Topic: Tea Party Movement
How to undermine a movement: turn its values on their heads Sarah Palin's nationally broadcast keynote address at the Neo-Conservative Tea Party Convention in Tennessee was a textbook lesson in turning small government principles into neo-conservative principles.by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Let me state clearly for the record: today's tea party movement as manifested in Tennessee is a travesty that has completely moved away from what originated during the presidential campaign of 2008. What started as a grassroots effort in the Ron Paul campaign to support basic, fundamental values of freedom and small government has turned into an anti-libertarian, pro-neo-conservative revival meeting. The emerging leader in this effort is Sarah Palin.
Palin spoke at the so-called National Tea Party Convention. After waiting for Palin to smooze the attendees in Nashville who paid a minimum of $350 to hear her "I'm just like you" rhetoric, I was glad to see that she finally started to touch on issues. Too bad the first issue she raised was the wrong issue, the second issue she raised had the wrong prescriptions, and the most important issue she raised she ultimately, but artfully, reduced to more smoke-and-mirrors.
War on Terror - Palin's Top Priority
Her first issue was calling terrorism "terrorism". This was a clear broadside against a very vague Obama administration policy of attempting to defuse the War on Terror. Nowhere in her comments did she even come close to admitting that the War on Terror has been a dismal failure. To the contrary, without hardly even mentioning George Bush by name, she made it clear that, in her view, our country's top priority should be to deny that terrorists have rights and to insist that the War on Terror be called the War on Terror. Like other neo-conservatives before her, she distorted and ignored inconvenient facts to support her view.
She made a big stink about the Christmas underwear bomber being interviewed for "only 50 minutes" before being read his Miranda rights...which she claims terrorists do not deserve to have. She stated that the interrogation ended at that point, and no new information came forth thereafter.
Three days before her speech, the major news outlets quoted the FBI as saying that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is talking to authorities again and providing "useful, actionable" intelligence. In other words, the suspect, after being apprised of his Constitutional rights, has been "chirping like a bird" to borrow an old cliche, providing the exact kinds of information Palin was claiming we would have liked to know. We're getting the answers she said she wants, but apparently she's not listening.
What made him talk? Was it treating him as a terrorist without rights? No, as it turns out, what made the difference was bringing in his family to convince him to talk. In other words, defusing the situation created successful results.
Palin knew about this news, so why did she behave as if it didn't exist? There's only one possible reason: she's a neo-conservative, and she's pushing a neo-conservative agenda. The truth doesn't matter to her anywhere near as much as neo-conservative rhetoric matters to her. Instead, she believes in inciting people to anger for the purpose of promoting big government spending on defense and big government intervention in the world's affairs, all while claiming to be an advocate of free enterprise and smaller government. This is diametrically the opposite of what Ron Paul argued in 2008 (as he has all his life). It is the opposite of what the 2008 "tea party" was all about.
Sadly, her audience applauded. In fact, they gave her a standing ovation when she criticized the idea that terrorists have "our American Constitutional rights". The attendees' response to Palin could not be clearer...they agreed that any person who is charged with a terrorism-related crime is not and should not be protected by the U.S. Constitution. Never mind that no trial has yet taken place. Open, public trials are irrelevant to justice or to defending the Constitution, in their view.
"Treating [terrorism] as a law enforcement matter puts our country at great risk," she declared passionately and emotionally. At risk of what? She left that question unanswered. Instead, she pressed on saying, "because that's not how radical Islamic extremists are looking at this. We know we're at war, and to win that war we need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern." That's pure neo-con rhetoric.
C-Span helped underline the neo-conservative takeover by claiming in their on-screen captions that the tea party movement began in 2009 in response to the Obama administration's policies, presumably because of the Glenn Beck broadcasts that called for a "9/12" movement. In this way, even C-Span ignored the fact that it was the grassroots of the Ron Paul campaign who, on December 16, 2008, the 235th anniversary of the original Boston Tea Party, raised over $6 million for their candidate, thereby crowning the real, already existing tea party movement.
Let there be no mistake here. Palin made it clear that she opposes treating acts of terrorism as "an international crime spree" (once again to wild applause). She very much prefers treating them as "acts of war". Yet, it is the treatment of such crimes as "war" which have given the terrorists a status they could never have achieved on their own: that of being enemy combatants instead of scummy criminals. The whole point of treating them as criminals is to lower their status, to reduce their impact, to undermine their support. Neo-conservatives oppose treating terrorists as criminals because doing so undermines their preference to spend as much money as possible on "defense" (a euphemism they use which really means "offense") and to introduce American troops into world affairs in as many ways as possible.
Obama's Foreign Policy
She next went on to identify what she called the results of the Obama administration's foreign policy, as follows:
"North Korea tested its developing missiles." Never mind that these missiles were developed when Bush and the neo-cons were in charge.
"Israel...now questions the strength of our support." Yes, what a shame that we've created a small amount of diplomatic distance from their anti-Palestinian tyranny. In her view, we should be burying the Palestinians or herding them into the equivalent of prisoner of war camps instead of treating them a bit more civilly.
"Plans for a missile defense system in Europe were scrapped." Yes, what a shame that American taxpayers won't be required to fund Europe's missile defense on European soil, given that the system she referred to was supposed to be built by the Pentagon at American taxpayer expense, not by the European Union at European expense. At the same time, she had nothing to say about Obama's plan to put a similar missile system on U.S. ships rather than within the borders of Eastern European countries, where Palin wants them to go.
"Relations with China and Russia are no better." Does she mean as opposed to what happened under the Bush administration?
"Relations with Japan, that key Asian ally, are in their worst shape in years." Really? Based on what evidence? The only evidence I could find of any dissatisfaction with America in Japan had to do with three key topics: (a) the financial crisis created under the Bush administration, (b) the fact that Japan's conservative movement has taken big hits of late, losing tremendous ground in their own government, and (c) the fact that the Obama administration is reducing America's military presence in Okinawa. What a pity that Obama is actually hinting that the Japanese should assume responsibility for their own defense. Palin's rhetoric has "neo-con" written all over it.
"People who are seeking freedom from oppressive regimes wonder if Alaska is still that beacon of hope for their cause." What was this weird rhetoric all about? It was about supporting Iranian dissent. What Alaska has to do with it, other than being Palin's home state, I have no idea. What I do suspect is that such "support" from Palin's point of view will eventually involve intervention in Iran, because that would also be clear neo-con strategy. She didn't actually come out for such action, referring instead to a preference for "sanctions on Iran", while completing ignoring the fact that the long history of economic sanctions is largely effective at strengthening anti-liberty regimes.
Once again, the attendees applauded her.
She also made a comment that we would do well to remember. "Democracies don't go to war with each other. They resolve their disputes peacefully." Not only is this not true historically (see the entire 19th and 20th centuries for references), but it's likely to not be true in the future. Count on the neo-cons to get around this inconvenient fact as time goes on by redefining the word "democracy" to mean any country that's on their side and "tyranny" to be any country that stands in their way.
She then did a typical neo-con bait-and-switch. She quoted JFK saying that we can't put all the blame for the world's problems on the previous administration. Then she followed this up by saying we need to return to the principles of protecting the Constitution and small, limited government. What a crock! It was the previous administration which sent the Constitution and small, limited government into the sewer.
Sadly, the Obama administration set her up for this argument over the past year by carrying out the bailout and spending policies of the Bush administration to the nth degree, thereby (in her view) relieving Bush and his followers of all responsibility for their actions.
Bailouts
Well, it took her awhile, but she finally got to the most important issue of all. She turned to domestic issues by saying, "Washington has replaced private irresponsibility with public irresponsibility." Would this be a turn to true limited government rhetoric? Not exactly.
"The list of companies and industries that the government is crowding out and bailing out and taking over continues to grow. First it was the banks, mortgage companies, financial institutions, and automakers. Soon, if they have their way, health care, student loans... Today, in the words of Congressman Paul Ryan, 'The $700 Billion TARP has morphed into crony capitalism at its worst."'
Morphed? What does she mean morphed? The TARP bailout, instituted by the Bush administration WAS crony capitalism at its worst! If she doesn't like what Obama has done, she should be criticizing what Bush did as well, because the Bush administration laid the groundwork for the whole bailout paradigm in the first place.
This isn't true small government rhetoric. This is co-opted rhetoric, used for the purpose of nudging the tea party movement back into the Republican camp while ignoring the Republicans' role in the creation of the problems she proposes to address. This isn't merely political posturing. This is a rewriting of history, a naked attempt to sway libertarian-leaning voters who backed Ron Paul in the hopes they will return to the old Reagan-era coalition with social conservatives and Christian evangelicals, to once again use libertarian-leaning voters to support a neo-conservative agenda to put Republicans back into power.
She played the "bailout bonuses" card while she studiously ignored the fact that the monetary and banking system itself rewards irresponsible behavior by bankers. I used to think that she just doesn't get it. Now, I'm certain that she does get it. She knows that fiat money is the root cause of the entire mess, and she supports fiat money. The bonuses red herring has long been used to distract America's attention from the real, root causes of the crises, and Palin is completely on board. She's proudly taken her place on the smoke-and-mirrors platform.
"Where are the consequences to the top financial leaders for helping to get us into the worst economic situation since the Great Depression? Where are the consequences?" she asked, ignoring the fact that it's the federal government nearly 100 years before which empowered the banks to do exactly what they did. The banks and the banking system did exactly what they were designed to do. They expanded the monetary system as a method of economic expansion by driving people into debt. Then, when the consequences hit the fan, the Republicans bailed them out. Palin, in other words, wants to scapegoat the bank presidents by pretending that they were rogue operators working outside the system, when in fact they were nothing of the sort. They worked the system as it was designed to work.
Once again, the clueless delegates applauded, while Palin masterfully used rhetoric about "the 10th amendment" and "dollars created out of thin air" to continue to seduce them.
It's a strange paradox. One of the favorite bits of rhetoric that emerged repeatedly from the Ron Paul Revolution was the persistent cry that the people behave like sheep. How many of the attendees at this convention had uttered that complaint themselves in the past? Yet, here they were, offering themselves to be shorn by the first neo-con to utter throwaway rhetoric that sounds good to the untrained ear if you don't listen closely enough.
There was a mildly amusing moment when she claimed (admitted?) that her own veto of legislation to accept Washington bailout funds was overridden by a Republican state legislature. Sadly no one laughed as they should have at the fact that Palin wasn't governor when the bailout funds were presented to Alaska. The delegates didn't even laugh at the fact that Palin admitted that she couldn't even keep her own party's legislators in line as governor. Most importantly, none of the delegates laughed in recognition of the fact that Palin had a long history of accepting Washington's handouts when she was governor of Alaska. Instead, they remained dutifully and respectfully quiet, as they always do when their heroine once again put her foot in her mouth.
The above covers only the first 20 minutes or so of an hour long exercise in windbagging. I didn't have the stomach to watch any more of it.
I believe there are many people in the revolution who are revolted by Palin and her neo-conservative handlers and supporters. They'd better take back the tea party movement pretty darn soon if they don't want to be relegated to insignifance and obscurity, because the neo-cons are clearly playing for keeps.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 65 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Walt, fantastic article- a definite thumbs up. One little thing though: paragraph beginning with 'sadly' in the first part (war on terror), Umar is not American; however Glen Greenwald writes an excellent article that details why your argument is correct for both American and non-American persons: [link edited for length]
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-02-07 12:31:48
Hi Walt,
I think your observations are spot on. The only thing I disagree with is where to lay the blame for the current situation you describe. You lay it on Palin and the neo-con machine. I lay it on those who encourage the herd behavior in the first place. The neocons have not changed. They saw that someone or something had managed to get the herd moving and they stepped in to direct it. The divide-and-conquer strategy doesn't depend on what gets the herd moving, only on influencing its direction once it begins to move.
The Tea Party movement may be made of millions of well intended individuals but the movements were not aimed at constructive political participation. These herds were ripe for the neocon harvest in a huge anti-tax, anti-Obama reactionary wave.
Anyone who expects that joining the right herd will allow them to reach their goals without actually doing the work it requires is not a defender of liberty in my eyes. The Tea Party movement is just a convenient opportunity for those working the margins of the central herd for votes in next year's election.
If every Tea Party advocate suddenly registered for the GOP primary election and started participating regularly in their local GOP activities to ensure no big government, pro-war candidates could enter the pipeline, then the movement would have value to liberty.
Sadly, the Tea Party "movement" whatever it is, regardless of what some members thought it "should be", will be milked for all the anti-Obama attention it can generate. Then the herd masters will move onto the next media-created useless "movement" and the process continues. The perpetual quest for "freedom from" the defense of liberty ensures those involved remain a futile but energetic resource for the Sarah Palins of the world of real political strategy.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2010-02-07 14:46:24
Jahfre: re your comment: "If every Tea Party advocate suddenly registered for the GOP primary election and started participating regularly in their local GOP activities to ensure no big government, pro-war candidates could enter the pipeline, then the movement would have value to liberty."
You really think so? I disagree. I think the experience of the Nashville convention very clearly demonstrates the hazards inherent in your analysis. Contrary to your claim, I think the broader revolution has far more "sheepish" tendencies than you credit to it. Broad swaths of the Ron Paul Revolution are well-represented in the libertarian-leaning wing of the Republican Party and have a long record of supporting anti-liberty candidates, simply because they pass themselves off as "conservative", as if that label makes everything okay. Just utter the names "Ronald Reagan" or "Barry Goldwater" to that crowd and they practically swoon every time.
In fact, what made the Ron Paul revolution so remarkable from a political science point-of-view is that it largely represented a break from the past behavior of the people who supported Dr. Paul. How many came here to this website during the 2008 election cycle and declared that they'd finally had it with the Republican Party? They numbered in the thousands at this site and in the millions nationwide. It was Ron Paul who helped them "see the light" and declare their estrangement from Republican leadership, and it showed at the polls in November when McCain/Palin got wiped off the electoral map.
Now, along comes Palin, and much of the same crowd now fawns over her. Look at all the articles published here at this site about how great she is! Just do a Google search on "site:nolanchart.com Sarah Palin" and you'll see what I mean. Look at the video of Palin's speech from my link at the top of the article. Look at the audience's reactions to her! These are the people you think can take over the GOP in favor of liberty? It's time to get real, Jahfre.
By the way, I don't lay the blame for everything at the feet of the neo-cons, but I certainly believe that the neo-cons have been out-front leaders for everything, including most of the actions for which they usually blame liberals. In fact, the louder someone blames liberals, the more reason I have to be suspicious of their own motives. I do agree that neither the left nor the right would get away with everything without the tacit support of the electorate, but unlike you I don't blame the victims (the electorate) for the actions of the thieves and murderers just because the victims let the thieves and murderers get away with their crimes. Would it be better if the electorate behaved more responsibly? Sure, but history shows us that rarely happens. Most of the time, the electorate are sheep. Always have been; always will be.
If you really want to achieve meaningful change, you can't expect to do it by infiltrating and taking over a major party. This is one of the few ways in which I disagree with Dr. Paul, and indeed I disagree with most people in The Revolution about this. I think Dr. Paul's terrific, but like all of us he has his weaknesses. Political analysis is one of them, in my opinion.
Meaningful political change can only occur through loud, steady education of the public. It's going to take all of us doing our best to educate ourselves and each other to make that happen. Until the nature of the debate changes, the results will not change. Make the nature of the debate change, and political changes will follow.
The tea party movement started in 2006 after the Portland convention of the Libertarian Party, and was started by Tom Knapp. The tea party movement of 2008 was in part inspired by Ron Paul and his followers, whose "End the Fed" project was a useful focus on a key issue.
How ironic, then, that Sarah Palin has endorsed vicious, violent, pro-war Afghanistan baby-killer Rand Paul. If only his family had the ethical standards that Ron Paul showed in 2007.
Alas, Ron Paul has no standards, having decided to endorse nasty neo-con Lamar Smith in Texas (ooo, his arm was twisted by the Texas GOP) and having decided to have the Colorado campaign for "liberty" endorse Ken Buck.
Potentially worse, prominent neo-con and war monger Peter Schiff has come out firmly in favor of strategic bombing of Iran, in part on the grounds that no one taking any other position could get elected to Congress. (Which, uh, doesn't explain how Ron Paul has gotten elected several times.)
It is very sad that the campaign for "liberty" has abandoned its positions favoring peace and non-intervention. But, what can you expect from filth like John Tate?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2010-02-08 05:25:47
Jim Davidson: your personal attacks aside, I think it's important to point out the glaring inaccuracy in your comment. The Nashville convention was not sponsored by the Campaign For Liberty. To the best of my knowledge, C4L had no role in that convention at all. Also, I find it strange that you think that insulting people is a valid substitute for debating them. I noticed in particular that you referred to John Tate as filth, but you provided no justification for that claim.
Calling people "nasty" or "filth", or claiming that someone has "no standards" because you disagree with one particular thing they say is contemptuous. It's one thing to oppose what someone else says. and to explain why you oppose it. It's something else entirely to engage in vilification as a replacement for debate. You should learn the difference.
The big difference between the neocon hijackers and the "original" Ron Paul tea partiers is WAR -- they support the bogus "War on Terror" and the illegal "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure they support the "war on drugs" and the death penalty too, while proclaiming to believe in God who's apparently, in their mind, a vicious Being who sanctions their violent, un-Christ-like views.
It's all about war, violence, legalized murder and bullying with these neocons, and labeling as many as possible as "terrorists" while stripping away their rights.
Yes, Palin and her followers are nauseatingly clueless, acting like they're any different than the fascist Bush or globalist Obama administrations. They need to be laughed out of the arena as the deceitful, ugly joke they all are. Thanks for your article.
P.S. I hope you realize that the Nigerian "Christmas bomber" was just a patsy set up for a staged false flag to remind us that the "terrorists" are still out there. Most likely he was busted trying to smuggle cocaine out of Amsterdam and this was the deal they offered him.
Not coincidentally, those full-body airport scanners were ready to go in all airports the next day (with company owner former Homeland Security Michael Chertoff standing to make billions). Don't forget Obama is getting ready to reauthorize the Patriot Act and a fresh terrorist scare always helps renew support...
The above author sounds exactly like the rehtoric of the Organizing for America crowd, I think I see a Democrat/progressive in Sheeps clothing. He also seems to forget that the few Democrats that were in Bush's admin. were the same ones still running the financial system after the election and still are, so to blame Bush is irrlevant, Obama and the progressives that stuck Bush with the jerks that run our money currently are to blame, and continue to be of blame, in that they are still trying to force old hat ideas, ala Keneysian style, in to the mainstream once again. Also, a whole heck of a lot of us in the Tea Party movement don't beleive Ron Paul started our movement (he did give it some impetus, however) and give Glenn Beck and the Austrian School of Economics more but not all of the credit for it's beginings. Finaly if the author doesn't have the stomach for the 2/3rd's of the speech he missed , that should be enough to tell anyone listening he only hears what he wants to hear but diregards the rest (With credit to Paul Simon). We are, by the way, at war with radical Islamists, the entire world thats nonmuslem is, and anyone who doesn't think so needs to study the Islamist web sights and the history of the spreed of Islam in Christian territorys as well as those of nonChristiandom, to see for themselvs whats afoot with the concept and reality of Jihhidia style WAR. If he couldn't make it through a 45 minute speech he shouldn't be throwing stones at women and neo-cons (who seem to be closer to Libertarian values than the author) and spreading propaganda for the left. He has no stamina so why should anyone who's not in the bag as an idealog for Obama, whose praise this whole article sings in a backhanded manner, beleive him?
The above author sounds exactly like the rehtoric of the Organizing for America crowd, I think I see a Democrat/progressive in Sheeps clothing. He also seems to forget that the few Democrats that were in Bush's admin. were the same ones still running the financial system after the election and still are, so to blame Bush is irrlevant, Obama and the progressives that stuck Bush with the jerks that run our money currently are to blame, and continue to be of blame, in that they are still trying to force old hat ideas, ala Keneysian style, in to the mainstream once again. Also, a whole heck of a lot of us in the Tea Party movement don't beleive Ron Paul started our movement (he did give it some impetus, however) and give Glenn Beck and the Austrian School of Economics more but not all of the credit for it's beginings. Finaly if the author doesn't have the stomach for the 2/3rd's of the speech he missed , that should be enough to tell anyone listening he only hears what he wants to hear but diregards the rest (With credit to Paul Simon). We are, by the way, at war with radical Islamists, the entire world thats nonmuslem is, and anyone who doesn't think so needs to study the Islamist web sights and the history of the spreed of Islam in Christian territorys as well as those of nonChristiandom, to see for themselvs whats afoot with the concept and reality of Jihhidia style WAR. If he couldn't make it through a 45 minute speech he shouldn't be throwing stones at women and neo-cons (who seem to be closer to Libertarian values than the author) and spreading propaganda for the left. He has no stamina so why should anyone who's not in the bag as an idealog for Obama, whose praise this whole article sings in a backhanded manner, beleive him?
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-02-08 14:03:12
The Colorado Campaign for Liberty did not endorse Ken Buck. I am not affiliated with C4L in any way but I am a Colorado resident who is politically active and who also has an interest in not letting this kind of falsehood be spread as truth.
The truth of the matter is the Co C4L has registered as a PAC and cannot endorse ANY candidate. What they did do is run an advertisement that said Mr. Buck has signed the C4L pledge. I think Mr. Davidson read what he wanted into the situation but his statement was, and is, false.
You display the typical argument for those who cant debate Libertarians; calling him a terroist, commie and whatever the cute insult of the week is. Walt is no liberal, plenty of his articles show that he isn't, you on the other hand can't handle the truth. To think Beck started the movement is absurd, Beck like alot of them got on the bandwagon when it got popular.
If your so gun ho for more war that will bankrupt us mind you (but you neocons enjoy forgetting that fact) why dont you, Pipes, Palin, Nugent, Limbaugh, Beck, both Clintons, Obama, Emanuel and the rest of the pro war choir suit up and fight.
Yep, it's obvious that Palin has made her deal with the devil. The neoCon hijacking of the Liberty movement via Tea Party is undisputable. And the MSM (mainly subversive media) has handed a leadership position to Palin in order to undermine any meaningful reform before it can happen.
If there's a lesson in this, it's a demonstration of the herd mentality being exploited by enemy forces. Sun Tzu would probably admire such skillful maneuvering, as it exhibits the validity of his teaching: How to win a war without going to battle.
The mooing and bleating that echo into this and other sites are a pitiful reminder that until the herd scatters and becomes an unmanageable independently-thinking, free-rangeing species, the routine trips to the milking and shearing will continue.
It is yet to be determined whether or not the S.S. Palin is gunboat or a Battleship.
But,
"The mooing and bleating that echo into this and other sites are a pitiful reminder that until the herd scatters and becomes an unmanageable independently-thinking, free-rangeing species, the routine trips to the milking and shearing will continue."
Walt, while you might have a good piece, I am tired of rhetoric like the dismal failure of the war on terror, the failed Bush years, yada yada. So I stopped reading.
That we fight terror is a sucess. I suppose you wish to fight it in another manner, vice surrender. I hope so.
Walt, you make Jahre's point. He states get into the GOP and do something, educate the rest.
Textbooks are important as well. Who are we to say what is taught in Muslem schools, or Columbia University, but over time we have seen the affects of both shrinking the Libertarian Population.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2010-02-14 17:10:29
As much as I've been a Palin fan for what being a pox on both their houses in Alaska, I have to agree with Walt. It's a national emergency; the vague policy generalizations are unacceptable.
Shouldn't the bank reform begin with promising "Never again," continue with exposing the Fed's books, and, it seems, reinstate the banking regulations of the 1940's through the 1970's?
I don't want to hear "smaller government"; I want specific unfunded federal mandates named, drawn and quartered in the public arena.
Palin thinks she needs to polish her foreign policy credentials... The domestic homework sure needs some help.
The danger to the tea party movement is that having stopped health care, having dunked the tea, they will not form a militia.
Posted By: Christopher London
Date: 2010-02-15 15:15:21
America’s Establishment has set up a wall of obfuscation and denial on the left and on the right to compartmentalize diminish and undermine legitimate inquiry into the events of 9/11. Obviously your right as a Patriotic American Citizen stops short of being able to ask Cheney what he knew in advance about the events of 9/11. There is a reason why some of America’s leading Propagandists are so well paid. Its tough work confusing and distracting the population about what is really going on in America. Once we all figure out, they will shut down the internet so we cannot communicate across state lines—all in the name of National Security of course
People who claim to be "anti-war" seem to forget that while it takes at least two to make peace, it takes only one to make war. Tell me how peaceful you'd be if someone came up and started beating on your mother or wife. Now, extend that concept to your country and way of life.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
