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

How do you spell evil? A.C.L.U.

The American Civil Liberties Union; based on the name, it sounds like a wonderful organization created to protect the rights of all Americans. However, when you read a comment from the organization's founder regarding its purpose, the truth becomes a bit clearer. When asked about his goals for the organization, and its impact on the United States, founder Roger Baldwin had the following comments: "I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” Communism? It is a bit confusing that the founder equates the protection of Civil Liberties with a final goal of Communism., but to process this information, we should define Communism. Communism is defined by Webster's dictionary as: "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party." Totalitarian....protection of Civil Liberties? Something does not add up, but can we equate the fact that the organization's name is deceiving to the assumption that it is evil? Probably not, but we can look a little deeper into the actions of the ACLU to determine if it is inherently evil. Just like a man, an organization can be judged by its works. First, let us see what Webster's has to say about the term evil. The term is defined as wicked, morally reprehensible, deceiving, harmful actions arising from bad character, or the absence of good (God), or the allowing of evil actions. Well, with its name alone, the ACLU has already hit one of the characteristics of evil, but let's dig a bit deeper. The first characteristic of evil listed is morally reprehensible actions, so we must determine if the ACLU fits into this category. It does not take long to find that the ACLU is a constant defender of actions that the majority of the population consider morally reprehensible. A look at some of the organization's policies discovered the following facts: the ACLU supports the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211); the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4); the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210); the promotion (not protection) of homosexuality (Policy 264); and the opposition of the rating of music and movies (Policy 18). To stress what I see as the worst of these policies, the ACLU has defended the NAMBLA organization on various occassions. As with the ACLU, much can be learned about NAMBLA by its name alone. The letters stand for: NAtional Man-Boy Love Association, and the organization's main goal is the promotion of sexual relationships between grown men and children, in this case little boys. This definitely fits into the definition of evil, and by supporting such an organization, the ACLU is guilty. If this is not enough evidence to support the idea that the ACLU is evil, let's look a little deeper. Another hallmark of evil is the presence of harmful actions that arise from a lack of character. Returning to the ACLU's stated policies, we find that they also support the opposition of parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262); the opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263); and the opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262). If it is a pro-abortion measure, the ACLU supports it. In fact, the organization is the nation's leading proponent of unfettered abortion at any point of pregnancy. They must be proud. Still not enough evidence, how about this. The ACLU is pro-death. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose both abortion and euthanasia. As long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it, unless of course it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death. This could go on and on, but there is one last bit of evidence I would like to examine. The definition of evil, at it's root, is the absence of good, or the absence of God. As an organization, no one has done more to make the absence of all things Godly a reality in the United States than the ACLU. In short, the ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for themselves by being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are the most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, the ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history. In summation, is the ACLU evil? Yes.


Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture