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

Enough with the fascism talk

After browsing the many blogs and websites on the internet dedicated to politics and news, I have come to multiple conclusions. For one, there is a very high degree of hate and venom on both sides of the political spectrum, and the idea of a moderate is becoming extinct. That said, one of my conclusions really bothered me concerning the political climate of today, and it stems from the use of hate speech. In fact, I was appalled by the racial slurs that riddled almost every sight, primarily the liberal leaning sites. Considering these facts, I probably should not be surprised by the rampant over use, and misuse, of a term that I came across on approximately 99 percent of the left leaning sites when the Bush administration came up. This term is fascism, and I was astounded by the number of people that use the word with no apparent knowledge of its meaning. The term fascist, as defined by Webster is one that partakes in the system known as fascism. So, I looked up the word fascism, and it was defined as follows:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Did I miss an announcement regarding the government? Are we really controlled by a dictator now, or do the majority of those using the term have absolutely no idea what it means? Looking even deeper into the definition, we see that a fascist is one on that forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism. If that were the case in the United States, then how are all of these people openly criticizing the current administration? Furthermore, how do these people explain the fact that the opposition party has control of the House and Senate? Once again, the far left has decided that facts are not important when an attempt to further one’s agenda is taking place. Finally, emphasizing aggressive nationalism and racism is listed. If this were the case in the United States, would millions of illegal immigrants still be living hear? All that I ask is that people think before they speak, what do you think?

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Where is the outrage?

Just another case of hypocrisy in action from the mainstream media and those far left of center in the United States. The Massachusetts legislature finally voted, on the last day possible, to allow the people of their state to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution. That may seem like a non-issue to many, but the fact that they considered not voting on the issue, effectively killing it, is the problem. According to the constitution of Massachusetts, the state legislature is bound to cast a vote on issues concerning amendments to the state document, and the less than conservative State Supreme Court even affirmed this fact as a group of politicians, including the Governor elect of the state, Deval Patrick, lobbied to let the issue die without a vote. In effect, these politicians were attempting to by-pass the will of the people, and ignore the constitution they swear to uphold to further their own agenda. This is disturbing considering the willingness of the mainstream media to label the President of the United States, or anyone they disagree with, a fascist, but turning their head to these acts of subversion. Where is the outrage? Where are the countless articles calling the governor elect a fascist for ignoring the constitution and the people to further his views? I for one do not think the governor elect is a fascist, but if the definition put forth by the mainstream media regarding fascism, when relating to people they disagree with, is to be used across the board for people of both parties, he falls into that category. Just one more case of hypocrisy in the media, especially the print media. What's good for the gooses is still good for the gander....isn't it?

Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

Media Bias?

One of the most argued points among those on either side of the culture war is whether or not there is a media bias in the United States. It is abundantly clear that anyone who states there is no media bias, primarily in the print media and on the major networks, either has their head in the sand, or they are being dishonest. Another example of this belief by the media that there is no war on Christmas. It seems that the media believes that if they say something often enough, it will be believed as truth. At the same time, there is currently a case before the Supreme Court, brought about by a group of parents in New York, to strike down a ruling by the 3rd circuit court in New York that makes it legal to display Jewish and Muslim symbols, but illegal to display Christian images. The New York Board of Education decided that it is perfectly OK to display a menorah fro Hanukkah and a crescent and star for Ramadan, but that it is unlawful to display a nativity scene for Christmas. You will not likely find coverage of this law suit in the print media, or on the big networks because it is inconvenient to their cause. Another example of media bias is evident in the most widely circulated newspaper in the state of Georgia, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. The editorial page and letters to the editor claim to give representation to the population of the state in the articles and letters they choose. Georgia is the most conservative state in the Union currently, as shown by the recent elections and the candidates chosen, so you would assume that the editorials and letters chosen by the paper would represent that fact. As a well known sports icon commonly states, "Not so fast my friend". In fact, one of the two editorials in today's AJC is based on the authors belief that the United States is the least trustworthy country in the world. A quote from the article states that "We (United States) have been betraying friends since our first overseas conflict (late 1700's)". That does not seem like an opinion from a conservative electorate, more like a rallying cry from the "blame America first crowd". If this is true, what does the author make of our protection and liberation of Europe during the World Wars? The letters to the editor, sent in from actual members of the population that is approximately 60% conservative Republicans, is even more lop sided. Do you think that a population that is 2/3 conservative is represented by a Letter to the Editor page that contains five out of six anti-conservative letters? I think the AJC should work on its math. In any event, this is but one example of the bias found in much of the nation's media. So, am I missing it, or is this media bias idea holding water?



Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture