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….
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:
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.
…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):
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:
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.
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:
Gorka was a right-wing extremist with ties to Neo-Nazi groups.
Gorka was not a real terrorism expert.
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. ….
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.
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)
…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.
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,  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.”
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).
(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:
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:  Honolulu Advertiser; and,  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?
(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….
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.
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….
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.
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.
I wish to start out this post with a bit of a background on myself. As a reinvigorated Christian (recommitted Christian whilst sitting in jail many years ago), my early studies included eschatology. A subject that catches many newer Christians attention as the subject is an exciting, almost adrenaline boosting study — typically like a new Christians faith. So of course I got into the many books, literature, sites that spoke of a New World Order (NWO). One can view the very small sampling of the books I have read and still own in my library here (under the links).
At any rate, in 2000 I had a tri-fecta going on that shook me from the conspiratorial view of history more towards an accidental view of history – which was: listening to Michael Medved’s “Conspiracy Show,” where, on the full moon he would for the entire three hours of his show take calls on nothing else but conspiracies; second, all the people I was “into” warned of the dire consequences of Y2K, which never came to fruition; and third, and mainly because of the previous two, I revisited my past NWO type books and tried to confirm or disprove many of the references to historical event. This venture proved devastating for what was being proffered in these books. The most outrages statements about history were made based on the flimsiest of evidence.
AND THEN 9/11 happened… and all the weirdos came out with all their conspiracy theories. So my debunking many of the propositions laid out by the then popular “Loose Change” video for my son’s friends created an interest in getting to the facts. And so, here we are again… with all the crazy conspiracies coming out about Syria and the chemical attack by Assad.
May I say that I cannot believe I must rev-up this topic again, but so be it.
So the first indicator of the conspiracy theories surrounding the recent chemical attack in Syria that I was made aware of was this video by Ron Paul found over at ZEROHEDGE. In the video Ron Paul (a man who thinks America was behind 9/11 BTW) says there is ZERO CHANCE Assad was behind the chemical attacks. Ron Paul also said something that was echoed across the internet, which was this:
“It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases – I think there’s zero chance he would have done this deliberately…”
POLITIFACT notes this about Alex Jones and his site, InfoWars, and their take on the issue:
Chief among the skeptics was Alex Jones’ InfoWars website, which questioned the validity of the attack in an April 5 post that blamed a group called the White Helmets for arranging the attack for nefarious reasons.
So Soros is behind it according to “Alex Jones types.” Dumb.
Here is the John Birch Society magazine, THE NEW AMERICAN noting motives… like they are psychologists making informed claims (psychoanalyst) who have sat with Assad for months in private sessions:
Of course, even if Damascus did use chemical weapons on civilians, it would be unlikely to admit that. But a simple analysis of motives — a basic first step in any serious investigation — would suggest that Assad had every reason to avoid the use of chemical weapons at all costs. On the other hand, jihadist rebels on the verge of annihilation had every reason to use them. After years of fighting globalist-backed jihadists and terrorists, the dictatorship in Damascus was reportedly close to victory — at least until Trump intervened by firing dozens of missiles at Syrian targets.
(For the record, I stopped reading this magazine when they had an article saying CIA operative planted the explosives in the Murrah Federal Building.) In that article The New American notes that the “last time Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad supposedly used chemical weapons, the story quickly collapsed under scrutiny.” Unfortunately, this too is false:
The UN mission was not asked to ascertain who was behind the attack.
However, by examining the debris field and impact area where the rockets struck in Muadhamiya and Ein Tarma, the inspectors found “sufficient evidence” to calculate azimuths, or angular measurements, that allow their trajectories to be determined “with a sufficient degree of accuracy”.
When plotted on a map, the trajectories converge on a site that Human Rights Watch said was a large military base on Mount Qassioun that is home to the Republican Guard 104th Brigade
In other words, Assad has used chemical weapons before on his people. In fact, Ned Price, US National Security Council spokesman, said: “it is now impossible to deny that the Syrian regime has repeatedly used industrial chlorine as a weapon against its own people.” So when people talk about WHAT MOTIVE Assad (and his father before him) had in torturing, criminal subjugation, using banned and not banned chemicals on his own people over the many years… I suspect his motive now was the same then. The United Nations has blamed [prior to this attack] three of the four known chemical attacks during this 6-year conflict on the Syrian government. ISIS was to blame for one.
In one discussion on Facebook, this was said with no evidence to back up the belief:
I concur with Ron Paul on every point. It makes no political sense for Assad to do this. Assad had everything going his way. Al Quaida/ISIS was on the run–a good thing–whereas the Neo-Conservatives–McCain, Graham, Saudis, et al.–and Deep State constituents in the military needed to undo that to stay in the game. It plays right into the hands of the Democrats who have used the Neo-Cons to rid Syria of Assad for years. …
You know the saying, opinions are like butt-tholes, everyone has one. Well, that’s exactly what that is, a stinky, unfounded opinion. Emoting, really. AGAIN, it is like these people are well-trained psychologists who have sat with Assad for years in private one-hour sessions.
I discussed evidences for the attack originating from Al-Shayrat Airfield, using eyewitness testimony, satellite and other surveillance the U.S. is using on that region, operatives, the type of gas used, etc., etc. And then I came across this TWEET:
That Tweet brought me to some Russian news reports that needed translation that showed concrete evidence that Syria had weaponized chemical materials (WMDs) at the exact same airbase that the SU-22s flew their sorties from. I got better pictures than the above Tweet. Here IT is, and click on it to enlarge it:
The top picture is from Russian news agencies of the aftermath of the strike at Al-Shayrat Airfield… take note the chemical weapons barrels meant to store agents to be used in ordinance. The picture below that top one comes from a Russian journal about the Russian military disposing of some of their chemical weapons cache. They are identical.
EVEN AFTER ALL THIS, people are still stuck on Assad’s motives? I followed the most recent question in this regard with this:
He has done it before, from torturing and mutilating his own people to dropping chlorine bombs on them, to chemical attacks past and present. What were benefits and motives in all these other attacks? The same here… he only controls a third of the country and he wants this to be over — quick.
But, motives are not the question really at stake here. If you were a doctorate holding psychologist who has had many private sessions with Assad, you would be in a position to speak to motives.
What we can answer here is that there is concrete evidence that Assad’s military were the source of this (and past… sorry conspiracy theorists) attack.
For instance I would say Hitler’s motives were a mix of strict adherence to Darwinian evolution, occultism, power, etc. But when you are a polish Catholic sent to a concentration camp — motive is not important. If he were to escape and join the resistance, his only question is “who did this to me and others.”
As if madmen have motives worth calculating. Dumb.
Another person said those photos were photoshopped:
So if I understand correctly, you were part of the battlefield damage assessment team that visited the airfield after the attack and took the photos. Really that tells me that there are barrels in the photo, that photo could be one of the Syrian facilities or something from Iraq, wherever, whenever. It tells me nothing. I have two words for you, Tonkin Gulf.
Sigh. The photo’s were from Russian news agencies, as well as there being drone footage AFTER the attack. So I responded thus (I will add some thoughts in brackets):
So if I understand correctly, Russia placed these barrels there after the bombing of the airfield, then, invited Russian news services in to photo the damage [and the evidence for chemical agents] to show evidence that disputes their earlier claim that it was a [terrorist] cache [merely hit by Assad’s air-force]. [Also undermining their response to America’s “aggression,” and bringing the whole world to the side of Trump’s response.] I will use your thinking behind this: what motivation or benefit would this serve Putin?
So Russia is planting evidence to prove Trump correct? Grind me up an Advil so I can snort it.
The U.S. Military also intercepted communications by the Assad regime planning and speaking to the required experts needed in the operation of such an attack:
The US military and intelligence community has intercepted communications featuring Syrian military and chemical experts talking about preparations for the sarin attack in Idlib last week, a senior US official tells CNN.
The intercepts were part of an immediate review of all intelligence in the hours after the attack to confirm responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in an attack in northwestern Syria, which killed at least 89 people. US officials have said that there is “no doubt” that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the attack.
The US did not know prior to the attack it was going to happen, the official emphasized. The US scoops up such a large volume of communications intercepts in areas like Syria and Iraq, the material often is not processed unless there is a particular event that requires analysts to go back and look for supporting intelligence material.
So far there are no intelligence intercepts that have been found directly confirming that Russian military or intelligence officials communicated about the attack. The official said the likelihood is the Russians are more careful in their communications to avoid being intercepted….
But “no, I will instead,” the typical conspiratorially minded person says, “listen to a guy who thinks the United States of America causes tornadoes in Oklahoma. (*Snort* WOW! That Advil goes right to your head!)
Satellite tracking of flights and airfield;
drone footage supporting this was the airfield the chemical weapons were found, to wit;
chemical weapons found at airbase;
Used them three times prior;
the type of chemicals used hint at Assad as well;
eyewitnesses and intercepted communications (both covert and witnesses hit with the ordinance — no secondary explosions);
Russian news services broke story about chemicals on base (not the deep state);
Obama officials admit they did not rid Assad of all weapons like these;
war has been raging for 6-years, Assad is desperate to keep his power;
the chemical cache on the airbase may have been from Iraq’s arsenal and so was not declared.
All this goes a long way to supporting the case that leans to the “most likely” category that Assad’s military was behind it, like the MINIMAL CASE for the Resurrection by Habermas. Since, however, EVERYTHING is explained via these theories… you can never get a concession on a point, like the meta-narrative of the Neo-Darwinian story.
GULF OF TONKIN and MORE
As for the Gulf of Tonkin incident mentioned by the above detractor, here is a quick run down of the evidence that negates the conspiratorial views of this matter (For a more in-depth dealing with this, see the U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE’S article on it that incorporates hundreds of declassified documents):
Myth: The rationale for US intervention in Viet Nam was based on a fraud.
Fact: The Tonkin Gulf incident was not a fraud. It was the motivating force behind the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
This myth is based on the false belief that US involvement began with the USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy “false” torpedo attacks, known as the Tonkin Gulf incidents.
North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap himself admitted that torpedo patrol boats attacked the USS Maddox.
The USS Turner Joy incident is more controversial, but multiple eyewitness accounts of professional sailors, both enlisted and officers, confirm the events of that night.
The testimony of sailors involved in the Turner Joy incident confirms the presence of at least one PT boat (visually sighted), one torpedo wake (visually sighted), one searchlight (visually sighted) and one PT boat sunk (visually sighted).
The Commander of the Destroyer Task Force, Captain John J. Herrick, testified before Congress that the attack on the Turner Joy occurred.
Captain Herrick recommended the Silver Star be awarded to the Turner Joy’s commanding officer, Commander Roger C. Barnhart, Jr. (He was awarded a Bronze Star instead).
The first US combat troops were committed to Vietnam in February, 1965, about seven months after the Tonkin Gulf incident.
Again, usually this is how it works… when one conspiracy theory is proffered and then found wanting… another is used as evidence that shows the previous true. However, these conspiracy theories are also found wanting. That same person said this as well:
It still doesn’t answer the question, why would Assad use these weapons when he has said he wouldn’t, and he is winning?
(*BUZZER SOUND*) No, Assad only has control of a third of his country. This battle has been raging for 6-years… he wants a quick resolution to this. And chemical weapons may be an answer Assad thinks he needs. Two thirds of his country are controlled by rebels as well as Islamic State radicals. Winning? For a dictator like Assad?
There are soo many layers of bad thinking involved in these theories that sometimes you just have to throw your hands in the air. Like I am doing now.
Comments By Others
This comment comes via Facebook — by John S.
Ambassadors and others who have had dealings with Assad directly have found him to be a boldfaced liar. He is well known to lie to the face of an ambassador without any qualms. He is lying about this.
Do we find it hard to understand why he would use chemical weapons against Syrians? Yes, of course, but Assad has done this before. He is engaged in a war with many radical groups that seek to remove him from power or kill him and his family. He would do anything to stay alive and in power. He is trusting in the cover the Russians are providing for him. He could get away with lying to Obama, but now he learns that Trump is no pushover.
McCain is wrong to demand that we supply the rebels. Most of them are now affiliated with radical terrorists. The pressure to remove Assad also comes from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar. This bombing was not meant to destroy Assad, but to send a message that if he wants to stay in power there are certain rules and using chemical weapons is forbidden.
If Assad was smart he would seek our help in fighting ISIS and connecting the dots between ISIS and Al Qaeda. And he should disavow any desire for aggression against his neighbors. But he is also a puppet of Iran and so is pressured from two sides. Right now he is trusting in his previous support from Iran and Russia. That will be his undoing.
Here is a great comment from my YouTube via Frodojack:
Sad to see the high number of psychos posting here who actually agree with Trump. Well I have news that tops Rafael Cruz taking part in the JFK assassination. Donald Trump’s father, Fred Trump, secretly help run the Third Reich for Hitler. Trump’s great-great grandfather helped John Wilkes Booth kill President Lincoln. Trump’s ancestor Pontius Pilate Trump helped crucify Jesus. I know it’s true because I read it in the National Enquirer.
Video Description from my YouTube:
Just when you thought he was headed in the right direction… one interview sinks that thought. I almost wonder if he is in the early stages of Alzheimers? At any rate, he comes across here as (a) petty, (b) cheap, (c) bat-shit-crazy, (d) unhinged, (e) confused… I could go on… but really. You can see Mike Pence take deep breaths when he is thinking – WTF?
Remember. I am FURIOUS at the Democrats for being so bad that I have to vote for this guy. And I am very disappointed that the Republicans nominated such a jackass. It boggles the mind!
The videos worth watching that I used for the video are as follows:
Something Cruz said in the “townhall” with his delegation. He said… could you imagine our nominee being in this type of format being asked questions?” That got me thinking of when Medea Benjamin (the head of Code Pink) tried to crash a Cruz event. He gave her the mic and went back and forth with her (like a boss!). Likewise, could you imagine the GOP nominee doing the same?
I posted this on Paul Watson’s YouTube… he seems to be living in two worlds and responding to them in a disjointed manner. While I can post his stuff and mean it… he has to caveat everything because of the organization he is with:
Great stuff, and even posting on my site… but for many years I was into the NWO [conspiratorial view of history] — you can see a small sampling of my reading on this below… While you are really one of the only guys at Info Wars I will post on my site, Info Wars, Prison Planet, Alex Jones, and others and other organizations like them do not like America either.
They would say the Jacobins and Freemasons from France (the Illuminati) infiltrated the founding of our country. The major wars like WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the like were fought for conspiratorial means, even noting this is how opportunists during the battles of Napoleon became rich in the stock market which eventually influenced the big families here in the states, thus, influencing much of our politics by this “secret cabal.” That 9/11 was an inside job, pushing stuff like FEMA Camps… the list goes on.
The idea that you can comment well on “American history” and patriotism is a bit confusing to me.
Here is one reply to the dumb libs on Twitter I enjoyed:
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).
In a recent exchange, a believer in chemtrails posted the above photo and sarcastically asked if these pilots were drunk. Actually [I thought to myself] they looked like military maneuvers via fighter jets… so I got to looking. I eventually found out where this person got it from, Geoengineering Watch:
(click to enlarge)
(BTW, just about every photo on that page does not support their premise!)
So I did about 45-minutes of looking and eventually found the source of the photo (thanks to a feature in BING). It is a Chinese media internet channel (see original post here, be sure to have google translate the page if you are still a skeptic). Bingo… military.
“It’s actually from a 2007 photo of contrails left during an exercise of the Chinese air force practicing high altitude dogfights between F-10 and SU-27 fighters”
Yep. Geoengineering Watch caught knowingly lying and misleading people again:
METABUNK is supposedly owned by the evil, nefarious government set to control us through ice-crystals.[/sarcasm]
THIS IS THE MAIN POINT (humor aside) to remember when someone is backed in a corner and they say this type of thing… say, “okay, let us assume you are right… how does that information of a government owned entity negate these counter points and seeing the phenomenon happening since the dawn of flight?“
In-other-words, if the government, or Sasquatch owned the website (which neither do) , that would not impact at all the point made.
The person who posted the original photo keeps telling me to look up in the sky and see for myself… take note I have pointed out this phenomenon has happened all the time, and that all the below picture ARE someone looking up! To wit, here are a couple other pics I thought were very interesting due to their historical connection to WWII. Here is the info on this first picture (via WIKI):
Fighter plane contrails mark the sky over Task Force 58, during the “Great Marianas Turkey Shoot” phase of the battle, 19 June 1944. Photographed from on board USS Birmingham (CL-62). (Battle of the Philippine Sea, June 1944)
Here is the second historical shot described (I found this one at The Atlantic):
The condensation trails from German and British fighter planes engaged in an aerial battle appear in the sky over Kent, along the southeastern coast of England, on September 3, 1940
This third one is a Life Magazine shot (many more Life Mag pics can be found here at Contrail Science):
1944 – Allied aircraft vapor trails in skies above (prob.) farmhouse in the Ardennes Forest during last days of the Battle of the Bulge, the final major German offensive of WWII.
I wish to note here that I was told by the same person that sent me these links that I should use discernment in choosing Trump over Cruz… because Cruz is not a nice guy. And true Christians should always be nice apparently… even in their “office” as Senators (here is a bit of that convo here). Anyhew, I merely responded to these latest linked articles that people like he support Trump… and that is all the “discernment I need.”
Snopes squashed that original report from the whacked site InfoWars when they pointed out that,
…the WMR’s [the second linked article in my bullet points] author doesn’t explain how he could possibly know that the unidentified person standing near Lee Harvey Oswald in these photographs was actually a Cuban (other than by assuming he’s Rafael Cruz), nor does he identify the “source” who informed him that the “individual to Oswald’s left is none other than Rafael Cruz.” (By the standards of “evidence” used in typical WMR items, someone’s saying, “Hey, the dude in that blurry Oswald photo looks kinda like Ted Cruz’s dad” counts as a “source.”)…
NOT TO MENTION that Rafael Cruz did not live in New Orleans until 1965 — two-years after the photo of him and Oswald in “Nwawlins.” PolitiFactadds to this whirlwind of “evidence”
…Two photo experts the tabloid hired — Mitch Goldstone of ScanMyPhotos, a digitizing photo service, and Carole Lieberman, a forensic expert witness — said another man in the image appears to be young Rafael Cruz, according to McClatchy.
We could not independently verify these experts’ validation, as neither Goldstone nor Lieberman got back to us.
When we reached out to Kairos, a Miami-based facial recognition software company, Chief Technology Officer Cole Calistra was skeptical about claims of a positive identification. Calistra told PolitiFact that the photos are too grainy “to perform a proper match one way or the other.”
James Wayman, the former director of U.S. National Biometric Test Center in the Clinton administration, said proper analysis requires two full-frontal facial images.
“Without such images, no professional face examiner will be willing to render an opinion,” he said.
The two “experts” that identified Rafael for the Inquirer are not returning calls to the press (PolitiFact);
Rafael Cruz said he was not in New Orleans until 1965, the photo touted as Rafael were take in 1963 (Heavy).
I am after another piece of evidence that will surely come sooner-or-later… and it is the connection to the CIA:
For one thing, Rafael’s draft card from July 26, 1967 lists his employer as “Geophysics & Computer Service Inc.,” a French-based firm connected to both Schlumberger and Zapata Offshore Company, the former having a since-declassified relationship with the CIA and the latter once run by George H.W. Bush. (InfoWars)
My experience is that if you wait a bit… those more industrious than I uncover embarrassing facts for the conspiracy believers. More to come, surely.