Conspiracy Theory

Conspiracy Theory

These days, political discussions quickly boil down to facts vs fiction. Unfortunately, there is no obvious ownership of the facts. Are the "crackpots" telling the truth or making up elaborate scenarios based in wild imagination? Is the government telling the truth or making up some sanitized theory of convenient plausibility?

Emotions get out of control when topics such as 9/11/01, OKC, Waco, Ruby Ridge, or JFK come up. There are those that blindly believe anything the news reports. There are those that believe any rumor that disagrees with the mainstream news. There are also people that support and believe in both sides that either love or hate conspiracy theory.

However, one wonders who benefits from conspiracy theory. Some claim that the theories are created as a subversive mechanism to make people question the government. Some claim that they are natural phenomenon created by years of government secrecy. Some even claim that these conspiracy theories are needed by the government in order to cloud the issue when they do have something to hide.

Unfortunately, there is no easy or obvious answer. There are people that profit from conspiracy theory. There are people that wish to promote distrust in the government. Also, the prolific nature of conspiracy theory does give a significant amount of plausible deniability to the government in that they can dismiss any fact or story as "false" by lumping it in with other things that have been coined "conspiracy theory".

That being said, any three of the above cases can be made with significant plausibility. Was Ruby Ridge an example of bad cops killing witnesses when their operation went bad? Was OKC a failed plot by the FBI to "save the day"? Was 911 an attempt to garner support for the war on terror or to make a leaseholder rich? Was the banking crisis created in an attempt to destabilize the economy and collapse the middle class?

We are unfortunately drawn into a world of "IFs". The support or detraction of any theory boils down to "IF" this is true or "IF" that is false. The items in question are almost always just out of reach. The information could be classified. If there is information that is classified, then only those with access to that information will ever know the truth. (assuming that classified information is accurate in the first place.) While National Security is an important reason to keep some secrets, it is also an aspect of the information haves and have nots.

In a situation where one party to a discussion has access to some earthshaking revelation that makes everything clear and the other does not, they are NOT free to share the information. While they may find it frustrating that somebody "doesn't get it", the other person is just as frustrated that "maybe", "somewhere", exists something that answers the missing "IF".

Even if granted that information, they would likely view it with suspicion as the creator of the information is only as factual as "they" or "them", whoever "they" actually are.

In short, conspiracy theory is a great tool for a government to use to separate the info-haves and info-have nots thus propagating the long standing unknowing that allows a government to function in secret 99% of the time.

Airport Security

Airport Security, while a hot topic, is somewhat misleading. Much in the same way that locks keep honest people honest rather than bad people out, security is mostly a dog and pony show that keeps honest people honest.

As we've seen over the past few years, those that "need" to smuggle something onto a plane will. Contraband will find it's way into the air.

Our current issues are less about security than about promoting agendas. Molesting children is not something that TSA or any government agency should be involved in. Should they choose to become involved in such activities, they should not be allowed a free pass from recourse by the American people.

Random searches are little more than an inconvenience to terrorists and smuggler. At the same time, they are a violation to honest citizens they "intend" to protect. For years, smugglers have abdicated the danger of being caught to 3rd party mules. Terrorists have utilized indoctrinated suicide bombers or zealots willing to get caught.

Smuggling something through security has always been a law of numbers. Even when you ignore the corruption factor (getting people/items on planes with a complete bypass of all security), If there is a random search, and only 1 in 20 people are selected, the smuggler instantly has 95% chance to get through without being checked. In short, random screenings keep honest people honest. Since the screenings are necessitated by the dishonest, security must address that factor directly.

If we seriously want to get people from point A to point B with 99% assurance of security, we must immediately implement the following:

1. Baggage and Cargo of any kinda cannot be permitted on the same plane as human beings.
2. At the security checkpoint, ALL people must remove all clothing and have it placed in a shipping container to arrive at the same destination before the travelers arrive.
3. The naked people must then be examined fully before being chained together like cattle.

This would eliminate human cargo being exposed to explosives in the cargo area of the airplanes. This would also prevent people from being able to overtake the crew of a flight.

Racism

It is no surprise that the progressives are calling their opposition "racists". The age old tactic in shutting up an opponent while avoiding the issue is name calling. Instead of acknowledging the facts of the argument, they are doing everything in their power to avoid them.

There are a number of issues involved with the current push to defend the border of our country. The first and most obvious is that it is a "border". Being the outer edge of our country, it only stands to reason that our government should be enforcing the fact that there is a difference between our country and the countries to which it is connected.

There are significant social and economic aspects to border security. An open border, such as the one we now have, has contributed to serious criminal activities in both our country and Mexico. On our side, we have "illegals" (not undocumented workers, not immigrants) that are bringing violent crimes (rape, assault, kidnap, murder) and activities (drugs, prostitution, smuggling) into our country. (as if we didn't already have enough of that already) On their side, we have violent criminal enterprises built on the fact that we DO NOT secure our border.

Were the United States of America to have secured the borders after "Operation Wetback" (I didn't name it), the rampant criminal activities of human smuggling, kidnap, drugs, etc would have not been cultivated to the point that it is now. Of course those things would still exist, however, our government has created an environment where they will simply THRIVE.

More to the point of the accusations, defending the border is not racist simply because a progressive activist organization has deemed it as a way to avoid defending our country. For some reason, they think American's are stupid enough to think that if you are for securing the border, that you want to kill people from Mexico as part of some ethnic cleansing ritual.

The next time you hear a pundit cry racism, look at it differently. Instead of mindlessly agreeing with them, take a moment to wonder what issue they are really trying to avoid talking about.

Illegal Immigration

Illegal Immigration

An honest discussion about this topic is almost instantly derailed by misinformation and distraction.

Racism is the most commonly used lie to prevent rational discussion. Any attempt to begin a conversation that is in contrast with the agenda of the average liberal will result in calls of racism. While there may be racists that think the border needs to be enforced, not all people that think the border needs to be enforced are racists. In math, we would say the converse is not necessarily true.

Many of the arguments against enforcing the border draw comparisons to the settlers coming into this continent and starting what would eventually become the USA. Essentially, everybody is an illegal immigrant and we have no right to tell anybody to follow any legal process if they wish to live here.

Sadly, this seems to be the most honest argument that I've heard. It's significantly more honest than "they do jobs white people won't do" (which happens to be a racist statement).

Lets assume for a minute that this is true. Lets say that, specifically the flow of people from Mexico, is identical to European settlers. That would put us in the position of the Native Americans so long ago. Americans would be in a position of watching the "invaders/settlers" move in and not being able to stop them. We would be faced with the consequences of losing our government, language, and culture to the "settlers".

Unlike the Native Americans that inhabited this country before the "settlers", we have the resources and ability to stop the settlers. However, we do not have the political will. We do not have leaders that are willing to obey the law. In fact, we have a president that will sue a state for attempting to protect it's border.

Regardless of the terminology that is in use (illegal, migrant, settler, etc), the fact remains that our government is making an overt choice to allow the steady flow of trespassers a free ride to citizenship. Why is this OK? With non citizens voting, our elections are a joke. Why not just allow China or the UN make all legal decisions in our country?

A secure border is not racist. A secure border is the responsibility of the government. Rounding up all people of a specific nationality/ethnicity and oppressing them because of their race is racist. In the age of misinformation, the opposition is always a "racist". They don't need facts, they just need simple minded people that are afraid of being unjustly called racist.

Ideological Subversion

How To Brainwash A Nation

[Taken from an interview with ex KGB agent Thomas Schuman (Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov)]

Ideological Subversion: (aka Active Measures/Psychological Warfare)
The process of changing America's perception of reality to such an extent that in spite of an abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their communities and their country.

The Marxist/Leninist brainwashing project goes very slow and is divided in 4 basic stages.

Stage 1: Demoralization
This initial phase takes at least 15 to 20 years by design. That is approximately the time required to "educate" a generation of children. The idea is to expose them to Marxist/Leninist ideas while they have "soft heads". According to Yuri, this process was in full swing by the early 60's. It was also said that the progress of Demoralization in the US was not only beyond the expectations of Andropov, but that much of the work was being done by Americans to Americans. Key influences of this stage were progressive liberal politicians, liberal college professors, and organizations such as the ACLU.

Upon completion of this stage, the subverted are no longer able to assess true information even when the facts are in front of them.

Stage 2: Destabilization

The second phase assumes a 2-5yr time frame. In this phase, the movement no longer cares about the ideals or consumption practices of the indoctrinated. Those things are aspects of the completed subversion or indoctrination phase. At this point, the focus becomes destabilization of:

- Economy
- Foreign Relations
- Defense Systems

State 3: Crisis
In this phase, the details of the crisis are related to the country in question. Historically the crisis is specific to the region being subverted. A credit crisis in one country is more significant than a food crisis would be in another. In our country, the economy is the soft mushy target that provides the most significant reach. This stage is the shortest and may take less than 6 weeks.

This phase includes the destabilization of the economy, promises of "all kinds of goodies", promises of "paradise on earth", elimination of free market principles, and culminates in the placement of "big brother" government.

Stage 4: Normalization

In this final stage, the violent change of power structure and economy born in Crisis leads to normalization that lasts indefinitely. The benevolent dictator(s) will make lots of promises and it will not matter that the promises are not fulfilled. The leftists professors and civil rights organizations that were instrumental in the subversion process will longer be needed or relevant. It is expected that those forces will then become disillusioned with the resulting Marxist/Leninist power structure that shunned them and become bitter enemies of the resulting power system.

"This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all the schmucks to bring the country to crisis." - Yuri

If we see the ACLU attempt to use the US Constitution as a weapon rather than a target, we would likely be in Stage 4 of the Marxist/Leninist/Progressive subversion of the United States of America.

All Your Internet Is Belong To Obama

At least for the rest of his term. After that, it belongs to the next guy that Obama's masters give us as president.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

The most interesting aspects include:

1. Government certification may be required of key employees of private communication companies. (ATT, Verizon, Sprint, Cox, etc)

2. The federal government could require private companies to support, maintain, and disclose upon request extensive layout maps and documentation. (probably including router and firewall passwords in clear text *lol*)

3. The current reworded version of the bill doesn't limit power that alarmed Internet companies and civil liberties groups but rather obfuscates what power the bill would give.

In the end, it is humorous that the powers that be like to invoke the Constitution when they are justifying an attack on it and it's people.

The deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee said:

"The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States . . ." -Jena Longo

The Constitution, once for "the people", has been turned into a weapon used to attack the people. This most obviously has been during the Bush and Obama administrations.

How Obama Can Make You Rich In a Recession!

Forgetting everything else that is going on with our geopolitical puppet show, one may find a thread of silver lining in Mr Obama. In troubles times, people become more concerned with money and jobs. Everybody wishes they had a little bit more or that things were a little bit easier.

Often times, the conversations roll around to winning the lottery, finding out your secretly the last remaining heir to Bill Gates, or inventing something everybody on the planet needs. Essentially, people seem to want to be rich.

You can thank your president. Obama's Hope for you to be rich and his ever Changing stance has made many Americans rich overnight! Most don't read between the lines so they don't even know that they are rich yet!

The greedy and evil republicans classified the rich as people that made more than $1Million per year. Obama, being more of an ACORN lackey than a "rich white guy" decided that was too high. The bar needed to be lowered because there are a LOT of Americans out there that make less than $1Million dollars. He promised to only tax the rich, so he redefined rich in order to keep that promise?

When "rich" was redefined to $280k, most Americans decided that was fine, "we don't make that much" or "everybody that makes more than me should PAY UP!" This is human nature and not a surprise. However, some people looked past that and wondered how this would effect small businesses that employ people. Would this place a burden on a small company that caused them to have to scale back employees?

However, this was soon redefined to $250k. It seems that the extra $30k wasn't enough. Obama so needed the additional tax base, that he would turn around and change his stance only days later. Sadly, most people still accepted this and figured it was "still OK" since it didn't touch them. They didn't see the direction the freight train was headed.

Currently, we're looking at an income of $100,000 being considered rich. This instantly turns the suburbs into Beverly Hills. Although $100,000 seems rich to the average ACORN volunteer, it happens to be where the "Jones's" live. It's the salary range that sells new homes, boats and BMW's, anything that credit will finance. $100,000 is now rich according to Obama. This is not the end unfortunately, this is just the biggest cloud of smoke yet to billow from our burning house of a government.

Ponder this: Obama and ACORN seem to be responsible for defining what "Rich" is. The number, another moving target, can almost be identified with a mathematical equation. The numbers we've seen so far (ex: 280k, 250, $100k) are little more than desensitization before the actual "Rich" are unveiled.

When you do this math, you will realize, that you are probably rich beyond your wildest dreams already!

Rich = (((MinWage * 20hr) * 4wk) * 12mo) + 1

So, consider $6.55 for a 20 hour week, every week, for an entire year. If you're only working 20 hours, you probably work all year cause you get a vacation every week anyway. That number works out to: $6,288yr. my "+ 1" may be a little bit of dramatization. More likely it would be changed to "x3 or x5) as the current definition of "Rich", according to Obama, is that formula with x16 instead of " +1 or "a dollar more than everybody else expects to make".

So, to recap.

Rich According to Greedy White Men:

MinWage * AnnualWork * 160 ($1,000,000)

Rich according to Obama:

Originally
MinWage * AnnualWork * 45 ($280,000)
Then
MinWage * AnnualWork * 40 ($250,000)
Now
MinWage * AnnualWork * 16 ($100,000)

In order to better visualize this trend, picture the multiplier as a group of people. The base formula (MinWage * AnnualWork) identifies what any one person in American should be making under the Obama ACORN structure. The multiplier identifies how many of these Obama/ACORN Americans it takes to make the salary of the rich.

In short, if you make more than $6,288 per year, you will be considered rich by the time Obama and ACORN come out of the closet on this.