Debunking the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories

This is quickly becoming a classic conspiracy theory, and one reason for the ascent is the lack of actual facts known by the majority of Americans. As with many issues facing us today, everyone twists the truth to accommodate their own ideas. If you hate the Bush administration, then any insignificant detail can be made into an unencroachable argument that the government destroyed the twin towers. If you love George W. Bush, you call these conspiracy theorists crack pots. On this issue, I have to side with the Bush lovers. I myself like George W. Bush, and I support him as president, but I most certainly do not love him or his administration. The entire administration has been run poorly, and sloppily for the past six years, and no one with an honest mind can disagree with that statement. However, to blame a terrorist attack on the government just because you might have watched a hatchet job documentary that distorted information to make a political point, and that was created by a low rate person like Michael Moore that one minute complains taxes are too low on the rich, and the next minute changes his residence to avoid paying taxes, is a vastly short sighted and irresponsible thing to do. There have been claims that federal gold was removed from the twin towers weeks before the disaster, but that is not true. Federal gold was never stored in the towers, only personal and corporate holdings. Next, there are those that claim the buildings were blown up with charges...one question, why didn't anyone notice the charges being placed? Do you realize how much work, and C-4, it takes to bring down two buildings by placing charges in the basement? It is ridiculous that people are so full of hate that they create such outlandish stories. Next, why did Bush finish his time with the children? Perhaps, as the rest of us, he was told that it was probably an accident, and he did not want to worry the children he was speaking to. Perhaps he is a compassionate man, not a calculating mass murderer. Next, the dispersement of funds issue is another example of taking insignificant details and blowing them out of proportion. Did you not see the way our bureaucracy handled Katrina relief? Do you think we also have a weather machine that created the hurricane just so we could create a bureaucratic nightmare in its aftermath? Wake up people. Finally, what about the claims from terrorists leaders that they had something to do with the planning of 9-11? Are they on the government payroll? Look people, 9-11 was a tragedy, not a government conspiracy. The last bit of information that proves the government had nothing to do with 9-11 is very simple. To pull off such an event, thousands of people would have had to be involved, and the government would have had to pull off this mind blowing event without a hitch, with no one admitting the fallacy to the press for their 15 minutes of fame...the Government is not even capable of baking a cake without 47 mistakes and a vote, so how do you think these people, called incompetent idiots by most of the people that believe this theory, could pull off such an event? Well, are they morons, or masterminds? Make up your mind, or take your Lithium.
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Impending Threat?

The attack on 911 served as a wake up call for many Americans. What was the message being delivered by a group of Muslims hijacking 4 planes, crashing two into the World Trade Centers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a Pennsylvanian field? Simple, we were at war. It mattered not, and matters not, if we wish to participate in this war actively, we are at war. Many say that this is an archaic idea, but their opinion matters not to the enemy. Whether or not Americans acknowledge they are at war with radical Muslims; radical Muslims are at war with America. The politically correct parade that consumes so much of our society will contend that not all Muslims are out to destroy America, and they are right, but during the second World War, were all Germans against the free world? Today's world is no less dangerous than Europe in the 40's, in fact, in many ways it is more dangerous. Today's enemy does not care about living themselves, and that makes it even more difficult to defeat. Also, the world moves at a much faster pace today, and things can happen in an instant that will change the world forever. Why is this happening? What has America done to these people to anger them so? Simple, America has refused to conform to their way of life, their religion, and their culture, and in the world of radical Islam, that is all that is required to earn a death sentence. Many do not take the threat seriously, and constantly say that anyone that does is over reacting. I am sure that the same opinion was popular in Constantinople before it fell. This extreme degree of passiveness and complacency only fuels the fire of our enemy. The real question is not if this "war" will continue and escalate, the only question is when. Will we be prepared, will we be strong and united as a country, or will be be divided, and weak? These questions will be answered, and it could be soon.

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Is the Democratic Leadership "above" the military?

There are many questions regarding the feelings and beliefs of the members of the Democratic party’s leadership, but one of these questions seems to be reiterated daily. Do the leaders of the party really have a disdain for all things military? It seems that these “leaders” are constantly making statements that lead one to believe they are above the troops, and in essence, believe they are on a higher moral ground. So, in their minds, it is ok to kill unborn babies to defend the reproductive rights of females, but defending the liberty and freedom that gives them the right to spew their rhetoric is immoral? How can I make such a vicious remark about our elected officials that lean to the left? Leys look at a few statements and actions from the Democratic leadership.

Charlie Rangle - “I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.”

Strong words from Rangle, but are they accurate? Unfortunately for Mr. Rangle, he is once again way off base. Then again, the truth has rarely stopped a politician from furthering his or her agenda. In reality, the members of the U.S. Armed forces are more educated and affluent than they have ever been.

John Kerry – “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

So, only the uneducated, lazy, and stupid serve in the military? Sounds like disdain to me. Kerry later stated that he simply botched a joke that was aimed at the Commander and Chief, a part of the military. That makes it much better. To define the term hypocrit, John Kerry defended his remarks as true:

"The White House's attempt to distort my true statement is a remarkable testament to their abject failure in making America safe," the Massachusetts senator said. "It's a stunning statement about their willingness to reduce anything in America to raw politics."

By insulting our troops, then stating that he was actually insulting the Commander in Chief, was John Kerry not reducing the lives of our soldiers to “raw politics”? Who is telling this guy what to say?

Our next quote came before an investigation was conducted, but it furthered the Democratic agenda, so it was stated as a “fact”.

John Murtha - "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Let’s review, our soldiers do not want to defend our country, they are poor, they are backward, they come from slums, they are uneducated, they are lazy, and lastly, they kill innocent civilians in cold blood. All of these statements were made from just three leaders in the Democratic party, I wonder what Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi think about the military. Considering that they represent the two most Secular Progressive states in the Union, there is little doubt.
Technorati Profile
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

What does Nancy really represent?

Nancy Pelosi was chosen by the House Democrats today as the new Speaker of the House. No real surprise, when the party won the majority position in the House, it was just a formality to make Pelosi the Speaker. So, as representative from San Francisco, what does Nancy represent. The answer to this question is simple, for soild proof of her beliefs, look no farther than the district she represents. One thing we know about San Francisco is that there is a great disdain for all things military in the city. In fact, when questioned about the military, one of the city supervisors told Bill O'reilly that there was no need for a standing army, and that the presence of one only agitates the rest of the world. When questioned about what would happen if there were an attack with no standing army, the member calmly stated that the police and firemen could protect the city. What? That is just one example, so surely this hatred of the military is isolated in the city. This brings us to exhibit two. A few months ago, the Federal Government proposed a military museum in San Francisco. The proposal had a retired ship serving as a walk through museum to celebrate the Navy and it's importance to our country. I think the following excerpt clearly illustrates the matter: "Probably the most blatant example of San Francisco's anti-military bias was displayed last month by the city's Board of Supervisors when they voted 3-8 against docking the WWII/Korean War-era USS Iowa as a floating museum at the Port of San Francisco. This was after the local Congressional delegation secured $3 million to move the Iowa from Rhode Island to San Francisco because a study had shown the ship would bring in 500,000 visitors a year." Let's move on to exhibit number three. Earlier this year, the city of San Francisco voted on whether or not Military Recruiters should be allowed into High Schools and Colleges. Can you guess what the results of the vote were? That's right, recruiters were banned by a 60-40 vote. One last bit of evidence just for fun. Earlier this week, the San Francisco Board of Education made the decision to eliminate the Junior ROTC program from its public schools. This decision was handed down even though the program is extremely popular, and it is completely voluntary, or it was completely voluntary. What are these people thinking? So, how does everyone feel about the new Speaker of the House and her district?

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture