June 11th, 2009

Glenn Beck’s Broad Brush


photo credit: P.S.Zollo

Glenn Beck has an obsession with so-called “9/11 Truthers”.

At least, that’s what one must assume upon watching how he references this hardly-cohesive group of individuals in a fear-induced hysteria that the media has, in recent years, perfected into an art form. On yesterday’s program, while discussing the recent murder of a Holocaust memorial museum security guard by “white supremacist” James von Brunn, Beck couldn’t help but pounce on the “9/11 Truthers” connection Brunn apparently has (because, you know, you get better ratings that way than if you were to use his old age to talk about the nation’s geriatric terrorist threat). Labeling him a “hero” of the movement, Beck goes so far as to claim that like Al-qaeda, those seeking truth regarding the events of 9/11 would like to destroy America.

Wait, what?

While certain individuals associated with the “9/11 Truth” movement have hardly done justice to their cause nor been the epitome of model citizens, Glenn Beck’s attempt to broad-brush and smear journalistic dung all over the quest for truth is quite telling. This is hardly the first time Beck has sought an opportunity to target the community with a loose reference from a singular event; based on his behavior, I’m guessing it won’t be the last. But what this pattern shows is a concerted effort—whether his own or handed down from his corporate masters—to discredit individuals who in essence want nothing more than answered questions.

Frankly, the political discussion in America has taken a beating from such a coordinated and calculated coup on open-minded discussion. Certain subjects have become so sacrosanct and covered in historical concrete that to posit anything different—or even simply raise counter arguments for discussion’s sake—is considered unpatriotic, treated as borderline treasonous, and labeled as hateful of America. This “Goebbels-style deception”, as then-Elder Benson called it, is exceptionally effective at pushing truth down the memory hole, furthering corruption-laden conspiracy in government, and pitting ignorant citizens against their freedom-loving countrymen. When the ability to ask honest questions to your peers and demand answers from your government is suppressed and ridiculed, then Republicanism and Patriotism have been killed off and replaced with their deceptive look-alikes Tyranny and Slavery.

I, too, have questions about 9/11. Only the most gullible of citizens would not, when presented with the government’s official explanation riddled with holes. But it is offensive for Mr. Beck to assert that I participate in any movement that seeks to destroy my countrymen and my country. It is likewise ludicrous for him to claim that Mr. von Brunn was considered a hero by “9/11 truthers” prior to his crime, as I myself had never even heard of him before. While I may be an exception to the rule, I cannot tolerate any attempt to use a single, unrelated crime and a deranged individual to derail a movement that wants nothing more than honesty and truth. Glenn Beck’s opportunistic journalism piss party does far more disservice to his integrity and patriotism than it does to the “9/11 Truth” movement.

In reality, this attack on the entire movement of “9/11 Truth” is as absurd as trying to use Chris Matthews’ self-admitted journalistic bias and corruption to then claim that everybody in the media has the same agenda and desire. Who knows, maybe Glenn Beck also secretly gets a thrill up his leg when he hears Obama speak. Seriously though, Mr. Beck is not Chris Matthews, just as Mr. von Brunn is not everybody else with unanswered questions about 9/11. One man’s random rampage does not speak for the peaceable, determined actions of another.

128 Responses to “Glenn Beck’s Broad Brush”

  1. Sidney Carton
    June 11, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    Yet another example (among many) that Mr. Beck is a fool.

  2. Steve
    June 11, 2009 at 1:40 pm #

    I wish I had some “corporate masters”…

  3. Cameron
    June 11, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    I don’t watch Beck’s tv show, but I listen to his radio program a bit on my drive home. What’s ironic is that he is often derided for being too conspiratorial, yet here he is criticized for not being conspiratorial enough.

    What I have heard Beck say on more than one occasion is that there is no need to delve into conspiracy theories like the so called 9-11 Truthers. All it does is get you lumped into the same group as the geriatric terrorist in DC. In short, it gets you marginalized. Beck’s position, as I understand it, is that there is plenty of stuff on the surface to get your wickers ruffled and make a strong case for a return to Constitutional principles without joining forces with crazies.

  4. Connor
    June 11, 2009 at 2:22 pm #

    What’s ironic is that he is often derided for being too conspiratorial…

    Mr. Beck believes in what I like to call “soft” conspiracies. You know, the innocent ones where people just want to make a quick buck or keep a mistake from public scrutiny. Nothing with far-reaching implications, though, and nothing that really strikes at the root of what serious conspiracy “theorists” aim to expose.

    But this post is not to discuss the 9/11 conspiracies or anything related to them. Rather, I am trying to illustrate how unfair it is for Beck to use a lunatic murderer as an opportunity to stigmatize an entire group of people, many of whom reject violence, are not anti-Semites, and are a far cry from “domestic terrorists”.

  5. rmwarnick
    June 11, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    Glenn Beck says outrageous things for a living. It’s his job. Our job is to ignore him as much as possible so he’ll lose his job!

  6. Josh Williams
    June 11, 2009 at 5:01 pm #

    Surely you have more interesting and/or more pertinent news to report on, than a bit of gossip from a demagogue like Beck, Connor?

    NVM. its your website, I’m only to blame for viewing it.

    You’re right though, I can’t see how the actions of a violent paranoid anti-semitist has anything to do with WTC conspiracy theories. Total non-sequitur. That’s a totally different kind of paranoia.

  7. Kelly W.
    June 11, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    If Beck gave any credence to 9/11 Truth, he’d lose his job.

  8. Daniel
    June 12, 2009 at 6:41 am #

    If it’s any comfort, I also can’t stand 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but it’s based on their intellectual obtuseness and willingness to believe counterfactual things, and not because of any manufactured links to white supremacists.

    On the other hand, if Glenn Beck is arguing in bad faith, the recognisable pattern of the universe has been maintained.

  9. Edward
    June 12, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    Out of current political commentators, I think I agree with Beck on the most points. But this certainly isn’t one of those points.

    So what’s his problem? Has he had a bad run in with the “truthers” or what?

    I would agree that the hard-core truthers can be annoying at times. But trying to forge a link between a mad-man and a group of people that doesn’t accept the governments explanation for 9/11 is downright wrong. Beck ought to know better. It certainly isn’t consistent for Beck who distrusts pretty much everything that comes out of Washington, but all the sudden you get to an issue like the “truth about 9/11″ and he’s fine trusting the conventional wisdom and even takes it further to smear anyone that thinks otherwise.

    My problem with the 9/11 truthers core group is their willingness to accept that just about everything is a conspiracy. I like your list Connor of unanswered questions about 9/11–but Alex Jones has a list about 100 times that long filled with many weak and even absurd points. I know you have no allegiance to Jones, but I think it is people like him that give the 9/11 truthers their bad image as crazy conspiracy theorists. I can accept that Jones might have a few points right, but he takes the conspiracy claims to max on 9/11. And that is just one of his pet project conspiracies–he’s got quiver full of them of which many 9/11 truthers follow.

  10. Kelly W.
    June 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    What if Alex Jones only has ONE correct point on the list? That would make his list better than Bush’s list, which doesn’t have even one correct point to support his explanation of how 9/11 happened.

  11. Daniel
    June 12, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    Well, Kelly W., I’ve noticed that 9/11 conspiracy theorists approach the issue in an unhelpful way.

    If there’s a gap in the official explanation, an idealised reasoner would say something like, “Huh. I wonder what the explanation is. How could we find out?” And then they’d try to use evidence to find the answer, taking care not to jump to conclusions.

    A 9/11CT would say “Aha! More evidence that we’re right and that the government has been lying to us all along!” and so forth. They throw up doubt about any and all minor points, ignoring explanations they don’t like, so they can reach their foregone conclusion.

  12. Carborendum
    June 12, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    I’ve read elsewhere on the net that his “connection” to the truthers was that he had signed the petition for an independent investigation. But when this shooting occurred, and his signature was found on said petition, the truthers scrubbed his name. Does this sound consistent with a group who calls themselves “truthers”?

    I also have to wonder why everyone calls him a “Right-wing nut job” when apparently he is a registered Democrat. He hates Jews & Christians alike. He’s an evolutionist — I’m guessing that means he’s an atheist too, but hey, I believe in evolution too (to a degree). He’s a 9-11 truther. All of these are predominantly Left Wingers (apparently present company excluded — interesting). Oh, that’s right, he also hates blacks which would make him a Right-wing whack job. So I guess hating blacks trumps all the other more traditionally Left-wing positions. Good to know.

    I didn’t hear Glenn’s broadcast, so I can’t speak to it directly. I can say that he gets tired of pretty much ANY fringe conspiracy theory because he’s looked into most of them and was not able to find any hard evidence to support a conspiracy. He’s also stated numerous times that there are much more plausible explanations that he HAS come across that do seem to fill in the holes.

    Unfortunately, I have yet to hear him give a point for point discussion on the matter. But I’ve seen enough of such dissertations to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    I read your article about your “questions” regarding 9-11. And, uhm, Connor, I’ve normally found you incredibly informed, thorough and logical. But those questions were extremely superficial, short-sighted, and childish. I’ve found other questions that are much more juicy and sinister. But I haven’t found any basis for those accusations either.

    I could answer every one of those questions for you. Granted, I don’t have any evidence to prove those answers. But neither do the “truthers” for their conspiracies. And my answers are much simpler, down-to-earth, and based on principles YOU have outlined on this very website.

    Yes, there are unanswered questions as far as the crucible of a trial or independent investigation, but there are lots of explanations that have holes in them. Doesn’t make it wrong. It just makes it incomplete.

    In short, I can sum up my position on 9-11 conspiracy with this:

    “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

  13. Daniel
    June 13, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    Carb, I understand why righties are desperate to purge their association with this man, but trying to turn him into a leftie is beyond pathetic.

    He believes in evolution, therefore he must be an atheist? Nazis are liberals? 9/11 truthers are liberals?

    You are flailing. Stop.

  14. Kelly W.
    June 13, 2009 at 9:38 pm #

    I will refrain from voicing my personal opinion on the culprits behind 9/11, but I will paste below a news item I found on the internet about Glenn Beck and how he and Fox News are being sued for defamation over Beck’s comments:

    An East Coast 9/11 truth activist is preparing to file a defamation lawsuit against TV / radio personality, Glenn Beck, the producers of the Glenn Beck Program, and the Fox News Channel.

    Specifically, Greg Hoover will be suing the above-described defendants in Federal Court for Beck’s having repeatedly broadcast statements characterizing those who question the government’s official version of the events of 9/11 as, “anarchists,” “terrorists” and as persons denying the Holocaust.

    The complaint will note that – on October 22, 2007 – Beck suggested that those identifying themselves as associated with the 9/11 truth movement are “dangerous” “anarchists” who deny the Holocaust, and are “the kind of group that Timothy McVeigh would come from.”

    The suit will also note that during Beck’s June 10th broadcast Beck linked the murder of the Washington D.C. holocaust museum guard with “9/11 truthers.”

  15. Carborendum
    June 14, 2009 at 8:10 am #

    1) The 9-11 truthers began (or at least got a huge boost) because of Michael Moore. Are you really going to argue he is a conservative? The movement continued among people who didn’t liike Bush. Despite historically low ratings, there are still more liberals that hate Bush than Conservatives. Do the math and you can conclude there is truth to this.

    2) I understand the evolution/atheist thing is a broad generalization. That is why I qualified it by including that fact that people like me believe in evolution as well as God. But are you really prepared to argue that most people who believe in evolution believe in God? Are you prepared to argue that most people who believe in evolution are conservative? If so, I’d like to hear the arguments and any facts you can present. If they’re good, I’ll change my position on that one.

    3) I never said Nazis are lefties. Although I have heard many others say that. I haven’t taken the time to look into what their basis is. Without knowing their arguments I can’t agree or disagree. But please don’t put words into other people’s mouths, you’re flailing.

  16. Carborendum
    June 14, 2009 at 8:26 am #

    Daniel,

    I’m well aware of your penchant for insults as an M.O. for your debating tactics. But calling me pathetic and saying I’m flailing isn’t an effective way to convince anyone of a debating point.

    How about if you make a case for him being a conservative? But since I’ve already admitted the Black argument, prove I’m wrong about any of the others.

    For instance, why was he a registered Democrat? Was I misinformed? You can follow the link I posted.

  17. Daniel
    June 14, 2009 at 11:56 pm #

    Carborendum:

    You are not pathetic. You are fine. The tactic you brought up is pathetic. Sadly, you’re not alone in using it. The entire know-nothing branch of the right wing, from Goldberg to Breitbart, has been diligently engaged in hanging some really terrible things onto liberals. It’s dishonest. Please don’t succumb to the temptation.

    The kind of things that the shooter was into (9/11 stuff, birther stuff) are the same kinds of things that right-leaning anti-government folks are into, including some on this site. However, I don’t want to make Beck’s mistake and extend it by saying that people here have any responsibility, and that’s because
    1) the guy was also into a lot of Nazi/White Supremacist stuff, and
    2) someday an atheist is probably going to shoot someone, and then what will I say? probably something about George Tiller, but anyway.

    To your points.

    1) Michael Moore has never been a big 9/11 guy. He did question why the Saudi family was allowed to fly out of the USA on 9/12 when the rest of the country was grounded. Hardly a lynchpin of the movement.

    Yes, lefties hated Bush, but — scan this blog — there’s not much love for him among the ideological right.

    There may be some 9/11 folks among the left — which makes Beck’s argument even dumber — but I think you’ll find it’s more an anti-government far right thing.

    2) The shooter was not big on evolution. The only thing he says about it in his ‘manifesto’ (no, I’m not going to link to it) is one passing reference to whites becoming weaker if they bred with ‘inferior’ blacks. Never mentions Darwin. He’s too busy complaining about Jewish people.

    3) You’re missing my point. The guy was a Nazi. Nazis are not lefties. Any attempt to tie him to the left hits a big roadblock: the Nazi thing.

    4) He may have been a registered Democrat — in 1968. For that matter, Reagan was a Democrat in 1968. In fact, there were lots of Democrats in the South then. A lot of them changed to Republicans when Nixon dog-whistled them with his Southern Strategy.

    I don’t want to make the case that he’s a conservative. He’s the fringiest of the fringe. And if he were, so what? That’s not my game.

    And I don’t mean to insult you. I’m saying you’re smarter than this dumb argument.

  18. Carborendum
    June 15, 2009 at 11:28 am #

    I’d really like to see some statistics on truthers. How many of them are left-leaning vs. right-leaning. It is easy to make an argument for either. But has anyone ever taken any polls? All I can find is “do you think the government had something to do with the 9-11 attack?” Talk about a generic question. Anyone seen some more specific questions?

    Wiki says that adherants are largely liberal while it also contains members across the political spectrum. But it doesn’t give actual numbers.

    Daniel,

    Your statement about Michael Moore was enlightening. I had downloaded a movie that was supposed to be Farenheit 9/11. It was a conspiracy theory movie. After your comment, I went to look up Farenheit 9/11 from imdb and Wiki. Apparently, the movie I saw was NOT Farenheit 9/11.

    Thanks for your correction. I’ll have to re-think that one.

    I’m still looking into the evolution thing.

    I’m not entirely convinced of the left-right thing with Nazi’s. Indeed it can be difficult to compare today’s American politics with German politics over a half-century old. But the primary argument that I’m inclined to listen to is that Nazi’s were “National Socialist” (from which the term Nazi comes). That sure sounds like a liberal philosophy to me. I’ll keep looking into it.

    The link on the Democrat comment didn’t really address our question here. It was a bunch of guessing–no evidence. Did I get the wrong link?

  19. Kelly W.
    June 15, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    carb, I’m a truther all the way. I don’t know of any stats on left vs. right in my truth group. From what I’ve experienced in the many people I’ve talked with who are fellow truthers, we are mostly grossly disappointed in both left AND right wing views. I would guess that many truthers have leanings towards the Constitution Party or Libertarians. I think most truthers are extremely disappointed in both the mainstream Republicans and the mainstream Democrats. I believe we consider both Repubs and Demos different sides of the same coin, a bad coin at that!

  20. Kelly W.
    June 15, 2009 at 1:54 pm #

    Some of the left-leaning truthers backed Kucinich, and the right-leaning truthers backed Ron Paul. In fact, the Kucinich backers didn’t like Clinton or Obama, and the right-leaners didn’t like McCain.

    I think it’s funny how the media avoided Ron Paul, but now he seems to get a lot of face time because of his comments on the economy, torture, etc. The media treat him much better now!

    Ron Paul was caught between a rock and a hard place when he got questioned about 9/11. He hedged his words very carefully, but said he supported a new investigation of 9/11.

  21. Chris
    June 15, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    Daniel,

    Nazis are liberals?
    One of the biggest re-writings in history is that fact that many believe that the NAZI’s were right wing. Now as Carbo has pointed out the very name of NAZI means the German Socialist German Worker Party. Hitler always talked about National Socialism. No sane person can argue that anyone on the right is a fan of socialism. That doesn’t mean all liberals are socialists but socialists are exclusively located on the political left. Hitler early on was a huge fan of Mussollini who has adored by the Progessives in the USA. Progessives are mostly found on today’s left wing but that is another debate all together.

    The entire know-nothing branch of the right wing, from Goldberg to Breitbart, has been diligently engaged in hanging some really terrible things onto liberals.
    Of course liberals are completely innocent doing the same thing right? Note the huge amount of sarcasm in that question. Liberals have painted incorrectly NAZI’s as right wing for decades which is pretty much the worst thing you can call someone. They fane moral outrage over the waterboarding of three terrorists in GItmo but don’t bat an eye when 40+ million babies are aborted. 50,000 of which we late term abortions performed by the late Dr. Tiller.
    It must suck when the left’s MO is used against them? I don’t really care if the crazy shooter was on the left or the right. He was crazy! No sane person approves of his actions and that is how it should be.
    As for the “Truthers” I have gotten into that in the past and many on this site refused to debate it with me so I doubt things have changed. Who knows if there are more liberals or libertarians. Personally I think they are all a bit paranoid.

  22. Carborendum
    June 15, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    Kelly,

    Can you give a link of Ron Paul supporting a new investigation? What I have read says otherwise. But it may be outdated.

    What I heard him say was statements like:

    “Whenever the government investigates something there’s always some degree of cover up” — I agree. But that is so generic that I feel I can believe that and not consider myself a “truther”.

    “I have used the CIA’s own 9/11 report to back up many of my positions on the war on terror.” This was to emphasize that he believed the 9/11 report to be generally accurate.

    From what I saw, his reactions, and his statements, my considered opinion is that he really wasn’t aware that so many of his supporters were conspiracy theorists. When people asked questions, he gave answers that would indicate he believed the question came from a person motivated by basic curiosity — not from one inclined towards conspiracy theory.

  23. Carborendum
    June 15, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    Daniel & Chris,

    I also don’t believe it is fair to label this guy right or left. He was nuts and that is all people ought to understand about his philosophy.

    The reason it concerns me is that I was listening to a progressive radio program the other day (I try to get all sides of an issue). They painted this guy as the poster child for conservatives. Then they used this incident to back up what Janet Napolitano stated about right-wing and third-party groups.

    Then the coup-de-grace: “When will this country wake up and realize we need to lock up all conservatives, gun-owners, Ron Paul Libertarians, & Christians?! Islam is a religion of peace. Yet these Christians keep killing people in our own country in the name of religion and . . .”

