodger, the meme from the right is that he is a dangerous domestic terrorist. Both sides are complete propaganda and they are trying to play one “side” against the other.
          For the left I ask why are you defending the governments massive taxation without representation and greedy land grabbing schemes? Don’t you and all of us already pay way too much in taxes which go to the mega banks and towards war? We spend billions upon billions for wars of aggression all over the world while millions of Americans are homeless. Trillions have been given to mega banks! Just given to them! Our unborn grandchildren are already under crushing debt. Are you even aware of how much tax we really pay and who actually gets it? Probably not. By the way can you show one single instance where Bundy’s cattle have harmed the turtles? Did you know the BLM ran to death or shot dozens of Bundy’s cattle and tried to bury them in mass graves smashing turtle dens in the process? Did you know the BLM killed over 1500 turtles on purpose? Yup you really don’t know what you are supporting do you?
          For the right I ask why are you defending the government massive intimidation campaign used to force us all into cowardly submission to their authority when they are supposed to serve us? Does the government serve us or is the truth that we serve them and are actually slaves to them? Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the right to own 89% of Nevada and force Americans off their land so that Chinese energy companies and Harry Reid can enjoy huge profits? Why are you not bothered by the government deploying snipers to collect a fricken bill that is still under dispute for Gods sake? Bundy and the BLM have not settled in the courts how much he actually owes in grazing fees and “damages” did you know that? Probably not.
          Americans had really better wake the hell up and figure out what is really happening or their land is likely to be next up for seizure! Hey isn’t there an endangered lizard that lives on your property Joe six pack? Yup I think there is, so the government is going to have to “reclassify” your land as an endangered species sanctuary and you are going to have to leave. What is that you say Joe? You are not bothering the lizards, well tough shit buddy get the hell out or we are going to blow your head off with our snipers which are deployed all around your home.
          Have you paid your Obamacare taxes? If you have not do not expect a tax refund because they are going to just take it! Tax tax tax tax, take take take take, that is all you are going to get from this government until you rise up and join with your fellow Americans and stop it. Quit being played off against each other like fools, open your eyes and MAYBE your kids will grow up in a better world. Keep them shut and I promise they will live in misery as slaves to a government which takes EVERYTHING!

          1. “Paper is poverty, it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”~Thomas Jefferson, 1788
            The truth may frighten you, but it is the truth nevertheless. And the truth is, there is no legitimate government in the US.

          2. You’ll never put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
            By Humpty Dumpty, I mean, ‘government’. It is a daydream, a fantasy that has never existed but in the shared imagination.

  9. The passing of John Judge is another substantial loss to the truth movement. Yes, I know he continued to promote the “plane hit the Pentagon” theory but that pales next to the great job he did in arranging the Cynthia McKinney 9/11 hearing. Michael Ruppert also participated in that event. Another interesting fact is that Rep. Raul Grijalva of Tucson was co-chair of the hearing with Cynthia McKinney. The only other member of Congress to stand with her.

    1. I followed John Judge from way back in the day of the Pacifica network, specifically KPFK, he and May Brussels were some of the first to delve deeply into the JFK assassination. A formal introduction to that topic is not complete without considering their ground breaking analysis.
      I read of his passing just recently as well. Another great loss for us all.
      John Judge RIP
      Thank you 911truthsea.

    2. John Judge and Mike Ruppert both promoted the “plane hit the Pentagon” scenario, and Ruppert was also opposed to controlled demolition. I’m not sure if he actually thought that the official story of the ‘collapses’ was true, or just merely felt that promoting CD front and center was a strategic mistake. I know he definitely thought the latter, saying how the physical evidence arguments would never achieve justice in our lifetimes.

      1. “I know he definitely thought the latter, saying how the physical evidence arguments would never achieve justice in our lifetimes.”~Mr Syed
        How weird. Ruppert was a cop after all. Forensics is a top of the line method in police work.
        I don’t much care about any of these AD arguments about J Judge or M Ruppert. I didn’t pay much attention to either one during my research anyway. I was aware of and appreciated their input on other issues before 9/11. I simply wasn’t aware of J J’s 9/11 work. And Ruppert seemed more into his Peak Oil bag, which I had no interest in mixing into the main issue.
        I was too intent on following what I saw as the most well lit paths, I ignored all the infighting shit for a long time.
        I have no idea what will “achieve justice in our lifetimes.”

  10. I agree that it looks as though Ruppert committed suicide. I have my doubts about his “bona fides” as a truther, however. Example: his whole “peak oil” shtick. I think that Dave McGowan exposed him mercilessly on that subject. And speaking of doubting someone’s bona fides, I’m not so sure about John Judge either. Judge apparently was a firm believer in the “plane hit the Pentagon” story and concocted an absurd, elaborate story about a stewardess friend who supposedly gained access to the site and witnessed aircraft parts, etc. etc. Dave McGowan (whose old newsletters I’ve been going through recently) makes a pretty convincing case that Judge was lying through his teeth.

  11. A recent scientific study by Princeton and Northwestern universities, which has gone somewhat under reported in the mainstream media, concludes that the US is now a fully fledged oligarchy.
    The paper, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens, notes that America is no longer even a Democracy, which begs the question, how far removed is the country from being the Republic envisioned and painstakingly established by Benjamin Franklin and the founding fathers.
    “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” the study notes.
    The study points toward the conclusion that the US is nothing more than an illusion of democracy.
    The authors of the study, Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page concur that the will or opinion of the majority in the US has no effect on the way government is run.
    “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    “The paper, entitled..” Watson
    Papers are not entitled to anything. Papers, books, manuscripts, movies, etc. are ‘titled’, not “entitled”.
    Furthermore, when a leading establishment university allows such “revelations” to be published under their auspices, it is a sure sign that something is being veiled by such.
    What that is which is being veiled in this instance is what I have been discussing on this blog for a long time: REALPOLITIK, or ‘Practical’ and ‘Expedient’ politics. And how this has been how Amerika has been run from the very beginning of the ‘Constitutional Republic’. It may have taken close to 2 and a quarter hundred years for sufficient fruition of a corporatist oligarchy to be firmly enough in place to admit to it – but it is only out of the closet now, it is nothing new.
    The new paper ‘Testing Theories of American Politics’ can in fact be fairly characterized as a ‘revetment’ {a retaining wall}; a ‘modified limited hangout’. It states the obvious while hiding the deeper truths.

    Ultra Vires is a Latin term which means “beyond the powers,” and when used in law, it refers to an activity which exceeds the powers granted to authority; beyond the scope or in excess of legal power or authority.
    In the context of the US Constitution there are two undeniable examples that the so-called ‘Federal Government’ is ultra vires, that is acting beyond the powers granted by that Constitution. These examples are “Executive War Powers” and the claims of “Executive Privilege”. Both issues are plainly unconstitutional, and built on the rhetoric of ‘practical’ or ‘expeditious’ politics, in other words; REALPOLITIK, that is rule by caveat, not law.
    And: PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWER by Louis Fisher

  13. Leaving this comment at the bottom so it’ll be more easily seen, but basically in response to 911truthsea’s and David Bauer’s comments.
    This isn’t to speak ill of the dead, but certainly this is needed to be posted, because it’s a critical moment in the history of the movement with Ruppert. He was staunchly opposed to talking about, or promoting, controlled demolition. I don’t know if he just merely thought it was bad strategy to promote it front and center, or if he actually believed the official version of the ‘collapses’ was true. Here he was in 2009:

    BUSINESSMAN — You’ve been so valuable but what you’re doing now is a major distraction that cannot contibute to what’s most important for all of us.
    The building demolition crap will not be injected into my list — ever. From a legal standpoint nothing of what your posts are about is legally admissible evidence and proves nothing. Even if thermite were used, this so-called evidence (which wouldn’t be considered by any court) does nothing to prove who put it there does it?
    This is a distraction I won’t permit. Your intelligence and loyatly and friendship are valued here. But the timing of this is highly suspect to me. If Jenna doesn’t stop posting this thread I will.
    I learned a long time ago that if COINTELPRO isn’t nipped in the bud early it gets real “expensive” later on.
    Go back and read FTW and what I wrote about physical evidence for the last eight years. Did you read Rubicon?
    That’s the last 9/11 physical evidence post I’ll allow here. There are many other places more suitable for that. This is a blog that does things.
    The reaction from LeftWright was pretty representative:

    I’ve just informed Mr. Ruppert and Ms. Orkin
    that unless they reconsider their position and, at least, take a neutral position; I will no longer recommend Crossing The Rubicon to anyone.
    Not that they care, but their statements are absurd and intellectually dishonest.
    While Mr. Ruppert’s “chain of custody” concerns do have some validity (Let’s hope the EPA and USGS have not dumped their samples), in light of the developing evidence and growing credible links to individuals, companies and government organizations, his legally based argument is no longer tenable, imo.
    Taking a neutral position on this issue would be the honest and honorable thing to do.
    Mr. Ruppert had claimed to have “retired” from the fight for 9/11 truth, too bad he didn’t keep his word on that.
    I don’t think he works for the other side, this is just his particular ego dysfunction exhibiting itself again.
    Too bad, he was once a great asset to 9/11 truth and to the country he claims to love.
    His story is far from over, imo.
    The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

    And from Kevin Ryan:

    and strangely suspect.
    How disappointing.

    Isn’t that ironic. While I never openly insinuated that Kevin Ryan was an “agent” in my critique of his book, I certainly remarked that it was quite notable that Ryan did a shoddy job on the hijackers, the Pentagon and Israel. Well, how interesting that in 2009, when Ruppert said what he said, that Ryan openly said that Ruppert’s position was “strangely suspect.”
    So yes, there was quite a schism between Ruppert and those who believe in promoting AE911Truth front and center.
    Oh, and this (copied and pasted from Reprehensor’s comment at 911blogger).
    “I was first recruited when I was a senior at UCLA. The Agency flew me to Washington and said: “Mike, we want you to become a CIA case officer. You’ve already interned for LAPD for three years, you interned for the chief, your family was CIA, your mother was NSA. We want you to go back to the LAPD, and being an LAPD cop will just be your cover.” – Mike Ruppert, 2001.

      1. Mr Syed,
        I did make some commentary further up in the thread concerning both Ruppert and John Judge. SEE: APRIL 23, 2014 AT 8:31 AM.
        As I insinuate above, I don’t think these AD [after-death] discussions are too profitable. It is just my opinion however. And as I am the only one to remark on the subject, perhaps it would be well for someone else to speak to it, as Mr Syed is interested in the forum’s response and not mine alone.

  14. As a member of the Canadian Parliament, Mr McKee would certainly be in the thick of the battle for Internet Freedom as it is stacking up, described here in this article:
    The Trans Pacific Partnership IP Chapter Leaks: The Battle Over Internet Service Provider Liability
    Thursday November 14, 2013
    The leak of the Trans Pacific Partnership intellectual property chapter generated global coverage as full access to the proposed text provided a wake-up call on U.S. demands and the clear opposition from many TPP countries. My first posthighlighted Canada’s opposition to many U.S. proposals, but nowhere is that more evident than in the section on Internet service provider liability. In fact, ISP liability in the TPP is shaping up to be a battle between Canada and the U.S., with countries lining up either in favour of a general notification obligation (Canada) or a notice-and-takedown system with the prospect of terminating subscriber Internet access and content blocking (U.S.).
    The Canadian approach, which enjoys support from Chile, Brunei, New Zealand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, and Mexico, establishes a general obligation to limit liability for ISPs for infringements that occur on their networks (the U.S. and Australia oppose this approach, Japan and Peru are undecided). The Canadian proposal includes more detailed descriptions of the limitations of liability, an exclusion for services primarily for enabling infringement, and a reminder that ISP liability is still subject to copyright limitations and exceptions. Under the Canadian model, ISP limitation of liability is conditioned on creating a notification process and “legal incentives for ISPs to comply with these procedures or remedies against ISPs that fail to comply.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *