PinfoNet - Main |
T.O.C. |
||
PCNs
|
|||
Fwd: An Open Letter to the Government Ending All Military
Obligations Thursday, November 1, 2007 4:26 PM |
T.O.C. |
||
|
|||
maybe a better IVAW link Thursday, November 1, 2007 4:37 PM | T.O.C. |
||
Cheers - Mark |
|||
Authority and You Sunday, November 4, 2007 10:16 AM |
T.O.C. | ||
Patriotsquestion911.com is as big as ever, which adds 150 senior government, military and intelligence professionals, 60 pilots, 160 professors, and 190 survivors of family members. OpEd news is rebroadcasting regarding the group of CIA veterans openly denouncing the (sad) 9/11 Commission report… http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_richard__071103_former_high_level_of.htm The official sources have been severely outnumbered, for anyone who stops assuming that “experts” have dispensed with investigative needs. The official sources haven’t got nearly this kind of personnel. Do you think they do? Government employees are not in positions to publicly discuss many things. Did you know that? I am going to tell you about my experiments with people who attack 9/11 Truthers, or who have doubts about the 9/11 truth. It has recently come to my attention (for the 100th time) that some people are just going to find the 9/11 truth impossible to believe. They lack conviction on the matter – they’re not “turned”. And then, there are the people who face off with the people listed at the top of this document, by conducting attacks upon my character. These individuals make themselves very clear by conducting attacks upon me, personally, when I present a statement of theory or of fact on the matter. They speak with authority, and call me a “liberal” (in a nasty sort of way), or a “conspiracy theorist” (in a nasty sort of way), or a “Bush hater” or a “Jew hater”, all in a very authoritarian and nasty sort of way. And I’m going to tell you what the topic is: Conviction. These people have the advantage of a conviction based upon assumed experts, and assumed checks and balances. That’s not my problem. I get arguments that I am sure will never end, saying that if this and that government agencies says something is true, then it has to be true. Face to face and in person, when I have taken the time to do so, I have shown such individuals my conviction, and they have backed away. This is a message for “9/11 Truthers”, and perhaps people trying to sit out of the way. I appreciate all the work that is being done, but there’s talk again and again about what to do about the people along the way that conduct endless barrages of authoritarian stances and personal character attacks. These people have as much hot air and conviction as they do believe they portray. Conviction can come from truth in a constitutionally based society, culturally founded on things like truth and justice, always ready to call upon. It’s quite simple. When you see conviction, you’ll know it, and you’ll likely back down if you are not so able or inclined to match it. It also means staying true, and sticking to the facts. It may also mean being comfortable with ones own position on the matter. You have to put faith in what you believe. When engaged with opposition, I don’t stop until the person at least in an authoritarian sense calms the fuck down. You can see it when the thoughtless asshole starts shaking. Exchanging facts or agreeing to back away is a calmer way. You see, these people get themselves up into a perceived authority-representing tizzy, and they come down on people, and it’s a polarized landscape, and they’re highly charged when they do it, and nice people (like you) are probably petrified of being a potential target of these maniacal canons. I’ve studied the materials. I have paid my dues, I did not base myself upon assumptions, and I have some facts if that’s what you want to talk about. Don’t pull that character bashing bullshit on me. You can’t stop the authority-based people, because the government says that there was no conspiracy. This is going to fall strongly on republicans, since they are the party where the leading corruption has occurred, but also because they stand for the republic. You have to provide large amounts of in-depth material to sufficiently illustrate government corruption on an agency by agency basis. That’s very time consuming. For example, I once became engaged with hardcore righties on the matter of market activities from Sept. 6th to 10th, 2001, in the days just before 9/11. They’re well enough documented, and show levels of puts (betting stocks will go down) on two airlines, their insurance companies, and a few others. Those hardcore righties responded something like this… “"Exhaustive investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, FBI, and other agencies have uncovered no evidence that anyone with advance knowledge of the attacks profited through securities transactions.” There’s $2.5 million in unclaimed options earnings yet to be picked up (no one has), and the market activity is radically out of the norm during that period. You don’t just tell me that the SEC and the FBI conducted a complete investigation, and then have nothing else to say. I’m staring at a lot of unusual market activity. And if that’s not bad enough, the SEC deputized hundreds of executives from the private sector to conduct that investigation. Here’s a quote from a fellow by the name of Michael Ruppert (gets lot’s of personal attacks)… “What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration.” I think the market activity is bad enough without opening new cans of worms. Those are irrefutable facts from the 6th to the 10th of September, 2001. http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html Calling me nuts is the only remaining option when facing off with facts, which is why the “ad hominem”, or personal character attack is so widely used, and which is why I am so inclined to consider using a shotgun to dispense with the matter. I say the towers blew up, and the person responds by calling me a conspiracy theorist. Like that’s all he or she needed to say. Either that, or it is to say that I am a member of a group of nutcases. Hell of a group to call nutcases, when it’s got more real clout than any other on the matter. It’s not easy telling the authorities or the people who stand with them to be hanged by the neck until dead for treason. Playing the part of a truther I would think would mean riots in the streets. The honest truth is that 9/11 Truthers, from what I have seen, have not conducted riots, which would probably help their cause. But I think what is also true is that we have adjusted to 200 years of civil society, or a society that functions in a stable and civil manner. We expect civil solutions. Now, however hard someone wants to come on to me, they can also remember that this is how hard they overran the nice, civil nature of our hard-earned society. Meanwhile, for as long as people can believe in a civil path toward a new 9/11 investigation, there will not be riots in the streets. There will be a new investigation, because we believe in a civil society, or there will be riots in the streets. Cheers – Mark |
|||
Food for Thought: Cronies and Nepos Thursday, November 8, 2007 8:39 AM |
T.O.C. |
||
Nepotism: Giving the inside job to family And I suppose despotism (a dictator) gets thrown in there with the other two at least half the time when they're happening. I was wondering about how this great country of ours could go wrong. What are the support structures for going down the right and wrong paths? It seems to me that when representatives by law are plucked from the general population, there is a power mix-up, and fairness is being systematically introduced into the system, but that when representatives are plucked from family and friends, or from those moreso inside than outside of somebodies inner circle, the general population is removed from the appointing formula. It all sounds so simple. It is! Our whole society is structured this way. Don't ever guess a job in the job market to not be personal! Employers have to identify with you - it's a thing also known as institutionalized racism. We play favorites. We find people who agree. We say that we make sense. Short of a general concensus, we are "three sheets to the wind" as far as the people of the world are concerned, but that's Ok, because we're doing our own thing, so we have to call the shots. We create everything that's out there. We have to get along with the people that we work with - we're all working towards a common goal. We flock together. We flock for work, for play, and for political agendas. We have to think along similar lines to really be effective - to really get things done. We have all the internal elements we need to corrupt, it seems, just about any existing system, by way of not only family and friends, but by social or political circle, or class. Are you inside the circle? Of course, one of the funniest things about society today, and I've tried to play on it along the way, is how inside information can appear so readily. Sometimes with emails I send, you are one of only a few million to see it, and it can very likely be something that will not be seen by the population at large. I think that's an interesting phenomenon. Cronyism, nepotism, and even despotism highlight systems-level problems, because they don't by definition answer to the (needs of) the general population. If they're nestled in, all they need to do with the population at large is to pacify it and feed it propaganda. Kind of like a chia pet, I guess, but mechanically so, because the population at large is also not in an ulterior manner organized, so it doesn't have an organizational head to oppose whatever powers there are in its own way, i.e. democratically, or through popular opinion. This is a really great sampling... "Bush's talent for cronyism: foxes guarding the henhouse" http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/cronyism.htm That was fun! Thanks for letting me share. Cheers - Mark |
|||
Ron Paul heats up Sunday, November 11, 2007 1:16 AM |
T.O.C. | ||
"... On November 10, he came in with 5/1 odds. "Only Mitt Romney (with 9/4 odds) and Rudy Giuliani (11/10 odds) are listed higher. Romney would pay $9 for every $4 bet while Giuliani would pay out $11 for every $10 bet. "Ron Paul has officially surpassed John McCain among Republicans where oddsmakers are concerned, even around the world," announced Payton O'Brien, Senior Editor of Gambling911.com See Payton O'Brien quoted in Chief Executive Magazine Here "He's now favored over Fred Thompson as well, who is listed with 6/1 odds at PaddyPower." ..." From a non-betting site... "Paul Passes Thompson and McCain in GOP
Primary" The Paul campaign of 2008 is reminding me of the Dean campaign of 2004. Paul is this year's "internet darling". Well, from looking around I can see that Ron Paul suporters appear to be having some fun with it. Good! Paul has two months unti the Iowa primaries are underway for using his money and his smarts and getting his message out, and for anyone who wants to gets their yah-yahs out along the way. I would also have to say last week I caught a recording of Paul on the
Leno show. They talked for 8 minutes, and Paul spoke well, and I think he
was received well. I was glad to see it! Paul's campaign is taking off in
its own right, considering the media seem to have made an effort to avoid
him. In fact, Jay Leno may have been persuaded by Ron Paul supporters
asking for an interview written across the side of a truck... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1pYkkB1anY Here's a mini article from MSNBC, which was made possible by local Ron
Paul supporters... "RON PAUL IS EVERYWHERE" http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/10/459754.aspx Cheers - Mark |
|||
Ron Paul - will be spending in days to come Sunday, November 11, 2007 12:19 PM |
T.O.C. | ||
"Ron Paul to Hit Iowa Airwaves Next Week" http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/11/ron_paul_hits_iowa_airwaves_ne.html There is a sample 30 second ad there, but YouTube videos of Ron Paul have experienced some technical difficulties, as well as the voting on videos not tallying up, but I think that may be fixed. In any event, it looks like the YouTube people do not like Ron Paul. ;-) Media is our trusted representative - YouTube, too! But, as I say, there'll be millions of dollars worth of Ron Paul ads coming up in NH and Iowa. I'm sure I'll enjoy every one of them. I'm not sure what will be happening with nationwide advertising, but people are recommending it. Giuliani is poised to take the republican primary, and if he does, then the republicans cannot possibly win against Hillary. Giuliani is old, and so he won't be alive on November 7th, 2008. Cheers - Mark |
|||
The 2008 Vote: 50 States Now Being Sued Monday, November 12, 2007 12:02 PM |
T.O.C. | ||
This is an interesting organization, called the "We The People Foundation". I read somewhere that the guy running it shows people how to not pay their taxes, and when people stop paying their taxes, they get arrested. In any event, they have the people they need to work each of 50 states in law suits, with the following claims... "The lawsuit, called the NCEL, National Clean Elections Lawsuit, follows documented vote machine failures during August's Iowa Straw Poll, persisting claims questioning the integrity of the 2004 presidential election, and the official de-certification in August of virtually every major electronic voting system by the California Secretary of State based upon several comprehensive academic studies documenting the systems' significant vulnerabilities to software "hacking" and vote fraud. " http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-11-06.htm There is a desire to make a clean voting system for the 2008 election. Frankly, I don't see how anyone is going to beat Hillary. And if anyone does, then it will be Rudy Giuliani, in which case the sky will darken and the seas will boil. But you never know. Ron Paul might win too! Cheers - Mark |
|||
Fwd: BBC To Apologize For 9/11 Truth Hit Piece? Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:08 AM |
T.O.C. | ||
Additional article... "STJ911 Scientist to Sue BBC for Public Deception" http://www.rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/st911-scientist-to-sue-bbc-for-public-deception/776/ Thanks! I knew the BBC was going the way of the media giants when I saw them waste 5 or 10 minutes hailing the great David Bowie for no particular reason. That's a media-of-late tactic to raise news-hour dollars. ;-) That's too bad, because I used to like the BBC. Cheers - Mark
|
|||
Internet: Incubator of Conpiracies and Disinformation Thursday, November 22, 2007 1:47 PM |
T.O.C. | ||
Like anything else out of Washington, we have the "Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment". These guys are talking about the people on the internet who are Jihadists and 9/11 Truthers, who were put up in a presentation side by side. From the hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet"... "Toward the end of the hearing, Weitzman rolls out a PowerPoint presentation that presents a few 9/11 truth sites sandwiched in between websites that offer training in terrorist tactics, and a website that glorified the attack of 9/11. Among the websites presented under the heading "Internet: Incubator of 9/11 Conpiracies and Disinformation", are Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth , and other sites, such as Killtown's, who brought this Hearing to our attention . " From 911blogger... So there's the other side, without which there would not be two sides. There's information, and then there is disinformation. Did you ever wonder if this was possible? I mean, where the way information is presented in a public hearing is so culpable? Follow the links - the hearing is available on C-SPAN. It's a blatant presentation, but I can't help but thinking that the audience must also has sensibilities of its own. To drive them to truth, I think you have to drive them out into the light of day. Kind of like vampires. You can't compare someone who wants a new investigation with an Islamic Jihadist, but you also can't stop certain people in high places from keeping themselves busy. Cheers - Mark |
|||
Fwd: Fw: Euro Official Language Friday, November 23, 2007 2:13 PM |
T.O.C. | ||
- Mark
|
|||
The 911 Truth Movement Appears to be Colliding with Washington, DC Saturday, November 24, 2007 11:58 AM |
T.O.C. | ||
On October 23rd, House Resolution 1955, "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007", has received, out of 435 house reps, 404 Ayes, and only 6 nays, and it has passed the house. Now all it needs to do is go through the senate. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955 This is another way of saying that 911 Truthers are being lumped in as people growing terrorism against the US right here at home. It's a bit blatant (as per my other, recent email). Calling the organization "Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth" Jihadists or homegrown terrorists isn't going to fly well, in my humble opinion. Dennis Kucinich's wife, Elizabeth, has now publicly stated, "a Kucinich administration would re-open 9/11". http://www.911blogger.com/node/12646 In my earlier guestimations and predictions, it would require the end of the existing administration to establish a political environment out of which a new 9/11 investigation could come about. That would mean the '08 election would be the time. What is now HR 799, the resolution to impeach Dick Cheney, also led by Dennis Kucinich, is guessed to not be able to make the needed 2/3rds congressional majority to actually happen. Nice list of crimes, but it's not looking like a gainer in Washington - there are too many bought and paid for politicians. Democratic majority leader Nancy Pelosi, who has stated she won't support the impeachment of Cheney, is looking that way. The Ron Paul campaign is probably by our laws something we could detain in top secret CIA prisons abroad at this point. There's such a rediculous divergence between what you can do by today's laws. If I understand the matter correctly, it is illegal to oppose the Iraq war, and now it's becoming illegal to question the official 9/11 story as well. We'll see what the senate has to say about it, and then we'll see how seriously these assholes take themselves to follow. I also think the people in Washington are nuts, and that can cause miscalculations. No matter what happens, this may turn out to be a very festive and colorful presidential race. All of the candidates will be around for a couple months more (like busy little bees), and maybe a few will last until spring, and then it will be down to I believe the last two. Happy Holidays - Mark |
|||
|
T.O.C. |