Wednesday, September 01, 2010

'Conspiracies of Rich Men' to Rob You, Enslave You, and Wage Aggressive Wars at Your Expense!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It is still fashionable in the American media to deride 'conspiracies' with a blanket if illogical and uninformed smear. Conspiracies are, in fact, how things get done in either crime or commerce. Lately, there is little difference. When just one percent of the U.S. population owns more than the rest of us combined, we are expected to believe that this is the result of merit and 'free enterprise'. But if we should cite the evidence that argues persuasively that this outcome is the result of a conspiracy of right wing politicians and the venal elites who bankroll them we are reviled and/or ridiculed. In fact, 'free enterprise' does not exist in an oligopoly and 'oligopoly' is a polite word for what has happened to and in America. We should expect a pack of lies from those caught with a hand in the cookie jar! We should expect cover stories and propaganda from those caught in the act of looting the United States. We should expect 'excuses' and rationalization from the cadre which cooked up the cover story --'supply side economics'.

Conspiracies are how things get done. If legal, they are called 'corporations'. If not, they are criminal conspiracies and there is a huge body of case law that proves how utterly stupid is the meme: "conspiracies don't exist!" Tell it to the judge!

Very little is accomplished by one person working alone, be it the mythical 'lone gun man' in Dealy Plaza' or Dick Cheney wishing to gain control of the oil fields of Iraq. The Dick, as you may recall, required a conspiracy, his 'Energy Task Force' which met to divvy up the spoils of aggressive war before it would occur, before they would have the convenient pretext to justify it: 911!

Like Hitler with Thyssen, Krupp, I.G. Farben et al, the Dick met with his co-conspirators, his 'Energy Task Force', just prior to 911. They met to carve up the oil fields of Iraq amongst them just as Hitler had coveted the coal in Poland.

We are expected to believe the official cover story that the subsequent 911 attacks were merely coincidental when, in fact, they provided the essential pretext to attack and invade Iraq. We are expected to fall into line and goosestep. We are expected to just shut up and allow the corporate media to brainwash us. We are expected to believe coincidence theories upon faith and faith alone; to ask for evidence or proof is 'unpatriotic'. Not all of us fell for this crock! It was only the gullible, the stupid, the right wing!

Conspiracies need not be illegal though most of them probably are; else --why keep them secret? Why the campaign to convince you that they do not exist? If a conspiracy is legal, it's called a corporation. For awhile, Enron found that 'corporate person-hood' was the perfect cover. Like the Twin Towers later, Enron crashed and burned as a result of its own conspiratorial schemes to include putting the screws to California.

Conspiracy theorists on the high court have provided rich theorists and criminals yet another layer of cover: corporate person-hood! The robed conspiracy theorists have have said that corporations are people! But if should you call those five idiots who, in fact, conspired to subvert the U.S. Constitution, by the term 'conspirators', you will be denounced as a nut job! That the insane will call us 'nuts' is proof that we live in absurd, Kafkaesque times.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court has said that 'corporations' are people! Now any rag tag collection of crooks, ne'erdowells and/or robber barons can send money to the Secretary State in Delaware and receive in return a nice binder with impressive documents along with a genuine Delaware corporate seal! Thereafter, you --too --will be a real person, a 'corporation'! The Delaware Secretary of State has made it so! Now, I ask you, who is nuts? At one time, this cost about $5o to $100 and there were/are numerous 'registered agents' who handle all the paper work for you. All you have to do is send them real money, as real as money can be these days.

The biggest conspiracy theorists since WWII have been the demagogues of the right wing who raised the specter of a World Wide Communist Conspiracy. We were told that there were evil conspiracies of drug dealers and drug cartels which they used to justify crack downs on civil liberties and justify domestic surveillance. We were told about evil schemes to poison our drinking water for the greater glory of communism --a world wide conspiracy. Or so we were told. Later, the same folk would tell us that conspiracies do not exist. No one should believe them.

The government often cites the specter of 'organized crime' in order to rally voters to a 'right wing' cause like 'law and order', a big issue in the 1960s. What is organized crime if not a conspiracy? In order to believe in the specter of 'organized crime', we must believe that 'conspiracies exist'. Either they exist or they do not! Either organized crime is real or it is not! Which is it? I despair that the idiots who run our government will ever make up their mind.

Organized crime was a favorite 'boogie man' back in the 30s, 40s and 50s. After all, Al Capone was selling booze and screwing whores. But what are 'crime syndicates' if not conspiracies? Again --the government will have it both ways if it can get away with it. Having spent several decades scaring the pants off the population by raising the specter of a 'conspiracy' --organized crime --the government now expects us to believe that conspiracies do not exist. When is the government telling the truth? When is it lying? It is reasonable to question everything said by the government about anything at any time! It is clear that the government will tell you anything that is expedient!

The government itself is, as St Thomas More said of the court of King Henry VIII, a 'conspiracy of rich men". These 'rich men', this mere one percent of the total population, will exploit whatever 'threat' is convenient to keep the people uninformed, enslaved and/or pacified. The perceived 'threats' are many and, over the years, the 'threats' have included hippies, black people, rock n' roll, crime syndicates, etc. But, most recently, the 'conspiracy of rich men' we call the government has hit the bonanza: terrorism.

In order to fully exploit this new buggaboo, the government demonized the religion of Islam. It raised the specter of racism, in this case, the 'brown skin' of many who live in the Middle East. These liars and criminals had to resort to every trick in the book. But, to be honest, they were not very good at it and only the very, very stupid fell for it.

The right wing establishment are themselves conspiracy theorists when it is useful but not otherwise. 911 is a case in point. The official theory of 19 Arab Hijackers is a conspiracy theory favored by the Bush administration though there is absolutely no admissible evidence to support it. It is 'Orwellian' that anyone proposing any 'other' conspiracy theory is labeled a 'conspiracy theorist' and reviled or called other names.

The government will turn a blind-eye to the fact that it is, itself, a conspiracy and not always a legal one. It was Ronald Reagan who sold arms to Iran illegally and committed treason in the process. He did not do this on his own. Reagan conspired with the CIA, Bush Sr et al to sell arms to Iran --called at the time an 'avowed enemy of the United States! The CIA used the proceeds of those sales to bankroll --illegally --the Nicaraguan Contras. The CIA, itself, must be considered to be nothing more nor less than an institutionalized conspiracy. There is a word for a conspiracy of this type: traitors guilty of high treason:
The Iran/contra investigation will not end the kind of abuse of power that it addressed any more than the Watergate investigation did. The criminality in both affairs did not arise primarily out of ordinary venality or greed, although some of those charged were driven by both. Instead, the crimes committed in Iran/contra were motivated by the desire of persons in high office to pursue controversial policies and goals even when the pursuit of those policies and goals was inhibited or restricted by executive orders, statutes or the constitutional system of checks and balances.

The tone in Iran/contra was set by President Reagan. He directed that the contras be supported, despite a ban on contra aid imposed on him by Congress. And he was willing to trade arms to Iran for the release of Americans held hostage in the Middle East, even if doing so was contrary to the nation's stated policy and possibly in violation of the law.

The lesson of Iran/contra is that if our system of government is to function properly, the branches of government must deal with one another honestly and cooperatively. When disputes arise between the Executive and Legislative branches, as they surely will, the laws that emerge from such disputes must be obeyed. When a President, even with good motive and intent, chooses to skirt the laws or to circumvent them, it is incumbent upon his subordinates to resist, not join in. Their oath and fealty are to the Constitution and the rule of law, not to the man temporarily occupying the Oval Office. Congress has the duty and the power under our system of checks and balances to ensure that the President and his Cabinet officers are faithful to their oaths.

--Lawrence Walsh, Special Prosecutor, Concluding Observations, FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS
No one ever called the Senior Bush a 'conspiracy theorist' though he was, in fact, a conspirator! But worse, he was a 'traitor' and so was Ronald Reagan.
"I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth."

- Sir Thomas More (1478 - 1535), Utopia, Of the Religions in Utopia
Let's put the myths to rest forever. Conspiracies exist! OK? Last time I checked the Cornell University Law Library and FINDLAW, I found hundreds if not thousands of court decisions, having to do with conspiracies large and small, of one sort or another. If conspiracies do not exist, I would urge that someone, anyone please send a memo to that effect to the Supreme Court. Tell them to stop handing down decisions having to do with 'conspiracies'. Inform them that conspiracies do not exist! Do that! Then get back with me!

In his 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich', William Shirer described a 'conspiracy of rich men'! A record of this conspiracy of Hitler survives. It includes corporate/business supporters, his financiers, his minions. Like Dick Cheney's 'Energy Task Force' with respect to Iraq, Hitler's gang was a conspiracy to invade the nations of Europe, steal their resources and divide up the booty.
Goebbels was jubilant. "Now it will be easy," he wrote in his diary on February 3, "to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the State. Radio and press are at our disposal. We shall stage a masterpiece of propaganda. And this time, naturally, there is no lack of money."(2)

The big businessmen, pleased with the new government that was going to put the organized workers in their place and leave management to run its business as it wished, were asked to cough up. This they agreed to do at a meeting on February 20 at Goering's Reichstag President's Palace, at which Dr. Schacht acted as host and Goering and Hitler laid down the line to a couple of dozen of Germany's leading magnates, including Krupp von Bohlen, who had become an enthusiastic Nazi overnight, Bosch and Schnitzler of I. G. Farben, and Voegler, head of the United Steel Works. The record of this secret meeting has been preserved.

Hitler began a long speech with a sop to the industrialists. "Private enterprise," he said, "cannot be maintained in the age of democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and personality . . . All the worldly goods we possess we owe to the struggle of the chosen . . . We must not forget that all the benefits of culture must be introduced more or less with an iron fist." He promised the businessmen that he would "eliminate" the Marxists and restore the Wehrmacht (the latter was of special interest to such industries as Krupp, United Steel and I. G. Farben, which stood to gain the most from rearmament). "Now we stand before the last election," Hitler concluded, and he promised his listeners that "regardless of the outcome, there will be no retreat." If he did not win, he would stay in power "by other means . . . with other weapons." Goering, talking more to the immediate point, stressed the necessity of "financial sacrifices" which "surely would be much easier for industry to bear if it realized that the election of March fifth will surely be the last one for the next ten years, probably even for the next hundred years."

All this was made clear enough to the assembled industrialists and they responded with enthusiasm to the promise of the end of the infernal elections, of democracy and disarmament. Krupp, the munitions king, who, according to Thyssen, had urged Hindenburg on January 29 not to appoint Hitler, jumped up and expressed to the Chancellor the "gratitude" of the businessmen "for having given us such a clear picture." Dr. Schacht then passed the hat. "I collected three million marks," he recalled at Nuremberg.(3)

----William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, The Nazification of Germany: 1933–34
We are fortunate that no one 'informed' Shirer that conspiracies did not exist before he bothered unearthing the mountain of Nazi documents that proved --beyond any reasonable doubt --the Nazi conspiracy, specifically, the meeting that proved and described in considerable detail the Nazi conspiracy to wage war and genocide for the benefit of global corporations that participated. Some of those corporations were American. There is no evidence that these corporations ever stopped being 'Nazis'. It is interesting to note that one of Hitler's early and generous sponsors was Henry Ford, the American car maker. A portrait of Ford hung in Hitler's fancy New Reich Chancellery. A traitor, perhaps he should have been hanged in the Chancellery!

This meeting of 'industrialists' took place just as surely as did meeting of Dick Cheney's 'Energy Task Force' in which the oil fields of the the Middle East, Iraq in particular, were 'divvied' up among the conspirators. The results were published in a 'National Energy Policy' report in May 2001 [PDF], several months before 911 would give them the pretext to make the report come true.

Another example is Heinrich Heydrich's infamous conspiracy --his meeting at Wannsee, attended by Nazi bureaucrats, and corporate kiss ups. Over a civilized lunch, this 'conspiracy of rich men' planned the extermination of the Jews of Europe.
... within a few months after the meeting, the first gas chambers were installed in some of the extermination camps in Poland. These six camps, Belzec, Birkenau, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka were in operation in Poland.

Responsibility for the entire project was placed in the hands of Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführer-SS, and head of the Gestapo and the Waffen-SS.

The Wannsee Conference did not mark the beginning of the "Final Solution." The mobile killing squads were already slaughtering Jews in the occupied Soviet Union. Rather, the Wannsee Conference was the place where the "final solution" was formally revealed to non-Nazi leaders who would help arrange for Jews to be transported from all over German-occupied Europe to SS-operated "extermination" camps in Poland. Not one of the men present at Wannsee objected to the announced policy. Never before had a modern state committed itself to the murder of an entire people.

--The Wannsee Conference, Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team
Very little is accomplished by one person working alone unless you happen to be Michelangelo. Conspiracies exist! Our own Supreme Court has said so. This is ironic as the high court itself has deteriorated, devolved; they are, themselves, of late, a conspiracy of right wing ideological extremists in service to just one percent of the population, the ruling one percent which, in fact, owns more than the rest of us combined. SCOTUS is owned!

Another tool of the ruling elite is the CIA, an acronym forever linked by time and space to the name George Bush Sr. Like Dan Quayle, Bush Sr was expert at saying nothing while moving his lips. The opposite of ventriloquism. In his presence, one was in danger of death by boredom! Nevertheless, he was a Bonesman, the son of a traitor, a CIA 'operative'. Having known Bush SR, I would testify that that is, indeed, the Senior Bush photographed hanging around the TSBD just prior to the assassination of JFK. Bush Sr was and probably still is a very dangerous man! As Caesar said of Cassius, Bush Sr had 'a lean and hungry look'! Cassius, as you may recall, participated in the murder of Caesar.
A body of leads has been assembled which suggests that George Bush may have been associated with the CIA at some time before the autumn of 1963. According to Joseph McBride of The Nation, “a source with close connections to the intelligence community confirms that Bush started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961, using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities.” 1

By the time of the Kennedy assassination, we have an official FBI document which refers to “Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency,” and despite official disclaimers there is every reason to think that this is indeed the man in the White House today. The mystery of George Bush as a possible covert operator hinges on four points, each one of which represents one of the great political and espionage scandals of postwar American history. These four cardinal points are:
  • The abortive Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, launched on April 16-17, 1961, prepared with the assistance of the CIA’s “Miami Station” (also known under the code name JM/WAVE). After the failure of the amphibious landings of Brigade 2506, Miami station, under the leadership of Theodore Shackley, became the focus for Operation Mongoose, a series of covert operations directed against Castro, Cuba, and possibly other targets.

  • The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and the cover-up of those responsible for this crime.

  • The Watergate scandal, beginning with an April, 1971 visit to Miami, Florida by E. Howard Hunt on the tenth anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion to recruit operatives for the White House Special Investigations Unit (the “Plumbers” and later Watergate burglars) from among Cuban-American Bay of Pigs veterans.

  • The Iran-contra affair, which became a public scandal during October-November 1986, several of whose central figures, such as Felix Rodriguez, were also veterans of the Bay of Pigs.
George Bush’s role in both Watergate and the October surprise/Iran-contra complex will be treated in detail at later points in this book. Right now it is important to see that thirty years of covert operations, in many respects, form a single continuous whole. This is especially true in regard to the dramatis personae. Georgie Anne Geyer points to the obvious in a recent book: “…an entire new Cuban cadre now emerged from the Bay of Pigs.

The names Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Rolando Martinez, Felix Rodriguez and Eugenio Martinez would, in the next quarter century, pop up, often decisively, over and over again in the most dangerous American foreign policy crises. There were Cubans flying missions for the CIA in the Congo and even for the Portuguese in Africa; Cubans were the burglars of Watergate; Cubans played key roles in Nicaragua, in Irangate, in the American move into the Persian Gulf.” 2 Felix Rodriguez tells us that he was infiltrated into Cuba with the other members of the “Grey Team” in conjunction with the Bay of Pigs landings; this is the same man we will find directing the contra supply effort in central American during the 1980’s, working under the direct supervision of Don Gregg and George Bush. 3 Theodore Shackley, the JM/WAVE station chief, will later show up in Bush’s 1979-80 presidential campaign.

--Webster Tarpley, , George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, Chapter 8b – The Bay of Pigs and The Kennedy Assassination
The assassination of JFK is clearly a textbook example of the The Modus Operandi of the CIA. In this source insider Ralph McGehee, chronicles the work he performed for the CIA from 1952 through 1977.

Another book --Deadly Deceits --is sub-titled: My 25 years in the CIA (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1983). In this source is compiled a computer data base of CIA activities. Persons interested may write to him at: 422 Arkansas Ave., Herndon, VA 22070. (See http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/CIA_SOP.html .)
“...it is essential to provide background on the scope and nature of its worldwide operations. Between 1961 and 1975 the Agency conducted 900 major or sensitive operations, and thousands of lesser covert actions. The majority of its operations were propaganda, election or paramilitary. Countries of major concern, such as Indonesia in the early 1960s, were usually subjected to the CIA's most concerted attention. Critics of the CIA have aptly described the mainstays of such attention: "discrediting political groups... by forged documents that may be attributed to them. . . ." faking "communist weapon shipments,'' capturing communist documents and then inserting forgeries prepared by the Agency's Technical Services Division.

--Ralph McGehee
Americans may be less informed about the CIA than residents of almost every other country. Americans are routinely lied to and deliberately kept in the dark by a 'mainstream' media that often seems complicit. For example, the MSM dare not tell the truth about the CIA and often seems to be in cahoots with them. As the CIA was known to have infiltrated student groups in the sixties the suspicion that they have, likewise, infiltrated the media is not only reasonable but conservative. It is the rare media outlet that will risk alienating its advertising base. See: Steve Kangas: The Origins of the Overclass.

It is only coincidence, we are told, that the now dead Kennedys had been a threat to the CIA and it is only a coincidence that they are dead because of it. It is only coincidence --we are told --that activist Steve Kangas had zeroed in on conservative crimes and failures just as Richard Mellon Scaife was bankrolling a jihad against Clinton. It was only coincidence that Bush Sr was photographed hanging around the front entrance to the Texas School Book depository just minutes prior to the murder of JFK. It was only coincidence that tramps looking like E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis et al were arrested for just hanging around the rail road tracks that run north and south just behind the grassy knoll. It was just coincidence that Martin Luther King Jr seemed to have prophesied his own death with his 'I Have a Dream' speech.

"The thing I am concerned about, and so is [Deputy Attorney General Nicholas] Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." --FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, speaking on the telephone to Johnson aide Walter Jenkins two hours after Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby, HSCA Report, vol. III, pp. 471-73. (The Warren Commission -charged with determining the truth in the JFK assassination --relied upon Hoover's FBI as its primary investigative arm.)

"We have not been told the truth about Oswald."

--Senator Richard Russell, former Warren Commission member, conversation with researcher Harold Weisberg in 1970, Whitewash IV
We have not been told the truth about the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. But we know who the liars are and we know what it is they are lying about. We also know a great deal about why they lied as well as who is protected by the lies and why. It has also been my experience that only the guilty are sufficiently motivated to lie about a crime. Those who cover up a crime do so because they are guilty. By contrast, the innocent are motivated to tell the truth or to get at the truth. Their lives often depend upon it. The innocent must insist that truth be told if they are to remain free. It was Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes who said: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"

The answer to that question might well have solved the JFK murder case! Had the train behind the grassy known not been a threat, the FBI would not have removed every trace of it in photos. I know that the FBI did so because I held in my hand the evidence that proved that they did so --slides taken in Dealy Plaza, doctored while in FBI possession. The slides were taken by Phil Willis, kept by the FBI for years, but when they were returned to Rosemary Willis (his daughter) they had been altered. The FBI is responsible.

Cover-ups, of course, are intended to protect the guilty. Something about the train --where earlier well-dressed tramps had been arrested --is germane to the plot to murder JFK. Tampering with evidence is always intended to protect the guilty. By removing the evidence, the FBI was not merely obstructing justice, it was protecting the identity/identities of murderers and traitors! Why would the FBI protect an assassin's get-away? It is reasonable to conclude that the FBI was and remains a part of the plot. See more at: Exposing Lies About the FED, the CIA, the Murder of JFK

The death of Lee Harvey Oswald relieved the government of having to get a conviction. Had Oswald gone to trial, he would have walked. The government 'case' against him would never have convinced a jury.

The magic bullet said to have created all of JFKs wounds was pristine; clearly, it had never been fired, had never struck anything. It was found on the wrong gurney at Parkland Hospital and could not have been placed at the scene of the crime. Oswald had to die because a competent judge would have thrown out the 'magic bullet'. Oswald would have walked and in 'walking' would have been a threat to the liar of the CIA, George Bush Sr who was photographed hanging around the front entrance of the TSBD just minutes before the shooting would start.

Nevertheless, we are expected to believe that a single bullet fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano was responsible for numerous wounds --a fatal one to JFK and serious wounds to Texas Governor John Connally. None of this would have gotten by a competent defense. The plotters concluded that it was better to destroy the evidence and kill all the witnesses.
“Therefore I must say that, as I hope for mercy, I can have no other notion of all the other governments that I see or know, than that they are a conspiracy of the rich, who on pretence of managing the public only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they can find out; first, that they may, without danger, preserve all that that they have so ill acquired, and then that they may engage the poor to toil and labour for them at as low rates as possible, and oppress them as much as they pleasure. And if they can but prevail to get these contrivances established by the show of public authority, which is considered as the representative of the whole people, then they are accounted laws. Yet these wicked men after they have, by a most insatiable covetousness, divided that among themselves with which all the rest might have been well supplied, are far from that happiness that is enjoyed among the Utopians; for the use as well as the desire of money being extinguished, much anxiety and great occasions of mischief is cut off with it. And who does not see that the frauds, thefts, robberies, quarrels, tumults, contentions, seditions, murders, treacheries, and witchcrafts, which are indeed rather punished than restrained by the severities of law, would all fall off, if money were not any more valued by the world? Men’s fears, solicitudes, cares, labours, and watchings, would all perish in the same moment with the value of money; even poverty itself, for the relief of which money seems most necessary, would fall.”

--St. Thomas More, Utopia
If the Military-Industrial Complex is not a 'conspiracy of rich men', then what is? If the Supreme Court has not deteriorated into a conspiracy of right wing ideologues, then why are not the dictionaries re-written and the thousands of pages of case law burned or dumped offshore? The 'conspiracy rich men' has been careless. Nevertheless, we are expected to buy the lies and die for them. No thanks!
Note: The Existentialist Cowboy is currently bombarded by spam from a lunatic name caller of the right wing ilk! Therefore, comments are moderated. Intelligent comments are, as always, welcome! Ad hominem attacks, spam and psychotic drivel is not! Eventually, the offending party will be committed to an asylum and we adults can once again engage in intelligent, articulate dialogue. Thanks for understanding.


Monday, August 30, 2010

Gore Vidal: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Some of the early reviews of Gore Vidal's 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace' called it 'inflammatory'. That's because truth is often inflammatory. It is a measure of the American descent into fascism when distinguished authors are denied access to the audience that their work, in fact, created. Neither self-publishing or the blogosphere is, as yet, the solution. Those venues, themselves, are under threat if the news we hear about Google is, in any way, true.

So --what was said by Vidal that scared the pants off the MSM, the mentally constipated, the poohbahs at the Pentagon? Vidal made the case that there are no evils greater than those of the 'state' against its own people! Vidal found fatal flaws in U.S. foreign policy that inspire desperate measures abroad and, of late, at home. An empire whose exploitation of ever greater numbers, leaves its victims desperate, inviting response and retaliation. A nation-state so exploited may fight back with conventional means --armies and weapons! But a 'people' so exploited has only 'terrorism' to fight back with. Tyrants leave them no other choice. Other voices as disparate as Thomas Jefferson and Che Guevara have said the same thing.

Vidal found parallels between Timothy McVeigh and Bin Laden. That, of course, assumes that we know anything at all about Bin Laden. For all we know, Bin Laden is long dead or never existed. He could very well have been a creation of clever video editors. Think about it: how many people do you know who have actually met him? What hard evidence do YOU have that he exists? He probably does (or did) exist, but --to be honest --I don't know that for a fact and cannot prove it! Neither does anyone else who, like me, never met him. Bin Laden is a name in a newspaper article or a blurry image on a TV

Vidal makes little or no distinction between U.S. Foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. That is consistent with my position that the U.S. has but two wings of a single 'Capitalist Party'. Of the two, I believe the Democrats are preferable but that is a highly 'qualified' endorsement based entirely upon the fact that Democrats have consistently outperformed the GOP economically. For example, every Democratic regime since WWII has presided over greater job growth and GDP growth than any GOP regime. The margin by which the GOP are beaten is impressive, clearly, a result of their utterly wrong and 'top down' ideas about economics. Trickle-down or supply-side economics is the best example.

'Preferable' is, admittedly, a qualifying word used when none of the choices are precise. Neither party has articulated a truly desirable or noble 'America'. Neither party inspires us! Neither party has delivered a 'higher pie'! Both parties have, in fact, triangulated not even a center but an 'electorate' of some amorphous sort. No one --most certainly not Bush --has articulated what is right, noble and correct, merely whatever it is that might get one elected to office. Ronald Reagan, for example, had only to make psychopaths feel good about themselves.

On Phil Donahue, Studs Terkel spoke of the need for a 'major voice' to address the un-addressable of which 911 is the most notable example. Even now --no one dares speak realistically about 911. That, of course, was the perfect cover openly desired by Bush who warned against 'outrageous conspiracy theories' while putting forward his own 'conspiracy theory', the 'official' conspiracy which was, in fact, the most outrageous of them all! It was, in fact, the only conspiracy theory for which there is not a shred of rational or admissible evidence. Just propaganda and bullshit!

The 'patriotism' of anyone daring to speak openly or truthfully about 911 was impugned, castigated. Critics of Bush were called, in effect, 'traitors'. A legitimate government of broad-based support does not behave in this manner. It was Bush and his stolen 'office' who was, rather, the traitor to the people and the last time I checked, the people are sovereign. But America seems to have forgotten that.

Vidal's voice needs to be heard now more than ever. 911 must not simply fade away. What was done to this nation and by whom are issues that must be faced and will be --now or later! Calling opinions of any kind 'un-American' is, itself, 'un-American' and must not be tolerated. The alternative is censorship and fascism; conformity and totalitarianism, in this case, a dictatorship in which Fox and one or two other big networks play the role of 'The Ministry of Truth' i,e. 'The Ministry of Propaganda'.

Vidal committed the unpardonable sin. He questioned U.S. assumptions about the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center bombings in New York. He wrote: "That our ruling junta might have seriously provoked McVeigh and Osama was never dealt with."

Writing prior to many 911 revelations, many of which utterly disprove the official conspiracy theory, his critique of the 911 cover story is incomplete. You will find proof that the Bush version of 911 is impossible, defying the principles of physics, mathematics and common sense at: 911 Inside Job Chronicles

Perhaps the only surprise in this book is Vidal's convincing argument that McVeigh had not been behind the bombing of the Murrah building in OKC. Only Vidal could have held this collection of essays together with a single thesis: that we must take seriously people like Timothy McVeigh whom Vidal proves was genuinely outraged by the outrageous murder of civilians at Waco. We must take seriously people like Bin Laden, who may or may not exist. Vidal stopped short of the simplistic 'evil begats evil' but he might have said it outright and would have been correct had he done so.
The point of the book is captured in the first and only new essay - "September 11, 2001 (A Tuesday)", and it is this essay that, presumably, kept the book from being published in this country until now. Has anyone noticed how quiet Vidal has been since 9/11? Well, it wasn't by choice. Just after the 9-11 attacks on the United States, Vidal's initial comments appeared in Portuguese when he shared his views with a Brazilian publication. Those comments were then translated into Spanish and published in the Mexican newspaper La Jornada. Vidal later revised and expanded these early remarks for a piece intended for Vanity Fair. The magazine—among others, including The Nation, where Vidal is a longtime contributing editor—passed on the piece as a result of its "anti-American sentiments", thereby keeping our leading publishers and primary voices of dissent in lockstep with the rest of the mainstream media's newfound desire to censor itself for the supposed good of the country.

Even in those heady days immediately following the attacks, and given the "unified front" rhetoric that has enveloped the country since (a united front that has since made shopping, and consumption in general, as the way to return to those happy-go-lucky days of last summer), it seems astounding that a major American literary figure and cultural critic would have a hard time placing one of his works concerning the most significant domestic event since W.W.II.

--Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated by Gore Vidal (Thunder's Mouth Press/Nation Books)


The 'State' Commits Mass Murder of U.S. Citizens in Waco



If WTC 7 Was a Controlled Demolition, so were the Twins!
Note: The Existentialist Cowboy is currently bombarded by spam from a lunatic name caller of the right wing ilk! Therefore, comments are moderated. Intelligent comments are, as always, welcome! Ad hominem attacks, spam and psychotic drivel is not! Eventually, the offending party will be committed to an asylum and we adults can once again engage in intelligent, articulate dialogue. Thanks for understanding.

Syndicated 'Cowboy' Articles

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Add to Technorati Favorites

Download   DivX

Spread the word

Saturday, August 28, 2010

'I Decline to Accept the End of Man'

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

We look back at New Orleans recalling Katrina and more recently the reckless disregard shown the Gulf of Mexico by BP, a 'person' by SCOTUS reckoning. By going unpunished, BP proved SCOTUS to be as wrong as they are either stupid or crooked or both.

That --of course --is the difference. That is why 'corporations' are not people and never will be people however absurdly SCOTUS may decree it. People are charged, arrested and tried for crimes. But corporations have been put above the law. To call them 'people' is beyond stupid; it is unconscionable, wrong and wrong-headed. It is a lasting testament to the failure of American education that SCOTUS has apparently gotten away with it.

SCOTUS has proven itself oblivious to truth, logic or common sense. Five wing nuts on that court have established a body of odious 'case law' that not only makes of people mere legal abstractions; it robs us of what it means to be human. In doing so, SCOTUS has guaranteed that it will play its utterly dishonorable role in many catastrophes yet to play out. Bertolt Brecht had people like SCOTUS in mind when he wrote: "A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a crook!" Five ideologues on the 'high court' are crooks! Those five ideologues are either crooks or idiots --possibly both.

It was not so long ago that yet another Gulf disaster was unfolding amid justified fears that it would reach biblical proportions. But this article is not about BP nor the Gulf though BP is all but off the hook and the Gulf seems unlikely to return to normal in our lifetimes --if ever!

In terms of the age of the universe some 251 million years ago is just a recent event. It was then --the so-called Permian extinction --that a 'mammoth undersea methane bubble' literally burst destroying in the process some 95 percent of all life on Earth, primarily by poisoning the atmosphere. It was the greatest mass extinction in world history.

I am reminded at these critical junctures of William Faulkner who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1950, a time in which we rightly feared the imminent end of earth and mankind by way of a Nuclear Holocaust.
Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only one question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat. He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid: and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed--love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

Until he learns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

--William Faulkner: Nobel Prize Speech, Stockholm, Sweden, December 10, 1950

William Faulkner: Nobel Prize Acceptance s Speech, 1950

1950 was also the year that the great Philosopher Bertrand Russell was honored.


Bertrand Russell: Nobel Prize Acceptance, 1950

We simply cannot and must not tolerate the proliferation of the panoply of horrendous and environmentally disastrous weapons of war. These weapons cannot and will not be confined to battlefields. Indeed, the battlefield itself has become any target -military or civilian -that murderous military militants can target globally. This level of mass and official psychopathy is untenable, completely unacceptable. We must will ourselves to become sane! Only a global revolution will save us. The question is: how does one wage a war against these monsters and win?

I would hope that it is yet too early to search out that 'last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening' from which to view that last blood red sunset. Nevertheless, it must be clearly understood that we simply cannot tolerate another BP disaster. As we write and debate, the margin for error declines in an ever steeper curve. At some point on that curve, a point that is yet unknown, we may never return.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Part Tinker Bell, Part Predator Drone: The Fantasy of the Presidency as Deus ex Machina

by Guest Columnist,Phil Rockstroh

The devices employed in US election cycles and its national politics, in general, are akin to the dramatic conventions of children's theatre. Every two to four years, voters are instructed to clap their hands and believe in Tinker Bell. "Children, you have to believe -- you really, really have to believe in Tinker Bell." But behind the stagecraft is oligarchy. President Obama took millions from Goldman Sachs, et al. If there is a Captain Hook in this show, it is those Wall Street pirates who threw the global economy to the crocodiles for their ill-gotten gains.

Of course, this is a tired, old show, riddled with shopworn devices, performed by a rotating cast of hacks. Ronald Reagan set the fool's gold standard of a president playacting the role of populist, matinee hero -- Clinton, Bush, and Obama all learned from him -- as, all the while, he, in reality, went about the business of protecting and enhancing the holdings of the moneyed elite.

In Reagan's case, this con game was both an act of inspired career advancement and banal casuistry. Reagan, b-grade actor that he was, was never deep enough to harbor any belief he wasn't paid to evince. By professional necessity, he convinced himself he believed those bright and shining lies and polished platitudes he pitched to a public of credulous marks; for this is the mode of mind of effective salesmen and good showmen ... having the ability to conflate shallow self interest with the good of all.

Such self-deception -- played out as public legerdemain and state stagecraft -- is now the modus operandi of media age presidencies. The effect of this transformation, from executive gravitas to virtual playacting, has been somewhat less than salubrious for the health of the republic. When, for example, an American city drowns in floodwater and Americans are drowning in economic woes, US presidents know how to act like a president -- but not act as president. The soundbites make the man; not the man makes the soundbites.

Thus far, Obama's role has been to front the status quo. Whose interest do you think he had in mind when he picked Larry Summers and Tim Geithner as his top economic advisors? Hint: not those who clutch a subway strap nor sit stranded in freeway traffic, in bank-financed motor vehicles, on their daily commute to and from work.

Presidents, as is the case with all people, internalize the social and cultural architecture of their times. Reagan, the actor, had to find a way to believe what movie industry scriptwriters and film directors wanted from him insofar as the creation of character -- and, during the cold war and McCarthy era witchhunts, when G.E. and other defense industry giants started writing his checks (after his movie career died a lackluster death) he performed his role as resolute cold warrior as requested. And he, as has every president since, became a shill and enabler of the national security state.

Barack Obama's transformation from progressive hope-monger to status quo water-carrier should not come as a shock. It would be nearly impossible for the US populace, chief executives included, not to have internalized the tenets of the corporate capitalist/consumer empire. This corporate structure is as pervasive internally as it is extant. It exists as both outer architecture and inner psychological imprinting. Therefore, corporatism is as real to us as the deep forests and its woodland gods were to European pagans and The Church and its dogma was to the peasants of the Dark and Middle Ages.

The circumstances of the present era, like the ancient belief in the acts of self-involved gods whose doings were heedless to the fate of mere mortals, are larger than us and will not cede to our demands to behave with compassion or even sanity. To name but one example: The earth's oceans are suffering, many oceanographers say dying, due to the death cult calculus of runaway capitalism. In essence, we are confronted by a situation in which we experience abject powerlessness. An aura of unease and anomie prevails.

This unease contributes to a desperate fantasy of the presidency as deus ex machina. The right's deification of Reagan cast the fantasy into the realm of bughouse raving: The dead president as savor zombie. The belief that Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union with 1940's era movie jibes and bromides is such a preposterous fantasy ... that it evokes one of my own: Ronald Reagan, endlessly imprisoned in a soundbite loop in Hell, throwing back his shoulders, doing that portrayal of manly resolve he wore out during his time in office ... then bandying into the indifference of eternity, this variation of his patented platitude, "Mr. Devil, tear down this wall of fire."

What is the emotional toil taken by the reality that in life, unlike theatre, there will be no sudden plot reversal brought about by a device of deus ex machina? In these desperate imaginings, we demand our president both lay on hands to heal the wounds inflicted by capitalism and smite our perceived enemies abroad. We insist he be not only a steely eyed warrior-king but our collective killer Christ.

Democratic presidents, and their handlers and advisers, become possessed of this errant archetype as well. Hence, according to the fantasy, to be viable as commander-in-chief, they are driven to prove their toughness, preferably, in some he-man display of resolute stupidity. They must prove they have a pair of killer/redeemer god balls -- which might be termed, Christesticles -- by bombing somebody -- anybody. At present, it appears this fraternity of hubris-blinded killer clowns has Iran in their cross hairs.

The act of imagining enemies serves as distraction from the angst arising from the vast economic inequities of life in the contemporary US. This is the good versus evil, dramatic conventions of the children's theatre of our politics: We boo the villains -- and are instructed to clap our hands to bring about an intervention by supernatural forces ... In this case, in the form of an action hero/magical being to do our killing: a deity -- who is part Tinker Bell, part predator drone.

But our situation is closer to that of the flawed protagonists in Waiting For Godot -- Samuel Becket's brilliant take on the self-deception at work within the alienated hearts of those who believe their suffering will be assuaged by the arrival of a god-like being. The last lines and final stage instructions of the play are emblematic of the Obama presidency:

VLADIMIR: Well? Shall we go?

ESTRAGON: Yes, let's go.

(Stage direction: They do not move.)

Obama and the Democrats do not move. They do not act. They do not govern. They do not serve their constituents.

Although, in reality, they do serve their true constituents ... the corporate elite -- the forces behind the rising level of authoritarian control over the lives of the people of the nation, both of ordinary citizens and the political class. In situations of veiled coercion, where unspoken threats to one's economic security and social standing are the primary motivating factors determining an individual's response to an exploitive system, there is no need to threaten potential dissenters with crude, old school totalitarian methods of repression such as forced deportment to labor and reeducation camps. In the class stratified, debt shackled US work force, where the personal consequences of financial upheaval are devastating, the implicit threat of being cast into the nation's urban gulag archipelago of homelessness coerces most into compliance with the dictates of the corporate oligarchs.

The effects are insidious. In such an environment, there is no call for the Sturm und Drang of mass spectacle, replete with blazing torches and blown banners hoisted by serried ranks of jut jawed, jack-booted ubermensch: corporatism establishes an authoritarian order by way of a series of overt bribes and tacit threats. This social and cultural criteria causes an individual to become cautious. A Triumph of the bland reigns. Obama's bland, non-threatening charm was cultivated in this hybrid, corporate soil.

As is the case with Obama, corporatism demands employees (and Obama is first among us underlings) render themselves fecklessly pleasant. This is the mandatory mode of being demanded of corporate hires -- self-annihilation by habitual amiability. And Barack Obama has perfected the form.

In his memoir, Dreams From My Father, Obama stated that he learned early: Never scare old, white people ... that is a good description of how he has dealt with BP and the banksters, and all the other old white men in their perches of privilege and power.

Obama, as was the case with Bill Clinton, will not challenge the corporate oligarchs. Both he and Clinton are gifted, intelligent men, but are products of their time. They are men of, what was once termed, "modest birth" who -- out necessity to rise past the circumstances of their origins -- studied, internalized, and made allegiance to the corporate structure. Why? Because, in the age of corporate oligarchy, they knew the only way to rise to power would be to serve its interests. In contrast, FDR came from the ruling class; he knew their ways ... wasn't tempted by the rewards and adulation that come with privilege. He was born into it, could never lose its advantages, and it held no novelty for him.

I'm not positing Clinton was simply a shallow narcissist, as was a fashionable invective aimed at his hulking frame and over-sized persona during his tenure as POTUS ... such palaver was so much shadow projection on the part of the vampiric careerists of the Washington-New York nexus of blood-sucking media undead. Rather, Clinton was a big talent. He was Byronic in his expansive nature. And like Byron he could claim, in all honesty, he could love a thousand women (and not only women, but varieties of constituents) in a thousand different ways, all at once. He was a romantic at heart in an age of crackpot realists. He was a large presence in a small-minded time. And this is how his trouble in the 1990s, and ours, in the present time, began.

When the Cold War ended, and the arrogant fantasies of neoliberal capitalism were ascendant, virtuoso of the zeitgeist that Clinton was, his prodigious wings caught those heady updrafts and he took the nation on an Icarian flight of Reaganesque economic deregulation, that would, later, contribute to the spiraling fall -- known, at present, as "the economic downturn."

Clinton could have used some saturnine apprehension regarding the dark side of capitalism, rather than the intoxication gained from the provisional, mutually serving alliances he made with his Wall Street bubble salesmen buddies, Rubin, Summers, and Geithner.

Clinton's periodic, erotic contretemps were not the problem; it was his and his advisor's flights of economic fancy that had real consequences for those of us who live at ground level among the debris and ash resultant from the inevitable fiery crash of their vanity and cupidity.

Enter Obama when the bubble burst. The stage is set for sweeping reform. Instead, we have received faux populist bromides, as all the while, behind the scenes, he has gone about the business of accommodation, capitulation, and general lickspittle boot-buffing of the corporate class.

If you listen closely, you might hear, all the way from the realm of the damned below, Ronald Reagan cackling in glee over it with his lower order demon companions from within their eternal prison of flames.

Spread the word

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Walter Cronkite et al Covers Watergate: HUSH MONEY

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

CBS news anchor, Walter Cronkite, who died in 2009 at age 92, played a key role in reporting what is known as the Watergate Scandal. His extensive stories were aired in 1972.

As this video indicates, subsequent reports owned as much to Cronkite as well as the Washington Post team of Woodward and Bernstein. Former Washington Post editor, Ben Bradlee, credited Cronkite with convincing people that 'Watergate' was a substantial story, a story of national importance.
"In October 1972, Cronkite devoted two segments, back to back, to the Watergate story. The first was 14 minutes, the second eight. I think that second night was curtailed by CBS chairman William S. Paley because Paley was scared of it. The fact that Cronkite did Watergate at all (let alone at that length) gave the story a kind of blessing, which is exactly what we needed—and exactly what The Washington Post lacked. It was a political year, and everyone was saying, "Well, it's just politics, and here's the Post trying to screw Nixon." We were the second-biggest newspaper in the country trying to scramble for a good story—whereas Cronkite was the reigning dean of television journalists. When he did the Watergate story, everyone said, "My God, Cronkite's with them."

--Ben Bradlee, Former Editor Washington Post

Watergate Recalled: Hush Money


Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009

Share

Subscribe



GoogleYahoo!AOLBloglines

Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Download DivX

Sunday, August 22, 2010

911 Inside Job Chronicles

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Conan Doyle's character Sherlock Holmes said: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!" This must be too easy. The significance of this single sentence is apparently lost on several generations of Americans who will believe all kinds of weird stuff for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Michael Shermer, for example, has made a living as a career 'skeptic' but on the topic of 911, his record is no better than that of the most gullible Americans who defend Bush's official conspiracy theory with more lies and violations of Occam's Razor. Like the average American, Shermer bought into at least two bald-faced lies advanced by the Bush administration. Shermer failed to apply the 'burden of proof''; he did not bother to question fatal contradictions that discredit the Bush administration as they, in fact, disprove the 'official conspiracy theory' of 911.

Only the guilty are sufficiently motivated to cover up a crime. By contrast, the innocent have nothing to cover up! In some cases, the innocent may be motivated to discover the truth even as guilty criminals work to subvert their efforts. The guilty, by contrast, are motivated to work covertly and/or overtly to cover up, hide evidence and/or lie! The innocent have nothing to hide but nothing to gain and, often much to lose, with lies and cover ups. Simply, the innocent have no motive to cover up anything.

Bush ordered physical evidence of mass murder and/or high treason destroyed. Bush opposed the creation of the 911 Commission and worked to subvert it when it was created. It was Bush who warned against 'outrageous conspiracy theories' when, in fact, it was his administration that offered up the most outrageous conspiracy theory of them all: a ludicrous story that reads like a re-write of Ala Baba and his 40 thieves. It is the pernicious legacy of 911 that it was exploited by Bush, the GOP, the U.S. right wing to silence dissent, to silence America.

If Bush covered up and/or obstructed the investigation of the crime of 911 in any way, then he is guilty of acts of obstruction of justice intended to hide the truth in ways that would protect him or his 'friends' or both. 'Obstruction of justice' was one of several serious allegations against Richard Nixon, leading to articles of impeachment, eventually his ignominious resignation.

Certainly, the crime of 911 should have been investigated while the trail was still warm; a legitimate President would have ordered it, insisted upon it. The trail has grown cold, an outcome desired by an administration that opposed the creation of a 911 commission and put limits on it as a condition of its creation!
The evidence includes the unprecedented nature of what happened that day, the eyewitness testimonies of people present at the site, and the physical evidence demonstrated by photographs and videos. 1, 2 Evidence for explosives is also given through proof by contradiction in that seven years of ever-changing government reports could not provide a non-explosive story for destruction of the WTC buildings. 3, 4, 5 More recently, peer-reviewed scientific papers show that energetic materials were present at the WTC, as indicated by the environmental data and the dust from Ground Zero. 6, 7, 8

The forensic investigation of explosions typically aims to determine who had the means, opportunity and motive to accomplish the explosive event. 9 When that approach is taken with the WTC, we can see that those who had the greatest means and opportunity also had the greatest motive. For example, we've seen that certain tenant companies that occupied the WTC towers not only had the opportunity, but they also had the means in terms of access and expertise, to place explosives in the buildings. 10 We also know that the security companies that were responsible for planning and implementing the security plan for the towers, after the 1993 bombing, appeared to have benefited from the attacks. 11 Additionally, the companies reviewed were connected to each other through certain powerful people and organizations, and had all done major work for the Saudi Arabian government.

--KEVIN RYAN, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four - Cleanup
In the days and weeks following 911, Bush ordered the destruction of 911 evidence --on its face obstruction of justice!
Other than subsection 1512(c), there are three federal statutes which expressly outlaw the destruction of evidence in order to obstruct justice: 18 U.S.C. 1519 prohibits destruction of evidence in connection with federal investigation or bankruptcy proceedings, 18 U.S.C. 1520 prohibits destruction of corporate audit records, and 18 U.S.C. 2232(a) prohibits the destruction of property to prevent the government from searching or seizing it.

None of the three are RICO or money laundering predicate offenses.334 There are no explicit statements of extraterritorial jurisdiction for any of them, but the courts are likely to conclude that overseas violation of their provisions are subject to prosecution in this country. None of them feature an individual conspiracy component, but all of them are subject to general federal law governing conspiracy, principals, accessories after the fact, and misprision.335 Obstruction of Investigations by Destruction of Evidence (18 U.S.C. 1519). Where subsection 1512(c) condemns obstruction of federal proceedings by destruction of evidence, Section 1519 outlaws obstruction of federal investigations or bankruptcy proceedings by such means. Section 1519’s language suggests that it reaches only executive branch investigations and does not extend to Congressional investigations or judicial investigations such as those conducted by a federal grand jury. It declares:
    Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Although its “relation to or contemplation of” clause may admit to more than one construction, the section’s elements might be displayed as follows:
I. Whoever II. knowingly III. A. alters, B.destroys, C. Mutilates

-- Obstruction of Justice: an Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes that Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities
The Bush conspiracy theory of 911 is shot-through with holes, unexplained anomalies and outright lies. Certainly, a definitive list of every falsehood, every distortion, every misstatement is beyond the scope of any article I might put on this blog. What may be done, however, is to categorize them --the three most obvious and fatal holes, the three legs without which the tripod will not stand.

A 757 did NOT crash into the Pentagon!

Johnny Cochran said: "If it does not fit, you must acquit!" Likewise, if there is no wreckage, the Bush cover story falls apart. Similarly, if there is no wreckage traceable to a 757, then you must discard the Bush official conspiracy theory. The house of cards has already collapsed.

If a 757 had crashed the Pentagon, the wings would have been found on the Pentagon lawn. They were never found!

If a 757 had crashed the Pentagon, two huge titanium/steel alloy engine rotors, each about 12-15 ft in diameter, would have been recovered; they were, after all, designed to withstand the intense heat inside jet engines. Those rotors were never found.

If a 757 had crashed the Pentagon, wreckage totaling about 60 to 80 tons would have been recovered, and, as was the case at Lockerbie and every other airliner crash, re-assembled as a part of a real investigation. Upon orders from George W. Bush no such investigation was ever undertaken.

Only one engine compressor rotor was found. It is about one third the size of each of two rotors that would have been found had a 757 crashed the Pent. High rez photos of this single rotor are available on the intenet.

It is --however --just about the right size to have been left behind by a U.S. Global Hawk, a payload carrying missile that was, in fact, flown from the west coast to Australia (where it was landed) all completely by remote control. [The U.S. Global Hawk, at right, painted to look like an AA airliner]

If Arab hijackers were known by name and additionally 'known' to have been on board Flt 77, it is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that they were autopsied as were other victims. In fact, there are no Arab names whatsoever on the only official, admissible document relating to the crash of Flt 77: the official autopsy report.

What about a passenger list? It proves nothing; anyone can type up a list of names at any time, even after the fact. If, as the Washington Post reported, Hani Hanjour did not have a ticket, how did he get on board? What evidence is there that any hijacker at any time ever boarded any aircraft that was said to have been connected with 911.

Bottom line: there is absolutely no evidence that Hani Hanjour or any alleged 911 hijacker ever got on board Flight 77. None! No wonder Bushco was reluctant to press this case. No wonder Bushco overtly obstructed justice! No wonder Bushco seemed overly eager to shut everyone up! They succeeded in doing so because the GOP has a horrible record with respect to public education and because the U.S. media is concentrated in very, very few hands. Last time I checked, American mass media was concentrated in the hands of about six or seven huge corporations. These corporations are not likely to expose the murderous hoax that was 911.

The wings and tail are huge surfaces areas --certainly bigger than the tiny hole said by official conspiracy theorists to have been the impact point! The hole would not have accommodated the fuselage, let alone the wings and tail which might have broken off to be found on the lawn. Nor was there any significant damage that might have been attributed to either wings or tail section or both. Neither was there evidence of wings or tail section!

There was a 'punch out' hole in the inner ring but could not have been made by a 757! Oddly, there is apparently no debris remaining of whatever it was that made the punch-out hole in the inner ring. I am quite sure that whatever it was, Bush ordered that it be carted off and destroyed.

Even if the plane had 'shredded' --as some have claimed --'80 tons of plane is still 80 tons of debris'.
"Wings that should have been sheared off by the impact are entirely absent. There is also substantial evidence of debris from a much smaller jet-powered aircraft inside the building. We conclude with a high degree of certainty that no Boeing 757 struck the building. We also conclude with a substantial degree of certainty that a smaller, single-engined aircraft, roughly the size and shape of an F-16, did, in fact, strike the building."

(Source)

Detailed analysis of the debris field, physical damage, and other factors in the alleged impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001 reveals an almost complete absence of debris expected from such an event. (Elliott 2003) The initial (pre-collapse) hole made by the alleged impact on the ground floor of Wedge One of the building is too small to admit an entire Boeing 757. In order to decide whether or not a Boeing 757 (or aircraft of comparable size) struck the Pentagon on the morning in question, a comprehensive review of all the debris and other physical evidence is hardly necessary. It turns out that a study of the wings alone suffices for the purpose.

...

The analysis presented here is based entirely on standard and/or official sources, such as the engineering report issued under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), as directed by an army engineering officer as chair. (ASCE 2003)

--The Missing Wings, A Comparison of actual and expected wing debris resulting from the impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building (revised Dec 19, 2004), A. K. Dewdney, G. W. Longspaugh

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see left) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)

--A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer

No wreckage traceable to a 757 was ever recovered at the Pentagon. Something was carted off surreptitiously under a blue tarpaulin but I doubt seriously that the four or five white-shirted wimps were toting some 60 to 80 tons of wreckage that would have been left behind by a crashed 757. Whatever they were carrying 1) it's origin would not be revealed; 2) it was light enough to carried aloft by several skinny guys in pristine white shirts; 3) it could not possibly have come from a 757.

Bushco efforts to confront and/or confound critics of the Pentagon crash are increasingly ludicrous. The fuselage of Flt 77, they say, vaporized. Any reputable engineering department and any reputable engineering website will confirm the fact that the Aluminum will not vaporize at temperatures less than 11000 degrees F. NASA is on record stating that 11000 degrees F is 1000 degrees hotter than the surface of the Sun! At the same time, Bushco defenders say that both passengers and hijackers were DNA identified. But DNA literally 'melts' (the term used in the scientific literature) at various temps between about 400 to 500 degrees F.

Now --if the temperatures were sufficient to vaporize the airliner fuselage, no DNA tests would have been possible. Simply, either the fuselage vaporized or the DNA tests were made. Bushco advocates cannot have it both ways. I only cite this as an example of the ludicrous extremes to which defenders of the official conspiracy theory have devolved, what extremes and contradictions they are willing to embrace to defend what is clearly several acts of high treason and mass murder that any reasonable, intelligent person will conclude was ordered and supervised by Bush, his administration and his co-conspirators in private industry, the Military-Industrial Complex and, quite possibly, the so-called 'Jewish Lobby'.

Aluminum Does Not Penetrate Hardened Steel

The criminals who perpetrated 911 exploit GOP subversions of education, especially the Bush/Perry regimes in Texas. When crimes of the magnitude of 911 are committed, it is only the GOP which benefits from its neglect of education, especially science, physics, logic, skepticism.

Only a controlled demolition looks like a controlled demolition. And WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition because it was 'pulled' just as Silverstein himself said it was. And if it was 'pullled', it had to have been 'prepped', that is, explosives planted and wired perhaps weeks in advance of the so-called 'terrorist attacks'.

There is --in fact --not a shred of evidence to support the ludicrous theory that it fell as a result of piddly random fires that might have been pissed out!
For those who are not yet ready to make the commitment to obtain and read a book on 9/11, but who wish to learn more, a ten-minute solution is available. It only takes a few minutes to view video on the Internet of the collapse of Building 7, the 47 story skyscraper located immediately north of the WTC complex about 300 feet from the North Tower. Viewers will note the almost vertical collapse of the building. Only controlled demolitions have achieved vertical collapses of upright steel structures.

After viewing the video, many will agree with Dan Rather who said on CBS News that very evening that the collapse of Building 7 was “reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

--Ronald Bleier, WTC Building 7 – The 911 Smoking Gun?
I deny that there is any credible evidence to support the theory that an airliner with a soft aluminum body could or can penetrate the dense steel outer 'cladding' of the WTC. And --if by a miracle it did --it most certainly could not have penetrated the dense inner core conveniently omitted from 'official theories'! This 'omission' is not competent if by accident; it is a crime if the omission is deliberate! In any case, it's existence disproves the official lies.

Purdue University 'Forgot' About a Dense Core at WTC

The most notorious instance of omission of this core is a You Tube video which claims to have been produced by Purdue University. The 'copy' on You Tube claims to be 'realistic' and 'factual' but, in fact, is neither! It depicts a soft-bodied aluminum airliner slicing through the dense steel cladding. In the version I watched, the CORE had been omitted entirely, a case of 'truth by animation'. I deny that this 'toon is realistic or factual. I challenge Purdue to cite a single peer-reviewed paper in which soft aluminum has penetrated hardened steel at any speed. Show me the science and spare me the 'toons.

I carry a Swiss army knife. The blades are made of hardened steel --not Aluminum. That's because Aluminum is not likely to penetrate anything that I might want to cut. Soft Aluminum airliner bodies, likewise, were never designed to penetrate hard, dense steel and 911 is most certainly not the test case that proves it does, will or ever has. Since the Wright brothers aircraft of any sort have been made of lighter weight and softer materials. Airliners are not made of hard, dense steel but aluminum --lighter, less dense, softer. Wenger and Victorinox are not likely to begin the manufacture of aluminum bladed Swiss Army knives any time soon.

Defenders of Bush's ludicrous weird, witch doctor science, however, have an 'explanation'. They say that 'kinetic energy' allows soft aluminum to penetrate hard steel!

Nonsense!

They have watched too many roadrunner cartoons in which the wily coyote falls off a cliff, penetrates the hard ground leaving a hole in the shape of his silhouette! The real world is not a Road Runner 'toon nor is it a fantasy of Purdue under-graduates.

The truth is that gains in kinetic energy are absorbed by the softer body. In this case, a real airliner striking a tough steel cladding would have been shredded, those parts striking the hard steel would absorb the increased kinetic energy due to velocity and would literally fold up; those pieces striking spaces between the steel columns would penetrate only the empty spaces. Were the building solid steel, the soft Al body would simply fold up and fall down to street level.

Try hurling a ball of modeling clay at a metal garage door. If you are Mickey Mantle reincarnated you might knock down the door if it is merely propped up or poorly attached. But you will never, ever penetrate the door itself. Try it! There is no record of anyone penetrating a metal garage door with a ball of non-hardening modeling clay.

Another experiment. Replace the lead slug of a 30 caliber round with one of aluminum. Fire that round at a steel beam comparable to those at the WTC. Let me know if it ever penetrates the steel! Lotsa luck! I don't expect to hear from anyone performing this experiment nor will I ever read a 'peer-reviewed' paper validating such an experiment.

Soft aluminum fuselages, likewise, will never slice through the girders themselves as the official conspiracy suggests or states.


Condo LIES to Congress

If the official conspiracy theory of 911 were true, then Condo Rice would have had no motive to lie to Congress.

By the time I saw 'ground zero' for myself, every scrap had been carted off! I peered into a deep and pristine hole! An individual cannot cover up his/her crimes on this scale. But Bushco --his administration of fellow crooks like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld --covered up the crime of 911 in 'full view of the world'. The American 'sheeple' bought it!

Instead, Shermer has discounted Bush critics as 'conspiracy theorists' despite the fact that the official theory puts forward a weird and highly unlikely conspiracy involving 19 Arab hijackers who were, we are told, coordinated from deep inside a cave in Tora Bora. It was a bad re-write of the old Popeye cartoon: 'Ali Baba and his 40 Thieves'.

The official conspiracy theory thus meets Conan Doyle's standard by which bunkum and bullshit is exposed and assessed. Every key point in the theory is utterly impossible. Nothing in the official story is possible or plausible. It could not and did not happen. It is a lie, a cruel and tragic hoax. It was, in fact, an act of high treason in which officials of 'our' government conspired to wage war upon and murder citizens of the United States.

In summary: to believe the official conspiracy theory, you must discount or ignore numerous laws of elementary, high school physics:
  1. You must believe that kerosene fires will melt steel though this has never happened or been duplicated in a lab.
  2. You must believe that Hani Hanjour can duplicate for real Criss Angel's most famous 'trick' --that of walking through solid glass or, better, David Copperfield who walked through the Great Wall of China.
I know how Copperfield pulled it off but --you have to admit --there were more witnesses to his feat than there were witnesses to Bush's 911. And when Copperfield walked through the Great Wall no life was sacrificed for the sake of mere illusion or worse --control of world oil supplies!

Let's consider a few of these anomalies that render the official theory not only impossible but ludicrous. The belief in it should embarrass anyone claiming to be a skeptic, humiliate any 'scientist' failing to point out the astronomically improbable succession of miracles that are required for such a thing to happen.

To believe Bushco's 'not ready for Vegas' routine:
  1. You must believe that a 757 can crash into the Pentagon and disappear without a trace.
  2. You must believe that soft aluminum can penetrate hard steel despite the fact that if that were so Wenger would make the blades of its Swiss Army knives of Aluminum.
  3. You must believe that for some weird and un-recorded reason airlines decided to press into service flights that had not been scheduled to fly (mothballed) for some six months.
  4. You must believe that Arab hijackers were either 'raptured' or jumped out of Flt 77; there are absolutely no Arab names on the official autopsy report.
  5. You must believe the aluminum body of a 757 vaporized as no scrap traceable to an airliner of any sort was ever found at the Pentagon.
  6. You must believe that Hani Hanjour got on board without a ticket and without creating any kind of suspicion prior to his boarding. Perhaps he made himself invisible!
  7. You must believe that Hani Hanjour, like David Copperfield, walked through a closed door! NTSB data released via an FOIA proves that the cabin door was never opened during the flight. How did Hani get in? For that matter --how did he get on board? There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever that he did! Nor is his name or the names of any other 'terrorist/Arab' to be found on the only official list of passengers --the OFFICIAL autopsy report.
  8. You must believe that Flt 77 managed to manifest itself in two places at the same instant: NTSB puts Flt 77 at some 200 ft above the Pentagon at the time of impact.
  9. You must believe that because no fuselage traceable to a 757 was ever found at the Pentagon, it must have 'vaporized' in the heat.
  10. You must believe that the source of that heat was greater than that on the surface of the sun itself --some 10000 degrees F.
And while believing that the fuselage vaporized, you must also believe that victims were DNA identified. But --how is that possible? DNA literally melts at varying temps between about 400 to 500 degrees F.

So --which is it? Were they DNA ID'd? Or did the Aluminum fuselage vaporize?

Which is it?


It cannot be both ways! In fact, it is neither! This merely proves how utterly ludicrous is this theory and more so because seemingly 'intelligent' people believe this utter crap!

Silverstein had Method, Motive and Opportunity.

About New York --WTC 7 was not struck by airliners; yet its collapse was reported by the BBC before it occurred. But why did it collapse? It was prepared well in advance as any CD expert will tell you is required. Who else but Silverstein could have taken out the insurance policy on this property?

If WTC 7 Was a Controlled Demolition, so were the Twins!

Silverstein is even on video saying that he gave the order to pull it! Indeed --it was pulled immediately upon his order. That means that the building had been prepped, perhaps, for weeks. I would like to have read his policy. What, precisely, was covered? Was the building ensured against deliberate controlled demolition. If so, he could have ordered it 'pulled' at any time at his convenience. I doubt any company would write such a blank check. The policy, I am quite sure, covered 'acts of God' --but 'terrorism'? Perhaps! It most certainly would not have covered a fraudulent act of deliberate demolition for the purpose of collecting the insurance money. There is a term for that: INSURANCE FRAUD! As I recall, his insurance policy was worth $billions$ which have by now, I am sure, been paid.
I consider the many falsehoods of the official report. I disregard the official theory and start from scratch. At the end, I make a number of conclusions, most notably the assertion that no hijackers participated.

I rely upon Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) records, which indicate clearly that two of the flights associated with 9/11, United 175 and United 93, were scheduled to fly that day and that the other two flights, American 11 and American 77, were not scheduled.

The BTS records are half of the key to determining where the planes went. The other half is the proof that none of the targets (World Trade Centers One and Two, the Pentagon and Shanksville) were struck by any planes resembling the ones allegedly used for these four flights. The following are a series of if-then propositions that I constructed as to the planes and passengers and my reasoning for using the assumptions that I made: IF Flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled, then neither 11 nor 77 flew

It would be unlikely for plotters to use planes that were not scheduled to be used on September 11th. Of course the plotters could have arranged to use unscheduled flights, but how would the passengers have learned of them without being suspicious or without being involved?

Plotters could have had the idea that controlling two planes was much easier than controlling four. They may then have decided to pretend that two other flights were used by using false ³ blips´ on the Federal Aviation Administration computer screens, by taking advantage of simulations going on throughout the east coast (including Delta 89, now widely thought to be a simulated flight used to distract from others) and by faking phone calls from planes that did not fly.

IF passengers actually went on flights, then the passengers may be accounted for I have yet to see any proof of tickets bought by the alleged passengers, boarding passes or videotape from surveillance of any of the airports where the alleged passengers left from. Furthermore, no independent expert has ever verified any remains of any of the alleged passengers at any of the ³crash sites.´

And, the phone calls associated with the flights could have been handled by a few passengers, or even by voice ³morphing.´ A low number of passengers are on the Social Security Death Index. The best evidence of passengers actually flying on any of the planes in question, interestingly, comes from eyewitness accounts of passengers at the Cleveland Airport that morning.

My First Conclusion: The Official Theory Is False

Like most people, I did not question whether planes were used in the events of 9/11 when I heard the news. I doubt the idea crossed my mind for a long time. In all of the news, much was made of the flight numbers, specific passengers and the constant image on television screens of a plane striking the south tower.
But after researching the matter, I discovered that official story simply had too many holes in it to be accurate. The following contains a partial list of problems

-- Misdirection: Following the Plot, Execution and Cover-up of 9/11 Crimes
By Dean T. Hartwell
Back to Michael Shermer.

The above outline of absurdities re: 911 should have been taken up by real skeptics. That Michael Shermer took up the task of defending myth, lies, absurdities and anti-science, speaks volumes.

Shermer built his career upon the conflict between creationism and evolution, light work for anyone with a normal IQ. Making fools of people like Sarah Palin is hardly a challenge for anyone capable of graduating 9th grade. Shermer tripped up with regard to 911 because he failed to abide by the only dictum which defines true skepticism: those who assert must prove! Shermer failed the very first task of the skeptic and that is: demand proof! At the very least --evidence!

A review charged that Shermer 'offers very little in the way of direct evidence against creationism'! It is not the job of a skeptic to offer evidence against anything! It is the job of the skeptic to doubt, question and challenge. It is the job of the skeptic to demand proof and evidence for the absurd, outlandish, outrageous conspiracy theory that was promoted by the Bush administration. It is also the job of the skeptic to ask of those who peddle theories: who benefits if we buy this crap? Why and how do they benefit?

Those who assert must prove

I challenge Bush's supporters to prove their assertions. Those peddling or putting forward theories must be prepared to prove and/or support them with demonstrable fact. Bushco has never proven anything with regard to 911. Ergo: there is no reason to support or believe him or anything said by anyone in his administration. Bush supporters not only cannot prove, they have no evidence that supports the official theory. It's utter bunkum from the get go.

Again --Doyle's character --Sherlock Holmes --said:

"When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however implausible must be the truth!"
Sadly, millions of Americans believe a pack of lies because they just 'can't handle the truth!"