A Dylann Roof “Mantra” Still Alive at CNN

NEWSBUSTERS has this conspiracy myth:

On Thursday’s At This Hour on CNN, Symone Sanders joined Angela Rye in the list of liberal CNN political commentators who have repeated a discredited myth that the gunman in the Charleston church massacre, Dylann Roof, was given special treatment by police before being incarcerated.

[….]

Sanders jumped in: “Okay, pardon me. Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, are we really going to … I really think it’s problematic here when we start to demonize the victims in these cases.”

She soon cited the debunked myth of Roof as evidence of special treatment received by white criminals as she soon added:

I’m not going it sit here and let you say that Alton Sterling was basically a criminal that was reaching for his gun and deserved to get shot because, guess what, the young man that shot and killed 17 people on a high school campus the other day, he was taken into custody alive. You know, Dylann Roof, who walked into a church and shot nine people, he was taken into custody alive and then was taken to Burger King to get a burger before they took him to jail. 

So the problem here is, it seems at though when we have suspects or people who are engaged in situations with police officers that are a little bit more melanated than some of our counterparts, they seem to not make it out of the situations alive.

On Tuesday, Rye also repeated the claim about Burger King as she debated conservative CNN political commentator Ben Ferguson on the Alton Sterling case.

But, as documented by Snopes, Roof was not taken to Burger King by police. He was simply supplied with food from Burger King while he awaited transfer to a larger jail because the small jail where he was initially incarcerated did not have the facilities to supply with him in-house food, and the restaurant was nearby. If the liberals want to argue that prisoners should be denied food, that would make an interesting segment…….

Feminist Extraordinaire, Naomi Wolf, Goes Full Retard

This is with thanks to GAY PATRIOT, and can be added to my “CHEMTRAIL” response.

At the start of this past week, a Democrat City Councilman in the capital city of our country speculated that a Jewish conspiracy was manipulating the Earth’s weather in order to control urban areas.  I am not making this up.

[….]

To bookend that, the Democrat Feminist Naomi Wolf (the one who advised Al Gore to wear Earth tones in order to project a more Alpha Male image) blames Chemtrails for controlling the weather over New York City. I am also not making this up.

She also says the evil Nestle Corporation is behind the chemtrails.

  • When we noted major corporations such as Nestle have been buying up municipal water rights, hedge funds betting on water scarcity — and that cloud seeding redirects (doesn’t create) water — we got a flood of trolls. (Corps can hire troll farms, not just Russian). I say we look.

…..(read it all)…..

Stephen Paddock Acted Alone, Sorry Conspiracy Guys

Using exclusive surveillance footage obtained from MGM Resorts, we pieced together the last days of Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas gunman. He plays video poker, laughs with hotel staff and hauls bag after bag of weapons into his suite.

(ABC) Over a number of days after he checks into the hotel, he can also be seen coming and going at the hotel, bringing in luggage and bags.

(NYT) Over and over in the clips, Mr. Paddock is seen leaving the Mandalay Bay for his home in Mesquite, returning with a dark minivan loaded with suitcases. Over and over, valets take his keys; over and over, bellhops stack his luggage on gold carts, helping him transport at least 21 bags over the course of seven days. As they take the service elevator upstairs, Mr. Paddock chats with them. He cracks a joke. He tips.

The O.W.L. Conspiracy

A caller takes Michael Medved on a ride of his life. From owls to Russian sleeper agents. Yep… Medved gets em all – mind you, the caller could be having a bit of fun… but you never know. Makes you laugh either way. One comment on my YouTube humorously notes: “Medved said exactly the same thing a sleeper would say.”

Conspiracy Day | Pearl Harbor False Flag

On the most recent full moon Michael Medved had his usual “Conspiracy Day Show,” and a caller offered a conspiracy I hadn’t heard of — that our own Navy attacked Pearl Harbor. Crazy!

“Everyone Is Colluding With Russia Except Trump” | Mark Steyn

GAY PATRIOT comments on this video:

See more at THE DAILY CALLER

BREITBART compiles “lamemainstream medias” supporting of the facts:

1. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: The former head of Russia’s uranium company (Ian Telfer) made four hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million.
2. CONFIRMED by the New Yorker magazine: Bill Clinton bagged a $500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank.
3. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: Despite claims to the contrary, Uranium One has, in fact, exported “yellowcake” out of America and is “routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.”
4. CONFIRMED by The Hill: The FBI has uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.”
5. CONFIRMED by CNBC: Clinton Foundation mega-donor Frank Holmes claimed he sold Uranium One before Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the Russian transfer—but his company’s own SEC filings prove otherwise.
6. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: While eight other agencies had to sign off on approving the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was the only government agency headed by an official (Hillary Clinton) whose family foundation received $145 million from foreign investors involved in the uranium deal.
7. CONFIRMED by The Hill: FBI agents already have an eyewitness and documents to support the most explosive parts of the Uranium One story.

Here is just one example of the accumulating crimes for the Democrats (The DNC) and the Hillary campaign from the 2016 election cycle — LAW NEWZ:

….According to reports, the Hillary for America campaign paid for the research but routed the payments through Elias’ law firm Perkins Coie and described the purpose of the money as “legal services” on their FEC disclosures. The DNC and the Clinton campaign reported dozens of payments totaling more that $12 million dollars to Perkins Coie over the course of the campaign.

“By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures,” said Adav Noti, with the Campaign Legal Center in a statement obtained by LawNewz. Noti previously served as the FEC’s Associate General Counsel for Policy. “Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action.”

According to FEC reports, Clinton’s campaign reported 37 payments to the law firm and reported each disbursement as “Legal Services.” The DNC reported 345 payments to Perkins Coie during the election cycle and marked the payments as “legal and compliance consulting,” “administrative fees,” “data services subscription” and others.

“The purpose of at least some portion of the payments to Perkins Coie was not for legal services; instead, those payments were intended to fund opposition research,” the FEC complaint reads. “This false reporting clearly failed the Commission’s requirements for disclosing the purpose of a disbursement.”

It is legal under current campaign finance law for the Hillary Clinton campaign to commission an opposition research company to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. What is not legal, according to campaign legal experts, is for the campaign to pay a law firm who then hires other to perform campaign related activities without reporting the purpose of the expenditures….

.

Debunking 3 “Proofs” of a 2nd Shooter (UPDATED)

Before getting into these two evidences for a second shooter, I just want to say that yes, it is rare to have an act done in killing people without a clear motive. Typically the killers leave behind a manifesto that explains why they did it. In the case of the Vegas shooter, we have nothing yet. THAT BEING SAID, I do not need a manifesto from a person to know that they are incurably wicked. My guide to this and the next life make this abundantly clear. Mankind is depraved… able to do any wicked deed that comes across their hearts.

Maybe there were demonic forces influencing him. Maybe his anti-depressants brought out the real Stephen Paddock.

SIDE-NOTE — Most men struggle with two main issues that are natural to them: lust and anger. I have friend’s or know people who struggle greatly with sexual issues (lust, attraction, fidelity, etc.). Others struggle with anger… this is me. It runs in my Italian side of the family, and it is what my family had to see me deal with over many years. (Others battle both.) PIVOT — I have Multiple Sclerosis… and there are four drugs they recommend to help suppress it. I opted for the daily shot as it was least offensive to one’s body. The shot COMPLETELY changed my demeanor… all the gains I made over many years of maturing as a man and believer — out the door. As soon, and I mean within days of not using the inhibitor, I was back to normal. So my own experience with some of these more serious drugs makes the below ring true. I reacted to this mild medication, Copaxone, in the most extreme way – a very low percentile reaction.

NOW, whether he was taking any “anti-Depressants I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS IN REPORTS. He was prescribed diazepam — “Valium”… but whether he was taking them regularly is something no one knows. I try to take my vitamins every day, but often times forget about them.

Again, this is just anecdotal evidence meanderings by myself and others.

PADDOCK AT TRUMP RALLY – DEBUNKED

(My original statement) At this point we do not know. What I do know so far is that it looks like he has acted alone. So far. I am inclined to think he was a Leftie, and hated life. It is possible he target the event to kill the most Trump supporters possible. But all I have to go on is that there are pictures of him at a rally with a pink “pussy” hat on and some anti-Trump sign. And? Even I need more.

UPDATED INFO regarding Paddock being at an anti-Trump rally… to be fair, I want to debunk my own claim above. Here is SNOPES dealing with this:

…Here’s the best comparison we could create of photographs allegedly depicting the same man in these two different contexts:

Although these images are blurry, one can spot noticeable differences, such as the two men’s eyebrows (the accused gunman had light eyebrows, while the protester’s eyebrows are dark) and earlobes (the bottom of the gunman’s earlobes are attached, whereas the protester’s appear detached). Even if the man in pink was indeed the Las Vegas shooter, it would be nearly impossible to identify him from this photograph alone. 

It’s as if conspiracy theorists simply searched for photographs of an anti-Trump protester who shared the shooter’s approximate age, race, and gender in order to push the narrative that the latter’s actions were politically motivated. In fact, another video purportedly showing the Las Vegas gunman at an anti-Trump rally identified an entirely different person:

Although this individual is also white, middle-aged, and male, there’s no evidence to suggest that he is the same man who committed the shootings….


OCCUPANT NEXT DOOR TO PADDOCK


So, this first conspiracy theory was an easy one to debunk. It came through my son via a buddy of his. Here is the evidence for a second shooter in Paddocks room, it comes from a blog:

Hotel Guest Next Door To Las Vegas Shooter Saw ‘Multiple Gunmen’

An Australian man who was staying in the room next to the shooter in the Mandalay Bay has confirmed he witnessed multiple gunmen involved in the Las Vegas attack.

“There were multiple people dead and multiple shooters. I was just hiding waiting for police to come get us. I got outside safely and was hiding in bushes,” Brian Hodge told Australia’s Courier-Mail.

Mr. Hodge, who was staying in room 32134, next door to Stephen Paddock in room 32135, also provided important information when he revealed that a security guard was killed by police.

“My floor is a crime scene. They killed a security guard on my floor.”….

(See also the Washington [not so] Standard).

However, Mr. Hodges was not in his room, as THE DAILY MAIL and other outlets report:

…Mr Hodge is thankful that he was not in his room at the time police used controlled explosives to enter room 32134 and locate Paddock.

‘It was hardcore, like it was full machine-guns for 20 seconds and then it stopped for five seconds then it just went again,’ he said, describing how he hid in bushes outside of the hotel for more than three hours.

‘There were so many shots fired, I couldn’t tell you how many.’

Mr Hodge also described the terrifying moment a woman stepped in front of him and urged to turn back because there was a shooter….

So he did not see two shooters that night, as, the conspiracy sites try to make out. NOR was a security guard killed by police. Dumb! TO BE CLEAR, Brian Hodges did not see multiple shooters. Nor has he ever said that a security guard was killed by police.

PUNDIFACT has this:

…In fact, Hodge gave an interview to the Sydney Morning Herald in which he more fully describes what he saw.

Hodge told that newspaper that he never made it to his room on the 32nd floor and after hearing the bullets he first went to a casino kitchen before hiding in a bush outside.

“I was just laying on the ground. It was like a scene from a movie. The shooter was up above, we didn’t know where they were… I didn’t want anyone to know where I was, so I just curled up and hid. It was the most terrifying moment of my life.”

Hodge also posted on Facebook, “There is a live shooter with a gun in my hotel in Vegas right now, but I got outside safely and hiding in bushes.”

More importantly for this fact-check, it’s clear to us the Neon Nettle [a crazy conspiracy site that said it interviewed Hodges] post puts words in Hodge’s mouth. Hodge never said in the Courier Mail article nor in any other article or social media post that the security guard was a shooter…..

He also disputes ever saying “shooters” (multiple), or seeing a guard shot. Here is one response to a comment on his Facebook by someone noting the conspiracy theory (via Pundifact):


MISSING WINDOWS


HAT-TIP TO A.D. LEM

The second conspiracy deals with multiple windows looking as if they were broken on various floors, adding to thew suspicion of other shooters. This photo is starting to take off on the interwebs. Here is the PROOF of multiple shooters:

The only problem is that this is not the same side the shooter was on. Nor do I know the date of this photo. And I also have photos I know the date of:

2010 Pic

2011 Pic

2014 Pic

Even in this shot the taken day after the shooting you can see that the missing windows are on the opposite side of the building. And… so you know, no one died in the line of fire of those missing windows. If there were shooters in them, they were the worst shot ever!

During conversation about this on Facebook, someone posted a video to prove the position that there were multiple shooters. In fact, the opposite is done — it DISPROVES multiple shooters. Here I take the linked video and edit in the above points:

In other words:

  • The angle is impossible;
  • No one was shot on the North-West side of Mandalay Bay;
  • No missing or broken windows were present on the North-East side of Mandalay Bay… besides the windows Paddock broke.

FOURTH FLOOR EVIDENCE


HAT-TIP TO A.H. SMIDT 

Simply put, people are showing videos (taxi driver || far shot) of supposed gun shots Uber driver driving away  Here is a raw video shown in the below video debunking this conspiracy theory, HERE:

Quoting SMIDT’S post:

  • also the visuals of the strobing don’t match with the gunshots. The former is consistent, doesn’t stop. The gunshots came in waves. No match, not even when we consider the differential between sound and light waves.
  • Notice the different missing windows from the pic you posted from the one’s Erin did. Also, notice the many other pics throughout the years of Mandalay Bay’s missing windows. Window maintenance is common at MB. 
  • Also, you’d have to suggest in what way the missing windows on the other side of the building relate to the shooting since there’s no demonstrable evidence of any effects related to those windows or that side of the building in any way. 
  • The reports about police saying the wind blew out the windows are not factual. 
  • Listen to the gunfire. You’d hear overlapping patterns if there were multiple shooters, unless they took turns, which seems inefficient and unlikely (unless we’re going full planned attack to make it seem like a single shooter).

Bruh… this shit is gonna rot your brain.


SIMILARITY TO WTC-7


In one of many refutations regarding World Trade Center number seven, I kept a video by an ex-truther regarding his final week in the movement. These dealt with similar windows. Here is how I prefaced the video on Facebook:

I have listened to the raw audio from the early uploads. It was one shooter. The echo from a gun firing would have been two or three for each bullet fired with massive delays due to the buildings in that vicinity. I also watched the video. Those windows being replaced were on opposite towers/sides than where Paddock was shooting into the crowd from. Last I checked no one was shot en mass on other streets or areas other than what his room over looked.

Edward Current was a long time 9/11 Truther and left the movement when he realized almost all the evidence for his position was founded on innuendo. The week he officially left he cobbled together a fake video and watched his allies go to town putting together elaborate stories surrounding it’s authenticity. A video of his explanation is found via my YouTube, and is explained more on my WTC-7 CONSPIRACY DEBUNKING PAGE.

Unfortunately, Info Wars and Prison Planet [e.g., Alex Jones] type crap is becoming somewhat popular (made all the more so by The Drudge Report and Paul Joseph Watson – who has some good commentary at times). All, one must keep in mind, based on innuendo.

Dem Senators Fall For Conspiracy Theories About Sebastian Gorka

Here is a portion of that WASHINGTON EXAMINER article Prager is reading from:

Friday marked Sebastian Gorka’s last day at the White House. Democrats, progressives, and even many Republicans cheered. The Federalist published his resignation letter, although anonymous White House officials told the New York Times and Washington Post that he had been fired. The truth might lie in the middle: Chief of Staff John Kelly’s reported decision to withdraw Gorka’s clearance led Gorka to resign. Alas, few if any reporters were self-aware enough to recognize the cognitive dissonance: How could they have reported for months that Gorka lacked a clearance when, indeed, he had one all along?

Regardless, there was no shortage of criticism about Gorka. These centered on three broad themes:

  1. Gorka was a right-wing extremist with ties to Neo-Nazi groups.
  2. Gorka was not a real terrorism expert.
  3. Gorka appeared on television too much.

Consider them in order:

First, the accusation that Gorka was a sympathizer with violent, fascist, Nazi-sympathizing groups in Hungary began when a left-wing blogger suggested that he wore a Vitezi Rend medal to the inaugural ball and that its display suggested ideological sympathy with neo-Nazis. Gorka responded to the accusation here. That the same blogger had earlier left the Center for American Progress under a cloud after Obama White House officials expressed concern at his and his colleagues’ use of anti-Semitic dog whistles in targeting Jewish policymakers, again, was an irony lost on those who seized upon the story uncritically.

The story grew when The Forward, a Jewish website and publication with socialist roots, purported to uncover a video affirming Gorka’s support for a Hungarian party subsequently accused of anti-Semitism. It subsequently emerged, however, that The Forward spliced the video to omit key portions in which Gorka warned against anti-Semitism or its flirting with anti-Semitic groups.

Here’s the key point: While many progressives and opponents of the regime accept with certainty that Gorka is a Nazi, a white nationalist, or an extremist, they have not been able to find a single statement or essay by Gorka or account of his speeches or comments supporting such positions. Given the volume of his previous writing, that should have been a red flag. The Nazi accusation is about as logical as concluding that a picture of Gorka absent his glasses represents a secret endorsement of the Khmer Rouge.

The situation gets worse: Three Democratic senators — Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durban, and Ben Cardin — have seized upon the calumny to suggest the Justice Department consider whether Gorka should have his citizenship revoked.

This sets a dangerous precedent. Politics in Washington are poisonous, with extremists on both sides of debates losing civility and seeking to criminalize policy debate. Donald Trump was guilty of that as a candidate, and Mike Flynn’s “lock her up” chants at the Republican National Convention were cringe-worthy, but threats to strip citizenship are a new low. Given the poison of dual loyalty accusations made by anti-Semites against Jews serving in public capacities, it is especially disturbing to hear Jewish-American senators seeming to use similar cards of insufficient loyalty to the United States against political opponents.

Second, what about the idea that Gorka was a non-expert? Long before Trump’s surprise rise to the presidency, I had the privilege of hearing Gorka lecture at the Marshall Center in Garmisch, Germany; to the FBI; at the U.S. Marine Corps University; and to U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg. To suggest that he was unknown is simply dishonest. Indeed, his lectures tended to receive rave reviews.

Here’s what many proponents of the ‘amateur’ argument miss: The same charges many critics level at Gorka could just as easily apply to any other counter-terror specialist. Daniel Benjamin, who served as counterterrorism coordinator at the State Department during the Obama administration and worked on counter-terrorism during the Clinton administration at the National Security Council, got his start as a Time Magazine reporter. Francis Townsend, whom Condoleezza Rice picked as her terrorism advisor, got her start as a prosecutor focusing on organized crime.

Many of the academics who criticized Gorka as out of his depth at certain academic conferences would have or have had their theories ridiculed by practitioners such as the FBI and U.S Special Forces as out of touch with reality. There is also a touch of jealousy: Gorka has a New York Times best-selling book; they did not.

Even during the Obama administration, counter-terror practitioners reached out to Gorka. ….

(READ IT ALL)

Project for a New American Century Myths (PNAC)

This is an importation of a few posts that are slightly edited for this platform and will be edited — more so — in the future. so I will simply start with the most recent post on my old site and work backwards…. here, Rosie O’Donnmel pushes the myth of an evil cabal planning the Iraq and middle-East takeover — otherwise know as Project for a New American Century (PNAC). I will precede the posts with a date:

Rosie O’Donnell Still Pushing 911 Conspiracy Myths/Lies… PNAC Her Biggest
(Originally Posted March 12, 2010)

  • (Video Description) Talk about a stubborn mule: three years after misleading the public during The View regarding 9-11, Rosie O’Donnell is at it again. In fact, this is the second time in a week she’s used her radio show to revisit her widely-debunked theories.

Take note that some of these links are broken. Just shorten the link to its main website URL to explore. The following mainly comes from 9/11 MYTHS… READING BETWEEN THE LIES:

MISQUOTE EXAMPLE #1

The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.

MISQUOTE EXAMPLE #2

The victims of the 9/11 attacks have been disaster for Muslims because 19 Arabs were named as hijackers of the planes, but they’ve been a dream come true for the PNAC ‘think-tank’ whose 2000 Statement of Principles stated a “catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor” would advance their policies, i.e. justify wars and “regime changes”.

MISQUOTE EXAMPLE #3

There is circumstantial evidence that some part of the US administration was involved in the attack. It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor, in order to provide the impetus for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.

These examples should suffice. So how does one respond to this tired old canard? with the real quote (the truth shall set you free). Here is the response via the counter conspiracy site, 9/11 MYTHS:

So, the first quote tells us it’s about war in Iraq and huge increases in military spending, the second says it’s about justifying war and regime changes, the third and fourth link the quote to war on Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems there’s broad agreement, so can they all be wrong? Let’s see.

First, the actual full quote is this.

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.

The odd word here seems to be “transformation”. What do they mean? Let’s look back to the beginning of the same chapter.

“To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence”.

So “transformation” refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC’s pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs….

Can you see why many get frustrated when talking to 9/11 “truthers”? They use the title without actually using the meaning… truth.

PNAC – Project for a New American Century
(Originally Posted: December 31, 2008)

This PDF entitle, The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations, was originally found at THE JOURNAL OF DEBUNKING 9/11. I posted this in response to this post at THE WORLD ACCORDING TO KIMBA

  • …His brother Jeb is not only considering, but 90% sure he will throw his hat into the GOP ring for the Presidency in 2008. Unfortunately for Jeb, the hat will read “I With Stupid.” What a wonderful prospect this is, yet another President who is a card carrying member of the PNAC group. The Bush brothers are pictured above left with one of the carcasses they left behind on the road to the White House…. (emphasis added)

The below is such a great help in understanding what the “Project for a New American Century” is all about… by refuting the crazy conspiracy people who love to link to anti-Semitic sites.

PNAC

Mr. Legge, like many critics of the administration in recent years, attributes both the 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a plan produced by the group Project For a New American Century (PNAC). From the introduction to his paper:

It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor, [3] in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.

The footnote supporting this argument then points to:

3. A plan existed. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
“The process of transformation.” The plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”

While the somewhat edited quote,1 is superficially accurate, the conclusion which is drawn from it, is completely wrong. This is not only “not proof of complicity”, this is such a mischaracterization of what that quote says as bordering on academic fraud. The author states that the “Pearl Harbor” they are referring to is “in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq”. The invasions of these two countries, however, are nowhere mentioned in the PNAC document, they are not even vaguely alluded to. It exists purely in the imagination of the person writing this paper. In fact the only time the paper mentions Iraqi policy at all, is in regards to continuing the containment policy around Iraq with regards to the no-fly zones,2 not in invading it.

Afghanistan only merits a brief historical mention, in regards to the cruise missile attacks carried out by President Clinton in 1998, and only while discussing the Navy’s decreased staffing. A researcher does not need to try and infer what PNAC is talking about, however, the “process of transformation” that they are referring to is specifically discussed on the page previous to the “Pearl Harbor”quote (emphasis added):

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of TRANSFORMING effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military TRANSFORMATION will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.

It is no surprise that proponents of this theory only quote the one sentence, not even the whole sentence in this case, because if you read the rest of the paragraph, it becomes abundantly clear, that this has absolutely nothing to do with US international policies after 9/11 (emphasis added):

Further, the process of TRANSFORMATION, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.

Furthermore, there is no “strong desire” for this “catalyzing change”, not even the technological transformation which they are actually talking about. They are merely pointing out the likely timetable for these changes to take place, thus the sentence at the end about the process taking decades.

And regards to the Pearl Harbor reference, what precisely were they talking about? A sneak attack by terrorists using fanatical devotion combined with box cutters? Well, curiously enough, the PNAC document uses this Pearl Harbor reference in another part, which despite clarifying the meaning, didn’t manage to make Mr. Legge’s paper.

absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.

They aren’t just talking about a sneak attack, they are talking about a sneak attack using a technology that we are unprepared for, just like the Japanese aircraft carriers on December 7th, 1941. Arabs with box cutters and fake bombs may be a sneak attack, but they were hardly something that could have been prevented by this technological transformation they have spent the entire paper advocating.

An in-depth analysis of this 90 page document also shows that an invasion of Afghanistan andIraq not only fails to assist them in their “transformation”, but it would most likely hinder them. In fact the study points to the increased operational tempo of the operations in the Balkans as detracting from needed R & D funds.7 It also discusses the difficulty of carrying out this transformation without impacting even the current international obligations.8 Somehow we are to believe that two expensive and manpower intensive wars would improve this process.

Mr. Legge then continues this paragraph with:

The fact that the air attack on Afghanistan commenced on October 9, less than a month later, is not proof either, but does suggest the possibility that plans for the invasion were already in place.

This is one of many cases where the author “suggests” things that he admits he can’t prove. I am not aware of the academic merit of just suggesting things. If you have no proof, or even a logical hypothesis, then why are you bringing up the subject? Perhaps if he had done some research on this area he wouldn’t need to suggest as much. One good example is General Tommy Franks’ autobiography, “An American Soldier”, which describes the hectic process and frantic international negotiations needed to prepare for the invasion.

In regards to the “less than a month” part, on August 7, 1998 over 200 people were killed in near simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Less than 2 weeks later, on August 20th, the US carried out attacks against suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan. Is Mr. Legge going to “suggest” that Clinton had plans prepared ahead of time?

Some of the original FOOTNOTES

1. This quote from the paper titled “Rebuilding America’s defenses,” and actually reads in full from page 51: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

2.  Page 73-74 “Likewise, terminating the no-fly zones over Iraq would call America’s positions as guarantor of security in the Persian Gulf into question; the reaction would be the same in East Asia following the withdrawal of US forces or a lowering of American military presence.”

[….]

7.  Page 50 “Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years.”

8.  Ibid page 50: The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts.”

Conspiracies

A SMALL sample of my library on this topic (remember, my home library boasts over 5,000 books, I have about a hundred-or-so of these books dealing with the conspiratorial view of history).

I changed my view on the matter after my “tri-fecta,” so-to-speak. What happened was (1) Y2K, (2) I started listening to and being challenged by Michael Medved’s “Conspiracy Show,” which lead me to try and (3) follow AND confirm the many references to historical positions made in these books, which failed miserably. These are all scanned onto my computer via my scanner… (mentioned merely for authenticity purposes… conspiracy people need this type of reassurance).

 photo Morals.jpg  photo Dogma.jpg
 photo Tragedy.jpg  photo TheSecret.jpg
 photo TheNew.jpg  photo Proofs.jpg
 photo Shadows.jpg  photo New.jpg
 photo Naked.jpg  photo Lost.jpg
 photo French conspiracy.jpg  photo enroute.jpg
 photo Conspiracy.jpg  photo Black.jpg
 photo Brotherhood.jpg  photo FIRE minds of men book.jpg

Birtherism

(I am changing some of my “Pages” to “Posts,” so some of this info is older to my site)

This is a discussion between myself and a black, lifelong Democrat. He intimated to me that he would never vote Republican because of the party’s racism. Okay. I asked him to provide me with one example or evidence of racism from Republican leaders. He offered me “birthirism.” Birthers are people who believe Obama was born in Kenya, and thus, not able to be President. Let us begin

What are our options with birtherism? Options:

a) Either the conspiracy theories are true, or;
b) He lied to gain access and recognition at Occidental College/Harvard/Columbia an/or at his publisher… similar to Elizabeth Warren;
c) The media made this up whole cloth.

Why do I only allow for the above two options? Let me explain and then we will continue with the response.

FIRSTLY, I truly believe Obama was born in Hawaii. In other words, I am NOT a birther in the true sense of the words meaning.

That being said, I do believe he lied about this in order to get more opportunities for educational as well as more opportunities to get published. I say this BECAUSE of the following evidence, which is: that only a few months after Obama threw his hat officially into the 2008 Presidential run, his publisher scrubbed their site of the following. And mind you, the following could not have happened without Obama’s consent/knowledge:

Obama’s literary agent changed Barack Obama’s bio page in April 2007, two months after he announced his run for President of the United States in February 2007. Before that, Obama’s bio said he was born in Kenya.

So, we can rid option “c” from above… we now know this was not a “hit job” by a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Here is an highlighted portion of the above which was on Obama’s publishers website from 1995-to-2007(to the right).

The media is not that smart to foresee into the future like that and plant said evidence with full-knowledge of Obama. So we have “a” and “b” left.

a) Either the conspiracy theories are true, or;
b) He lied to gain access and recognition at Occidental College/Harvard/Columbia an/or at his publisher… similar to Elizabeth Warren;

Again, to be clear, I reject birtherism (“a”), but doing so doesn’t mean that common sense can say the following:

  • Obama was the first “birther.”

In 2003 for instance, when his publisher published Barack Obama’s book, Dreams of My Father, they wrote that Barack Obama was born in Kenya in their own promotional material (Gateway Pundit). Either way there is “some splainin’ to do Lucy.”

Back to the aforementioned Elizabeth Warren. Ann Coulter’s comments on Warren:

“Warren’s lie is outrageous enough to someone like me, who isn’t a fan of race-based affirmative action programs. Still, she is a liar, and she stole the credit of someone else’s suffering. For liberals, it should be a mortal sin: Elizabeth Warren cheated on affirmative action.”

If true of Obama… he would be doubly guilty of this mortal sin. One commentator on my FaceBook made this astute point that “Either way, Joe Wilson was right! He lies!”

BACK to the options.

a) Either the conspiracy theories are true, or;
b) He lied to gain access and recognition at Occidental College/Harvard/Columbia an/or at his publisher.

We know the more modern theory was started by the Hillary camp during the contentious campaign between her and Obama (audio to the right). We also have the long-form birth certificate… as well as the birth announcements of Obama from Hawaii when he was born (from two papers: [1961] Honolulu Advertiser; and, [1961] Star Bulletin). So we can exclude “a,” that the conspiracy theories are true.

So, I am inclined to believe “b,” but more importantly… over the years I have been inundated with the “racist” label by those assuming I am a “birther.” So this is why I wanted to expand my thinking on this.

Let us expose the “racism” portion of this a bit more with an example from ThinkProgress (the title of the article is “9 Most Racist Moments of the 2012 Election“) that racism is in the root cause of this conspiracy rather than hyperbole. For instance they quote in their #1 example the son of a Republican, Jason Thompson:

Jason Thompson told a crowd of supporters at a brunch that “we have the opportunity to send President Obama back to Chicago — or Kenya.” Thompson is the son of former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, who is now running for Senate. In attendance at the brunch was Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

In the original challenge by a friend, he stated that Republicans have racist tendencies, provable by their support of birther conspiracies. So my new question is this:


“If Obama used this canard [that he was born in Kenya] in order to receive more accolades or recognition at Harvard and/or his publisher, would this be evidence that he is racist”?

This is obviously hyperbole. But let’s say Jason really believed Obama was born in Kenya… I still cannot see “racism” in this remark. But this claim of racism cuts both was, as we will see. So, here are the four areas I will compare this “racism” claim made about being a birther and this being the best example a life-long Democrat can use to show “Republican racism.”

1) Dem vs. Repub % of belief in conspiracies;

2) what type of conspiracy?;

3) Who believed these conspiracy theories;

4) What is my point?

1) PERCENTAGES

(Speaking to my Democratic detractor) You are aware, I am sure, that the birther story was first started by a Democrat and the story made popular via Hillary Clinton.

For instance, Politico says this in one of their classic articles:

…Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there? The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama. The theory’s proponents are a mix of hucksters and earnest conspiracy theorists, including prominently a lawyer who previously devoted himself to ‘proving’ that the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. Its believers are primarily people predisposed to dislike Obama. That willingness to believe the worst about officials of the opposite party is a common feature of presidential rumor-mongering: In 2006, an Ohio University/Scripps Howard poll found that slightly more than half of Democrats said they suspected the Bush Administration of complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks….

(Politico)

So not only would Obama in 1995 would have to of intimated the idea that he was born in Kenya in 1995, here [above] Politico traces the “birther” beginnings to a Democrat. Let us digest this a bit.

I am combining the above with polls from Rasmussen (and others compiled at WIKI) that show an amazing thing. What is this “amazing thing,” you rightly ask?

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure

(RPT)

Not sure? Not sure? To be clear, Democrats by over a majority believed Bush either knew directly or they said they were [basically] “still on the fence.” Here is more:

I’ve been looking for a good analogue to the willingness of Republicans to believe, or say they believe, that Obama was born abroad, and one relevant number is the share of Democrats willing to believe, as they say, that “Bush knew.”

There aren’t a lot of great public numbers on the partisan breakdown of adherents to that conspiracy theory, but the University of Ohio yesterday shared with us the crosstabs of a 2006 poll they did with Scripps Howard that’s useful in that regard.

“How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” the poll asked.

A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was “very likely.” Another 28.2% called it “somewhat likely.”

That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks….

(Politico)

What is the percentage of Republicans that believed (at it’s height of belief) Obama was not born in America?

  • 31% of Republican think/thought that Obama was not born in the states…

How many Democrats?

  • 15% of Democrats believe the same… [well as 18% of Independents]

However, a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him (ABC-News and my RPT post).

2) WHAT KIND OF CONSPIRACY?

So we have two conspiracies to compare and contrast: 9/11 culpability, and birtherism. What do they show? Are their differences? Let’s work through these. One, birtherism, has a belief held that a person was born out of country, and that other people covered this up.

In other words… when Obama was a child/infant other adults made this happen. He, Obama, was powerless to affect it. Obviously, he was an infant or child. In fact, assuming the conspiracy true and giving the most leeway of the options behind it… Obama may not have known about this until his Presidential run.

What about 9/11?

This conspiracy asserts that a leader of these United States knew of the coming attack and allowed it to happen, thus killing fellow citizens and going to war over it [for oil, a myth]. Thus, murdering more Americans in a war over a conspiracy to profit.

Many of these Democrats also believe Bush was involved in making this happen (HotAir). So this conspiracy would be considered — if we had an evil scale — much more “evil” because it is an American in the highest office basically directly culpable for the death of innocent people.Evil Scale

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for an outside observer to say, “whoa, whoa, whoa… calm down DEMOCRATS! Yeah this other conspiracy [birtherism] is nuts, but it doesn’t posit such an overtly evil act.”

in other words a much larger number of Democrats are on the “fringe” and would be called racist if they were Republicans, for their crazy opposition to a black President. LIKE Republicans are called racist for their birtherism position. Which would also include the 15% of Democrats being equally racist who believe in this birther theory.

3) MAGAZINES, PUNDITS, AND LEADERS

Here is what the Left believes to be a radical, extreme right pundit, Ann Coulter. Her point is instructive, which is, no one in the major influence of the conservative/Republican believes this conspiracy (see Ann Coulter reject birtherism — to the right):

NOTE: not a single mainstream right-wing talk show host believed this (I should stipulate that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and Larry Elder). None of these conservative talk show hosts believed this. In fact, Michael Medved typically takes calls that disagree with him — which led to some great excoriation of this birther conspiracy (here are some of those calls).

I tackled the subject back in 2010 on my old blog, it on my old blog as well as my new site. And I am as conservative as you can get!

The next LOGICAL question becomes who in congress or Democratic leadership believed Bush knew? To name a few: Rep. Dennis Kucinich; Rep. Cynthia McKinney; Congressman Alan Grayson, etc.

4) What Is My Point?

Simply my point is this:

1) The complexity of the seemingly simple “around the cooler” accusation that birtherism equals racism is never addressed. If Republicans are painted as racist, then so to must Democrats since a large percentage of them are “birthers,” not to mention Obama was the O.G. birther and recent birtherism was pushed by Hillary Clinton’s camp.

Simply painting your opponent as bigoted or racist sounds good if one wishes to label and dismiss opposing viewpoints. It is the easy way out for the lazy of mind.

2) If such beliefs make Republicans racist or bigoted, how much more are Democrats with their larger fringe group pushing a theory that infers Bush was personally involved with this act?

3) Since almost all major conservative/Republican magazines, pundits, radio hosts, and Congressmen reject “birtherism,” and many more liberal/Democratic magazines, pundits, radio hosts, and elected-officials believed their own 9/11 theories AND birtherism to some extent… how does this paint the people pushing these conspiracies?

In other words, Republicans at least say Obama was lying about his place of birth in order to get special preference in educational and publishing opportunities; at most saying that Obama later found out about other peoples lies in getting him over to America as a child and tried to cover it up for his Presidential run.

On the other-side of the coin, you have Democrats saying that [at least] Bush knew about the pending attack and allowed it to happen in order to financially profit from a war[s]. At most they say he was actually involved in the taking down of the Trade Towers in order to go to war. BOTH options Bush is culpable for the murder of innocent and military lives.

BIG DIFFERENCES!