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

Ethical Hypocrisy

Well, the House at Senate is at it again...slander, hypocrisy, unethical behavior...it seems that the ruling party makes no difference. After years of Republican domination in both houses, and screams of unethical behavior being fired across the aisle from the Democrats, the tables have turned. After the classless words of Barbera Boxer aimed at Condi Rice on Friday, I did a little research on Boxer. She is insistent that if you have no immediate family in the military, you can make no policy on Iraq. Therefore, maybe Boxer should be kept out of all policy relating to finances...she passed over $40,000.00 worth of bad checks in the not so distant past. Sounds a little unethical if you ask me. I can see maybe one thousand dollars, but if you get up to forty thousand, you must know the check is bad before you write it...but she is a liberal woman and a Democrat, so I guess she gets a pass. Then there are the cries of bipartisanship from the Democratic House members. They constantly complained that their Republican counterparts would not let them make amendments to proposed laws. Therefore, when the Democrats took over, you would think that they would rise above the fray and seek a truce with their Republican brothers and sisters...wrong. They have passed a rule that Republicans can make no amendments. Then there is the great, recently re-elected William Jefferson of Louisiana, or should we call him Cool Dollar Bill Jefferson. He was caught with $90,000.00 worth of marked bills that were used to bribe him by an undercover agent...sounds ethical to me. Lastly, actually this is not the final example I have found, but it is the last one I will put in this article, there is the great Nancy Pelosi. Does anyone else find it odd that after preaching about the need for a minimum wage increase in all U.S. Jurisdictions that American Samoa was exempted from the law? Not so strange when you realize that Star Kist, based in Nancy Pelosi's district, has an enormous operation in American Samoa...oh so ethical. So, before you cast a stone, maybe a check in the mirror is in order. Leadership brings with it great responsibility, and apparently neither party has figured this out.

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

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