Educators, Holocaust group join Sept. 11 museum in 'teaching' children official 9/11 lies

911 museum twin girders

These symbolic twin girders with tridents on top come from one of the World Trade Center towers.

By Craig McKee
The 9/11 official story is rooted in deception, distortion, and misdirection. Now all of its lies have been dressed up and put on display in an expensive federally funded monument for paying customers.
The National September 11 Memorial and Museum, slated to open May 21 (the outdoor memorial has been open since 2011), is more of a walk-in indoctrination center than a tribute to the victims of 9/11. It’s a piece of propaganda made of glass and steel that plays on emotions and on the sincere desire of people to honor those who sacrificed their lives in this false flag event.
The Memorial and Museum’s web site not only reiterates all the same lies, but it even explains a framework that educators will be using to indoctrinate children so they can grow up to be believers in the war on terror and the need for more wars and greater and greater security and surveillance. Even as the mainstream media turn their attention to misrepresenting other events, the museum and accompanying “lesson plans” for school children will continue to do their work.
On the site, we learn that: “The National September 11 Memorial & Museum has partnered with the New York City Department of Education and the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education to develop a robust set of 9/11 lessons for K-12 classrooms.”
The New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education (created by the State of New Jersey) is involved in creating lessons that teach children that Muslims are the bad guys and that they attacked America? Oh wait, I forgot – they are making it clear that it’s not all Muslims, just the “extreme” ones. These lessons are directed at all age groups, and the content will be used within a wide array of subjects and courses.
Through its exhibits, the museum purports to tell the story of what happened on September 11, 2001 – that 19 Muslim extremists led by Osama bin Laden killed nearly 3,000 people by hijacking four airliners and crashing them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. We will even be shown photographs of the 19 alleged hijackers” (although I guarantee they won’t use the word “alleged”), which will be interesting since several of those turned out to be alive after 9/11, and no proof has been presented that establishes that any of the 19 ever boarded any of the planes.
2-covers - brochuresArchitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has produced brochures in the same style as the official ones that teams of volunteers will pass out to visitors to the museum, which it calls “an elaborate, taxpayer-funded, public relations campaign to forever cement the fantastic claims of the official conspiracy theory into the history books.”
I wish I’d written that.
In a fundraising email, AE describes what it wants to do in response to this PR campaign: “This historical revisionism needs to be countered with an all-out effort of the truth of 9/11. By printing thousands of educational flyers and distributing them via teams of AE911Truth volunteers at the memorial grounds entry, we can inform the public as to why the 9/11 Memorial Museum is largely a fraud.”
AE head Richard Gage will also be speaking as part of a multimedia presentation on May 24 at 4 p.m. and the Community Church of New York.
Muslim Americans have been the victims of increased bigotry and hate since they were tagged as the perpetrators of 9/11 more than 12-and-a-half years ago. Now, Muslim- and Arab-American groups fear this will happen all over again as a result of a seven-minute video called “The Rise of al-Qaeda” that will be shown as one of the exhibits.
The film, they charge, perpetuates the myth that Muslims were responsible for 9/11, using terms like “Islamists” and “jihad” in the presentation.  They say it fails to offer any nuance that would help people to understand that blaming Muslims in general for what happened is unjust and inaccurate. Based on the protest in New York in 2010 over the plan to open a Muslim cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero, their concerns appear justified.
“The Rise of al-Qaeda” is even being protested by the Memorial’s own Interfaith Advisory Committee, which reacted with alarm when it was allowed to watch the short film last year. The committee’s only Imam resigned in protest in March. As quoted in the New York Times,  Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the imam of Masjid Manhattan, wrote in a letter to the museum’s director: “Unsophisticated visitors who do not understand the difference between Al Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading to antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.”
The museum responded with some unintentional self-parody when they stated that they are standing by the film because it has been vetted by scholars of Islam and terrorism. What a relief to hear that scholars of the very lies that 9/11 represents are on the job, making sure the film sends the “proper” message.
A coalition of groups, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), wants changes to the video so that it is made clear that the extremist Muslims who it agrees carried out 9/11 are not portrayed as being representative of the more than 1.6 billion Muslims around the world.
In a letter to museum president Joe Daniels and director Alice Greenwald, the coalition raised concerns about the video, which neither they nor the media have not been allowed to see. The letter states:
“We have learned that you have been aware, since at least June 2013, that viewers have found this video confusing and possibly inflammatory. The museum’s own interfaith religious advisory group has repeatedly asked that this video be edited, with their concerns being dismissed.”
According to their testimony, the video:

  • Deploys haphazard and academically controversial terminology, in particular “Islamic” and “Islamist”, to generalize, unnecessarily, about al-Qaeda’s acts of terrorism.
  • Does not properly contextualize al-Qaeda as a small organization in comparison to the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.
  • Uses stereotypical, accented English for speakers of Arabic in translation.
  • May give some viewers, especially those not familiar with the subtleties of the terminology being used, the impression that Islam, as a religion, is responsible for September 11.

I completely support the Muslim- and Arab-American groups in their protest of the stereotyping that it appears 911 memorial at nightthat the film contains. But I’m concerned about the fact that the big lie – that any kind of Muslims pulled off 9/11 – is being accepted by these groups. I think they concede too much when they accept the premise that an extremist Muslim group called al-Qaeda was actually behind the alleged terrorist attacks when the evidence shows that this is just a smokescreen to disguise the real culprits and to hide their real motives.
The truth of the matter is that Muslims were not responsible for 9/11 – period. The evidence simply isn’t there to show otherwise. By putting the focus on the idea that Muslims as a whole are not violent and that al-Qaeda is not representative of what Islam is all about just falls into the trap set by the actual perpetrators.
Of course, that’s easy for me to say: I’m not a Muslim and I have not been victimized in the way that they have since 9/11. For them to argue that the official story is false would be very tricky and would certainly result in more hostility coming their way. And, of course, they may genuinely believe the official story. After all, Muslim Americans are subject to the same disinformation and propaganda that everyone else is.
The real purpose of the museum
A tour around the web site of the Memorial and Museum offers a good summary of the language of the 9/11 official story and its accompanying talking points. On the page “9/11 FAQ,” we get all the key elements of the story fed to us by the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and other official agencies. But they get the year of the London bombings wrong (it was 2005, not 2007), they offer the lie that al-Qaeda took responsibility for several terrorist attacks including 9/11 (the “confession” video features an Osama bin Laden “double” and contains serious inconsistencies), and they offer these details about al-Qaeda:
“Their aim has been to overthrow governments in the Middle East, and elsewhere in the Muslim world, which do not strictly enforce a religiously-sanctioned political and social order. Attacks against the United States were intended to reduce American support for many of these governments; US support was viewed by al-Qaeda as a major obstacle to creating a global order under Islamic authority.”
It turns out that it’s not that they hate us for our freedoms, it’s that they’re planning a New World Muslim Order!
The Memorial and Museum’s announced mission is to honor the victims and to “educate” future generations. It will not succeed in doing either, however. In fact, by perpetuating the 9/11 lie, it does exactly the opposite. The only way to meaningfully honor the victims is by telling the truth about what happened. And no one in officialdom is willing to do that more than a dozen years after the fact.
The memorial’s web site is full of “information” about the artifacts contained within its walls (actual twin WTC girders, an exposed portion of the “slurry wall” that keeps the site from being flooded, an actual staircase that was used to escape one of the towers). But the most disturbing thing the site addresses is the museum’s effort to direct its propaganda at children who have no choice in the matter. I wonder what kind of mark a student will get if they write an essay questioning whether the official story is true?
On the surface, the site has some useful and positive things to suggest: including pointing out how destructive it can be to “compare the suffering of one person to another” or to “assign blame to an entire group.”
Sounds good, but what IS suggested it that parents and educators focus on the heroic efforts of both victims and rescuers on 9/11, because 9/11 is “actually thousands of individual stories.” That’s true: everyone who was in New York, and particularly those who had a connection to the World Trade Center site in some way experienced the event in their own way. Some were true heroes, risking and even giving their lives to help others. Some were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and paid with their lives.
But there is a bigger picture. And they don’t want you to look at that. They want you to stick to the emotion of the event, the stories, the courage, and the loss. Don’t look at whether the official explanation of the event fits with the evidence. Don’t “disrespect the victims” by questioning anything you’ve been told.
By the way, victims’ family members and recovery workers don’t have to pay the $24 adult entrance fee to the museum, while firefighters, the group that has paid a more terrible price than just about any other, gets a discount. That’s right, a discount.


    1. The bright side of it though is once people see through it, they see exactly how bad it is. The millennial’s spend far more time on the internet and with alternative media than do their parents. By breaking the force fed mainstream media ties they are more likely to find the truth than their spoon fed parents. They are also the ones paying the cost with their lives and financial future and have more motivation to find the truth. Lot’s of time on youtube for all of these unemployed young people.

  1. Our task is to dismantle the whole gargantuan superstructure of control of conventional opinion and management of our lives, of which, unfortunately, 9/11 is just one, albeit the most conspicuous and significant part to date, by creating and spreading revulsion of our government and establishment’s engaging in that aspect. Once people understand the enormous framework of heinous acts, lies, and coverups and the mind-control techniques used to condition the public to support or not interfere in such over the past decades and continuing daily, and are informed of all the well-documented instances, of which they are generally unaware, their support for that type of regime can be replaced with justified suspicion and demand for dismantling and ceasation of the secret manipulative operations and false reports. The 9/11 lies are often accepted because they are presented in the context of a toxic myth, which can, with determination and applied brainpower, be eradicated.

  2. Good report on this disgusting ongoing situation.
    What else could we have expected from this criminal system? It is all one package from one central source.
    It is most interesting that it is tied in by PR to the ‘Holocaust’ “never forget” PR… how this figures into it is not hard to figure out.
    This is a challenge that Liberty has faced for thousands of years, and appears to be a perennial state, given our nature as human beings. In these cycles of history we find that empires are not immortal, as the corporatists have built their mode of operations upon: “the immortal fictitious entity”.
    I would posit, from my reading of history that we are witnessing a period of exponential change that “science” and “technology” have lost control of. And ‘predictive software” and calculators are only conceived within the limited scope of the objectives those in power can plan with. But the machine, as an entity has different goals that the humans who have lost control of the machine.
    What this means is, we are not being led to a global empire controlled by men. We are already within a present global empire run by the machine. What is demanded to keep the machine working smoothly is what man does, as man is dependent upon the machine. At the point when the demands of efficiency reach the point that the machine needs very little human input, the machine will decide the fate of the larger portion of mankind attuned to its own need.
    As always, the only way to defeat an enemy is to know it. We know that PR enchants the masses. What we must now grasp is that the so called leaders who believe they are in control are under an even stronger delusion. This is due to their psychological make up, one aspect being ‘hubris’, a vanity built on the success of manufacturing impunity through their political power. Their delusion clings to this vanity as ‘being’ itself.
    This means that only from the less enchanted escapees of the PR programming, can an opposing strategy can arise.
    We are one of the vanguards of those who have escaped conditioning. My input here is intended to point out what the core situation is from my perspective. I accept emotionally that this can be felt as a depressing situation. But the first stage of rectifying a situation is facing it squarely and recognizing what it is at the heart of the matter.

    1. “It is most interesting that it is tied in by PR to the ‘Holocaust’ “never forget” PR… how this figures into it is not hard to figure out.”
      Here’s another similarity: “Never question.”

  3. I agree with SEO’s pessimism. We are up against the most major propaganda juggernaut perhaps ever. However, I love how AE911Truth is using lemons to make lemonade — those Unofficial Brochures are fantastic! The vicinity of the museum should now be a prime place for activists to stand and offer those brochures to counter the propaganda. Remember in 2006 when there would be lots of activists every weekend at Ground Zero? There should be a constant, steady presence of activists around the museum.
    I’m not so sure I any longer agree with Gandhi’s quote about how they first ignore you, then ridicule you, then fight you, then you win. With 9/11, the media ridiculed us in 2006 and said “Name JUST ONE structural engineer who agrees with your crackpot claims!” In 2014, they ignore. So, after ignoring us, then ridiculing us, then fighting us, they went back to ignoring us and that now seems to be their strategy indefinitely.

    1. Adam, as far as being ignored…
      An old adage about horsemanship. “You must be more compelling than your environment to the horse you ride.”
      This is why spurs and a hard bit were invented.
      I think more defiance will appear when desperation sets in. Whether this gets a good direction is the key question. There has been a concurrent rise of neo-Nazi ideas along with this; and a good part of this has been riding on the 9/11 Truth movement coattails. And this becomes quite complex given the known Israeli aspect of the events.
      I think that is why we must keep uppermost in our minds as to this, is that “The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend” meme is unsound strategically, regardless of how “practical” it might seem tactically. As ends are defined by means, such tactical conceptions loose their ultimate practicability.
      Yes the challenge is steep.

      1. Willy, congratulations! I heartily agree that we must take care to sort out the defiers and NOT be legitimately seen as allying with the Nazi element. And, yes, it will be a hard job to get it across. But, any knot that’s tied can be untied, right?

  4. It’s all hugely disgusting yet very predictable.
    I expect to see news stories before long of a teacher being fired because he/she taught “anti-Semitic” conspiracy theories to their class. So we may be moving into phase II of the truth movement: many people know the truth but won’t admit it publicly. Economic depression does not breed heroes — people have too much to lose. Historians, scientists, journalists, teachers, politicians — all must bite their tongue or risk career suicide.
    Remember the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes? Everyone knew the emperor was naked, but no one was willing to admit it, so everything went on as if he was fully clothed in the finest garb.

    1. We need badly to revive and take seriously — especially people in vulnerable positions — that old Revolutionary oath, “We pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” Those may have been “the times that try men’s souls,” but we are living, by contrast, in the Age of Cowardice and Fear — “like, what if I don’t get my paycheck on time?”

  5. Nice article, thank you. It raises important and exciting questions beyond its scope. Why do Muslim groups support the mythical attribution of 9/11 to Osama bin Laden’s fanatical hijackers? Are principal Muslim leaders (from the ADC all the way to the Iranian ayatollahs) too imbecilic to draw any intelligent conclusion from Building 7’s video record? Or could it be that they have been convinced that they should live the myth and throw at their gullible supporters the self-defeating mantra that “[…] but real Muslims like me do not terrorize?”
    Similar questions deal with scholars who have written the 9/11 into contemporaneous history books, leaders of the unions of teachers who preach this false and evil information to unsuspecting children, and civil engineering professors who spend a few minutes every year dismissing the analysis of the twin towers’ destruction as worthy of nothing more than a short narrative. Are they really too dumb to understand the damage they inflict on future generations? Do they find the 9/11 myth more appropriate to teach in public schools than the biblical myth? If they understand what they are doing, what convinced them to do it?
    This leads, like many other major 9/11 questions, to the finding that the most formidable, most dangerous, and counterintuitively most successful layer of the 9/11 conspiracy is not the self-evident false flag with its probable stupid mishaps (like the delayed controlled demolition of Building 7) or the transparent cover-up thereof with its own string of stupidities (like the attribution of Building 7’s destruction to an office fire instead of a convoluted hodgepodge of the various webs that supported the myth), but the remarkably effective censorship thereof, the process by which innumerable principal leaders of highly variegated disciplines, all around the world, could effortlessly have formed a loose coalition to warn the public of the glaring discrepancies in the 9/11 myth, yet have been sending them on wild goose chases after the continuing U.S.-led warmongering and other 9/11-engendered calamities.
    If and when 9/11 activists start to ponder the existence and importance of the 9/11 censorship and how it may apply to other false flags and to other undesirable aspects of human life, they may experience the surprise that 9/11 is, after all, a blessing in a disguise so thin that they’ll wonder how they did not find it earlier. But this is another story.

    1. According to Enver Massud (who, among us, should know if anyone), the reason why Muslims by and large and especially American Muslims and others living abroad, won’t speak up in their own behalf isn’t because they don’t understand, but because they’re “scared to death” of the repercussions if they do. I worked with him on shaping a “Muslims didn’t do it!” meme and program about three years ago, but our slogan, though it made some headway, didn’t go viral or get adopted across the 9/11 Truth Movement. But fear, as well as apathy, is a deadly situation.

  6. For those of you on FB, and I know Craig and I have done ours already, you can go to the following page for the memorial museum. In fact you can see the content of the page when you’re not logged in, it’s publicly viewable.
    Now apparently, when people leave 9/11 truth comments on threads, they get deleted and commenting privileges rescinded. But apparently they’re not doing this with “reviews” of the museum. At the page, on the right column, you’ll see a “reviews” section, and that’s where you need to leave your voice. You can give 1-5 stars like on Amazon.

  7. VERY professional. Can I suggest that you have a “Newbie to 9/11 Reality” page that unaware, future converts & supporters can become educated & give links to the Miriad of well researched youtube videos that are available for those people to peruse. Please review the list I paste all over the net & add or delete as you wish.
    Keep up the great work.
    Paste below:
    For More Facts on 9/11, Thermate, Freefall in all Three WTC Towers (1-2 & 7), Eyewitness testimony about “Explosions throughout the 3 WTC Towers…
    from NYC & WTC employees/9/11 heros/survivors/first responders/family members… Here are some resources:-
    First Watch: *Proof: Bin Laden Death A Gov’t Lie*; *September 11-the New Pearl Harbor*; “9/11: Explosives Evidence; 9/11: False- Flag Terrorism; 9/11 Painful Deceptions; 9/11 Suspects- Explosive Connections (Updated); 911-Conspiracy Solved; 911 The Last Man Out; Debunking 911 Debunking; 911 The Myths & the Reality; *Loose Change 1-3*; 9/11 The Birth of Treason; 9/11: Blueprint for Truth; *9 11 Documentaries-9/11/2001-7/7/2005;* 9/11-The Great Illusion; 9-11 WTC biggest Gold Heist in History; *9/11 Key CIA Connections*; Osama Bin Laden a CIA asset; …
    Then go to: Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911) & Pilots for 9/11 Truth,, Journal of,,, Scholars for9/11Truth & Justice, 9/, High Rise,…
    Read the 116 Published Peer Reviewed Papers, the books on 9/11 by David Ray Griffin, Webster Tarpley… and Many More Papers, Articles, Books, FACTS… supporting 9/11 Truth & supporting a NEW 9/11 Investigation.
    For more research check out: Ukraine Crisis-what your not being told; *NSA & the One Trillion Dollar Scam*; WAR PROMISES; *How They Fake Terrorism-Manufactured Fear 1-3;* *Counter Intelligence I-IV*; *Dirty Wars 2013; So this is what Winning Looks Like;**Hard 9/11 Truth-Conspiracy of Money*; *The CIA Controls Al Qaeda*; *Secrets of the CIA;* Iron Mountain-Blueprint to Tyranny; *NATO’s Secret Armies(2009); *Operation Paperclip:-CIA & the NAZI’s*; *CIA Covert Operations & US Interventions*; *CIA Agents Exposes Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist:**The Oil Factor*; *Depleted Uranium-Creeping Genocide*; *Wake Up Call; *War By Other Means;* *All Wars are Bankers Wars*; The Truth about the Lies; *Truth about Halliburton*; *The Business of War: SOFEX*; *Conspiracy Theory No More;* Bilderberg 7/7, 9/11, New World order…;” The Real Reason Flight 370 Disappeared; Smoking Gun Proof-Malaysia Flt370; *Enlightenment of the Truth in the World;* Also Look Up: *John Stockwell-13year CIA section Chief*-CIA Secret Wars, CIA Disinformation, America’s 3rd World War & More*; *John Pilger:- *The War on Democracy; Heroes; Nicaragua; The New Rulers of the World; Breaking the Silence;* *CIA/US Military: Operation Gladio, Op Ajax & Op Northwoods*.
    Post 9/11 Legislation: Patriot Act/Military Commissions act/ NDAA/National Security-Presidential Directive-51;-“Continuity of Government;” The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception-(book).
    Major General S Butler USM, in his book: “War is a Racket,” “the US Military are used as Gangsters & Thugs for US (Corporate) Capitalists;”
    “Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere.” M.L.King.
    “Man Must Put An End To War, Or War Will Put An End To Man.” JFK.

  8. FAQ v FACT
    “The towers had been the target of an attack before 9/11. On February 26, 1993, terrorists with links to an Islamist extremist group detonated explosives in a van parked underneath the WTC. Six people were killed and thousands were injured.”
    The towers had been the target of a intelligence sting before 9/11. On February 26, 1993, when patsies with links to the FBI detonated explosives in a van parked underneath the WTC. Six people were killed and thousands were injured. The FBI provided all of the bomb making materials, as well as organizing the group of dupes using a internally well known informant as the instigator.

  9. Let’s build on a quote from a participant:

    “The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist’s mind, but to lay his techniques and dissembling bare to a candid world.”~Willy Whitten (February 2012)

    The game plan can be summed up as: “Parallelism.”
    You use the structure of their documentation, their museum maps, their museum guides, their museum exhibit (artifacts, images, text), their websites, their lessons plans, etc. to create the one-to-one, parallel, conspiracy alternative documentation suite. With talent and time, one could even mimic the look-and-feel down to the layout, colors, and fonts.
    If I were doing this project, I would quote their text verbatim, include museum images, and follow it immediately with a deconstruction (maybe in different color and/or font) of the dissembling that just took place. I would have one-to-one correlations between exhibit items, their museum map location, and the alternative explanation. It would be great if assistants could methodically tour through the museum taking copious amounts of pictures, the better of which make it to this project and get correlated to map positions and section(s)/page(s) for relevant deconstruction. It would not limit itself to any concensus “best-evidence”; if some evidence has multiple, viable, alternative theories, they will be presented fairly and objectively. [I ain’t working on this without my nookiedoo hobby-horse.] Maybe even our own Mr. Rogue would author one of the appendices on propaganda techniques and how they were at play.
    Could be a single monolithic project (“The Bat-Shit Crazy Conspiracy Alternative Guide to The National September 11 Memorial and Museum”) that then can be spun into smaller derivative projects (brochures, maps, pocket-guides). I’d also go for high-quality, color printing to make it a real keep-sake for tourists to purchase or for free (or at costs) from a street-vendor/protester before entering the museum.
    Wishful thinking would be to ask nicely the museum and/or museum PR firm for the source media files for all of their promotional material and actually receive them, given that the museum is publicly funded and subject to freedom of information and fair-use realm (“for the purposes of critique or commentary” or “satire is protected free-speech” so not copyright infringement.)
    Success will be measured by when the museum gift department makes copies of “The Bat-Shit Crazy Conspiracy Alternative Guide to The National September 11 Memorial and Museum” available for sale and it becomes their best-seller.

  10. THank all of you for keeping the torch of truth lit. It is so critical for it to not go out. I don’t know what it’s going to take to turn the tide–people still think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and killed Kennedy. It is so awful to contemplate the evilness of a government which kills 2300 of its own citizens, a beloved president, a revered civil rights worker, investigative journalists, etc… But we don’t need everyone, we only need a committed few. We exist. Don’t let them divide us.

  11. Perhaps there is a larger overarching problem, that being; locating that “candid world” in this pathological society.

  12. For those losing faith, check out the comments here:
    For example, the top rated comment, with 57 upvotes, reads:
    Utter rubbish
    You were treating every single citizen as a terrorist suspect.
    In reality what your article says is that your true enemy, your own citizens, know what you have been doing to them – and that has offended you.
    Snowden did us all a huge favour, the 99.99999% of the innocent people out there you treat as terrorist suspects.

    1. I sometimes energize myself with the Jesse Ventura – Piers Morgan moment when Piers accused Jesse of making “some sensible points and some crackpot points.” Jesse asked the audience “How many people here think I make crackpot points?” One person started clapping and abruptly shut up. “How many people here think I make sensible points?” Whole audience applauds. This was right after Jesse had been talking 9/11 truth. Maybe that was representative of real public opinion, while many of the idiots we see online are indeed paid shills, perhaps one agent playing things out using 50 sockpuppets. We know that the fake 9/11 truther “Cosmos” was outed as having 20+ accounts at GNN (the defunct Guerilla News Network which had high 9/11 traffic in the early years).

      1. That being said, my 9/11 activism is hanging on a thread. I have all but given up. I never post 9/11 stuff to my FB page anymore, because not only do my non truther friends seem to take any interest, but most of the time I guess the posts don’t even show up on fellow activists’ home feeds. It’s totally shouting in the wind. I can understand why Michael Ruppert was in such despair.

        1. Adam,
          I too can understand why Ruppert was in such despair as well. But the real reason that he fell into that last finalizing moment was that he did not put a check on that despair – let it become his whole world. His words speaking to “not other options” were self defeating and frankly, short sighted. He chose that option as if it were singular. It is never so, the morning after, he might have found just one more seed of joy to maintain him. He himself threw that possibility and opportunity away.
          We are responsible for our own emotions. Blaming the “cruel cruel world” is a cop-out.

          1. “I too can understand why Ruppert was in such despair as well. But the real reason that he fell into that last finalizing moment was that he did not put a check on that despair – let it become his whole world. His words speaking to “not other options” were self defeating and frankly, short sighted. He chose that option as if it were singular. It is never so, the morning after, he might have found just one more seed of joy to maintain him. He himself threw that possibility and opportunity away.
            We are responsible for our own emotions. Blaming the “cruel cruel world” is a cop-out.”
            Well-spoken, er, written! We’ve got to remember that the American people are notoriously fickle, and, with the NSA stuff, all the suspicious lesser false-flags, etc., the perps of 9/11 may find out just how fickle at any given moment! So many things are in flux right now, that anything is likely to slip out, and even the media protesting too much against us inadvertantly spreads our message, or at least strong hints of it, when you think about it. Also, there’s the well-known circumstance of the inner elite, the “security” guys, etc., being anything but monolithic (example: enemies of Petreus, enemies of Ambassador Chris Stephens), and one faction is likely to rat out another faction, and end up spilling the essential 9/11 Truth. We just need to keep the message and knowledge of the incriminating evidence alive and available and we will have done our job. Not to displair, any more than the early Abolitionists did — and they won out. So can we if we hang on! I love the idea of a permanent Truth presence outside the new museum — just reports of such a thing will help greatly to spread the word.

          2. “I love the idea of a permanent Truth presence outside the new museum — just reports of such a thing will help greatly to spread the word.”~Hufferd
            Yes that is an excellent idea, the permanence of it. And the next challenge in that arena will be the court injunctions the “Museum” will seek to put that presence at a ineffective distance. And when this happens it must be screamed about from the rooftops by the truth movement.
            We need to watch and report their every move as closely as their panoptic surveillance system watches us.

        2. Thanks for the article, Craig, a good one. I enjoyed it, and the comments as well. Keep up the great work!
          Adam S, Please don’t leave. You would be sorely missed. Maybe just cut down some more, I have; e.g., I’ve taken a break from writing for AE. I still believe in the HRSI ( and hope the folks here will consider donating. A filmmaker is on board to document the effort, as Adam R had suggested previously. We’ll need money to keep him there, however. I know what you mean about FB. Very few “like” my 9/11 posts but light stuff like a photo of my father in his WWII Navy uniform gets lots of “likes” and rave reviews. However, I did meet a real world friend who is active on FB and she said to me, “You’re the only on I know who posts about 9/11.” So it seems at least that some people there are maybe noticing and/or reading what I post re 9/11, if not “liking” it, and that may have some impact.
          The moon landing was mentioned below. I find the analysis here –> interesting, if nothing else (like a lot of what is written there, tho I did not find the (dated) 9/11 discussion to be of much interest). It would not surprise me if the moon landing was fake, but I have no firm opinion one way or another.

          1. Hi Dennis,
            Nice to hear from you, and glad you are still on top of your HRSI project.
            I’m afraid that anything offered by David McGowan after his loopy Laurel Canyon whacknoodle isn’t going to sway me.
            Laurel Canyon and the extended area of Hollywood to the Valley that it connected was my home turf in the era McGowan speaks to. McGowan is simply pulling his tall tale out of his own tail. And like the “Moon Hoax” trip, I find neither worthy of serious discussion.
            This doesn’t mean that I object to others having such a discussion however.
            I just mentioned this again because I find McGowan such a clown.

          2. willie,
            thanks for the welcome back and feedback.
            different people i respect like mcgowan’s work on a couple of subjects. i read parts of his series deconstructing the lincoln assassination which is relatively new on his site, and enjoyed it. what i don’t like is that he does not footnote his work, so it’s very hard to check things out.
            as for the laurel canyon stuff, i bought the book but have not read it yet. ’60s people i respect (NOT into 9/11 or the moon landing) think he is onto something there. as a fellow distruster of coincidence (which i think you are), don’t you find it extremely odd (as mcgowan points out and can be confirmed on the internet) that the father of the doors’ jim morrison was in command of the USS Liberty fleet during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 (which, as you know, was the false flag attack that launched LBJ’s Viet Nam war)? see e.g., another area of suspicion that adds credibility to mcgowan’s take is the fact that the doors’ entourage did give out free acid at their concerts, as was the buzz in 1967 when they were appearing in santa monica, and i was there amidst that buzz. at grateful dead concerts here in nyc (fillmore east) you had to beware that everything was spiked. now i know that does not establish a cia campaign to stone out the kids and keep them from protesting the viet nam war, which mcgowan proposes was the m.o., but i do find the theory credible and worthy of investigation.
            i don’t want to hijack this thread or get into this mcgowan too much, but suffice it to say that i need to look at these and other matters more deeply, especially since people like you (whose opinion i respect) are on one side of the equation, and other people i respect think the other way. kind of like with the global warming thing, another area of contention that i have not looked into very deeply.

          3. Yes, it’s true that Jim Morrison’s father was in command of the USS Liberty fleet during the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964.
            It is also true that my father and I were dreadful enemies in 1964 and beyond, and didn’t agree on anything of substance, to the point of a fist fight ending our relationship for nearly 25 years…
            I think missing the grand piece of the puzzle, that of generational rebellion of children against parents is the aspect that sinks McGowan’s Laurel Canyon thesis. I also think that ‘The System’ would just love to write off the 60’s 70’s “Revolution” as having been contrived by the system itself.
            It wasn’t.
            Read ‘ORDERS TO KILL’ by William Pepper. There is a meeting between Nixon and the Joint Chiefs during the time the hippies had the Lincoln Monument surrounded with millions of protesters. Pepper got a’hold of the minutes of that meeting. The military and the “government” were in a state of utter panic, they were almost certain that the end had come for the whole system, and that the protesters were about to take DC apart a brick at a time and string up the whole establishment. They were terrified and it is shown in the documents how hysterical they had become.
            There was nothing to indicate that they were bemoaning the situation as “blowback’ from their own machinations, it was all in recognition that the antiwar movement was serious, and if there wasn’t an end put to the war in South East Asia, then it would put an end to the military-industrial-complex.
            But as in all things Dennis, I urge you to study what you will and come to your own conclusions about these things.

          4. willy,
            thanks for the reply and your take.
            i hear you about the father thing. good point. i had the same kind of dynamic with my dad, but when push came to shove, and the us army had me locked up illegally, it was my father who went to our local congressman (bertram podell) and u.s. senator (rfk), and asked them to investigate. podell intervened immediately and got me out of the stockade. rfk was late to the party, but his belated letter to the base commander could not have hurt my status following podell’s intervention on my behalf. i was labeled “POLITICAL” and it it was hands-off until i was discharged, Honorably, onto the streets of San Francisco in the summer of 1968.
            bill pepper and i are friends. we often dine together, but not in a while. he helped me write my memorandum of law vs nyc in 2009, on behalf of the 9/11 families and nyccan. see link-outs at
            bill and i don’t agree on everything (e.g., was carl bernstein’s rolling stone article (see a masterpiece or limited hangout, or both? i submit it was both, while bill thinks the world of the article).
            i have read “orders to kill” but do not recall that passage. i have also read “an act of state,” the second book in the trilogy. bill informs me that the third and final book is done, and will soon be out. i assume that your summary fairly states what bill wrote, it sounds correct. however, i do not agree with your conclusion regarding the absence of a discussion of no blowback indicating a scenario contrary to mcgowan’s thesis. as we both know, cia activities can be highly compartmentalized.

            Frank Agamemnon
            4:49 PM (28 minutes ago)
            to 1800capone, WM, Jim, 1pocketplayer, Cliff, 2byrnes, 2esq_s_equalsc., 2LOU, 2smileylee, luke, NINI, 4DWorldx, 4galsandi, 60m, 9-11-NeXuS, 911blogger, me, 911readingroom,,, 911tap, 911truth, 911truthaz, 911truthfarmer, Jason
            Operation American Spring (OAS) Schedule for Patriots Follow-on presence in D.C.
            Below is the OAS schedule for patriot presence in D.C. after the beginning weekend of May 16/17/18, 2014.
            As you know OAS is not a one or two day event, it is a “movement to action” which must realize a satisfactory solution to our demands before we depart Washington, D.C. The short answer, we will stay in D.C on the Mall area, or expand as participation requires, in large numbers until an appropriate and valid resolution to our demands/grievances is realized or we have exhausted our sacrifice.
            If your last name begins with one of the following letters, you are requested to be in D.C for the period or some part of the period listed beside the letters. This in no way limits your stay…if you can stay weeks or months, God bless you. (Note: No Sunday requirements in D.C.)
            A,B,C ……………… …………May 19, 20, 21
            D,E,F,……………………………May 22,23,24
            G,H,I…………………………….May 26,27,28
            J,K,L……………………………..May 29,30,31
            M,N,O………………………….Jun 2,3,4
            P,Q,R……………………………Jun 5,6,7
            S,T,U,……………………………Jun 9,10,11
            V,W,X,Y,Z……………………….Jun 12,13,14
            A,B,C……………………………..Jun 16,17,18
            D,E,F………………………………Jun 19,20,21
            G,H,I……………………………….Jun 23,24,25
            J,K,L……………………………….Jun 26,27,28
            M,N,O…………………………….Jun 30, July 1,2
            P,Q,R……………………………….Jul 3,4,5
            S,T,U……………………………… Jul 7,8,9
            V,W,X,Y,Z…………………………Jul 10,11,12
            Visit Constitutional Emergency at:

  13. This is exactly the same as the Newseum in Washington DC. The official story all the way. Not one mention of Building 7.
    If that isn’t enough, it devotes another floor to the official story of the JFK assassination.

    1. Thanks Dwain,
      I had never heard of this place … now I wish I hadn’t. Just one more brick in the wall.
      The Newseum
      Its mission is “to help the public and the news media understand one another better” and to “raise public awareness of the important role of a free press in a democratic society.” — the PR mission
      What tripe. “Free press”? “Democratic society”? This would be funny if it weren’t so tragic a goats play. Only TVZombies can buy that bullshit.
      21st Century Schizoid Man!
      If we speak to the controlled press of the dictatorship of an oligarchy, we begin to set the picture straight again.

      1. “If we speak to the controlled press of the dictatorship of an oligarchy, we begin to set the picture straight again.”
        THAT won’t do it — they’ll just turn up the noise-machine.

        1. No doubt … it is already at gale force.
          At least I can still hear such words in my own head, naming things as they really are.
          As Orwell advised, it is not to push back and change things that is important, it is to remains sane ourselves which is essential.

          1. Ha…if my remains remain sane maybe they can be sold to “science” ..Lol

          2. ” it is to remains sane ourselves which is essential.”
            Now, THAT’S on the right track! Like, we can’t give in and go flock with the Nazi’s. Keeping honest, truthful, and fair sets the only fit standard for people we’ve got to persuade.

  14. It’s an extreme form of the tactic of repeating a lie until it becomes truth.
    This ‘museum’ is just one big, expensive, durable lie delivery system.
    It’s pure insanity and it makes me sick to my stomach.

  15. “…‘teaching’ children official 9/11 lies”~Craig McKee
    Of course this is what the ‘Nazi Youth’ program in Hitler’s Germany was all about. And was this an original idea of Hitler or any Nazi propagandist? Hardly, they studied Bernays and Lippmann’s WWI PR campaign. They were the students of the Machiavellian school of western Realpolitik.
    In every practical sense, the Nazi program was on the template of the British/Amerikan prototype. The Nazi’s were in every sense, philosophically and economically, a part of the paradigm being spun in the cycle of the Hegelian Dialectic, in particular the false Right/Left manifestation of Nazi v Communist. Designed long before by Gen. Albert Pike, of the Confederate army.

  16. Now to pretend, as the neo-Nazis do, that Hitler was ‘independent’ of the Illuminati Banking system is belied by the history leading up to the rise of National Socialist Germany, the history of the Reich itself, and the postwar history. Especially considering Project Paperclip, which was an official Amerikan rescue of the Nazi intelligentsia, scientists, and industrialists.
    Ignoring the historical continuity is fatal to the analysis of modern political power. And this is the crux of our dilemma, the hidden crux of the matter.

  17. Arbusto Macht Frei
    Listening to Obama laying solemn claim to the BUSH PNAC lie, compounding it with his own ‘blood-ties’ to seal team 6 and the myth of binLadens ghost -the intergenerational and interdenominational nature of governance – the oligarchical but ultimately autocratic design of this atrocity – becomes stark and in view. Right on the spot where that horrendous murderer Bush leered that ‘the people that did this will be hearing from us ALL soon”, now stands testament to that desperate wish: that he and his co-conspirators will indeed hear from us ALL soon.
    The memorial is a stage, set for the drama sanctification of the lie as truth, and introduction of next step narrative. Obama its essential mouth. Chosen for speech delivery and ‘everlast’ oratory.
    The wonder is that AIG and SAIC and KROLL didn’t get to crap their logo all over the walls, in accord with their part.
    It does no good to wonder how any of these sleep with themselves.
    They chose long ago.

  18. Al-Qaeda
    What does the word “Al-Qaeda” mean ? In Arabic, “Al-Qaeda” has a different meanings, among them “Base”, “Ground”, “Norm”, “Rule”, “Fundament”,
    “Grammar”. The exact meaning is dependent on the context in which it is used.
    It depends on the word which follows “Al-Qaeda” in the sentence. “Qawa’ad
    Askaria” is an Army Base, “Qawa’ad Lugha” stands for Grammar Rules (the Bases of Grammar).
    “Qa’ada” is the infinitive of the verb “to sit”. “Ma-Qa’ad” is a chair. “Al-Qaeda”
    is the base or fundament of something. “Ana raicha Al Qaeda” is colloquial for “I’m going to the toilet”. A very common and widespread use of the word “Al-Qaeda” in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl.
    This name comes from the Arabic verb “Qa’ada” which mean “to sit”,
    pertinently, on the “Toilet Bowl”. In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: “Al-Qaeda” also called the “Hamam Franji” or foreign toilet, and
    “Hamam Arabi” or “Arab toilet” which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget
    it, the potty used by small children is called “Ma Qa’adia” or “Little Qaeda”.
    Those who founded the glorious “International of Islamic Terror, Al-Qaeda,
    probably knew too little about common use of Arabic language to know that by using this name for their organization, they risked becoming the laughing stock of everybody who speaks the Arabic “public” language.
    CIA-Taliban-ISI-Al-Qaeda is a collaborative network, and that maintaining “militant Islam” is a long-term Anglo-American geostrategy.

  19. Excellent article once again Craig,
    I have been reading all the comments and I sense a theme running through many of them. The theme runs that: We are up against a fierce enemy with a great deal of control and that the effort to overcome this enemy is going to be a tough uphill battle which is going to take a long time.
    From my perspective this theme is both true and false simultaneously.
    It is true in the sense that it “appears” on the surface to be true. It is also true in the sense that if we do as we have always done we are going to get what we have always got. So the theme is true if we accept appearances and continue the fight the way we always have.
    I wonder though if it is truly true?
    I wonder just how fierce the enemy really is? I wonder how much control they really have? I wonder how tough the fight really has to be? I wonder how long it really has to take?
    Here is why I believe the theme is false. I believe we ourselves (the truthers) are caught up in our own 9/11 myth which has us believing a big lie. What big lie you ask? The lie that the enemy is actually fierce. The lie that the enemy actually has control over the situation. The lie that they stand a chance of winning this war of truth vs. lie. The lie that we will have to fight this battle inch by inch, month by month, year by year, perhaps for generations. That is the 9/11 myth many of us believe. I no longer believe this lie.
    Our enemy is not fierce in fact they are so weak and powerless that the only way they can survive at all is to remain hidden from detection. They cannot engage us directly in this information war they have to hide behind others and manipulate the situation and always always always worry when the next defector is going to take them down. Who is going to be the next Edward Snowden? They live in fear, in constant damage control mode. They can only fight a losing defensive battle and hope that their bribes, extortion, blackmail, and assassination techniques keep all the right people quiet forever. We on the other hand can and do take the offensive any time we wish. We welcome defectors to our ranks on a daily basis. We have vastly superior numbers and we don’t have the need to use proxies to fight for our side. The truth is we are winning the information war and we are winning it decisively. The MSM is a laughing stock to all except the most apathetic people.
    Our enemy is NOT in control of anything. They are running around trying to plug all the leaks in the dam as new ones spring up all over the place. The enemy doesn’t control us or contain us, in fact we have taken control of their main weapon, the media! Have a look at the ratings for MSM news and see what story those ratings tell. Have a look at newspaper readership and see what story that tells. Have a look at what the most popular political and news sites are on the internet and see what story that tells. We control virtually everything people hear and read now and we have an unstoppable weapon, the truth. The ONLY control they have at all is what we give them ourselves. We give them our belief that they have control. We give them our belief that MSM is relevant. As soon as we stop believing they have control they have lost permanently and forever. Just laugh at the clowns on the TV, they are court jesters, actors, comedians and their jokes aren’t even funny. If you see Bill Maher or Sean Hannity on the street laugh in their face, reject their entire facade. Reject the false belief that they are listened to or respected.
    Our enemies have zero chance of actually winning this war. ZERO! We are smashing down their facade of lies and they are crumbling faster than a house made of crackers. We are on the cusp of total victory and don’t even realize it. We should be aggressively encouraging defections right now! We should be in front of that propaganda museum day and night directly confronting the lie it represents! We should be seizing our victory right now and give people who go there the truth for free! We have our own videos playing and our own exhibits on display. We can break them right there at ground zero if we choose to do it! If the truth movement got its pants on and put our best and brightest there with real support so they could carry on into the future we could take over the 9/11 museum and make it ours, make it belong to the truth like it should. I would work and earn money and give to an effort like that and i would organize support! I would do whatever I had to do to get there as often as I could myself to stand tall at the front door to that place and tell everyone what a lie it really is! It would be my honor to do it. I would raise funding for a truth guard to be present at all times. 24/7 a truther there to warn people about the big lie that is 9/11. We have the truth on our side and the truth literally cannot be contained or controlled. If I lived in NYC instead of California I tell you what I would organize this myself! In fact I am going to contact everyone I know and start organizing right now for a Truther Street Museum at ground zero! Anyone who reads this consider yourselves recruited to help! I mean it lets break them at ground zero!!!
    Satyagraha – truth force.
    All we have to do is change our false belief that our enemy is fierce and in control and that beating them is going to be hard. They are nothing! I laugh in their face! I look them square in the eye and say 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! THE WAR ON TERROR IS LIE! I REFUSE TO COOPERATE! I REFUSE TO ALLOW FEAR TO CONTROL MY ACTIONS! I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE LIE! NO! NO! NO! THE ANSWER IS NO!

    1. I cheer raffadam’s optimism and energy, and heartily endorse his vision of a permanent and strong 9/11 Truth presence outside the entrance to the museum to effectively inform all comers. And I certainly hope he’s right that the establishment/opposition/liars are weak and all we have to do is realize that and claim the victory. But, I’m reminded of the Indians’ Ghost Dance of the 1890’s, which was supposed to magically remove all of their oppressors from the scene, and return all the buffalo and the Indians’ freedom back to them. Because, we’ve got to keep in mind that the vox populi in America (the will of the people) doesn’t rule in this country now, if it ever did. So, even if we succeed in persuading 90%+ of the citizenry that 9/11 was an inside job/false flag operation, to be once and for all properly and thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators of the op itself and of the cover-up properly prosecuted for treason, mass murder, and whatever other high crimes, that 90%+ majority of public opinion doesn’t automatically or by itself control the levers of power necessary to achieve that result. Look at the gun background check issue. Rightly or wrongly, 90% of the public have been shown in numerous polls to favor action on that, and yet the controlling establishment has not been moved to date at all. So, the question at some point will become, how do we, as 9/11 Truth activists, convey our victory with the public, when it so easily comes, into action taken by those whose power, standing, and even freedom to walk the streets will be severely threatened by a legal finding of culpability and criminal jeopardy for the insiders who planned, carried out, and engineered the cover-up of the greatest single crime and biggest fraud, of trementous negative global import, in this country’s history? I submit the task will not, unfortunately, be all that easy. Doable, I’ll buy. And I like ruffadam’s endorsed tactic beginning with a well-supplied truth squad at the museum.

      1. “Look at the gun background check issue. Rightly or wrongly, 90% of the public have been shown in numerous polls to favor action on that, and yet the controlling establishment has not been moved to date at all.”~Mr Hufferd
        You exaggerate James. The fact is there is a constant flux in the polls – on gun control, and everything else. Much depends on the wording of the polls, and much depends on the mood of the people at the moment. I doubt there is 90% consensus on any political issue at any single moment.
        And I am not making an argument either way on the actual issue of gun control v gun rights. I know we disagree on the topic. My point goes only to the topic of polling and the manipulation of such by pollsters as part of the PR Regime and it’s feedback gauge; Polling.
        “After Newtown, 49% thought it was more important to control gun ownership, compared with 42% who thought it was more important to protect gun rights. In the last 12 years, though, there has been a rapid rise in support for gun rights. After the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., more people supported protecting rights of gun ownership than controlling it.”
        Read more:

          1. I got your point James. It didn’t have anything to do with the gun issue other than an illustration of consensus. And I am not arguing about the gun issue either.
            My point is about trusting ‘statistics’ and using them as a compass for our choices or decision making. Some places I read that some majority of the American people think the gov may have had a hand in 9/11, other places I read that the majority of people still buy the official myth.
            Information seems to depend so much on the source and what that source’s agenda is.
            But since we are all in agreement that we must keep the issue of 9/11 truth alive, these side issues are just chatter, as per what tactics may or may not work going forward.

          2. You wouldn’t argue that policy outcomes are dictated by public opinion, would you? Then, why are you arguing? Opinion polls are taken by professed “neutrals”, and by proponents on all sides of every issue, so, being subject to replication or being shown up as total garbage (if so, giving the polling outfit involved a garbage reputation), are generally not worthless and tend to agree overall to a far greater extent than they tend to disagree. As such, they provide a less-than-perfect guide to public sentiment at that instant, and are worth at least warily taking note of. Not generally worthless.

          3. “You wouldn’t argue that policy outcomes are dictated by public opinion, would you?”~Mr Hufferd
            Certainly not, just the opposite. I would argue that public opinion is a synthetic product produced by PR.
            And if that is your disambiguated point, then no I have no argument.
            But by that token, I don’t agree that polls such as your describe have much real worth at all. That being so because they ARE a synthetic product of PR in any systemically significant way.
            These however are very subtle points of disagreement and I don’t think it worth further argument.

          4. Well, be all that as it may, public opinion, at any one instant, doesactually exist. And don’t join the crowd at Fox News in assuming all the polls are just screwy. Thermometer temperature, fahrenheit or celsius, is also a human construct, as is our perception of the universe and everything else. But, there is something there, to measure or mismeasure, just the same. Plus, most pollsters usually aren’t way off too often, or nobody will hire them and they’ll go out of business.

  20. Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy — Sun Tzu
    The Art of War … Perhaps the first and most famous tract that delves into the primacy of psychological warfare.
    Adam Ruff holds that spirit necessary to convince the enemy that he is weak, and the points as to why. And I agree with maintaining such a spirit. And I agree we should propagate that spirit to others. The attitude that we have already won, it is just that time must pass to reveal it decisively.
    That is ‘Strategy’, what is needed as well is the sequence of tactics to realize the that strategy. Hold its spirit and it will guide you.

  21. James,
    I do see the points you are making about the difficulty of the task but I hope you understand that I am saying the task will be as difficult or easy as we truly believe it to be. If we believe they are powerful and fierce then they will be and our victory will be hard fought. If on the other hand we see the facade for what it really is and truly believe they are a paper tiger then they will be easily overcome.
    It is done unto you as you believe.

    1. Adam,
      They are a paper tiger that tightly holds all the levers of power. How do we dislodge those levers, when they pay little or no heed to public opinion and have everything at stake? That must be seen as a puzzle we will have to solve, or see a solution to of one sort or another if we’re going to see truth and justice triumph.

      1. We simply refuse to cooperate. The minute we refuse to pay taxes in mass they crumble. No need to fire a shot. They really don’t control the levers of power we allow them to think they do. Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
        Monsanto, biotech stocks plummet the day after activists launch Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge
        “Biotech stocks plummeted Thursday following the release of Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge by Food Democracy Now — a campaign that urged investors to sell shares of biotech companies like Monsanto.
        “On Thursday, the Nasdaq composite, which is weighted heavily toward tech and biotech companies, had its worst day since November 2011,” reported the Associated Press, less than 24 hours after the launch of Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge. The story was carried across thousands of newspapers such as the L.A. Times. (1)
        “Biogen Idec, Gilead Sciences and other biotech companies plunged. Gilead Sciences slid $5.17, or 7 percent, to $65.48 on Thursday. Biogen Idec dropped $13.33, or 4 percent, to $287.35. Both roughly doubled in value last year.”
        U.S. News and World Report declared, “Stocks drop as investors dump biotech” (see screen shot below), and other newspapers reported headlines like “Dow, Nasdaq fall dramatically as investors dump biotech stocks.”
        The L.A. Times declared the plunge “Nasdaq’s worst day since 2011″”
        See the truth is we have the power and have had it all along, the difference now is people are starting to realize it. People are starting to realize it because “they, the NWO” have lost their ability to influence the masses with propaganda. The revolt has begun and it is gaining steam and they are powerless to stop it UNLESS WE GIVE THEM THE POWER BACK.

        1. All of that is, of course, if people become engaged and exercised enough about 9/11 to pull it off. Maybe they will. Now, if you could involve something like trying to foist the New Coke off on them along with it, or fiddle with Monday Night football, then it would be a little more likely.

          1. In my opinion approximately 95% of the population is uninvolved, on either side, of a revolution. The struggle really takes place between those in power and the 1-5% of the population who are actively resisting them or revolting against them.
            Not to be too blunt about it but the 95% of the people who are not involved don’t really matter either way and have no real impact on the success or failure of the revolution. I simply do not care what the 95% don’t do, they are apathetic and uninvolved and really don’t matter. It is a big mistake in my view to look at the 95% as being important to the struggle because it tends to make it seem like we are failing to “sway the masses” and therefore will fail to force the change we want to see.
            A greater mistake in my opinion is to think that the 95% who are uninvolved are on “their” side and are working against us. They aren’t on anyone’s side except their own, they don’t care either way and they will sway whichever way the wind blows. The NWO loves to claim the 95% as their own and claim that they are on their side but it is lie, a lie they would love us all to believe. It is a lie just like the lie that they are really in control when in reality we (the 1-5%) are the ones in control. Don’t fall for their PR spin and BS the 95% are bystanders and they are NOT on “their” side.
            The American revolution was fought and won by less than 3% of the population which means that approximately 97% of the population were uninvolved. Perhaps a small percentage of people were helping the British. My point is that if we get 3% or more involved on our side we are very likely to win. I believe we have much more than 3% on our side and willing to get involved but James not just with 9/11 but with everything that is wrong with our current regime. Issues like the wholesale fraud and theft of all our money by the banksters (Occupy wall street), the GMO food issue (huge amount of activists), anti war activists, anti globalization activists, The Oathkeepers, etc. All these people and many many more are fighting the same evil system that pulls off false flags like 9/11. They are on the same side as us know it or not James.
            I intentionally included the Oathkeepers on the list James for a very specific reason. The Oathkeepers and the Libertarians are fighting the same evil system we are and yes the evil system wants to disarm us so we are not capable of defending ourselves against them. Gun control is all about control of we the people. We MUST get past the false left vs. right paradigm. The conservative vs. liberal the democrats vs. the republicans, it is all a ruse, it is the NWO dividing us so they can conquer us. GET OVER IT! The NWO is the enemy, the only real enemy. They need us divided to survive.

          2. Adam,
            OK, I agree on that – there are plenty of empirical examples. I’m just not sure that getting the machinery of “justice” (in this case, the courts, governmental authorization, and adequate oversight to compel fairness) to actually operate is the same thing as a revolution aimed at regime change and a new, revolutionary protocol. It may require that, but if that were to happen, I think you’d find blanket resistance to and distrust of the new “leaders” and their process such as would probably muddy the situation of getting a fair new investigation of 9/11 and push it off to the side. Plus there’d probably be a powerful counter-revolution to contend with immediately. And the revolutionaries would likely be more oppressive and arbitrary than what he really have now. What we need — what we’ve ALWAYS needed for 9/11 justice is, on the other hand, genuine, transparent DUE PROCESS, not another total revolution (at least to achieve recognition and greater justice for 9/11), IMHO. And, easy (as you say) or hard, that will be tricky to obtain. I’m not aware that the 9/11 Truth Movement is part and parcel of a revolution to entirely overthrow the constitutional government of the United States. Is that your objective?

          3. “I’m not aware that the 9/11 Truth Movement is part and parcel of a revolution to entirely overthrow the constitutional government of the United States. Is that your objective?”~James Hufferd
            The “constitutional government of the United States” was overthrown a long time ago James. There is no constitutional government here, only a criminal front org for the NWO squatting in DC in a state of ultra vires.
            Let’s keep our perspectives clear on the true nature of what it is we face. We are not faced with a legitimate government. We are not facing a constitutionally correct government. We are facing a criminal syndicate that has dispensed with the rule of law and rules by diktat.

          4. Willy,
            The Constitution is operative. It’s just that partisan courts and their lackies have reinterpreted and leveraged it so that corporations and hyper-rich doners (in control of the corporations) are interpreted as the constituents, the citizens, the people, pushing flesh-and-blood less than hyper-rich far out of the way. In addition, the NWO pubahs, by leverage of money and their octopus banking system, control the elected officials as their puppets. There ought to be a law, for sure! But we don’t need another French, Bolshevik, or American, or any other kind of revolution. Our Constitution, operating with the actual flesh-and-blood citizens, with big money and bribes categorically BANNED, will do quite nicely, thank you! And much better and more fairly than anything YOU would come up with, for sure.

          5. “The Constitution is operative. It’s just that partisan courts and their lackies have reinterpreted and leveraged it …”~Mr Hufferd
            Interesting statement James. But the pretense that a constitution is in effect when it has in fact been “reinterpreted” to mean rule by caveat is simply rhetorical rubbish.

          6. Okay, “operative” as in “ready to use”. Operating now, with corps. as the constituents like an engine on watered gas, the non-frlesh-and-blood “people”, as designated by the Supremes as the water.

          7. Expanding upon my thoughts as to my response to Mr Hufferd,
            Let me also agree with a portion of his concerns as to what a post-revolution Amerika could end up as. “Meet the New Boss” is a common feature of such ordeals. And we have to consider that this could conceivably be a covert agenda by the NWO masterminds. Let us call it Amerika’s own “Color Revolution”.
            Anyone aware of what is happening in Ukraine, in Kiev, should grasp that this is a ‘paint-by-numbers’ ruse of a rose revolution. And the “government” installed by the west is a full on neo-Nazi organization – the legacy of the “left-behind” ‘Werewolves’ groups of the ‘Nazi-Youth’ began in Germany in the late 1930’s to mid 1940’s — eventually absorbed into NATO and reborn in Gladio in Italy, and like orgs throughout Europe.
            I suspect that there are factions of the militia groups that are very much of the same mind set as the group in Kiev. And there is certainly no lack of the neo-Nazi element that is highly politically active in Amerika at this time – we have encountered a few on these pages in the past couple of months.
            I deplore “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” meme, and warn against it.
            The ‘New Boss’ can be, and usually is ‘Same as the Old Boss’.

          8. I look for them to mount a failed “false-flag” new american revolution, involving their lackies, the Tea Partiers, whom they would run ruffshod through to give the idea that “revolution won’t work, it’s already been tried”, at some point.

          9. The “grassroots movement” that’s been coopted by billionaires and funded and managed from the top down, by big whigs such as Dick Armey. That happened pretty early on.

          10. Ah OK when I think of the tea party I think of the one NOT co-opted by republican operatives. I think of the one with legitimate members who care about our country and who are NOT falling for the left vs. right BS, the ones who stand up for the Constitution. The tea party you refer to is a facade and has no real legitimacy its membership numbers are a facade. The real tea party has vast numbers of real patriots. The “tea party” is actually multiple different groups with widely differing goals.

          11. Adam,
            Mr Hufferd is referring to “partisan politics” again. In other words he is arguing from the false Left/Right perspective – forgetting that the Democrats and the Republicans are both two heads of the same hydra; forgetting the turning wheel of the Hegelian Dialectic.

          12. No, Willy. Read two comments back. I was answering Adam’s question as to which of the genius organizations with the same name I was referring to, and I answered. You don’t have to try to interpret messages on here for others who can read.

          13. “You don’t have to try to interpret messages on here for others who can read.”~Mr Hufferd
            But James, your message is still in effect. It has simply been ‘reinterpreted’, like the Constitution has been. So it means the same thing as you said, just put another way -as I follow your argument as to the validity of the “government” as still being “constitutional”.

  22. HR1,
    Interesting that you brought up Sun Tzu because much of my long comment above was based on his teachings. In fact if you look at the situation as Sun Tzu might have I believe you will see very clearly just how weak “the enemy” really is. Their key capability to fight this war with, propaganda, is failing them. People in mass are rejecting official MSM propaganda and therefore our enemy is rapidly becoming a toothless predator or a “paper tiger”. They are still very dangerous, like a cornered animal, and in their desperation they are very likely to do something horrible and drastic in a last ditch effort to survive. It will backfire and they are doomed to lose the entire war but they may do heavy physical damage on the way out.
    In India when the British lost the war for the hearts and minds of the people to Gandhi they still lashed out very violently before losing control of India entirely. The same is true here, the power elite or NWO or whatever you want to call them have lost the information war. They lost it in a big big way. The only thing left now is their lashing out before total defeat. I hope that people of honor within the country will stop these lunatics from doing something horrible before we kick them to the curb. Time will tell.
    This victory is a process and although it is already happening there are not many obvious signs of it happening. To the observant though the signs are there and they are clear. We are winning, we have won already. It is all over except for the crying.
    Hillary Clinton: The US is losing “an information war”
    Zbigniew Brzezinski It is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people.

    1. “Zbigniew Brzezinski It is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people.”
      That point, plus grasping Israel’s “Samson Option” are two of the most frightening prospects I can think of.

      1. Yes indeed very frightening. I have a strong suspicion however that there are too many honorable people on the inside to allow something truly horrible to happen like God forbid a nuke. If you look for stories on the web about missing nukes you should find two stories about incidents where nukes were being moved secretly and against security protocols and the whole thing was exposed by anonymous whistle blowers. The whole thing was exposed on two separate occasions and stopped. I believe on both occasions the plan was to execute a false flag attack with nukes and someone or some many stopped it from the inside by exposing it.
        You know largely because of the 9/11 truth movement people do not fall for false flags anymore. Take Syria for example, they wanted to attack Syria in the worst way, they staged a false flag chemical weapons attack and virtually no one bought it. The people and the military by the way simply refused to play along with the ruse.

  23. Forgive me if someone else has already made this point, but I have one serious problem with the otherwise excellent AE911 Truth brochure: There is nothing wrong with “historical revisionism”. And whatever you want to call what is offered up at this museum (and I would suggest: a massive lie, a monumental fraud, a Zelikovian “public myth”), it is certainly not historical revisionism, which is an honest attempt to arrive at the truth. The folks at AE911Truth got this one backwards, and I wish they had not made this error. It certainly is a bit ironic in light of the NJ Commission on Holocaust Education tie-in.

  24. David Bauer,
    I do understand your point about “historical revisionism” in the light of it’s meaning in serious historical research.
    But there are alternative aspects of meaning that may confuse some folks. In literature there is the genre of the “Historical Revisionist Novel” which is of course “fiction” – oft times writing a “what-if” scenario. Such as ‘what if Jesus was an alien” {just to pull something out of the air}. So the definition of the term can mean a few disparate things, as language sometimes does in the postmodern experience.

  25. HR1: I agree with you that many people would likely be confused by the subtleties involved in any full discussion of this subject. I’m just suggesting that there was no need for AE911 (of which I am a big supporter, and for whom I have done organizing work here in Maine) to use the term in their materials.

    1. Well Mr Bauer,
      Perhaps you can lobby to get that word removed and replaced with a more appropriate term. As this is meant to be an ongoing picket project, subsequent printings could be edited for a more precise presentation.
      Have you considered it may have been chosen as a thorn word, as per the Holocaust angle of the museum? Perhaps a subtle linguistic jab…
      You know what I am getting at I am sure. There are many people that do not like a certain field of historical revisionism. Just the term itself might give them the heebie jeebies.

    2. “In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.” ~Wiki
      A generic and neutral term as generally understood. Like an ax can be an useful tool, or a murder weapon.

  26. I am escaping the narrow column width that the conversation above has come to by bringing my answer to this comment down here:
    James Hufferd — MAY 19, 2014 AT 6:01 PM
    –“Really? Well, no one would ever know that from your last slur.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Forgive me James, but I meant no “slur” in my commentary to you.
    I was simply using the same ‘logic’ you put, in your claim that the Constitution is still in effect. I seems you do not appreciate that form of ‘logic’ anymore than I do.
    Frankly I don’t think any more back and forth on this particular issue is going to be productive. But if you, James, would like to sort things out and get back on keel, I would be fine with that. However if I have hurt your feelings and you just want to get even. Then I will let you blow off that steam without any further comment.

      1. No James,
        I was not “flattering” them in anyway. I was criticizing your attempt to claim that the totally illegitimate cabal of pretenders in DC adhere to the Constitution in any way – in spirit, nor by the sane definition of language.
        The concept that the US government is a “democracy” is no longer viable. Even academia has come out and shown that this nation is in fact a naked oligarchy-plutocracy. The so-called “government” has been proven ultra vires by several angles, the two most critical being; [1] the ‘War Powers’ passing from the legislative branch to the executive. And [2] the claim of “Executive Privilege”.
        For a treatise on the first, see: ‘PRESIDENTIAL WAR POWERS’ by Louis Fisher.
        The second issue is addressed in: ‘EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE: A CONSTITUTIONAL MYTH’ by Raoul Berger
        The keystone to the Constitution is a fettered executive, one that is answerable to the House and Senate. The idea that the president can start wars by caveat is utterly unconstitutional, wherein the war powers in the Constitution are explicitly given to the legislative branch in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.

        1. You’re right! Did I say it’s a democracy? It could be if we’d get rid of that damn water schmuchling up the gas in the form of that “corporations are people” new constituency replaceing the demos, and devastatingly unlimited campaign bribes the Supremes gave their blessing to. I suppose if you got water in your car engine, you’d junk it.

          1. “That scratches, and it scratches well. But that’s not where the itch is.”
            ~Native South American Shaman to a Christian Missionary

          2. *Translation; ‘That is verbose, adequately so, but it is irrelevant and out of context.’
            James your allegory as per water in the gas tank is inadequate.
            Inadequate in that the water has set in the gas tank close to 200 years, the tank is rusted out, the fuel line is rotted away, the engine is rusted together as one piece of solid immovable junk. The entire car has been sitting in a field of weeds and is buried up to the windows in the dirt.
            There is more – much more wrong than the orbiter dicta of the Santa Clara ruling. This is the 21st century now, and Amerika is a full fledged military dictatorship. And that certainly cannot be “lost in translation”.

          3. The first step is to get the water removed from the gas. I lot of the rest is just your opinion, because if it were really THAT thoroughly-trashed, it couldn’t possibly be puttin and lurching along even, as it is. And its wealth — although grossly over-concentrated — and unrivaled military might bespeak and gargantuan amount of vigor and misguided strength left in it. It’s still not what most objective observers would call “the sick man of America.” That’s why I think the water-in-the-gas analogy largely covers it.

          4. That scratches well….but that’s not where the itch is … Lol
            Sorry but same thing.
            No use taking this any further James, we have a failure to communicate.

          5. Not if you’re under the delusion the super-powerful engine of a country with a bad super-power complex and hijacked by oligarchs is a total shambles. I’d say it works extremely well for its current real citizens, the hyper-rich 1/000th.

  27. The only knowledge needed to understand the Constitution is the ability to read the English language. It is written in common language as a common law document.
    Anyone who can read English, you don’t have to know history, you don’t have to know any ‘legal language’ {or Roman Code} — the document needs no “interpretation”, needs no “translation”.
    Anyone who has read this document, the Constitution should know that what is described therein is in no way what is practiced by the “government”. It is not a matter of ‘opinion’ that words are constructed in such a way as to say something precise and specific, mean exactly what they say.
    My assertion that the so-called “federal government” is acting beyond the law, that is;’ultra vires’, is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the words of the Constitution itself.
    Anyone who can know the words in the Constitution, who can say without mirth that the cabal in DC is in compliance with that document in any but the most superficial ways, does not recognize the current situation for what it is.
    I will not answer or consider anymore allegories. If this is to be discussed let it be in plain English. As will be noted, I used the quote by the shaman to make a point, after a long string of incoherent allegory. But the point is not taken.
    This is the reason that Mr Hufferd and my conversation comes to an end.
    He can hold any opinion and express it in any way he desires. It is no longer my problem to contend with. We have a fundamental difference here that makes communication impossible.

    1. All right. Let’s talk in concrete terms.Give me a sizeable list, as befits your statement to the effect that current governance does not resemble in any way what the Constitution mandates, of all or many of the specific ways in which it doesn’t. Then we can see what you’re talking about.

      1. You can’t be referring to the provision that counts slaves as 3/5 of a person for representation, and the provision for commerce with the different Indian nations, or that originally specifying that the new administration is to take office in March, can you? You must have had lots of other clear deviances of present practices in mind.

        1. This is a distraction Hufferd offers here:
          — “You can’t be referring to the provision that counts slaves as 3/5 of a person for representation, and the provision for commerce with the different Indian nations…”
          We are not discussing the issue of whether the Constitution itself has moral legitimacy. If Mr Hufferd wishes to make an argument that the Constitution itself should not be the law of the land, then that is another argument.
          Again we have this shifting landscape of ‘context’ that Mr Hufferd wants to play games with. Now instead of arguing that the so-called ‘government’ is in some way legitimate, which is where his previous arguments were set in, he wants to say that there has never been a legitimate government.
          Which position does Mr Hufferd wish to take?
          If Mr Hufferd wishes to change direction mid-stream, then I shall do the same and argue that there is no such thing as legitimate government, that it is and has always been a racket. If James wants to burn his toes on the coals of Anarchist philosophy, let him come, the fire is hot.

    2. The two issues I spoke to earlier, ‘executive privilege’ and the ‘war powers’ are critical enough in themselves to declare the cabal in DC as in breach of contract. Any controversy as to this is a rhetorical construct. The facts are too simple and too glaring to deny.
      These two issues are fundamental – at the heart of proper constitutional operation. The repercussions of such a fundamental breach has eaten away the rest of the document by the corruption of “practical politics” or ‘Realpolitik’.
      It shouldn’t take a racket-scientist to comprehend that the panoptic maximum security state is completely and totally beyond the law of the Constitution.
      The corruption is total and complete, any enumeration beyond this is meaningless banter. It is simply to obvious to miss.
      Rather I would retort, let me be shown in what aspects the “government” is in compliance. Besides empty rituals such as voting, what portion of it is not utterly corrupt in a systemic way?
      And to address another point which has been made out of context – the martial strength and ability of violence and force of the state, is not evidence of it’s propriety or the legitimacy of its authority, it is just the opposite.

      1. Looks like Executive Orders have been somewhat in vogue since Grant. Among recent presidents, it looks like only GHW Bush issued fewer than Obama, no doubt because he only served one term and just got started:
        As for war powers, I’d have to agree. Except that, usually, modern presidents have sought permission from Congress, which could amount to pretty much the same thing when it’s gotten as Congress declaring war. Also, I’d add the enormous violatation of Article 1, Section 7, by which Congress was mandated to “coin” the money, clearly not to farm the job out to a private banking concern, but for the government to issue the money itself, as under Lincoln, and as JFK set in motion before they killed him. Otherwise,with those major or minor exceptions, if modern practice of goverance is shot through with deviations from the Constitution, I’m blissfully unaware of them.

        1. Executive Orders: Washington – Obama
          President Term Total Orders1
          EO Number Range
          George Washington Total 8 unnumbered
          John Adams Total
          1 unnumbered
          Thomas Jefferson Total 4 unnumbered
          James Madison Total
          1 unnumbered
          James Monroe Total 1 unnumbered
          John Quincy Adams Total
          3 unnumbered
          Andrew Jackson Total 12 unnumbered
          Martin van Buren Total
          10 unnumbered
          William Henry Harrison Total 0 unnumbered
          John Tyler Total
          17 unnumbered
          James K. Polk Total 18 unnumbered
          Zachary Taylor Total 5 unnumbered
          Millard Fillmore Total 12 unnumbered
          Franklin Pierce Total
          35 unnumbered
          James Buchanan Total 16 unnumbered
          Abraham Lincoln Total
          48 unnumbered
          Andrew Johnson Total 79 unnumbered
          Ulysses S. Grant Total
          217 unnumbered
          Rutherford B. Hayes Total 92 unnumbered
          James Garfield Total 6 unnumbered
          Chester Arthur Total 96 unnumbered
          Grover Cleveland – I Total
          113 unnumbered
          Benjamin Harrison Total 143 unnumbered
          Grover Cleveland – II Total
          140 unnumbered
          William McKinley Total 185 unnumbered
          Theodore Roosevelt Total
          William Howard Taft Total 724
          Woodrow Wilson Total
          Warren G. Harding Total 522
          Calvin Coolidge Total
          Herbert Hoover Total 968 5075 – 6070
          Franklin D. Roosevelt Total
          3,522 6071 – 9537
          Harry S. Truman Total 907 9538 – 10431
          I 504 9538 – 10029
          II 403 10030 – 10431
          Dwight D. Eisenhower Total
          484 10432 – 10913
          I 266 10432 – 10695-A
          II 218 10696 – 10913
          John F. Kennedy Total 214 10914 – 11127
          Lyndon B. Johnson Total
          325 11128 – 11451
          Richard Nixon Total 346 11452 – 11797
          I 247 11452 – 11698
          II 99 11699 – 11797
          Gerald R. Ford Total
          169 11798 – 11966
          Jimmy Carter Total 320 11967 – 12286
          Ronald Reagan Total
          381 12287 – 12667
          I 213 12287 – 12499
          II 168 12500 – 12667
          George Bush Total 166 12668 – 12833
          William J. Clinton Total
          364 12834 – 13197
          I 200 12834 – 13033
          II 164 13034 – 13197
          George W. Bush Total 291 13198 – 13488
          I 173 13198 – 13370
          II 118 13371 – 13488
          Barack Obama Total
          168 13489 – 13656…
          I 147 13489 – 13635
          II 21 13636 – 13656…

    1. And I repeat:
      Rather I would retort, let me be shown in what aspects the “government” is in compliance. Besides empty rituals such as voting, what portion of it is not utterly corrupt in a systemic way?
      What it comes down to here is; when something that is so glaringly obvious needs to be defended, one is then in the position of trying to describe sight to the blind. Generally a futile proposition.
      What should be obvious is that the two issues I speak to concerning executive co-option of exclusive privilege and the power to make war, are the keystones of dictatorship and despotism.
      Appealing for some list of infringements that could have any more powerful bearing on the case than that of despotism and tyranny, is simply scurrilous argumentation. Especially so as no positive citing of a significant compliance of the national government is forthcoming.
      What good thing can come from a secret national security state built upon deceit, plunder, coercion, war and murder? What chit chat yankity yack is going to change any of what is so obvious here?

        1. Hahahaha … ridiculous Hufferd. We have been about claim – counter claim too long to pull that bullshit on me.
          You have made the claim in so many words that the “government” is legitimate, but for “flushing the water out of its gas tank”. Now you say you made no claims? What is this Hufferd, your version of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party?

          1. I find you’re better (though not by much) at song & dance than at backing up your humongously sweeping claims! You seem to be pretty talented at side-stepping in lieu of delivering the goods.

          2. Willy, I want to apologize for what I just said. You do have am impressive knowledge of some matters you’ve read up on more than most. You just tend to state sweeping conclusions at times. Which is fine if you are prepared to substantiate them. But we all have a lot to learn.

          3. James I will back up HR1’s statement that our present regime is beyond the law. Since the Constitution is the law of the land the items below are not compatible with the law of the land yet are practiced regularly by our government and without consequence. These items below are in fact normal operating procedure for the regime in power and they are all completely contrary to the law of the land.
            1. State sanctioned torture.
            2. Assassination of Americans by executive order.
            3. Free speech zones.
            4. Gun registration and confiscation of guns.
            5. The Federal reserve printing of our money.
            6. NSA spying on everyone.
            7. Deployment of military forces to “police” Americans.
            HR1 is correct it is too blatantly obvious to even waste time talking about it. If you believe our present regime has legitimacy, ANY legitimacy, I have nothing more to say about the subject.

          4. It isn’t “this regime” or “that regime”. They are all puppets in those areas, given no latitude, no real choice by the NWO. JFK is their strongest example of what can happen to them or their families if they rebel.Something dire even happens to members of Congress if they start to deeply question.

  28. “Looks like Executive Orders have been somewhat in vogue since Grant.”
    The issue of “Executive Orders” is distinct from the issue of “Executive Privilege’. Another matter entirely.
    Enough of this prattle.

      1. James,
        The Internet is the most complete and amazing library the human race has ever known. If you really want to know what executive privilege is, put the term in your browser and spend some time on the topic until you get a sense of the subject.
        If you do, you will see what a critical issue this is as far as ‘government’ is concerned. Executive Privilege claims that the executive is immune from and has impunity not to answer to the other branches of government, nor the people, nor anyone.
        This is where the term ‘the Unitary Executive’ arose from. This became vogue during the baby Bush regime.
        Brought to its logical conclusion it is the claim that the president is above the law – beyond the law – ultra vires….exactly what I have been saying.
        I accept your apology made earlier James.
        I know you got on a roll of “one-upmanship” gaming, like this is a chess match. Raw enthusiasm can sometimes get the best of the best of us.

  29. –“Wasn’t Nixon sort of the king of that? Of pleading executive privilege.” ~James Hufferd
    . . . . . . . .
    It was during the Nixon administration that the issue came to a head, with the reliance on the Rogers Memo, which was actually earlier;.Attorney General William P. Rogers in a 1958 memorandum supporting executive privilege.
    . . . . . . . . . .This review will likely help you to grasp the issue:
    Executive Privilege: A Review of Berger – The University of Akron
    This issue makes this work the most valuable treatment of executive privilege available. ….. two key propositions announced at the beginning of the Rogers memo…

  30. “RAOUL BERGER HAS ONCE AGAIN placed within a solidly professional
    framework an issue of considerable public interest and debate. As
    was the case with impeachment,’ Berger’s scholarly study on executive
    privilege brings to the controversy surrounding the issue a much needed
    analytical construct and massing of evidence which can only result in a
    greater level of general understanding. Although it is not accurate to
    suggest that Berger is neutral on the topic, since he published a significant
    study as far back as 1965 attacking the concept, his method of massing
    every conceivable argument and piece of evidence on both sides of the
    issue makes this work the most valuable treatment of executive privilege
    available.”~R. H. Clark – The University of Akron

  31. Mr. Hufferd’s analogy of water in the gas-lines of a vehicle when referring to the US government was somewhat appropriate, I think. However, Mr. Rogue was correct in pointing out that the rust, corrosion, and corruption ran deeper. As such, Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff — being products of Amerikana-throw-away-society — advocate revolution to junk the heap.
    The Helegian problem with this is that it leaves a purposeful and deliberate void into which — drum roll please — the corporate/banking/MIC NWO steps into.
    No, the US government needs to be looked at as, say, a 1966 Ford Mustang Fastback rusted and full of rodents in someone’s drafty shed. Even if we were to agree that not many of the original moving parts are worthy of saving — NSA, CIA, FBI, IRS, etc. –, even if we say that body damage is too extensive to various panels and must be replaced rather than re-worked — members of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches –, the Mustang form ideal of what the car was or could be are worthy of tireless restoration, even if the “muscle” under the hood is replaced with Tesla coils.
    Benjamin Franklin was asked

    “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” His reply was: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    Thomas Jefferson:

    “A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
    “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”
    “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”
    “I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”
    “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
    “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”

    The task is laid out before us.

    1. Well, ok then, who’s going to muscle the overthrow? Exactly one citizen out of every 1.1 million showed up last Saturday, when they’d declared the revolution would happen, with a projected 10 to 30 million descending on DC. (Of course, it rained, so that must have dampened some spirits.) And hey were you guys there? Also, what kind of a Valhalla are y’all going to agree on to replace it with?? Come on, Patrick Henry! Come on, Tom Payne! Come on, Good Tea Party!

      1. Mr. Hufferd asked:

        who’s going to muscle the overthrow?

        The states.
        Rather than “one USA”, I’m in favor of several independent regions, each living up to the ideals of the original USA constitution but in making its own regulations and decisions appropriate to real people at the local level.
        Doesn’t mean that regions can’t cooperate with neighboring regions. Doesn’t mean that much will be business as usual. But gee, if there is no federal government, talk about lots of institutions and corrupt badness evaporating overnight! Talk about wars ending! … Or at least wars supposedly “in our names.” Big (banking/oil) corporations will still fund them, but they won’t have the patriotism chain to yank on it, and they might be surprised at who steps up to defend the other’s line. Wrong is wrong.

        1. See, now, there’s another sentiment. The replacers will never settle on a single plan — and certainly not one better than the imperfect but more-than-serviceable one of just getting the water out of the gas. Then the mighty engine which, if it were a rusted-out hulk, couldn’t produce such an incredible overall GNP and military juggernaut (black budget gee-whiz gadgetry included), could divert to serving its intended masters, We the People.

    2. I had written:

      As such, Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff — being products of Amerikana-throw-away-society — advocate revolution to junk the heap.

      Subsequent comments from Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff correct my misunderstanding, and I apologize for the wrong inference.

  32. I do not understand how I have been interpreted as saying that I am for a violent uprising and revolution.
    I have spoken to the dangers of this several times in my commentary. I have spoken to the point of not trusting the various militia groups, some portion of which are spawned by the White Identity cults, and many which are indeed covert operations of the intelligence services themselves.
    I have also spoken to the false meme of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” – this is ‘Realpolitik’ at its most jejune and naive.
    I reject the notion of an armed rebellion, but suggest that such an armed rebellion will indeed take place at the time and choosing of the state, it will be a provocation, a staged event that starts the hard core martial law crackdown. Anyone that doesn’t recognize that trap is simply a manipulated idiot.
    Understanding and speaking to the bullshit totally illegitimate nature of this so-called “government” is a distinct and different proposition from promoting armed rebellion. Smart defiance will not fall for such cheese, and will avoid that slam of the spring.
    Don’t either one of you here dare stand me up as the strawman just described.

    1. I do not advocate for nor support any type of violent revolution either and I do not want to be portrayed that way. I do advocate for a non violent revolution but I have to say that it has already begun and we the people are winning it. My position is that the present illegitimate regime is destroying itself by trying to crack down more and more on all of us. My position is that all the revolt has to do is refuse to cooperate with their illegal and unconstitutional machinations. I promote the revolution where the leaders call for a war and none of us show up to fight it. My stance on gun rights has to do with the right to self DEFENSE and has nothing to do with offense. In fact guns are the least effective way to remove the regime from power. There are MANY more effective tactics such as tax revolt which will achieve the results we all want faster and better than guns ever could. It isn’t about offense at all, I simply believe that Americans should greet the storm troopers at the door of their home with whatever force is necessary to prevent them from taking away our lives or liberty. I would much prefer that the storm troopers simply refuse to follow unconstitutional orders in the first place and that they simply walk off the job so that no one has to fight them off. But I will say this much I am not going to a Fema camp so long as I draw breath and am capable of fighting back.

  33. There are many diverse propositions in circulation concerning such things as states succession – regional relations of such states, etc.
    But there are also the plans for “Regionalism” designed by the NWO planners themselves. These were revealed subsequently to the findings on the tax exempt foundations as discovered by the Reese Committee in the 1950’s.
    It seems every way one turns, it is found that a vast number of “our” solutions have been anticipated by the globalists, and stand ready for co-option.
    One thing is certain – any plan that is noxious to the oligarchy will be met with a provocation to violence if it catches on to the point of challenging their position.
    My position is that of Anarchy. Dispensing with “government” all together.
    Anyone wishing to learn of the viability of such thinking should look into what James Corbett has presented on the subject.
    Your browser is your friend gentlemen.

  34. Just rule is not rule by others, but each upholding justice individually. As our strength to hold justice is the portion of justice we can attain. A just man is a free man for as long as he lives. Power may take his life, but not his sense of justice. Justice and karma are intertwined in our fate, those who serve injustices suffer the consequences as sure as there is life in mankind.
    The deep fear and loathing of “leaders” is obvious by their pathologically hysterical need for “security”. And this fear is instant karma. Create a dog eat dog world and chances are you will be eaten by dogs.

    1. At the core of it, freedom is a state of mind. It is a metaphor that one designs as one’s own interior landscape, or epistemology. It is impossible to extinguish this sense of freedom in a free-thinking individual, only extinguishing the life of one such as this can dowse that flame inside.

          1. I don’t think so. Sounds like “you slaves can suffer now without remedy, eyes on the prize, your reward later..”

          2. And it sounds to me that you are as ignorant of Zen as you are of the principles of anarchy.

          3. Dear Mr. Hufferd,
            You noticed that, too? To paraphrase Dr. Seuss

            But that is not all he can do!
            oh, no. That is not all…


  35. “But anarchy offers only acquiescence.”~Mr Hufferd
    You don’t have any idea of what your are talking about George.
    Any definition of anarchy that posits “acquiescence” as the result is rubbish.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    DC Truther doesn’t seem to know how to use his/her delete function on email. If it is so bothersome the complainer can unsubscribe.

  36. “More rant! When he feels exposed, he bellows!!”~Hufferd
    I have patience hand feeding baby parrots when they are just wee chicks that cannot feed themselves. My patience however does not extend to hand feeding ignorant bloggers who have access to a browser and do not follow up on leads offered.
    If Mr Hufferd wishes to maintain his narrow opinions on anarchy promoted by the system’s academia, that is his own choice, and he can continue to ‘bellow’ his flatulent complaints here.
    Anarchy does not produce chaos, government produces chaos – “Order out of Chaos” is their moto.

    1. Yup. And next will come the cartoonish insults, and when that fails, the sewer stuff. He’s GOT to feel he’s on top, even when he’s out of ammo and just sputtering bunk. Most of us have seen it before — yada, yada, yada!

  37. Anarchy as defined and described by the system of academia supported by and supporting government, is a strawman definition that does not reflect the philosophy of anarchism promoted by anarchists themselves.

      1. Being unfamiliar with a subject and speaking to it anyway is aptly called an argument from ignorance Mr Hufferd.

  38. Martial Law in the Homeland Security Society
    Totalitarian Collectivism
    “The fact is that the modern implementation of the prison planet has far surpassed even Orwell’s 1984 and the only difference between our society and those fictionalized by Huxley, Orwell and others, is that the advertising techniques used to package the propaganda are a little more sophisticated on the surface. Yet just a quick glance behind the curtain reveals that the age old tactics of manipulation of fear and manufactured consensus are still being used to force humanity into accepting the terms of its own imprisonment and in turn policing others within the prison without bars.” – Paul Joseph Watson

    1. As per the article above…
      This is a good article to illustrate how deep under saltwater your mighty hot rod Mustang of State is boys. Good luck with the ignition switch.

      1. It’s running like super thoroughbred gangbusters, parting the waves and throwing up an unxuous spume a million feet high to thle heavens, with the racket of hundreds of bombs per second, terrorizing and genlociding the natives everywhere, and completely out of our control, boys and girls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can’t you hear it, Willy Boy? Willy boy? Willy boy????????

        1. No doubt the National Security State is making war on every part of the planet. But that is not what your allegory was meant to convey. You were speaking to a few tweaks to put the state back in order as a system of true justice.
          Hufferd, you have been claiming all along that the criminal cabal in DC has legitimacy. You described the state as for the most part in line with the Constitution. You use silly allegories to make these obviously scurrilous points, and now you try to flip the allegory over to mean the opposite of what you were saying it proved.
          It should be obvious to any lucid reader that you are disingenuous and will say practically ANYTHING to be obnoxious towards me. This talking out of both sides of your mouth is what Native Americans referred to as speaking with a forked tongue. In the postmodern world of urban crankshaft dealers, I’d say simply that you are a Bullshit Salesman.
          And you can put these signs of hysteria back up your hole where they came from: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????

          1. WW, I have NEVER claimed that the way-over-the-top national insecurity state things their puppet masters have been doing through them are legitimate. Never! I repeat, never! Don’t you dare misrepresent me on that!
            But the Machine is most certainly there, and operating energetically with frightening violence and arbitrariness as it is. When the constituency of citizens can become We, the (flesh and blood) people, as clearly intended, we would be in superb shape! (although, I gather you would detest most of the things the majority would support, and holler your head off about that!)

  39. Mr Hufferd used an allegory of a car – built by constitutional standards to describe the state. He maintained that it wasn’t running correctly because there was water in the gas tank. He further posited that this was a small problem and all the we needed to do was to flush out the gas tank and get some pure fuel into it at the “car” of state would run constitutionally again.
    That is a fair description of his allegory. Now the readers can see plainly that he has flip-flopped the allegory in such a way as to claim this “car” of state is running superbly; “running like super thoroughbred gangbusters…”
    But this is not the constitutionally constructed “car” of state that he originally proposed in allegory, this is the exact opposite, a complete rebuild, a fascist dragster.
    And this remarkable spin of allegorical rhetoric is all put here within this single page. I don’t have to prove Hufferd is spewing prolific nonsense, he has proved it himself on this very thread.

    1. The car is clearly running very erratically, lurching and popping and smoking. But with super-abundant energy, so that if the fuel situation were corrected (with only real, genuine people being the citizens and constituents, as clearly stated in the great car’s manual, the results would be highly beneficial to the whole electorate — which is the unfulfilled, clearly-stated purpose of this particular state. The government truly should equal the people.
      You really had to reach for that one, didn’t you, Will?

  40. –“I’m not aware that the 9/11 Truth Movement is part and parcel of a revolution to entirely overthrow the constitutional government of the United States. Is that your objective?”~James Hufferd — MAY 19, 2014 AT 3:11 PM
    >My reply at MAY 19, 2014 AT 3:33 PM:
    The “constitutional government of the United States” was overthrown a long time ago James. There is no constitutional government here, only a criminal front org for the NWO squatting in DC in a state of ultra vires.
    Hufferd replies at MAY 19, 2014 AT 4:17 PM:
    –“The Constitution is operative. It’s just that partisan courts and their lackies have reinterpreted and leveraged it…”
    >My reply at MAY 19, 2014 AT 5:22 PM:
    Interesting statement James. But the pretense that a constitution is in effect when it has in fact been “reinterpreted” to mean rule by caveat is simply rhetorical rubbish.
    James Hufferd at MAY 19, 2014 AT 5:36 PM
    –“Okay, “operative” as in “ready to use”. Operating now, with corps. as the constituents like an engine on watered gas, the non-frlesh-and-blood “people”, as designated by the Supremes as the water.”
    Clearly at some point in his game Hufferd flipped a switch and this “engine” became an allegory for the fascist state.
    I will let him make whatever excuses he wishes for this grime of confusion. I only wish to say again that getting into screwy allegories, where he can’t even keep track of what he is saying himself, makes reading Hufferd a difficult proposition.
    I don’t accuse Hufferd of agreeing with the warmongering garrison state called Amerika, I accuse Hufferd of not being able to make a cohesive argument, and getting turned around ass-backward in a single thread here. And I accuse Hufferd of stepping on his own tongue because he is trying to be ‘clever’ and get the best of me as a boost to his flailing ego.

    1. I can only say it is what it is (undeniable), and what it definitely ain’t is nothing! Don’t pull a Bundie and try to deny the existence of what collects your taxes (and, in his case, payment owed on his signed contract, Wee Willy!) lmao

      1. I have never denied the existence of the illegitimate criminal system squatting in DC. I have simply pointed out clearly and succinctly what that entity is.
        That criminal cabal has no lawful authority to collect mine, Clive Bundy’s nor anyone else’s taxes.
        Oil your crankshaft with that Mr Huff’n’Puff.

        1. Projection! Projection! You’re just being illegitimate! Yes, not EVERYTHING that they do is illegal! Usually, a suspect is charged with having committed a particular illegality, it’s not charged that everything they do or ever did is illegal! That’s a pretty outrageous charge you’re making! When I asked you to list the provisions in the Constitution that were being violated by the current governance, you could only come up with a couple, remember? And I added one huge violation you completely overlooked. Now, you’re reverting! I hope, for your sake, your fans aren’t watching.

          1. [As of June 20, 2012]:
            According to the Hill, and other media reports, the presidential breakdown for executive privilege is as follows:
            President Ronald Reagan: 3
            President George H.W. Bush: 1
            President Bill Clinton: 14
            President George W. Bush: 6
            President Barack Obama: 1
            As a side note, in pardoning Nixon, President Gerald Ford waived his right to executive privilege, willfully subjecting himself to Congress for questions.

    2. I need reach for nothing Hufferd. I stated clearly that the so-called “government” of the US is totally and utterly Ultra Veres – beyond law, meaning completely illegitimate and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
      You used trite and tepid – in fact STUPID half-assed bullshit arguments against my position.
      It’s as simple as that Hufferd. Other than to say you have become a total bore.

      1. It routinely commits some illegalities, true. But, even a convicted criminal is not usually declared illigitimate! It is what it is, and in general (with a few glaring and lamentable exceptions, as we established previously), follows the rules laid down in the Constitution, as legitimately (not necessarily wisely, we would agree) interpreted under Constitutional provision for judicial review.
        I think you’re just in the habit of declaring everying you don’t like “illigitimate”. Burnt toast = “illigitimate”, global warming = “illigitimate”, flight delays = “illigitimate”, etc., etc., etc., etc. It’s you favorite big word!

        1. “It routinely commits some illegalities, true.”~Hufferd
          “Some illegalities”? That is a good summation of your bullshit James. Exceedingly trite bullshit.

  41. Hufferd is defending an indefensible proposition, one that is not so by prima facea evidence.
    The levers of power are in the hands of an utterly corrupt criminal enterprise. It has dispensed with any fidelity to the Constitution in any substantial way.
    The APPEARANCE of any such fidelity is purely a false paradigm created by PR, attended by empty rituals in the guise of being constitutional, but in effect subvert it.
    And this assessment is understood by any who have studied the history and remain aware of current events.
    The power to balance and limit authority by lawful stricture provided by the Constitution is effectively declared to be ‘null and void’ by the actions of the illegitimate authority, regardless of any empty apologia they may proclaim.
    I see nothing in Mr Hufferd’s commentary that can effectively counter my statements above, and do not anticipate that he will make an effective case going forward. So there isn’t much more reason to pursue this discussion with him.

    1. Here, you’re just stating your unfounded subjective opinion, based on your distaste and probably some tracts of others similarly disposed, nothing objective or actionable.
      Of your several pseudo-substantive paragraphs, only the first is objectively testable.

  42. The term “Full Spectrum Dominance” says it all. The military police state has stated its aims upfront; Complete Tyranny. What more proof is needed with such a blatant admission?

      1. “Full Spectrum Dominance”
        It is stated as US military top strategy. And this should be common knowledge to any interested parties.

          1. “The U.S. military is not even authorized to deploy operationally within the U.S.”~Hufferd
            It doesn’t matter whether they are ‘authorized’ they clearly do it anyway. They operate directly as military, and they operate indirectly as the top tier of the militarized police; having them coordinated by a central command:
            U.S. Northern Command partners to conduct homeland defense, civil support and security cooperation to defend and secure the United States and its interests.
            NORTHCOM operates extensive domestic intelligence operations which both share and receive information from local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.

          2. “In case of foreign invasion (supposedly).”~Hufferd
            The domestic population has been deemed a “Terrorist entity” – and has been shown to be defined as so in such vague language that any position an individual takes is covered by the definitions.
            You ran out of turf before this discussion even began.

          3. I’ve seen documents to the effect that members of supposed anti-government organization, as they construe 9/11 Truth, to be, in effect, terrorists or some such word. You’ll have to documet for me where they’ve declared the entire population as the enemy. Can you do that?

        1. “Don’t conflate the captive with the jailer.”~Hufferd
          Look up the term ‘Capo’, it’s Italian. The Homeland Security State creates a integrated ‘capo’ system as part of its mainsprings. The “captives” are invested in the state of surveillance and police dominance, both economically and socially. The apparatchik that is employed to this work is “self-interested” sans moral consideration, through habituation and programming.
          The entire social and economic structure is based on militarism, outbound and security inbound.

          1. The U.S, and Israeli, etc., governments ARE the NWO jailer.
            It is you Hufferd who fails to understand. You fail to understand something that is so obvious that you have to be cognitively disrupted to miss it.
            It is like saying the warden and the jailers at a prison are “captives” in the same terms as the inmates.
            You are using euphemisms to attempt to soften the reality of this situation when it is clearly and starkly a Global Prison State.

          2. Whlitten doesn’t get it at all. The states, supposedly the advocates and tools for the nations, are captive to the iron control of the NWO high over their heads, and being used by the latter as slave labor. We’ve got to free them and restore the now lost enormous gains of the Enlightenment by way of human freedom and self-government. I’m not sure he could understand that anymore, from his far-right perspective.

    F. William Engdahl
    Full Spectrum Dominance is the stated US military strategy. Full Spectrum means the total theater of battle. This total battlefield is defined as the entire planet, Land, Sea, Air, Near Space, and Cyberspace.
    The US is in no way exempt from this definition, and is a focused part of military operations, covert and open. It is the open strategy of the Panoptic Maximum Security State, on a global scale. It is the definition of the Totalitarian New World Order.
    As is shown by close study of the history of this, the US is merely the main garrison state serving constabulary duties world wide, and especially domestically.

  44. In a study recently published by the West Point Combating Terrorism Center entitled, “Challengers From The Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” Arie Perliger, the author of the study, attempts to present a picture of an America infested with dangerous “Right Wing” domestic terrorists lurking in the shadows and waiting to launch an attack on government establishments, agents, and minorities.
    In the study, what Perliger defines as the “Far-Right” is actually a mixture of race hate groups with ordinary militias, anti-abortion activists, Libertarians/Anarchists, and “conspiracy theorists.” Perliger suggests that this “Far-Right” contingent is glued together by an identification with an “anti-federalist” ideology as well as a belief in a “New World Order.” According to Perliger, these groups are concerned with the “corrupted and tyrannical nature of the federal government and its apparent tendency to violate individuals’ civilian liberties and constitutional rights.”
    I have read this document from West Point myself. As I said before, the definitions are so wide spread and vague that practically anyone could fall into one of their categories.
    Anyone who doesn’t see that this is “from the horses mouth” proof of ourselves being classified “Domestic Terrorists” :
    ” Perliger suggests that this “Far-Right” contingent is glued together by an identification with an “anti-federalist” ideology as well as a belief in a “New World Order.” Which in itself is absurd because those who promote the Constitution {the foundation document for federalism} are included in the “suspect profile”.
    What this means simply is that according to official US documents, ALL of us are considered potential terrorists, and are being monitored moment by moment as to our activities and thoughts by NSA.

      1. How dumb Hufferd,
        The “Far Right” is a catch all phrase that includes anyone who is aware of the program. Your definition of “Far Right” has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition as expounded in this document.
        I am literally fed up with your obstinate trifling bullshit now.
        You have been given the information – hand fed it, and you still regurgitate nonsense blather.
        There is no Left/Right bright line Hufferd, it is a Hegelian divide and conquer strategy, and you sit comfortably on the Left fence as if it is going to save you from the rupture ahead. You are a fool.

        1. You’re the one that sprung it on me, and now you’re holding me responsible for it? You really are a piece of work! You discuss not with reason, but with a broken coke-bottle in each fist! A sort of storm-trooper is how you come across.

          1. Hufferd,
            Why do I have to hold your hand and explain each little nuance in the language of the state?
            “Right Wing Extremist” is Newspeak, it doesn’t mean what it says in standard English.
            Being frank is not coming on like a storm-trooper Hufferd, it is being up front with someone who hasn’t got a clue. You don’t want to be considered a dolt, then don’t act like one.

        2. And you try to peddal your narrow, precise little rotten prejudices as if they were facts. A world with you in charge would be equal to or worse than an NWO gulag.

          1. Hahahaha…what priceless yowling Hufferd. Jejune whiny-shit is all you have left here.

    1. “conspiracy theorists.”
      It is right there in the comment I first made about the West Point paper.
      Well I am glad that you admit that your aren’t a conspiracy theorist Hufferd.
      That is what separates the two of us. I understand that whether I choose to hold that label or not, that is how I am defined according to this document.
      If you aren’t a “conspiracy theorist” then you have been making noises about the NWO that are going to put you under that heading officially.
      Your reading comprehension is faltering a great deal here Hufferd. It is such a drag to deal with such simpleton bullshit as you offer here.

      1. My proper designation would be Conspiracy Analyst. You are the conspiracy theorist. I demand evidence, you work outward from prejudice.
        To Hitler, everyone else was a fool.

      2. Aha…so now it’s not simply a “storm-trooper” you are likening me to, but now it’s “Hitler” as well.
        “My proper designation would be Conspiracy Analyst.”!Hufferd
        In the jingle jangle morning and for christsake man. It don’t mean shit what you would self designate as. How can you be so thick? It is the designation given you by the Homeland Security State that is all that matters.
        You “demand evidence” and then handwave it. WTF? My patience with you is shot Hufferd, don’t provoke me any more.

    1. Thank Heaven, some positive news to wind up a screwy day on this blog.
      Thanks for letting us know Mr Syed.

  45. Cracking The “Conspiracy Theories’” Psycholinguistic Code: The Witch Hunt against Independent Research and Analysis
    By James F. Tracy — Global Research, May 21, 2014
    A new crusade appears to be underway to target independent research and analysis available via alternative news media. This March saw the release of “cognitive infiltration” advocate Cass Sunstein’s new book, Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas. In April, the confirmed federal intelligence-gathering arm, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), released a new report, “Agenda 21: The UN, Sustainability, and Right Wing Conspiracy Theory.” Most recently, Newsweek magazine carried a cover story, titled, “The Plots to Destroy America: Conspiracy Theories Are a Clear and Present Danger.”

    1. Considering Sunstein is one of the major propagandists in the nation, it is highly likely that he was kept abreast of the planning of the “9/11 Memorial Museum’ – if not actively involved in the project himself. The timing of this new book of his seems to be part of a concerted effort. I’ve no doubt that the book will be available at the “museum” at their bookstore kiosk.

  46. The New Jersey Holocaust Commission is an autonomous body operating under its own policies and positions. It acts as a resource to the Department of Education to assist schools with various aspects of meeting the requirements of the mandate to provide Holocaust and genocide education. The commission provides curriculum outlines and suggested activities; identifies and publicizes demonstration sites for other districts to contact; and recommends informational resources and materials for teachers and students to use in the state.
    –Copyright © 2003-04 · NJ Department of Education · All Rights Reserved
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    “requirements of the mandate to provide Holocaust and genocide education.”
    So it is mandated to teach this propaganda to the students in NJ. It is also so that NJ has a compulsive educational system. So one is forced to attend propaganda sessions. That is not ‘education’ it is pure indoctrination.
    I must say that I deplore this situation which is no doubt quite widespread throughout the greater nation.

    1. No matter ones views on “The Holocaust”, one fact can not be denied, and that is that there is controversy. Any controversial subject must address the controversy and not simply wave it away disparagingly.
      This is why it can be fairly stated that this is not education offered in NJ, but indoctrination and programming.

      1. Well to be sure both Germany and America had their propaganda working full tilt during WW2 as did the British, the Italians, the Russians, and the Japanese. Lies were all around from top to bottom, the difference now is that the allies won the war so their propaganda was accepted and remains even today while the Axis lies were fully exposed as lies. I think it is fair to say that both sides axis and allies committed terrible crimes against humanity. However I find it to be a bit unsettling that it is a crime in Germany to raise doubts about the official Holocaust narrative. To me that is a sure sign that at the very least the truth about what really happened has been exaggerated and embellished probably a great deal. There is ample evidence that that is exactly the case. Make no mistake about it Hitler was a murderous bastard and committed countless crimes against humanity but then again so did Stalin and so did we here in America. We had our own concentration camps here for Japanese Americans most of whom were totally loyal Americans. What do we “learn” about WW2 though on our TV programs and in our schools? We learn about Hitler exterminating 6 million Jews in gas chambers and we learn about death camps while we learn virtually nothing about Stalin killing over 20 million or our internment of hundreds of thousands of loyal Americans.
        I know from my own personal studies on the subject that virtually everything the TV tells us is a lie or at least an exaggeration especially when it comes to the subject of the holocaust. Now if I said that in Germany I would probably be arrested.

        1. We know that the official narrative about 9/11 is a big fat whopping lie so the question that remains for each of us to answer for ourselves is how many other “official narratives” are also monstrous lies and what is the truth? Are our beliefs based on any truth at all or have we been lied to about virtually everything? Did we really go to the moon?

          1. “Did we really go to the moon?”~Mr Ruff
            Pshaw .. No … jeeeeze, didn’t you ever see ROCKET SHIP XM?
            There was a mishap about midway to Luna and the ship was flung around the moon, and by some great coincidence went to Mars instead. They even had enough fuel to make a landing and discover there had once been a high civilization on Mars – that destroyed itself in a global nuclear war.
            Pretty good reason for nuclear disarmament wouldn’t you say?

        2. Yes. For those who haven’t seen it, check out the tour of Auschwitz by JEWISH holocaust revisionist David Cole. The video shows, beyond any shadow of doubt, that at the very, very least, the lower-down tour guides who give group tours to thousands each year, are told to tell the public a lie: that the gas chamber the public is shown is indeed the original gas chamber in its original state, and not a reconstruction. Cole paid extra for a 1-on-1 tour with a guide, and hammered the guide with forensic questions about the chamber, and why he didn’t believe it could be an original. Eventually, the guide got her supervisor, one of the higher-ups. This was the moment when Cole would either get an answer, or be asked to leave the premises. The answer: “It is a reconstruction. Done after the war.”
          That much, that the higher-ups force the lower-downs to tell the public a lie. The question is: why? Cole’s further analysis and conclusions, I agree with. After Cole started getting a bit of MSM publicity in the early 90s, he was death threatened by the extremist group “Jewish Defense League” and he “recanted” his research. Just last year, he resurfaced as David Stein.

          1. Yes there are a lot of holes in the official Holocaust tale.
            I would simply say that these is no doubt there was a ‘work-to-death’ policy in place, and that there were indeed special trucks built that simply piped the exhaust into a sealed chamber. They Nazis went after a certain class of Jews in a serious way, but they went after many groups in a serious way. The Jews suffered along with many other peoples under the Third Reich.
            It is the numbers game told by the Holocaust industry that are most telling. And the hidden Zionist participation and agenda to sacrifice the “lesser brethren” for an over-riding cause.
            All of these issues should be aired in the light of day.

  47. Most people have been taught to be stupid and thus they just accept whatever they are told or whatever they see. In other words, they choose to be no more intelligent than an eyeball or an ear. Thus they are being deceived almost constantly.
    Here is an example. People think that a car, train, plane, etc., can stop( no motion ), and then start moving ( be in motion ). But anyone with a brain in use can see that this is absolutely impossible.
    As was stated by the popular physicist Brian Greene, all objects are constantly moving at the speed of light within Space-Time. ( To verify this, Google- Nova: Special Relativity in a Nutshell )
    If in general you have a grade 6 education but include grade 9 math, then via analyzing this constant motion, you are led to an outcome that is identical to Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity. It’s soooo easy to do if you choose to think. ( To verify this, Google- KSP SPECIAL RELATIVITY playlist )
    However, by not thinking, the truth about the 911 incident is known NOT of by oh so many people, and they intend to keep it that way.

    1. Addressing the remarks of Mr Proudler;
      The term “relativity” is drawn from the root, “relative” meaning in ‘relation to’.
      As is stated in both Einstein’s special relativity argument, and Newton’s general relativity argument, what is important for understanding the meaning of the arguments is “framing”, what frame is the activity taking place in?
      Take the simple Newtonian instance for example. In the general frame of ‘universe’ the mechanics of motion are described in terms of ‘momentum’ and ‘inertia’ all taking place according to mass/speed ratios sans friction.
      Change that frame to a planet, where there is friction created by both air pressure and the force of the gravity of the planet, and one discovers that things do stand still – ‘inert objects’ having only the quality of Mass – and things that do move in relation to the frame of the planet, ‘objects with mass, velocity, and vector’.
      So claiming that everything is always in motion in relationship to everything else on the macro scale is not correct as it is on the micro scale, as the frame of conception must be taken into account.

  48. Not to leave Mr Ruff with a satirical answer on it’s own, I will just add this:
    The whole Kubrick angle on the faking of the Moon landings is predicated on the “seem-line” in the front-screen projection process used for 2001: A Space Odyssey. The problem with this analysis is that there was no seem-line in the screen; it was put together by an ingenious method of abstract shaped patches, preventing the very seem-line it was designed to camouflage. Having looked into the controversy quite deeply, I consider the “Moon Hoax” theory to be rubbish. But I don’t really have a dog in the fight, and don’t care one way or another what others may think about it.

    1. Ah yes we will have to discuss the moon landing sometime since there are so many things to talk about with it. For instance did you know NASA claims to have “lost” all the original footage from the moon? Yep they apparently misplaced all of it from all the missions. Kind of like Kennedy’s brain being misplaced after the alterations …ah I mean “autopsy” huh? Yup that is right NASA lost the most important footage mankind ever captured. Must have been some intern just misplaced it and it got thrown out by mistake.

  49. “Must have been some intern just misplaced it and it got thrown out by mistake.”~Adam
    Lol, the story is a bit more complex than that. What are missing are the Apollo 11 tapes of the direct feed from the moon on a unique format. When those were rebroadcast to NASA Huston, the format did not translate to the format of regular television broadcast, and the images shown on TV live were blurry and dark compared to what Australia station was receiving and seeing.
    The original tapes on the special format tapes are indeed still missing.
    Of course this is grist for a conspiracy theory, and since I wasn’t along for the ride on Apollo 11 I can’t say that I know for certain that the craft actually landed on the moon. So I won’t argue about this. But from everything else I learned about the mission and the argument for a hoax, my best guess is that they landed on the moon.
    If I were to posit a theory of why the Apollo program shut down seemingly prematurely; I would propose that the visitors from Earth were confronted by the presence of visitors from elsewhere that had already staked a much more high tech claim on the property.

    1. Let me ask you one question HR1. If you were on the moon with less than 1/5 of Earths gravity what would be the first thing you would try to do?
      Yeah me too!
      I wonder why the astronauts didn’t jump at least 5 feet up in the air or 4 feet or 3? Surely they could have managed a tiny little 1 foot jump on Earth even in the space suits. Even a 6 inch jump on earth would translate to over 2 1/2 feet on the moon. Seems very odd to me.
      According to this website:
      Kadour Ziani has a 60″ vertical jump which on the moon would mean he could jump over 300″ high a whopping 25+ feet in the air. Surely an astronaut could jump 1/10th that high on the moon?

    32726 Spammers Denied Registration
    99 Spammers Permanently Banned
    8 Spammers submitted to StopForumSpam
    . . . . . . . . . . . .
    I wonder what their definition of a “Spammer” is?
    Seems pretty radical that 32726 people have been declared “Spammers” already … ???
    I do have to wonder if this “American Spring” is a product of USAID, like the “Arab Spring” was, and like the thing ongoing in Ukraine is.

    1. I assume that it is the set-up I predicted. I suspect it may grow and be put down as the token right-wing rebellion. What they’re missing is that 9/11 Truth isn’t a right-wing movement and shouldn’t be lumped in.

      1. –“What they’re missing is that 9/11 Truth isn’t a right-wing movement and shouldn’t be lumped in.”~Hufferd
        9/11 Truth isn’t a left-wing movement either is it James?
        The truth is the bulls-eye.
        It isn’t left of it, right of it, above or below the bulls-eye.

        1. The ‘American Spring’ operation was not framed as a 9/11 issue, although 9/11 may have been a side issue for some of the people into this.
          The main frame is an attempt to put the “government” back on a constitutional bearing. This is laudable in itself, as this so-called “government” is in constitutional noncompliance.
          And it doesn’t take a “right-wing extremist” to recognize this fact.

        2. 9/11 Truth is its purest form is an evidence-based movement including anybody truly seeking the truth about 9/11 and commonly, the full ramifications of that, being due process and justice..

    Epic fail … you sometimes gotta wonder if things like this are designed to happen just like this on poypuss.
    I don’t like either ‘side’ on this issue. I think the American Spring people were delusional to think that they could pull this off. And I think the socialist-collectivist goatz making fun of it are even bigger assholes for defending this tyrannical “government”.
    “Battle lines being drawn…nobody’s right when everybody’s wrong..”
    ~Buffalo Springfield {that was a rifle, ya know}
    Pathos continues to bloom in Amerika circa 21 c.

  52. The US was established as a Republic.
    The only “Democracy” it has ever been is the Bernaysian Democracy it was forced into by PR during the Wilson Regime.
    Bernaysian “Democracy” is a Newspeak term, to describe an oligarchy posing as if it is the “will of the people”. “Democracy” is a facade, a false front for a criminal syndicate.

        1. Let’s try again: What do you think is the operative definintion of a Republic? AND under the U.S. Constitution’s formulation of a republic, who is indicated as being sovereign, which prevents that conception of a republic from being a representative democracy of the country’s citizens?

        2. The operative definition of a Republic:
          Representative rather than Direct government.
          Under the U.S. Constitution’s formulation of a republic, the Individual is sovereign, which prevents that conception of a republic from being a pure democracy; as the country’s citizens, as well as the elected bodies have limited authority over the sovereign individual as far as disparaging the individual’s inalienable rights.
          Note Hufferd, that we have been through this argument before. It is as clear as an azure lake in springtime from the historic record:
          Beginning with The Declaration of Independence, that each individual is born endowed with certain inalienable rights. That these rights are not granted by governments, and that these rights cannot be annulled by governments.
          You may not like the ramifications of these truths, but they are so nevertheless.

          1. In other words, people are (as stated in We the People). So, what is a government by the people (not implying that we reall have one) commonly called?

    1. A note as to my purpose in posting the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’.
      I did so to make note of the use of the term Republic in the pledge. The nation had always been considered a republic throughout its history.
      I probably should have put the pledge in quotation marks, as I no longer have allegiance to that flag; as it now stands for a vile and corrupt empire which I deplore. I love the concepts of Liberty and Justice, which I find are disparaged and under constant attack by the so-called “government” now represented by this flag.
      I have no use for the colors of regimentation and tyranny.

      1. “Republic” is a geral term. That the system formulated in the Constitution is a republic does not preclude it being a democracy. For instance, the Consitution does not formulate the type of republic the Soviet Union had, or that Florence and Venice had under of Doges (not democracies because very few were permitted the right to vote and thus be represented). Rather, it formulates a republic representative of the People more broadly speaking = what is called a Representative Democracy (a more specific type and more accurate than just saying “a republic”, which could include a lot of different arrangements).

    2. Hufferd,
      You are spouting rhetorical bullshit again.
      You say a “republic is a general term”. Yes it is a general term, UNTIL it is specifically enumerated as it is in the Constitution. It is then a very SPECIFIC term; a “constitutional republic”
      You then go on with this twisted doublespeak:
      –“Rather, it formulates a republic representative of the People more broadly speaking = what is called a Representative Democracy (a more specific type and more accurate than just saying “a republic”, which could include a lot of different arrangements).”
      We have already determined that the Constitution delineates “a more specific type” of Republic. Do you want to speak “more broadly” or more ‘specifically’ Hufferd? You want to stretch towards the ‘broadly’ to inject “Representative Democracy” while at the same time saying it is more ‘specific’. But that term too can be used as generally as just saying a “republic” without the enumerated definition of such as expressed in the US Constitution.
      The US Constitution does not “include a lot of different arrangements” – the arrangements are specific and enumerated. A “Representative Democracy” could very well be “constituted” to mean a collectivist tyranny wherein Individual Rights are disparaged for the good of the whole, where “to each according to need” and “from each according to ability” is policy … in other words, a Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat. And this is IN FACT what you keep edging towards with your rhetorical twine of Bernaysian Newspeak.
      You attempt the term “the People” as a faceless mass, as if “the People” is not composed of unique sovereign individuals. You hand-wave the the words of the Declaration of Independence by such conceptualization, and you disregard as well the Bill of Rights which was demanded by these “People” as a necessary inclusion before the Constitution could be ratified. And this Bill of Rights contains the ingenious key to the “penumbra” of the rights not enumerated, by the inclusion of the 9th Amendment.

      1. Whitten, as you are determined to state things, the Constitution of the USSR also formulated a “Constutional Republic” and I wouldn’t be surprised if the repulics formulated in and for the Republic of Venice and Republic of Florence were likewise formulated in some sort of consitution, making them “Constutional Republiics” as well, although far different that the system the Constituion of the United States formulated and set into practice. So, your term “Constutional Republic” is a very non-specific term, compared to the term Constitutional Democracy, a rather standard term much better specifying the sestem formulated by the Constituion of the United States, as already stated.

      2. “So, your term “Constutional Republic” is a very non-specific term, compared to the term Constitutional Democracy…”~Hufferd
        Nonsense Hufferd, it is the words of the Constitution itself that describes the US Republic in very SPECIFIC TERMS.
        I suggest you actually READ that document to familiarize yourself as to what those very specific terms are. In doing so, you should become very aware that those very specific terms have been disparaged by the sitting “government” which insists on calling itself a “Constitutional Democracy”.

        1. Whitten, in your charicteristic knee-jerk (or, just jerk, for short) kicking aside even the most servicable and reasonable of conventions, you are arguing against all settled usage in avoiding the usual, far-more accurately descriptive term Representative Repubic (or Constitutional Democracy, virtually the same thing), in order to avoid admitting that the type of system formulated by the Constitution of the United States was any sort of democracy, because the term seems for some to make many of a libertarian bent gag. If the sovereignty rests in the indiviual, that’s not individual rhinoceroses or individual jack rabbits, but individual People (the demos in Greek) = Democracy. Why not face it, instead of going all pukey whenever things you may not like (in favor, I gather, of “no gummit at all” — a lack of something which we thankfully don’t have, and hopefully won’t). To quote a particular bane of yours and of many, “Mend it, don’t end it”.

  53. Let me point out again here, that Mr Hufferd and I have been through this very same argument about “Republic” or “Democracy” before. A long and convoluted argument wherein I found Mr Hufferd to be suffering from the misinformation contained in the Bernaysian model of Public Relations.
    We have touched upon these issues again in this thread, wherein it is shown that Mr Hufferd has a constrained comprehension of the historical material to which he attempts to address.
    Mr Hufferd is again coming very close to loosing the privilege of receiving my replies by his continuous use of spurious and convoluted argumentation that disregards the actual historical facts. I will only engage him so far as my patience with his misinformed ignorance will allow.

    1. I find that having the privilege of receiving Whitten’s replies is almost invariably of negative value, invariably so if one dares to disagree a whit from Whitten. And in those rare instances in which said replies are not negative in value, Whitten is so full of himslelf as to render those replies uniformly worthless. And don’t just come back and say I’m full of myself, zing, so there, unless you are prepared to display some modicum of decency and forebearance, instead of the full-spectrum hostility to all knowledge and opinion alike outside your thankfully miniscule if advancing idiotilogical fringe.

        1. Dear Mr. Hufferd,
          Hold Mr. Rogue to his promise of not conversing with you anymore. And when he is found in default (probably just a few short minutes from now), you’ll have fodder for calling him legitimately a “liar”. It will serve him right for making promises that he had no intention of keeping and has been a glaring flag of his integrity in my “conversations” with him. How many times has he thrown the towel in with me? Oh, and to appreciate the full measure of “the entity”, be sure to check out what he writes about you behind your back in his disorganized, unfocused, mean-spirited, and lame blog.

          1. Mr Hufferd is more than welcome to read what I have written about him on my blog.
            It is not without some mirth that I note that the anonymous entity calling itself Señor cannot restrain in himself the opportunity to make disparaging remarks about me on this blog. That he sniffs my ass continually by attending my own blog and giving it PR here on this one. As the entity picks spurious ‘birds of a feather’ to make tactical alignments with, there is little doubt that these birds will find their names or monikers mentioned on my blog.
            The readers will also notice that there is a distinction between addressing and “conversing” with another commentator here, as I have made further remarks ABOUT Hufferd. The entity “Seenyor” cannot seem to get this distinction clear, and is about making me into a “liar” by ignorance of such distinctions.
            So allow me to make this DISTINCTION absolutely clear – I am addressing the forum, the general readership with these further remarks. If I have anything further to say to these individuals I shall address them specifically in my introductory words.

  54. Splendid. Mr Hufferd goes on with his hypocritical a spurious insults while pleading for “some modicum of decency” – after likening me to a “storm trooper” and even “Hitler” and claiming I am “advancing idiotilogical fringe.
    Meanwhile Hufferd has no solid argument against the notion that the Declaration states that our sovereign rights to Liberty are beyond the purview of both government or any majority.
    He confounds the ‘Form’ of governance with a ‘Process’ of governance. The form is historically clear a Republic, one that entails the use of some “democratic” processes.
    These rights of Liberty precede any and all forms of governance. The come part and parcel with being born a human being.
    Liberty is not an INVENTION of Revolution. Liberty is the DISCOVERY of enlightened Reason.
    Mr Hufferd may continue to rant and pant and squeak his anal hurlant between his blubbery cheeks, he may provoke me to lyrical purposeful insult, but his ignorance is shown in glaring detail on this page, and he can compound this evidence more as he will.
    Whether I speak to his bullshit again is my option. But it is his option to keep climbing further up his tree of ignorance high enough to see his whole ass.

  55. I see by Mr Hufferd’s latest remarks about “reneging” that he too suffers from Seenyor’s lack of perceptions, believing that I have directed my further remarks to him personally, when I am as in this comment, speaking to the larger readership. Speaking my mind freely as I am wont to do.
    I have nothing further to discuss WITH Mr Hufferd. My opinions as to what has been previously discussed, and to whatever further ranting might be forthcoming is – again as I said before, entirely my option.
    I have formed a lot of impressions and opinions as to these two characters.
    These various impressions may yet be voiced here. Much of that depends on how much further I am to be provoked here.

    1. Ah… Dear Readership.
      I think that it is obvious that the concept of “context” has been lost in the minds of my two tormentors of recent postings. The context in which one frames their remarks are plain by their construction.
      I do not address them, I address thee, and I critique them by these remarks.
      I do not demand their silence, nor request further comments from them. They may continue if they will. I may continue if I will.
      These points remain to be jurried by the candid world as time may go on, or these points may simply fall to the main bulk of verbiage on the Internet. Be that as it may, I speak as much to posterity as I can. And I hope that some can learn by the sense of my arguments here, that there are many here amongst us who simply don’t know what the fuck they are talking about.
      There are some here, such as the ever slinking Seenyor, who have a focused agenda to defame my character with unsubstantiated charges made by false witness by this scoundrel.
      And whether will the true story be revealed broadly is a matter for fate to decide.

      1. Rogue, I can’t speak for Senor El Once, but I don’t know you from Adam, except for your bullying, blowhardry, and assumed role as arbiter and dominating poobah — a role your extreme fringe ideology, lamebrain conceptualizations, unusually narrow purview, and the offensive barnyard lexicon you unleash on any who dares post fact or reasoning contrary to any detail of your continuous ranting — ill suits you. I don’t know who you are, what you’ve done with your life, or where you’re from, but the well-known quote, “Ye shall know them by their fruits” must apply to wherever it may be..I don’t know what makes you a hybrid, but rogue is an excellent selection for the persona you have developed here. I suspect whatever readership is still hanging in to montitor this thread know full well where the Senor and I are coming from, from many repetitions between you a numerous other declared imbecilic enemies you have sought to humiliate because they dared use their brains in analyzing your continual, nonstop, dubious but forcably supreme pronouncements. Which is not to say some toe-sucking emulators might even be honing their own dark comedy acts under your tutelege.

  56. I have no illusions as to the percentage of the current population that has the slightest grasp as to the constitutional issues discussed on this thread. The state of so-called “education” in this nation has reached an all time low.
    This combined with the disinformation on history propagated by the Public Relations Regime, will most obviously narrow the knowledgeable readership down.
    However, I would urge those who do have some inkling as to the gist of my arguments to take advantage of the links I offered earlier concerning ‘Executive Privilege’ and ‘Presidental Warpowers’, as these two issues in themselves make the core of the larger case that the present syndicate ensconced in DC is constitutionally ultra vires, and utterly illegitimate.

  57. Mr Hufferd has again addressed me with his misconception that I set out to humiliate. I do not indeed, but I do see that Mr Hufferd and his new sidekick humiliate themselves by spurious argument that has no basis in the facts of history that is being discussed.
    Mr Hufferd is unfortunately lost at sea in the lexicon of Newspeak, spooked and setting sail from the shores of sanity, mistaking the lighthouse as the lanterns of a pirate ship he is hysterically running from.
    Mr Hufferd’s take on history is the garbage spewed by PR, it is as simple as that. Mr Hufferd has zero comprehension of the Constitution and its meaning.
    He has no idea as to what Liberty truly is, but sees through the collectivist lens of Marxism. There was no greater champion for corporatism than Marx when one grasps his entire program. He was the master of the dialectical and creator of the Left/Right paradigm which Mr Hufferd suffers within.

  58. Indeed the readership here will decide for themselves.
    And for their consideration I offer this {hopefully} last bit of analysis:
    James Hufferd — MAY 25, 2014 AT 8:01 AM
    –”In other words, people are (as stated in We the People). So, what is a government by the people (not implying that we reall have one) commonly called?”
    ….. ….. ….. ….. …..
    It doesn’t matter what it is “commonly called” … what it is commonly called is Newspeak, the new euphemistic political language that turns the lexicon up-side-down and backwards.
    What actually matters is what words meant before the Public Relations Regime began toying with language to enchant the people of the world.
    The “government by the people” was originally referring to the Republic established by the Constitution of the United States.
    It is historical fact that the term “democracy” was introduced into the modern lexicon by Edward Bernays in his tract, PROPAGANDA. This ruse was ‘nationalized’ by the Woodrow Wilson regime, and used as a motto to “save the world by spreading democracy” to push the American people against their will into WWI.
    That this history is clear and can be found easily on the web, any arguments that fail to take this history as the base of it, is simply rhetorical bullshit, just like the crap spewed by the PR Regime itself.

    1. Every word and term used has an origin. Words are innocent; good or evil is in the heart of the user.
      Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances.
      He who knows best knows how little he knows
      Thomas Jefferson

    2. Interesting about Bernays. And here I thought the term democracy might have been introduced into the American lexicon by Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic book DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA in the 1830s.

  59. Aghast and agape here yet dear readers?
    Again Hufferd leaps the frame I put my comments to and despoils the context of my words. He speaks to “Alexis de Tocqueville’s .. DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA in the 1830s.”, when I referred to ‘THE MODERN LEXICON’, and the period where the term “democracy” actually began to be used in Official Propaganda in what was actually Officially a Republic until that time.
    The term ‘democracy’ has been known ‘in America’ from the time of its foundation, but the framers of the Constitution chose “a Republic” {if you can keep it…”} – And I would propose that rather obviously, Mr Franklin himself knew the distinction between a democracy and a republic.
    Hufferd padding his commentary with quotes from Thomas Jefferson is quaint, when it is Jefferson himself, the author of the Declaration, who spoke so eloquently to the principles of Liberty and the natural rights human beings are born with. These rights of Liberty that Hufferd is so willing to sacrifice on the altar of collectivism and simpleton majority rule.

    1. You know, I suspect, Mr. Whitten, you have a mental condition that simply not only is uterly unable to accept and deal with criticism of or difference in anything pertaining to you, however benign, constructively intended, or correct, perceiving it as a person threat and reflecting it with a thousand percent interest automatically onto the source of it. I don’t know how else to interpret your pattern of behavior in this blog. I know there are people like that.

      1. Dear Mr. Hufferd,
        “Agent” came to mind more often than not in my first year of engagement with Mr. Rogue. But the strange part was that I only disagreed with 10% or so of what he wrote. But there was no getting him to budge from the blatant errors and pathological lies that were the foundation of that 10%.
        When “mental condition” was floated by me by an opponent (and former accomplice) of misogynistic Mr. Rogue, a new truth dawned on me from Mr. Rogue’s own words about “what does it mean to be well adjusted in a pathological society?”
        “Sociopath” explains best the antics of Mr. Rogue, who’d rather commit perjury than admit wrong.

        1. Senor, you are very insightful. I don’t think he considers points counter to his, just considers them malicious attacks and starts hurling grenades. It’s worth answering him because he need to learn to make terms and play nice, and not just try to run over and domesticate everyone to him. I think others he can’t control scare him, and I sense there’s a backstory to that. (Freud would have a blast!)

    2. Also, the Democratic Party (real name) has been in business all the time — even all the way through modern and post-modern times — from Tocqueville’s time to ours. And someone might have noticed and referred to it sometime, don’t you think? Maybe even a lexicographer or two.

  60. So now what of our new dilemma sewn by Hufferd’s misconstruction of the term “modern”. Generally the term is used to describe the current era, usually that of the present living generations. Or as Merriam-Webster’s dictionary would define the word; 1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : contemporary…etc.
    Now, we can play the game of ‘define the word’ here, or we can use rational language, or we can use Newspeak as Mr Hufferd is so fond of. We can play ring around the rosy with rhetorical gamesmanship – or we can speak frankly to the facts as history shows them to be.
    I prefer — I insist on the latter; wherein the Declaration of Independence proclaims Liberty as the birthright of all human individuals; wherein it is admitted and stated clearly that the Constitution created a Republic; wherein the Bill of Rights is not tossed into the dustbin of history as quaint, nor reinterpreted to mean something other than the clear language used in their enumeration.
    The remarks I began with that raised Mr Hufferd’s hackles, was the assertion that the United States is now ruled by a corporatist oligarchy, that the Constitution has been utterly subverted, and that the rule of law has been replaced by despotic diktat. I made the point that this is obvious beyond any reasonable argumentation. And as has been shown by Mr Hufferd himself, only unreasonable argumentation can be used to counter my arguments.
    Any who can claim with a straight face that the modern Panoptic Maximum Security State is in any way a constitutionally viable situation to bear has to be as crazy as a shithouse rat, or a delusional acadamiac that has lost all perspective.

  61. In United States history, the Democratic-Republican Party, the Republican Party or the Jeffersonian Republicans was a political party organized by Thomas Jefferson against the Federalists. Founded in 1791 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
    So is it the “Republican Party” or the “Democratic Party” that has “been around all the time”?
    Neither, the Democratic Party, 1832 to the mid-1850s, under presidents Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, James K. Polk, and Senator Stephen Douglas in opposition to the Whig Party.

    1. You should know the answer to that. The modern Republican Party was founded in the Midwest in 1854. Their first presidential candidate was John Charles Fremont in 1856, and their lineal antecedents, by all accounts, were the Federalists and the Whigs. The Jefferson Democratic-Republicans were the forerunners of the Jacksonian and modern Democrats.

      1. 67 years after the Constitutional Convention in 1787 is, I suppose “close enough for rock’n’roll” by the standards of some. Since it is damned near the length of my entire life, it seems a rather long period of time.
        So let us suppose that a gap of time this long between foundation and creation of the new party system can be stretched into meaning having “been in business all the time”. Shall we or shan’t we accept this as in tune?
        I reject it, but I will leave it to others to decide whether this is a waffle or a pancake.

  62. I suppose the following is Huffferd’s version of remaining “always cool and unruffled under all circumstances”:
    “”Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blau… yet another empty soliloquy, acknowledging nothing… to the last syllable of recorded time…”
    It seems to me rather hysterical in delivery and tone.

  63. willy, james,
    what does your ongoing and endless debate have to do with the article posted, entitled, “CNN launches cartoonish assault on AE911Truth over alternative 9/11 museum pamphlets”?

    1. Dennis,
      It is indirect but begins with my assertion that the Maximum Security State, which is championed by the Public Relations Regime part of that being CNN, is not in anyway the Republic established by the Constitution. It is absurd to suggest that the so-called “government” is in anyway legitimate.

      1. willy,
        thanks for connecting the dots. i would agree that the so-called u.s.. “government” is a farce, and that CNN is part of the overarching PR firm whose job it is to portray the “government” as legitimate, and keep the numbed constituents in a hypnotic state. that “our children” are being brainwashed is nauseatingly obvious. which begs the question: “how to stop the onslaught?” or, perhaps, “can we stop the onslaught?” if yes, “how?” if no, ???

        1. “which begs the question: “how to stop the onslaught?” or, perhaps, “can we stop the onslaught?” if yes, “how?” if no, ???”~Dennis
          I would say that the first step is to recognize as you and I do that this is the state of affairs. Some here do not find it as obvious as you and I, that is why I have attempted to show, what I have insisted all along SHOULD BE OBVIOUS, but which is still disputed on this page.
          If my opponent in this is not convinced by now, it is obviously futile, and I am putting it beyond me now.
          I was already out the door with my comment on poppies.

    2. Good question. All I can say is that I believe the nation/country we will have to turn around to plausibly seek justice is principally hijacked and perhaps recoverable, while Willy is convinced everything pertaining to is rotted all the way through leaving no hope of recourse.

      1. thanks, james. i hope you are right, but feel willy may be correct. i proceed on the basis of the former.

  64. Those of us who will be free, will never put up with such specious bullshit as Hufferd offers.
    One cannot pretend that this is a purely academic argument, that it is inconsequential. What is at stake in this struggle is Liberty. And the future; whether it is to end up Hell on Earth, or mankind will someday be free.

  65. willy,
    re: “What is at stake in this struggle is Liberty. And the future; whether it is to end up Hell on Earth, or mankind will someday be free.”
    i do not think that is an overstatement. but the question for me is WHAT can we DO about it? as mentioned, for me the latest try is the in another context entirely, a context more initially unbelievable (to me) than 9/11, people are implementing the “common law.” see wondering it this type of effort could be applied in a 9/11 context.

    1. Man as individual is capable of enjoyment, aiding or plaguing others, mental reflection extending a finite distance. Collaborating and in a mass, the common benefit potential is infinitely greater and variegated (as in, who wants to be his own doctor?), while the maleficent potential, just as great, must be voluntarily relinquished and held in check by eternal vigilence. If that’s impossible, man’s potential is incalculably limited — that is, if our finest cry must be “leave me alone”.And individual growth and freedom must be protected by the group from malefactors, too, lest it be snuffed out. A truly solitary human wouldn’t last a week of an insipient half-life, in most cases, like a lone Japanese island survivor after WW II. What sort of life is that?

    2. Dennis,
      I am not that familiar with Kevin Annett nor his organization, but have read a little about their efforts. People seem to be attempting quite a few strategies seeking justice – as it is obviously broken down as far as the systems we have all been forced to live under.
      I wish I had some answers at my fingertips, but I don’t. I think voluntary cooperation towards goals is a good thing. This is why I am against the coercion of “government”. In my deep studies of history and long contemplation of what is found in that tragic story is that Government is a Racket. It is first and foremost The Protection Racket.
      Many people have noted that the Godfather films, taken together, actually tell the story of “government” as a deeper layer of understanding.
      Buckminster Fuller tells a ‘short story’ about “government” in the opening chapters of his book CRITICAL PATH. It is a metaphor of a small self sufficient community of farmers and craftsman, who one day encounter a group of strangers on horseback. These newcomers are obviously tough characters bearing weapons. But they are not threatening and are so well received by the townspeople. A day or so after the arrival of these men, they go to some of the elders of the town and tell them that they are worried about the towns safety, that while on route there they had come across and skirted a large army of brigands. They said that with their skills they were able to get through the area of the encampment undetected. But they were certain that this body of warriors were sure to discover this happy little valley and lay it waste.
      Of course these strangers liked the townspeople and respected their lifestyle and industry. They said they wanted to help, and that they could perhaps get together some of the strong young men of the town and teach them some martial skills, and design a defense for the town.
      A few days later there was a murmur throughout the town, as a line of some group of mounted warriors was sighted across the crest of a hill some distance away. This was obviously a scouting party of the larger group the three strangers had warned of.
      To make a longer story here short. It turns out that the three strangers were part of the brigand army themselves, and they were there to demand tribute for protecting the town from their brothers in arms. A “reasonable” deal was worked out, and these men kept their bargain, the town was not attacked and the price of tribute was bearable… for a time.
      Fuller notes that this was the beginning of “government” — the protection racket.
      Is this not the MO of ‘states’? Taxes as tribute to the “government” that holds the monopoly on the use of violence? Any who have read THE PRINCE by Machiavelli should be able to grasp all of the major techniques of governance. Those who grasp the “American Experience” should understand the reasons for only allowing a limited amount of power to a government, and the attempt to limit that power by constitutional means and “eternal vigilance”. Thus was born the original 13 states and their constitutions for limited republican governance.
      Where did it all go wrong? I think it is clear that this happened in Philadelphia, with the establishment of a larger “central government” {One Ring to Rule Them All}.
      These I see as the lessons of history. Lessons that have been forgotten for many generations. I do not know how to backtrack and reset this situation at this time. But I do know that the wisdom of truly grasping this history and what it means is of critical import.

  66. The following is Hufferd’s reply to my comment of MAY 26, 2014 AT 7:50 AM:
    –“A typical gratuitous froth of grasping supremiscist meanness here inserted by the vanquished.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Actually it is not my intent to be “mean” nor is there any rational reason to claim I have been “vanquished”. Whatever Huffert means by “supremiscist”{sic} is beyond me, as much of what he says.
    Earlier this:
    James Hufferd — MAY 25, 2014 AT 8:49 PM
    –”Good question. All I can say is that I believe the nation/country we will have to turn around to plausibly seek justice is principally hijacked and perhaps recoverable, while Willy is convinced everything pertaining to is rotted all the way through leaving no hope of recourse.”
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    This is how Hufferd sums up our differences in response to a comment by Dennis.
    But it is not so simple as this. Hufferd has no concept of what the Constitution means, what Liberty means, or how pure democracy means the death of Liberty. Hufferd believes that if the majority wills a certain policy be followed that that should be the law. And that describes exactly “the dictatorship of the proletariat” as proposed by Marx.
    So Hufferd doesn’t mean to recover the Republic of the Constitution, nor seek the justice as demanded by Liberty, but seeks a bogus socialist state, a bullshit ‘Utopia’ no different than the bogus paradigm that the Global Oligarchy is driving the world to. He may as well go back to sleep for the remainder of the trip, because that is where he will end up, just where he thinks he wants to be.

      1. Hufferd now denies that he has been arguing for pure unmitigated “democracy”, in spite of the evidence of his own words on this thread, and others. Any who recall his arguments against the 2nd Amendment in a previous argument that we had, will recall that it was his position that since some large {exaggerated} majority is in favor of gun control, that it is only proper that “majority rule” should prevail.
        I shall not revisit these arguments here, but only mention them in passing as proof that one aspect of the rights of Liberty has already been argued against here on this very blog by Mr Hufferd.
        Now Hufferd offers his own version of a strawman, claiming that I “preach” nihilism. This charge can only be made out of ignorance as to what I am really saying.
        So let Mr Hufferd explain himself again. Let him defend his position on “democracy” and “majority rule”. What is it that will limit the caveats of the majority when the herd is bolting from some phantom designed by the state?

        1. Democracy isn’t synonymous with socialism — where the state owns everything. Democracy simply means that control and the ultimate say rests with the inclusive body of citizens. If it simply wrests in individuals and the community (which can and by all means should protect personal liberty) is barred from acting collectively as needed (beginning as simply as providing roadways, airports, community-responsible police and fire protection, courts to settle disputes peacefully and equitably), human potential is thereby extremely limited. That’s why I asked the following: if you don’t want operational sovereignty to belong to the community as a whole, then who do you want to be in charge? What part of the whole do you want to be in charge? Total individualism (or atomism) just won’t get a lot of universally-desired things done.
          Few would, therefore, want complete individualism, or individual independence. For instance, each individual would have to make his own firearms and ammo, build his own house, make his own clothes, gather or produce all of his own food, build his own roads and airportrs, practice medicine and dentistry for himself, etc., etc.
          Of course, our government is messed up and not democratic, taken over totally by powerful concentrations of wealth. But having and keeping a fair self-governing society is an ideal worth insisting on and trying to bring about. The U.S. Constitution, basically a good, workable blueprint, has been hijacked long since, as described, and the meaning of We the People needs to be changed back to its obvious original intended meaning, making flesh-and-blood citizens the only de facto citizens, empowered and treated as equals. (1 operational individual = 1 citizen, with citizenship rights protected from infringement or sale).

  67. “NIHILISM : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless, total rejection of social mores: the general rejection of established social conventions and beliefs, especially of morality and religion – belief that nothing is worthwhile: a belief that life is pointless and human values are worthless – disbelief in objective truth: the belief that there is no objective basis for truth.”
    This does not reflect my opinions in any way whatsoever.
    Mr Hufferd confuses “nihilism” with my remarks on anarchy, which he completely misunderstands as well. As I have said before, anarchy is not “chaos”, anarchy is the position that “government” is defined by it’s monopoly on the use of violence and force. That only voluntary associations are legitimate, and that anyone has the right to opt out of any group or pretended “consensus”. Anarchy promotes that all men are born their own master, and that the rights of Liberty are the supreme law. However society is organized it must attend to these natural truths of human being.

    1. I guess Whitten I confuse his expressed view with nihilism in the same way hes omehow confuses the concept of democracy with socialism. If his POV isn’t a sort of nihilims, I don’t know what it is, because his reaction to government seems to me to be what is characterized as “scorched earth”. Then what, he does exactly say. Except once, he called himself an anarchist.

  68. “Democracy simply means that control and the ultimate say rests with the inclusive body of citizens.”~Hufferd
    What is substantially different here from what I have been saying is what Hufferd thinks?
    In a Republic, there are limits to “that control and the ultimate say”.
    As Madison, who was the head of the committee to write the Bill of Rights, remarked, the bill of rights is more a protection against the majority than it is a protection against the government.
    What Hufferd proposes is free reign of majority rule, again attended by a slew of banter about things that do not need “the government” to achieve. To say that society cannot organize itself without the coercive force of government standing over the people is misguided and unimaginative.
    Again, it is the monopoly of violent force in the hands of “government” that makes it repugnant to the sane organization of human society.

    1. No! You didn’t bother to read what I wrote! Majority rule must be limited to protect the rights of the individual, just as individual acts must be governed to reasoably protect the majority from violence and fraud, etc.

    2. Hufferd complains that I didn’t read what he wrote. I did read it.
      He says:
      –“Majority rule must be limited to protect the rights of the individual…”
      And by what auspices? Are these protections to be based upon the rights of Liberty as I have been arguing? If so then Hufferd is not speaking to “democracy” but to the republican form of governance. For it is that form that is based on the rights of Liberty as supreme and above any majority and any “government” enforcing that majority’s will.
      These rights of Liberty indeed are inexorably linked to the responsibilities of Liberty. Those who grasp these rights also grasp the responsibilities that attend them. There has never been the assertion that individuals have any right to ride roughshod over the rights of others.
      It is not assumed that individuals cannot cooperate in projects together, nor that individuals must “do their own dentistry” or any of the other absurd examples Hufferd puts to his commentary.
      My comments to do with anarchy have to do with ridding ourselves of the coercive monopoly on violent force that is part and parcel to the definition of “government”. I do not disdain cooperation amongst individuals, I only deplore forced cooperation by state diktat.

      1. Well, the Bill of Rights, for instance, is a major protection of the rights of individuals from majority or state infringement. On the other hand, prohibitions of murder and against larceny and fraud are protections of everybody against the actions of rogue individuals — denying them liberty to perform certain acts against other members of the community. Both sorts of limitations are generally viewed favorably, and are part of the social contract for a democratic society (which has been overridden and trampled underfoot by special interest deals to support certain individuals and parties politically in exchange for powerful special access to mitigate the laws that limit their plunder and set up the Federal Reserve to plunder far more, and start wars giving the opportunity to plander far more yet, etc.).But, you as an individual are enjoined from murdering with impunity (a limitation on your personal liberty), and the marority is prohibited from prosecuting you for your religious choice, etc. (a limitation on the power of the democratic majority).

      2. And someone is going to deplore the state’s prohibition on murder, saying that, in some cases, they’re justifyed in doing it because certain individuals “have it coming”. That no law is universally popular can’t be a reason for having no laws, however much some disagree with them. When you disagree with a law, you can join with others to get it thrown out, but shouldn’t blow up the pariament building where it was enacted or conspire to kill its sponsors or level the capital. Or blow away tens of people because you’re pissed, as is done these days.

  69. I asked this question:
    ‘And by what auspices? Are these protections to be based upon the rights of Liberty as I have been arguing? If so then Hufferd is not speaking to “democracy” but to the republican form of governance.’
    Mr Hufferd spent a great deal of verbiage avoiding a direct answer to this.
    He continues to use the term “a democratic society” and “democratic majority”, and to speak to the statutes against malum inse, as if we are all children. But he refuses to admit that the Federal Constitution establishes a Republic, based on the principles of the sovereignty of the individual.
    This form of “fast talk” or argumentum verbosium is made to appear to be addressing an opponent’s points, while dancing around the point with great care to never step on that spot.
    Now if Mr Hufferd will admit that these rights of Liberty are not granted by government but are the natural rights of every human being born, we will have come a long way in resolving some portion of our disagreement.
    A simple, direct answer would suffice.

    1. Of course, it’s a democratic republic. What do you think the Democratic-Republican Party was all about? And of course, personal liberties are protected, especially by the first ten amendments to the Constitution. That’s just what I said. Glad you finally get it!

      1. Mr Hufferd on MAY 26, 2014 AT 6:18 PM Claims:
        –“Of course, it’s a democratic republic. Glad you finally get it!”
        However my direct question was THIS:
        Now if Mr Hufferd will admit that these rights of Liberty are not granted by government but are the natural rights of every human being born, we will have come a long way in resolving some portion of our disagreement.
        A simple, direct answer would suffice.
        . . . . . . . . . . .
        As such Mr Hufferd pretends that I have agreed with him that “it’s a democratic republic.” and congratulates himself under the guise of congratulating me.
        This is the type of rhetorical jabberwanking that Hufferd has become infamous for on this blog.
        I Mr Hufferd’s very next post he WILL answer my direct question, or it will be I who proclaim of my own auspices victory in this matter – as that is obviously Mr Hufferd’s game.

      2. One last point…
        “What do you think the Democratic-Republican Party was all about?”
        The name of a political party does not change the form of government. It is not a “democracy” when a Democrat wins the White House, and then a “republic” when a Republican becomes president.
        It is these types of silly allegations drawn by Mr Hufferd that make it extremely difficult to take him seriously. And I don’t.

        1. Willy Whitten, you don’t think a name like that reflects what its proponents were thinking about and wanted to represent themselves and their organization by? You think they just picked the name out of the air? Then, you’re definitely less-intelligent (and even more pig-headed obstinate) than I thought.

        2. Of course, I could remind you, too, that a “republic” is a fairly meaningless concept, except denoting a system that isn’t a monarchy. If the “republic” concept is any more distinguishing than that, please explain how that label in particular distinguished the emergent U.S. from any other country government-wise.

  70. The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly–through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” (Federalist No. 10).
    The Constitution itself declares that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

    1. A sick man is both sick and a man. Just like a Democratic Republic is both democratic and a republic. Why do you hate the concept of democracy so much that, in contadiction of all evidence, you deny its very existence? One of the liberties established for the common man by the Revolution was the right to control the government — that is, to be a citizen and not a subject. You really don’t know that? I know you’ll come up with some semantic trick to continue your denial. Ok, go ahead!

  71. “A sick man is both sick and a man. Just like a Democratic Republic is both democratic and a republic.”~Hufferd
    Lol … that is a most bizarre allegory, and could be interpreted that, a Republic is a healthy form of government, but the sickness of Democracy makes that government ill.
    I know this was not Mr Hufferd’s intent – but it is funny, and true to some great extent. And that extent is this; the only Democracy Mr Hufferd has ever experienced and lived under is the Bernaysian Democracy that still sits on his head today – that being defined as a dictatorial oligarchy in the guise of “democracy”. It has become so obvious and apparent recently that a major university has openly admitted such – that the US is no longer a republic, but an oligarchy.
    I do commend Mr Hufferd for commenting on the issue of the rights of Liberty being ‘recognized’ and not ‘granted’ by the Constitution. That Constitution of course founding a Republic.
    Thank you very much for your attention, any and all who have suffered through this long and tedious argument.

    1. Now, be fair — Did I ever defend the way the government is operating now, or at any time at all recently, as being democratic or at all acceptable? You know I didn’t. And anybody who might have read this blog knows I didn’t. So stop belaboromg that non-point.

  72. It is an indisputable fact of history that the Constitution established a Republic. Simple as that.

  73. If Mr Hufferd wants to understand what a republic is, particularly the republic established by the US Constitution, all he has to do is as I have done; read the minutes of the minutes of the convention in 1789 in Philadelphia. This would be a good education for the ignorant Mr Hufferd who cannot seem to determine the facts by simply reading the text of the Constitution itself.
    Personally I have become fed up with the screwball shit I am getting from Hufferd and his new sidekick the lying slandering Seenyor, the twatfaced boy from Colorado. [See: MAY 26, 2014 AT 11:45 AM]
    Since Seenyor only makes commentary on TS anymore other than to make his scurrilous attacks against me, we shall now dispense with my arguing the facts and making prescient points, and turn to the flame that this son-of-a-bitch wants to throw.
    There is no use offering a sane argument to such a vile unprincipled creature as the entity calling itself Seenyor. And it has become obvious that Mr Hufferd clearly enjoys strangling language; torturing it, forcing it to make false confessions. He won’t be happy until every word is bound up in a bright orange jumpsuit, and left in a cell to rot.

  74. Mr Hufferd fails to comprehend that he has crossed the line with his bullshit taunting. I advised this twit to read the minutes of the Constitutional Convention and educate himself as I have done myself. If Hufferd wants to sit chirping with his mouth wide open in his foul nest like some baby bird waiting for its mama to bring him a worm, he can starve as far as I’m concerned.
    I made it plain that I am not playing his stupid little game anymore. And part of that is hand feeding the idiot information that is available right here on the Internet.
    So Mr Hufferd can “man up” and educate himself rather than playing his ignorant dickspittle game on this blog.

    1. Admit it. Despite all your bombast, you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. If you know what the term ‘Republic’ meant, you would have told us. It’s not a taunt, but a simple request you cannot fulfill, because your insistance that the Constitution stipulates a ‘republic’ pure and simple (and most ndefinitely not a democratic republic!) has no substance but that you, due to some ideological hang-up, hate democracy even in concept, but can’t pose any alternative to it or say what is meant by a ‘republic’.

    2. The following sentence from misogynistic Mr. Rogue sums him up quite well:

      Personally I have become fed up with the screwball shit I am getting from Hufferd and his new sidekick the lying slandering Seenyor, the twatfaced boy from Colorado.

      Assuming that “Seenyor” references me, if Mr. Rogue were “fed up”, he would cease and desist. Don’t feed the trolls. His continued participation here contradicts the sentiment of being “fed up.” Burn.
      “Slander” is spoken. “Libel” is written. Having never conversed verbally with or around Mr. Rogue my opinion of his character, Mr. Rogue’s “slander” games are on the same untruthful grounds as “fed up.” Burn.
      And were Mr. Rogue to shift his game tactics to charge me with “libel,” he is reminded that it depends on false information. If the information isn’t false and is in fact substantiated as being true, then it isn’t defamation (slander or libel) regardless of the dings to his reputation. Burn.
      What have I supposedly lied about? According to Mr. Rogue, my lie probably was pointing out the instances of Mr. Rogue supposedly lying. Before calling anyone a liar, I document why their statements are untruthful. This would then make it easier for Mr. Rogue to come clean, either by substantiating why his statements are truthful instead of being blatantly untruthful, or by acknowledging the apparent disconnect and clearing it up. But no. Mr. Rogue all too often takes that opportunity to pathologically weave more of the same tangled web.

      Since Seenyor only makes commentary on TS anymore other than to make his scurrilous attacks against me, …

      Assuming again that “Seenyor” references me, I have commentary that doesn’t mention Mr. Rogue. Readers already know how to tag the relative truthfulness of Mr. Rogue’s remarks. Burn.
      With reference to Mr. Rogue’s extensive posting count, those who aspire to be King of the Mountain set up themselves to be knocked down.

      … we shall now dispense with my arguing the facts and making prescient points, and turn to the flame that this son-of-a-bitch wants to throw.

      Mr. Rogue copied-and-pasted those “prescient points” that were authored by others and aren’t argued that well by Mr. Rogue on his own. Flame wars, on the other hand, are Mr. Rogue’s specialty. Although they aren’t in vogue on T&S, Mr. Rogue is encouraged to go that route so that he arrives much quicker at “flame-out,” “burn-out,” “getting kicked out.”

      There is no use offering a sane argument to such a vile unprincipled creature as the entity calling itself Seenyor.

      Assuming again that “Seenyor” references me, let us dissect the pathological lies that permeate just this one sentence.
      “Sane argument” for Mr. Rogue in the past has meant side-stepping with great fan-fare and skulduggery the opportunity to legitimately read and analyze reference material.
      “Sane argument” for Mr. Rogue in the past has meant finding creative names to call his opponent — “twatfaced boy” above –, rather than the more fruitful endeavors of objective analysis on one extreme or “not engaging” on the other.
      I am vastly more principled than Mr. Rogue on all levels — within my family, within my community, within my work, within my hobbies real-world and on-line — and consistently demonstrate such principles. He knows this, too. Truth is such a formidable opponent, and that is what makes it so “vile” to an “unprincipled creature” of Mr. Rogue’s branding when he comes into the cross-hairs.
      Do the initials F.R. ring a bell for Mr. Rogue? Unprincipled Mr. Rogue is |<–this–>| far from revealing the real name behind them under the misguided belief that this will somehow balance the taint to his reputation colored by his own words and actions.
      It doesn’t matter whether F.R. are my initials, that of a relative, or not related to me in the slightest. “Vile, unprincipled” Mr. Rogue has other aspirations for them in his supposed “sane arguments” that would have nothing to do with the discussion but has everything to do with integrity and principles.
      Foreshadowing my debate strategies because I am principled, I drop the phrases “honey-pot” and “fouling out.” Honey-pot applies to the real names that are me, but more especially to the real names (F.R.) of real people who aren’t. Fouling out applies to the consequences of Mr. Rogue’s flaming (out) actions, whether or not his outing attempts hit pay-dirt.
      No skin off my nose.
      I no longer have problems pushing Mr. Rogue’s buttons. I want him caught in the honey-pot and fouling out. Why? I’m fed up. I’ve already attempted two years plus “sane discussions” with Mr. Rogue, and he can’t even bring himself to get onto the same literal page to voice an agreement or disagreement with specifics. He’d rather rip up a book rather than legimitately review it. He copies-and-pastes too much from others, and gets burned by failing to understand it so he can be defended.
      Applicable definitions of Discredit to Mr. Rogue in T&S:
      – to cause (someone or something) to seem dishonest or untrue
      – to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of
      – loss of credit or reputation
      – lack or loss of belief or confidence

      1. Mere vulgar abuse is an insult that is not necessarily defamatory because it is not intended to be taken literally or believed, or likely to cause real damage to a reputation.
        Law of defamation – SlideShare
        Jan 13, 2013 · What is Vulgar Abuse? It has been pointed out by lawyers that many otherwise slanderous statements may be dismissed by the court as mere vulgar abuse.

        1. The covert entity, who has read a fuller explanation on my blog knows full well that I am referring to my use of colloquial slang in my descriptive “name calling” when I mention the term “vulgar abuse” – which as defined is NOT defamation.
          On the entity’s website there is a very good collection of my INSULTS.
          There the entity asks this question:
          –“Can they be substantiated or do they fit as defamation?”~Bridges
          The anonymous entity obviously cannot, or is not willing to make the distinction between purposeful insult, using common street slang that does not seriously contend that someone is literally whatever term used. For example “motherfucker”; no sane individual would think that a person calling another a ‘motherfucker’ is actually accusing that other person of having sex with his mother.
          However the use of the terms; “liar,” “cheat,” “weasel,” and “agent” are in no way restrained when the fact is that these are charges meant seriously. As it is the entity has attempted to seriously convince the readership that I have lied, that I have cheated, and have weaseled out of a deal. As Bridges seriously attempted to frame me as an agent by accusing me of using a ‘sock puppet’, we shall still use that term as one of his serious charges, although he seems to recant on this more recently.
          The entity boldly claims ‘substantiation’, he makes very clear that he is seriously accusing me of lying, and that he can prove it. However, he has made no proofs, but instead weaves twisted tales from a subjective perspective that prove nothing other than it is Bridges himself who is lying – in a vicious and serious manner to defame me and convince others of his lies.
          That making such charges are in a substantially different category than calling someone names using common street slang should be obvious. It is the serious intent to convince that makes Bridges’ arguments defamation.
          It is obvious that I am certainly not seriously contending that Bridges fucks his mother, or that he was born out of wedlock, or that his mother was a canine… or any of the other clearly colloquial insults I have used.
          But. Since Bridges has been making these serious charges – I do indeed make the counter charge that he is the one who is a liar.
          His first lies were in his trying to convince me to take a copy of the Judy Wood book, saying I could not fairly judge her work from the information on her web site. This is a bald faced lie, and it is false advertising, and it is even admitted in so many words by Bridges himself, in that he cannot name one substantial difference between the information and the book and what is on the website.
          His contention that the legend identifying the buildings that were damaged in the area is “worth the price” on it’s own is utter tripe and nonsense. And that is the only benefit having the physical book holds, even according to the anonymous entity.
          And I should think it clear after all of this water under the bridge, the real reason this entity is so desperate to remain anonymous. And that is because he is bound to be revealed for the slinking lying shyster that he is. But this will have no bearing nor effect on the real person guilty of this vicious charade, as long as he can remain in the shadows behind the masks he wears on the Internet.
          “El-oh-el” indeed.
          But further, the fact that my insults are not meant to be taken literally, as explained above – for the entity to now try to intimate that I don’t mean anything else I say to be taken literally and seriously is just another one of his spurious rhetorical spin jives. Every argument we have gotten from this covert operator is a collection of such spin and spurious verbosity.
          Just as he has attempted to turn the information on Vulgar Abuse to meet his villainous needs, all else that comes from this liar is the same nonsense.

          1. –”Mr. Rogue in this thread alone has purposely told at least ~five~ (5) lies with regards to my gender by calling me “Señora”. Señor~MAY 6, 2014 AT 1:41 PM
            Framing such a trivial thing as calling the entity “Señora” as a “lie”, when it is obviously just a jibe, a slight, an insult; is such a weak argument for calling someone a liar, that any other accusations that I am a liar should be seen in the same context – that of grasping at straws. And when investigated, every single instance of the “lies” this entity has “proven” turn out to be the same tepid technique of ‘making a mountain out of a molehill’.
            Now here is the date/time stamp of Señor’s veritable admission that there is virtually no substantial difference from the Wood’s book and website. I have already deconstructed this. But as it is evidentiary, I want this recorded:
            –”The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”~Señor – MAY 5, 2014 AT 3:19 PM

          2. Wood’s BOOK v Wood’s website according to the Señor entity:
            Parse this closely and what is really found in this spin?
            – “Many errors from the website were fixed in the book,” Well, which errors?
            Well deconstruct this:
            – “The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood …[BUT]… This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts.”
            That’s it; the most definitive statements are few and far between … WTF?
            The entity doesn’t say what is in the book that was left off the website that was “under construction”. He makes no mention of what is new of substance. The only thing Once can come up with here is, – “The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.”.
            Is it? Part of what the entity refers to here is a plastic card, pretty durable, that has the layout of WTC as an areal view, with all the buildings numbered and the names of the streets. Is this “worth the price alone”? Preposterous. The card is handy no doubt, but the rest is more hyperbole. And I reiterate again; the entity cannot think of WHAT it is of substance that is revealed in the book, but missing from the website – he merely asserts that there is, and then offers these expansive remarks about a card with the Legend to the buildings seen from above.

      2. Mr. Rogue posts a dull link as an attempt to justify lamely his own bad behavior (e.g., insulting, inflamatory language both here and his blog) and to claim his usage isn’t defamatory.
        Looks a bit like a “weasel” move in my book.
        Although “otherwise slanderous statements may be dismissed by the court as mere vulgar abuse,” Mr. Rogue misses the key point that “slanderous statements” aren’t the issue; “libelous statements” are. More time and effort must be exerted to get such “vulgar abuse” published, so it’s a bit different than Mr. Rogue running-off at-the-mouth for his birds’ edification.
        More contemplative time in authoring and editing before publishing might result in honed work that isn’t vulgar. For when “haste makes waste” in his postings, control of the publishing media together with cooling-off time might lead a vulgar author to revisit and edit his works for the reputation-, respect-, and trust-damaging offerings.
        Mr. Rogue seems to be saying, his words are “not intended to be taken literally or believed.” If his intentions were serious, he wouldn’t have inserted such “vulgar abuse” that contradicts this. And talk about taking away from the seriousness of other points his work might attempt!!
        Turning the tables, my words are intended to be taken literally and believed, but I have no problems with being fact-checked. If in error, I’ll mend my ways. Mr. Rogue does have a problem with fact-checking, because that’s always what does-in his reputation.
        When I call Mr. Rogue “a liar, a cheat, and a weasel”, I am not issuing idle, “vulgar abuse.” No, these were the character traits that Mr. Rogue demonstrated by his own actions, in his own words, substantiated with accurate quotes and reference links: fact checked.
        Mr. Rogue also seems to be saying that his “vulgar abuse” (here and elsewhere) is not “likely to cause real damage to a reputation.” What does Mr. Rogue know? And is this even an honest statement?

        I couldn’t imagine being so afraid of being who I actually am as a public person …

        Mr. Rogue’s “failure of imagination” doesn’t set the standards for the internet or best-practices.
        Mr. Rogue’s retirement from gainful employment seems to give him extra courage on the public internet, while fueling his failed imagination about potential damage to others.

        [SEO] better hope I never find out who he really is – This blog will turn into LA Confidential and tell all.

        The above, dishonest, unethical, admitted intentions of Mr. Rogue are sufficient, valid reason for exhibiting more prudence online. Mr. Rogue is untrustworthy with personal information. When sociopath Mr. Rogue in debate is beaten back, cornered, or proven wrong, he will reach for irrelevant personal data and leverage it for whatever he can. Win by cheating is still a win in his books.
        I fully expect Mr. Rogue to continue to sniff my ass and around the honey-pot that is my real identity. When sticky honey finally spills onto his keyboard, he may yet discover the similar efforts of his predecessors in this regard that justify the very coy anonymity that he abhors. Perchance he will learn this in time to avoid repeating their errors and “fouling out” with a red-card.
        Meanwhile, Mr. Rogue continues to discredit himself, causing all readers to disbelieve the accuracy and authority of Mr. Rogue. Bravo. Let the loss of confidence be complete before “nookiedoo” gets invited back for a romp.

        1. “Let the loss of confidence be complete before “nookiedoo” gets invited back for a romp.”~Seenyor
          This is a none too veiled admission that the entity is attempting to defame my character so that the “loss of confidence” will be complete. And as far as his romper room nookiedoodoo ever getting out of the gates on a pair of rockers is a highly dubious proposal in itself.
          One thing about a psychopath is the “superficial charm”, that is an obvious trait of the anonymous entity Seenyor. His whole style is wrapped up in this, as his always using the saccharine “Dear Mr So&So”, as I have pointed out the charm of a snake in the grass.
          He is also methodical and well organized, and presents himself to others as “the wholesome family man”. He rarely uses ‘cuss-words’, and puts on an act of ‘the vapors’ at such language when it is used by others; his ‘Nanny Act’, as I have described and complained about so often.
          His viciousness is veiled by this facade, but his intent is plain to see when one looks at the overall effect he achieves, his dead serious defamation, all put in sugary polite language.
          As I said earlier, reading his blog, as well as his extremely verbose commentary on T&S, in his long diatribes against me; he is projecting his dark psychopathic personality onto me. It is his best defense, to point at someone else as being the personification of what he is himself.
          He frames me as the mirror image of himself. He is also a copycat of my creative personality, he practices it. Anyone can see this in his sign-off logo: // , which is a takeoff on my, \\][//. Much of his commentary is taking what I have said, and turning it around, using the very same language but switching characters. He lacks creativity himself, but is good at mimicking it when he sees how it can draw power to himself. And this is one of the reasons that he has become obsessed with me and wants to destroy the original that he is trying to become.
          Yes, ‘Mad Max’ has become more than the title of a movie.

        2. Señor Maxitwat’s is a COVERT OPERATION, in that he is an anonymous covert entity slinging barbs and slurs from behind his faceless gravitars.
          To postulate that such a covert entity may indeed be a spook is certainly a reasonable assumption to make. It is the operator and his operation being covert that make it impossible to prove one way or the other.
          Of course it is futile to demand that a covert character assassin come forward and identify himself. However, there may yet be a way to discover who this lying prick actually is. The longer this creature harasses me, the more effort I will put to making such a positive identification. I have some feelers out at the moment. Perhaps one of these will bear fruit.

  75. Mr Hufferd persists in asking for an answer already given here. If he wants a short answer all he has to do is read my comment of MAY 26, 2014 AT 6:37 PM, above.
    If Mr Hufferd wishes a fuller definition and filling out of the mechanisms by which the Republic established by the Constitution are, he can as I have, read the minutes to the Constitutional Convention.
    Otherwise Hufferd can go to Hell and chew on his tongue there, rather than drooling is bloody spittle all over this blog.

    1. Mr Hufferd asks now, “So, what was it?”
      Let us instead speak to the present tense and answer what Hufferd is.
      That answer is clear enough, he is an idiot.
      The simple short answer was given, as I pointed out. I also point out that he can read the minutes to the convention, that were taken as “notes” by James Madison. Madison later edited and filled out these notes to reproduce the debates as they had gone forward.
      But even more simple is a reading of the Constitution itself and the structure it provides for representational governance. And this is a clear and short answer in itself; a Republic is a representative government as opposed to a democracy which is direct participation by the citizenry themselves.
      Now, enough of this squirrely idiot’s game from Hufferd. He should diddle himself in private rather than this public blog.

  76. “Why always “instead”? Why always evasive? I (and I’m sure others) conclude that you can’t produce and follow up your bluster. Empty toga?”
    Hufferd fails to grasp that attendant to that “instead”, was further commentary that clearly fulfills the redundant question made by this oinking twat – the meat of which is this, and I repeat:
    A Republic is a representative government as opposed to a democracy which is direct participation by the citizenry themselves.
    The readers will note that this is not the “bluster” that in fact Mr Hufferd displays here. And I think it more than generous that I didn’t simply leave my comment at pointing out that Hufferd is an idiot. And those who are not themselves convinced of this are not paying the slightest attention.

    1. As I’ve repeatedly said (and as even your lackeys must know), a representative democracy is an indirect form of democracy that is in fact a type of republic because it is representative, and is the system the Constitution formulated. And also the substance behind the label Democratic-Republican Party, the vehicle of Jeffersonian Democracy.

  77. I have not come across many in my time debating on the blogs, who are quite as persistent in proving themselves a fool as Mr Hufferd.
    He and the slinking stinking Seenyor smirking and giggling about my “state of mind”, while at the same time parading their ignorance and sheer stupidity so blatantly here.
    Now if Hufferd continues this bullshit on this thread, my only response will be to remind him and the readership that he is a total fucking idiot.

    1. For instance: Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[1] All modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies. -Wikipedia
      You are a piece of work, Mr. William Whitten, I’ll give you that!

  78. More idiocy and word games from Hufferd:
    “And also the substance behind the label Democratic-Republican Party, the vehicle of Jeffersonian Democracy.”
    A candidate’s label and opinion does not change the Form of government, any more than Hufferds scurrilous argument can.
    Jefferson as president did not change the mechanics of the republic one whit. The term “democracy” was then as it is today a term of art, a rhetorical phrase. Jefferson certainly did not do away with the House of Representatives, nor the Senate. He was opposed to the Supreme Court, but was helpless in trying to rid himself of it as it is beyond presidential purview.
    The Constitution remains to this day a blueprint for a Republic. It is only the illegitimate syndicate squatting in DC, representing the global oligarchy that has effectively voided that Constitution.
    Hufferd can huff and puff as he will, but he cannot change the historical facts.

    1. You can call me names — juvenile behavior, but not as bad as dumps of your personal sewage.
      You are “Whitten”, your father is “Whitten”, your various other family members are “Whitten”. But each of you is a variant of “Whitten”: Willy, Wolfgang, Walter, Wanda, etc.
      There are different variants of republics and of democracy. In order to distinguish, each type is given a (descriptive) name. Of republics, all are purported to be representative systems, some to be in theory by popular vote of citizens, some not. Those that are we call “democratic republics”. These are designed as democratic systems (frequently they are compromised), and, because they operate indirectly, through representation, are indirect democracies. The system the Constituion formulated was that type of indirect or representative democracy, and simultaneously, because it was a representative system, a type of republic.
      Got it? I know, more bunk coming….. look out!!!!!!!!

  79. “All modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies. -Wikipedia”~Hufferd
    Wikipedia is no less mainstream Newspeak bullshit than the tripe we get from CNN, Fox, NBC, or any of the other bullshit factories of this postmodern police state,.
    Perhaps Mr Hufferd should look up what Wikipedia has to say about 9/11, and give the forum a rundown on their take on it.

  80. representative democracy = 23 letters
    republic = 8 letters
    Why the cumbersome to replace the simple and specific? The answer is in Bernays and Lippman: Public Relations. To put into the heads of the people that it is their opinion du jour that is what matters as far as policy is concerned. But public opinion is NOT the people’s own opinion, but the manipulated ideas planted in their heads by PR/Propaganda.
    As I have spoken to, the idea that the US is a “democracy” was the key part of the War Propaganda of the Wilson administration: “Making the World Safe for Democracy”. This is where this whole thing begins to get it’s twist and spin to turn ‘the common language’ into Newspeak. And this term “democracy” is and has been a PR tactic to install the Bernaysian Democracy, replacing the Constitutional Republic into the minds of the brainwashed people of the “western representative democracies”.
    Hufferd calls himself a “conspiracy analyst”, but is totally taken in by Newspeak, taking it as sincere language. He is satisfied to speak as one of these brainwashed widgets, using their “common language” as his own.
    He is a complete hypocrite in saying I am juvenile in calling him names, when I told him upfront the reasoning behind my ire, on top of his own bullshit assertions having to do with my person, and not my argument. I admit up front, that I am now hostile to Hufferd as a person, especially since his latest exchange with the slinking liar Seenyor about my “mental state”.
    I have only this to say in summation at this point:
    Both of these stupid monkeyboys can take their ignorant pap and fuck off.
    You are an idiot Hufferd.

  81. I think the rocking-horse kid of Colorado will be delighted by this info on his pal, Jeff Prager:
    Besides his 5 marijuana arrests and federal mail fraud conviction, if you have any information regarding Jeff Prager please contact (602) 876-1053 (602) 876-1053 FREE . Child Support Arrest Warrant issued on 04-25-07.

    Jeffrey J Prager July 22, 1955
    Case Number: S-0700-CR-2000004657 (use CR-2000004657 for case number)

    1. Why doesn’t James Hufferd just go by ‘Idiot’? Just 5 letters.
      Or he could trim it down to ‘dolt’, just 4 letters.
      Or he could just disappear … 0 letters.
      I vote for the last option.

  82. Just as I had anticipated when Seenyor made his first inflammatory remarks to Mr Hufferd, he is now back with his agenda of character assassination. It took him some time to pump up all his colored balloons, while he was scouting out my HR1blog for ideas, but now he is back full steam on his endless carousel of bullshit and fartdancing.
    Seenyor takes advantage of T&S to pursue his ugly agenda’s having nothing to do with Truth and Shadows, other than the fact that I am in attendance here. This is selfish disregard for the rest of the readership here. I find it highly repugnant and repulsive as I am the main target here, but others should be insulted as well by this garbage game of loading up these threads with his own personal tripe.

  83. Hello Mr. McKee,
    Very well written article and excellent website. I thought the article really pointed out a lot of the obvious BS propaganda, fables, and “memes” that we all have been subjected to in the last 13 years (and will be subjected to in the next 50 years!) I happened to visit your site the other day on 9-11 (the 13th anniversary) linked from another site. I know this article is pretty old, but very important none the less, as what we are seeing now is the merging of one pseudo religion in the secular west, “holocaustianity,” with our newest religion, “911ism.” I have not read the comments of this article, as I wanted to post my thoughts before I forgot them (the joys of getting older! LOL), but I’m pretty confident that people would have brought up this angle.
    You were of course very fair, kind, open minded, and generous when it came to Islam and Muslims, and the way that they (we) are sometimes depicted in the MSM, and the way in which the museum will likely depict certain things in a very cartoonish, superficial, and childish manner, in essence basically saying while not using these words, that “they hate us for our freedoms.”
    That said, as a Muslim American, I have struggled off and on since that very sad, depressing day, at times, being very open to 911 truth and the fact that this was 100% no doubt a MIHOP false flag and an inside job (and also to a large extent an “outside” job with the intelligence of one country in particular involved – the one who really “benefited”).
    However at other times to be honest, I don’t think that this is necessarily the case. Sometimes it seems that this was at most a LIHOP type of a false flag or psy-op (although perhaps the term false flag would not be accurate if this was the case).
    Let me explain why I think (again at certain times I feel this is the case; as I said I go back and forth) that this was maybe not a MIHOP false flag.
    Let me state that as a (Sunni) Muslim and I know that while this maybe sounds prideful, selfish, small minded, or tribalistic, etc., I really want to believe that Muslims did NOT do this (even though obviously 19 Muslims would not of course represent 1.3 billion or so Muslims worldwide). I guess many of us would feel this way about many things as far as not wanting our religion, ethnic group, race, ideology, etc., etc., to be the group that did evil deed a, b, or c. So I guess this is a “normal” human reaction.
    But as a Sunni Muslim I feel that I can offer a unique perspective. Not that I represent all Muslims or Sunni Muslims, although I do know that many would share the same POV or perspective in regards to our religion, and the many things that are relevant when it comes to certain aspects of it (in particular regarding “ahl as Sunnah wa Jammah” – Sunni Muslims), especially when we look at the “official” 911 story. I hope that you, Mr. McKee, can understand my perspective or where I’m coming from or that other Muslims will also possibly weigh in on what I’m saying.
    As a Sunni Muslim I know that there are definitely “extremists” Sunni Muslims out there in the world, especially when it comes to physical fighting or armed combat (qitaal and jihaad). And I don’t mean “fundamentalists,” because if they were following the fundamentals of the religion then they would be in the Middle Path (not too extreme in either direction, regarding any aspect of the religion). And I would argue that the these types of “extremist” Sunni Muslims (assuming for the sake of argument that the “official story” is true so I can talk about the Islamic position on certain acts that were allegedly done) Islamically were NOT following the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the traditions of the Prophet Muhammed – peace be upon him) IN THE LEAST BIT.
    In Sunni (and I’m sure Shia) Islam it is 100% Haraam (forbidden under all circumstances), evil, and unethical, PERIOD, to intentionally attack or kill non-combatants, including (but not limited to) women, children, and the elderly. Clearly if we look at the official 911 narrative, including subsequent alleged videos and audios by OBL and other AQ operatives, they explicitly admit that they were indeed doing that, albeit offering nothing but BAATIL (false) Daleel (evidence) to back up these acts from an “Islamic” perspective (and BTW, in Sunni Islam there is no validity in the belief that “the ends justify the means”) At times OBL and other AQ “shuyookh” (sheikhs or imams – people that are supposed to have a lot of knowledge of the Deen/Religion) are lying on Allah! (you may not be aware, but this is one of the worst sins in Islam – whether or not this is intentional) OBL and other AQ guys are ALWAYS at the most “misquoting” and at the very least – and this is being very charitable – taking out of context, the tafsir (the explanation of the Ayat or verses) of the Qur’an by famous classical scholars, or giving their own false interpretations of these Qur’anic verses, and this counts as lying against Allah. I will give you detailed examples if you want. But I will say the main verses of the Qur’an that OBL and other AQ guys are always misquoting and lying about or even “taking out of context” 100%, PERIOD, are the ones regarding al-qisas (equal retaliation), although this is something that many so-called AQ and “SJs” have done in the recent past. (“SJs” refers to Salafi jihadis as they refer to themselves as – basically the minhaj or philosophy that AQ has/had; although there is nothing “Salafi” or “Jihadi” about them; and believe me this is something that even the overwhelming, vast majority of self identified “Salafis” agree with – and although I don’t consider myself one, a Salafi, I will admit that many of them have indeed done a lot of good as far as at least defining and explaining very clearly the various concepts of Tawheed [the Oneness of God] and pointing out various practices and customs that Muslims have picked up over the centuries, that Islamically do constitute as shirk [associating partners with God] and let me stress that these are teachings that mainstream non-violent Salafis, not “SJs,” have taught)
    Again, only to give you the Islamic perspective (and this is going along with what even the official MSM had talked about) OBL and the other AQ guys were actually forbidden by Mullah Omar (of course the leader of Afghanistan at the time) from doing ANYTHING that would bring the “Crusaders” or any invaders into Afghanistan (i.e. doing other terrorist operations such as the alleged Embassy Bombings). The MSM also reported (whether quoting OBL and AQ or according to OBL’s actual words in Arabic) if I’m not mistaken, that OBL even “bragged” that the planners of the 911 attack (him and a few other AQ people) were keeping the plans secret from Mullah Omar and the Afghan Taliban govt. It has been reported (and I believe this to be 100% true even if 911 was entirely a false flag!) that Mullah Omar and other people high up in the Afghan Taliban govt. (and even lower level I’m sure) were specifically watching and following OBL and the other AQ people around because the Taliban govt. really DID NOT trust these AQ types at all. Also from an Islamic perspective aside from the fact that the 911 act in itself was VERY much Haraam and totally, 100% wrong and evil Islamically (by intentionally killing non-combatants and thousands at that!) the fact is that OBL would have been also treacherously betraying and “going behind the back” of the Islamic state leader of Afghanistan (the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) who was considered the Ameer ul-Muhmineen (leader/Imam of the believers of that state or region). Also even according to the MSM, OBL explicitly “promised” Mullah Omar and the Taliban govt. that he and AQ would not do anymore mischief abroad or over seas! And this REALLY shows that OBL and AQ were especially seditious, treacherous, despicable and EVIL. This is something that Islamically would entail the death penalty. Also reported in the MSM is the fact that OBL and other AQ guys gave bayah (pledge of allegiance) to Mullah Omar although they might be expected to anyway, if you are a guest being protected by the governing Islamic state (of course the main reason why they were being protected was because many of these same Arabs [although there were other ethnicities of course] helped to drive out the Soviet invaders, oppressors and occupiers). Again this just really drives home the fact that OBL and AQ were especially deceitful, deviant, treacherous, duplicitous, and especially treasonous! (If we are to believe the “official” account of them pulling off 911)
    And back in the late 90s Afghanistan was in essence considered the only legitimate non-puppet Islamic state in the world (and of course, yes they were FAR from perfect, no ones denying that! And could have improved in MANY ways). But they basically did control almost 90% of the country if not more, and they were not a puppet state (or “taghout”) such as Saudi Arabia or Kuwait that openly enforces some aspects of shariah, on only some of the population (the average Joe citizen, but not on most of the “royal” family or ruling govt.) while at the same time being unreasonably strict and harsh with many aspects of the shariah that they do enforce. Of course puppet states like Saudi Arabia seemingly pretty much blindly obey whatever foreign policies certain Western countries want (and this is obviously many times going by what Israel or extremist Zionists may want, although not exclusively) whether or not this benefits the average Saudi citizen or not, or if this benefits Muslims or not (they claim to be an “Islamic” state after all), etc., but the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan (of course FAR from perfect as it was) was not like this. So from a Sunni Islamic POV, you can see that what allegedly OBL and AQ did (according to the “official” story) to the leader and the government (and all of the regular people!) of Afghanistan was very EVIL, heinous, despicable, treacherous and filthy.
    To summarize things according to the “official” account of 911 and OBL and AQ:
    Not only does OBL and AQ perpetrate an EVIL and TOTALLY haraam act (911), but they do this act that will totally, 100% be guaranteed (and they also admit to this being their goal) to INTENTIONALLY bring in the “Crusaders” and invaders (in fact a world wide alliance) that will then subsequently destroy THE ONLY independent Islamic state in the world (and they admit to treacherously going behind the back of the Ameer ul-Muhmineen, totally betraying him and his govt. in the most vile, duplicitous, treacherous ways imaginable. A country and govt. that gave OBL refuge, barely tolerating OBL and his ilk, because some of them helped their nation 15-20 years before and most likely also because his home country was so corrupt). And not only that, which is all bad enough, but OBL and AQ do something that will (and they know in advance) intentionally kill not only thousands of non-combatant non-Muslims with the original act, but something that will kill in the coming years (and decades) millions and millions of non-combatant Muslims. And OBL claims to know that the “US” govt. is one that does not put the interest of Americans first, pontificating that they put the interests of the Israelis and/or Zionists first, but then proceed to do an act that will only help exactly THEM!
    To be honest, the “official story” makes no sense, but again, the crazy “SJs” and their crazy minhaj also make no sense!
    Sorry for such a long post 🙂 But like I said, I honestly go back and forth! 🙂 Mr. McKee, please let me know what you think. Thanks for your time and thanks for letting me post this 🙂

    1. Dear Mr. Zogistani,
      From what I suss out of your comment, you prove from another direction (that of Islam) why the official 9/11 story is false. Nothing in Islam permits such abuses and collateral damage to innocents.
      Moreover, you provide additional evidence into the premise that Al Queda was created by Western Intelligence, crafty enough to cherry-pick Qu’an quotes out of context and misapply them.
      Here’s a repetition of a humorous take on why Muslims were the scape-goats of this false-flag operation. If Muslim outsiders truly did the 9/11 deed, the investigation into physical causes would not have been rail-roaded and halted and filled with unscientific conjecture. Leaving it where NIST did — first at (debunked) pancaking and then at (debunked) pile-driver driven by gravity ~at~ near gravitational acceleration — would mean that Allah was mighty powerful on 9/11 to bend its very own Newtonian laws of demolition physics. If Allah did this, then the powers that be should have recognized this, bowed down, and converted the whole nation towards Islam; and for sure this realization would not have resulted in wars abroad that amounted to persecuting, maiming, and killing innocent Muslims.
      Physics-defying-Allah and Persecution-of-Muslims are two conflicting aspects of 9/11 that unravel a portion of its falsehood.

Leave a Reply

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