Before I first started doing my own research on the history of False Flag attacks ( False flag operations are covert operations which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example during Italy's strategy of tension.) I would have never believed that a government would attack its own country. Sure it is well known today that Adolph Hitler used it on occasion like the Reichstag fire that gave him the excuse to suspend rights by using the Reichstag Fire Decree in an effort to weed out the communists and increase state security through out Germany. Then there was the coordinated efforts of the Gestapo on August 31,1939 to wear the Polish army uniform, storm a German radio station and put across the airways anti-German rhetoric to stir up hate for the German Polish. Hitler using this style of attack on his own country does not surprise me one bit. Now let me ask you a question. Would The United States of America do this? My initial response was hell no. Well have I got some information for you.
Lets start off with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. On August 4, 1964 North Vietnamese Torpedo boats attacked U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin resulting in the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which granted Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any South Asian country that would be threatened by "communist aggression". In the beginning of 1965 U.S. troops began being deployed resulting in the Vietnam War and also the death of 58,159 United States soldiers. In 2005, an internal National Security Agency study was declassified and these files remain accessible, The Gulf of Tonkin Incident that was just described never happened. False Flag attack. No NVM torpedo boats anywhere!!!! Lies! Smoking gun number one, The United States of America will stage attacks to get its country into war.
Smoking gun number two, this was released on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board, a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy's assassination. Thankfully this attack was never carried out but these were the plans on the table. This plan was given the title "Operation Northwoods". In 1962 the U.S. government, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense, wanted to commit acts of terrorism in the United States and elsewhere. Some of the options in this plan were to develop a communist Cuban terror campaign in Miami Florida and Washington D.C., hijack planes (remember that one) and to carry out bombings in major U.S. cities. A quote taken directly from the report stated the following.
"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."
So there are two instances proving that our government will carry out false flag attacks as an initiative for war.
On September 11, 2001, our country suffered the greatest terror attack in the history of the world. Mainstream media immediately started pointing fingers at no other than Osama Bin Laden (CIA asset codename Tim Osman copy and paste http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/binladen_cia.html) leader of the Islamic terrorist organization al-Qaeda. So the story went 19 hijackers took control of 4 planes with box cutters and pulled off the largest terrorist attack in history. We all know the "story". Many questions remain unanswered surrounding this story yet mainstream media refuses to ask these questions.
Before you start saying, "Oh these are just crack pot conspiracy theorists looking to stir things up", well let me ask you a question. Are these people, all who question 9/11, all who think it was a false flag attack just conspiracy theorists?
(Source: http://patriotsquestion911.com/ )
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret) Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aeronautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) Col. Ann Wright, U.S. Army (ret) Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret) Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
These are just some of the 200 U.S. Military Officers that question 9/11. The entire list can be viewed at http://patriotsquestion911.com Also there are 1,200+ Engineers and Architects 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 400+ Professors Question 9/11 300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members 200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals that OPENLY question the events of 9/11.
According to the 9/11 Commission Report there were no explosives inside or around the buildings after the planes had hit. Lets take a look at the initial news reports from that day.
Yeah, no explosive devices according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Why? In my opinion they would have to investigate how these bombs got inside the buildings raising more questions about who else was involved which in itself would lead to more questions.
Did you know that there was nano-thermite found in the rubble of the World Trade Centers. Nano-thermite, also called "super-thermite",[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Why was this not covered by the United States media. Mind boggling if you ask me. This is the biggest news story since 9/11 itself.
Why would our government not look into this? Again it would lead to more questions. How did the thermite get inside the building? Where was this thermite produced? Through chemical analysis this would not be hard to determine. Again mainstream media and our government makes no statement about this being found. Why?
The collapse of Tower 7. This was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. Lets take a look at the collapse.
Wow the way the building collapsed really looked like this.
Lets see what a Dutch demolitions expert has to say about the collapse of WTC7. (Approx 29 seconds into video.)
Some interesting things happened on 9/11 that will never be answered. Remember Flight 93 that was brought down over Pennsylvania due to the heroic efforts of passengers. That is where the "Lets Roll!" quote came from helping fuel the fire under every Americans ass to say to them that they too could help kick some terrorist ass. Well what would you say if I had a video of Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Secretary under the Bush administration, stating that Flight 93 was shot down. Take a look!
From what I have heard through interviews with former top military officials Flight 93 was shot down quickly before Dick Cheney gave the stand down command. This evidence of the plane being shot down would lead ultimately to Cheney giving the stand down order allowing the attacks to happen.
Unusual Trading in Stock Options Prior to 9/11: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options
Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market.
An extraordinary number of trades were betting that American Airlines stock price would fall.
The trades are called "puts" and they involved at least 450,000 shares of American. But what raised the red flag is more than 80 percent of the orders were "puts", far outnumbering "call" options, those betting the stock would rise.
Sources say they have never seen that kind of imbalance before, reports CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. Normally the numbers are fairly even.
After the terrorist attacks, American Airline stock price did fall obviously by 39 percent, and according to sources, that translated into well over $5 million total profit for the person or persons who bet the stock would fall.
***
At least one Wall Street firm reported their suspicions about this activity to the SEC shortly after the attack.
The same thing happened with United Airlines on the Chicago Board Options Exchange four days before the attack. An extremely unbalanced number of trades betting United's stock price would fall — also transformed into huge profits when it did after the hijackings.
"We can directly work backwards from a trade on the floor of the Chicago Board Options Exchange. The trader is linked to a brokerage firm. The brokerage firm received the order to buy that 'put' option from either someone within a brokerage firm speculating, or from one of the customers," said Randall Dodd of the Economic Strategy Institute.
U.S. investigators want to know whether Osama bin Laden was the ultimate "inside trader" — profiting from a tragedy he's suspected of masterminding to finance his operation. Authorities are also investigating possibly suspicious trading in Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Japan.
On September 29, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out:
"Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and run," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Whoever did this thought the exchange would not be closed for four days.
"This smells real bad."
***
There was an unusually large jump in purchases of put options on the stocks of UAL Corp. and AMR Corp. in the three business days before the attack on major options exchanges in the United States. On one day, UAL put option purchases were 25 times greater than the year-to-date average. In the month before the attacks, short sales jumped by 40 percent for UAL and 20 percent for American.
***
Spokesmen for British securities regulators and the AXA Group also confirmed yesterday that investigations are continuing.
The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of the options.
***
Last weekend, German central bank president Ernst Welteke said a study pointed to "terrorism insider trading" in those stocks.
On Oct. 2, Canadian securities officials confirmed that the SEC privately had asked North American investment firms to review their records for evidence of trading activity in the shares of 38 companies, suggesting that some buyers and sellers might have had advance knowledge of the attacks.
***
FMR Corp. spokeswoman Anne Crowley, said her firm -- which owns the giant Fidelity family of mutual funds in Boston -- has already provided "account and transaction" information to investigators, and had no objection to the new procedures announced yesterday. Crowley declined to describe the nature of the information previously shared with the government.
So the effort to track down the source of the puts was certainly quite substantial.
What were the results of the investigation?
Apparently, we'll never know.
Specifically, David Callahan - executive editor of SmartCEO - submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the SEC regarding the pre-9/11 put options.
We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed.
If the SEC had responded by producing documents showing that the pre-9/11 put options had an innocent explanation (such as a hedge made by a smaller airline), that would be udnerstandable.
If the SEC had responded by saying that the documents were classified as somehow protecting proprietary financial information, I wouldn't like it, but I would at least understand the argument.
But destroyed? Why?
Not the First Time
This is not the first destruction of documentary evidence related to 9/11.
The 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on a third-hand account of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.
In other words, the 9/11 Commissioners were not allowed to speak with the detainees, or even their interrogators. Instead, they got their information third-hand.
The Commission didn't really trust the interrogation testimony. For example, one of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report, Ernest May, said in May 2005:
We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.
Newsweek is running an essay by [New York Times investigative reporter] Philip Shenon saying [that the 9/11 Commission Report was unreliable because most of the information was based on the statements of tortured detainees]:
The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda's history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.
The panel raised no public protest over the CIA's interrogation methods, even though news reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact, the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.
That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission's final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain.
And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission's report may have been subjected to "enhanced" interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11 Commission....
Information from CIA interrogations of two of the three—KSM and Abu Zubaydah—is cited throughout two key chapters of the panel's report focusing on the planning and execution of the attacks and on the history of Al Qaeda.
Footnotes in the panel's report indicate when information was obtained from detainees interrogated by the CIA. An analysis by NBC News found that more than a quarter of the report's footnotes—441 of some 1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation program, including the trio who were waterboarded.
Commission members note that they repeatedly pressed the Bush White House and CIA for direct access to the detainees, but the administration refused. So the commission forwarded questions to the CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel's behalf.
The commission's report gave no hint that harsh interrogation methods were used in gathering information, stating that the panel had "no control" over how the CIA did its job; the authors also said they had attempted to corroborate the information "with documents and statements of others."
But how could the commission corroborate information known only to a handful of people in a shadowy terrorist network, most of whom were either dead or still at large?
Former senatorBob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat on the commission, told me last year he had long feared that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking ....
Kerrey said it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11.
Abu Zubaida was well-known to the FBI as being literally crazy. The Washington Post quotes "FBI officials, including agents who questioned [alleged Al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaida] after his capture or reviewed documents seized from his home" as concluding that he was:
[L]argely a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures.
For example:
Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida's capture in early 2002 and worked on the case, said the CIA's harsh tactics cast doubt on the credibility of Abu Zubaida's information.
"I don't have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."
***
"They said, 'You've got to be kidding me,' " said Coleman, recalling accounts from FBI employees who were there. " 'This guy's a Muslim. That's not going to win his confidence. Are you trying to get information out of him or just belittle him?'" Coleman helped lead the bureau's efforts against Osama bin Laden for a decade, ending in 2004.
Coleman goes on to say:
Abu Zubaida ... was a "safehouse keeper" with mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did.
***
Looking at other evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problems that called his credibility into question. "They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think they're going to tell him anything?"
Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a document recently obtained by the ACLU.
The notification came in a letter dated January 6, 2004, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet. The ACLU described it as a fax sent by David Addington, then-counsel to former vice president Dick Cheney.
In the message, the officials denied the bipartisan commission's request to question terrorist detainees, informing its two senior-most members that doing so would "cross" a "line" and obstruct the administration's ability to protect the nation.
"In response to the Commission's expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation," the letter read. "There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross -- the line separating the Commission's proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government's ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks."
***
"The Commission staff's proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line," the letter continued. "As the officers of the United States responsible for the law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions of the Government, we urge your Commission not to further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees."
Destruction of Evidence
The interrogators made videotapes of the interrogations. The 9/11 Commission asked for all tapes, but the CIA lied and said there weren't any.
The CIA then destroyed the tapes.
Specifically, the New York Times confirms that the government swore that it had turned over all of the relevant material regarding the statements of the people being interrogated:
“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission ....
“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said.
But is the destruction of the tapes -- and hiding from the 9/11 Commission the fact that the tapes existed -- a big deal? Yes, actually. As the Times goes on to state:
Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.
If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.
Indeed, 9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:
Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
The CIA also is refusing to release any transcripts from the interrogation sessions. As I wrote a year ago:
What does the fact that the CIA destroyed numerous videotapes of Guantanamo interrogations, but has 3,000 pages of transcripts from those tapes really mean?
Initially, it means that CIA's claim that it destroyed the video tapes to protect the interrogators' identity is false. Why? Well, the transcripts contain the identity of the interrogator. And the CIA is refusing to produce the transcripts.
Obviously, the CIA could have "blurred" the face of the interrogator and shifted his voice (like you've seen on investigative tv shows like 60 Minutes) to protect the interrogator's identity. And since the CIA is not releasing the transcripts, it similarly could have refused to release the videos.
The fact that the CIA instead destroyed the videos shows that it has something to hide.
Trying to Create a False Linkage?
I have repeatedly pointed out that the top interrogation experts say that torture doesn't work.
Many people are starting to understand that top Bush administration officials not only knowingly lied about a non-existent connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, but they pushed and insisted that interrogators use special torture methods aimed at extracting false confessions to attempt to create such a false linkage.
Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.
Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being "tortured."
One of the Commission's main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves
Remember, as discussed above, the torture techniques used by the Bush administration to try to link Iraq and 9/11 were specifically geared towards creating false confessions (they were techniques created by the communists to be used in show trials).
***
The above-linked NBC news report quotes a couple of legal experts to this effect:
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says he is "shocked" that the Commission never asked about extreme interrogation measures.
"If you’re sitting at the 9/11 Commission, with all the high-powered lawyers on the Commission and on the staff, first you ask what happened rather than guess," said Ratner, whose center represents detainees at Guantanamo. "Most people look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a trusted historical document. If their conclusions were supported by information gained from torture, therefore their conclusions are suspect."...
Karen Greenberg, director of the Center for Law and Security at New York University’s School of Law, put it this way: "[I]t should have relied on sources not tainted. It calls into question how we were willing to use these interrogations to construct the narrative."
The interrogations were "used" to "construct the narrative" which the 9/11 Commission decided to use.
As constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley stated:
[The 9/11 Commission] was a commission that was really made for Washington - a commission composed of political appointees of both parties that ran interference for those parties - a commission that insisted at the beginning it would not impose blame on individuals.
Other Obstructions of Justice
[Other examples of obstructions of justice include the following:]
The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into 9/11 said that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses
The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements
Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:
Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence . . .
* * *
The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.
In his book "Intelligence Matters," Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said "the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.'' On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter "a smoking gun" and said, "The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House."
We don't need to even discuss conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11 to be incredibly disturbed about what happened after: the government's obstructions of justice.
Indeed, the 9/11 Commissioners themselves are disturbed:
The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation"
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."
The list goes on and on of the facts vs fiction on the events of 9/11. I ask anyone who reads this to do research into the things our government is up to. Please do not be pushed away from the truth because people will call you "conspiracy theorists", crazy, or whatever the hell else the powers that be label you. This is why they gave people that seek the truth these titles, so that they can get away with things. The Fact of the Matter is that our government and our media are covering up the truth behind 9/11. False flag attacks are real and are used by groups to gain power and control, if we do not realize the truth behind 9/11 they will continue to use these attacks to take away our liberty and freedom. I will not accuse any group or nation of being solely responsible for the attacks on 9/11 because its that deep when you get into it, it actually gets damn confusing. I only state the facts, I will not indulge in "conspiracy theories", just the facts. All I do know is that information is being kept from us and we are now fighting two illegal wars due to these attacks with small operations going on all around the world. I will offer some videos below that will point you towards this rabbit hole of truth, its up to you to take this truth and go as far as you would like with it. But I warn you, the deeper you go, the scarier it gets.
Every night on FOX News channel at 5:00 p.m. eastern time millions of people invite a man they really do not know into their living rooms, this man is no other than Glenn Beck. Mr. Beck has often times made reference to the so called "conspiracy theorists" comparing them to tinfoil hat wearing lunatics that think our government pulled off the attacks on 9/11. On last nights show Glenn brought up the talk of "World Governance" and how the elite are discussing doing this. He then claimed that the "tin foil hat wearing" conspiracy theorists are going to be saying, "Wow Glenn Beck finally talked about world government" also at the same time making the point that he said "world governance" not "world government", basically denying the fact that this was going on and thus separating himself from the tinfoil hat wearers. Government- Governance, hmm sounds like the same thing to me, lets see, governance-Governance is the activity of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance. It consists either of a separate process or of a specific part of management or leadership processes. Sometimes people set up a government to administer these processes and systems.". Weird huh? Glenn then also brought up the name Maurice Strong and played hero for getting this guys name out to the public saying that he is a major player in the Global Warming money scam and that Maurice Strong would also like for the world to have this "governance system". But the strange thing is I have heard this guys name before, almost a year ago it seems. You know where I first heard of Mr. Strong, from videos on youtube and the tinfoil hat wearing Mr. Alex Jones. Also Jesse Ventura covered the Global Warming scam on a show called "Conspiracy Theory". Wow imagine this, two things in one show where Mr. Beck is agreeing with the crazy guy with tinfoil on his head. It stops THEM from reading my thoughts, shhhhhh.:) The second name that Glenn Beck brought up was George Soros claiming that this man was a progressive Marxist socialist something or other. I have also heard this name before, from who, you guessed it, Alex Jones. Soros is a known Bilderberg member and a former member on the Board of Directors for the Council on Foreign Relations. Two groups well known to be hell bent on setting up an Orwellian style, population controlled, slave running one world government, also known as "The New World Order." . Please if you have the time do your own research on the Bilderberg group, DO IT! With all of these names popping up on Beck's program, I just find it completely strange that he has not made the connection between what is going on today and the Bilderberg group. People have known for years now, accurately predicting what this group was going to try to do over the next few years and you can see it happening at an alarming rate in the present day. Glenn Beck is a very intelligent man and obviously does his research. Which brings me to this question. Why is he agreeing with the conspiracy theorists that he claims are wrong, puts out the same information but does not connect to the plans for a one world government, The New World Order. He talks of Obama and friends changing names of bills to be passed to get around the public eye. When he in fact is doing the exact same thing. Call it what it is Mr. Beck, its the New World Order. Does Rupert Murdoch the owner of Fox not allow you to go that far? Are you somehow involved in this? We all know the best way to control the opposition is lead it. Well Glenn, you got a majority of the opposition, to the way our government is destroying America, inviting you into their living rooms every night. It's just, whose side are you really on and why will you not admit the obvious? We will have to wait till June 6th 2010 when Bilderberg meets for the annual meeting to discuss the plans for the world economy, who gets the big bad Americans kicking their ass next and what they will be having for dinner that evening, I bet its not the GMO corn, to see if Glenn Beck will tie it all together and realize that a descent number of these people whom he points the finger at will be attending these meetings. The Fact of the Matter is...Glenn Beck is either an asshole or an idiot.
The main reason for myself starting this blog is to cover politics from every side. From what I have learned over the last couple of years John Q. Public has no idea about the reality of things. Topics will include: Up and coming politicians that I believe can help get our country back on track. Controversial subjects, "conspiracy theories" and much much more. Stay tuned!