    He was a nut job. Plain and simple. I never even considered whether he was right or left until I heard this broadcast. I didn’t care. The nut job explanation was fine for me. And I didn’t even stop to consider if there was some sort of government conspiracy involved.

  24. Kelly W.
    June 15, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    Carb, I had to do a little googling to find a quote of Ron Paul supporting a new 9/11 investigation. Perhaps this is a good place to start:

    http://www.jonesreport.com/article/01_08/100108_rp_911.html

  25. Connor
    June 15, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    No sane person can argue that anyone on the right is a fan of socialism.

    Um, really? I’ve got dozens of examples. You’d have to be totally blind not to see the socialist policies that have permeated past Republican administrations (and sessions of Congress). Seriously.

    I must be going insane…

  26. Chris
    June 15, 2009 at 4:50 pm #

    Carb,
    I agree with you. I was just trying to be a peacemaker on this topic. As I mentioned in my comment the left always does this. They can’t resist. The right is guilty every now and then but it is not normal operating procedure like it is on the left. Only ideologues blame people other than the perpertartor. I think most rational people know this. I am not saying anyone here is crazy like that, I was just hoping we could debate more substantive things.

    Connor,
    You are so contentious! To avoid drawing this out into a big long debate which you’ll quit halfway through I’ll explain what I meant. On the left exists socialists, communists, total government people. One the right exists anarchsits, libertarians, and conservatives, little to no government people. I am sure you don’t think conservatives are part of the right but in my and most true conservatives views those people aren’t really conservatives. TR, Nixon & both Bushes for example are/were pretty progressive on many social issues so by definition aren’t really conservatives. The right left labeling isn’t based on democrat vs republican but on their view of the size of gov’t. We both know that the modern Republican party can hardly be described as being on the right in this sense. If our past Presidential candidate didn’t prove that to you I don’t know what will.

  27. Daniel
    June 15, 2009 at 8:21 pm #

    One of the biggest re-writings in history is that fact that many believe that the NAZI’s were right wing. Now as Carbo has pointed out the very name of NAZI means the German Socialist German Worker Party. Hitler always talked about National Socialism.

    Sorry, Chris, but it’s you who’s doing the re-writing.

    Nazis were right-wingers. They found most of their political allies on the right. They were supported by anti-communists and anti-Marxists. They were anti-homosexual, and they were racists. They promoted extreme patriotism and nationalism, backed by military might. All these have long been features of the ultra far-right side of the spectrum, not the left.

    Yes, Hitler called his party the National Socialists, but this was a misnomer. It’s like when a totalitarian dictatorship calls its country ‘the People’s Democratic Republic of…”. You can’t take always these things at face value. Far from being economic leftists, Nazis abolished unions, and the right to strike. The means of production was not in the hands of the workers. It was actually closer to a kind of aristocratic capitalism.

    It’s ludricrous to try and claim that Nazis were some kind of leftist group. The only reason someone would try and do that is if they were a right-wing extremist, and they were worried that they were going to get tarred by association. A normal rightie doesn’t worry about that kind of stuff. Like, I can tell you that Mao was a total bsatrad, but I’m still a left-leaning guy. I don’t try to claim that Mao was a right-winger. I don’t worry about it because I’m not a Maoist. You see what I’m saying?

  28. Carborendum
    June 15, 2009 at 9:28 pm #

    Kelly,

    Your link to the Ron Paul video is what I’ve been talking about. He didn’t seem to be couching his words carefully at all. He said something as clear as can be: A GOVERNMENT AGENCY WAS VERY INEPT IN THE EXECUTION OF ITS DUTIES.

    Again: Never attribute to malice what could easily be attributed to stupidity. Instead your first inclination is to jump to the conspiracy theory.

    Applying Occam’s razor, Given the two options, it is a whole lot easier to believe in government stupidity than government conspiracy. Yes, all the questions I’ve heard can be explained by a conspiracy. But they can just as easily be explained by looking a little closer or a little broader. Then when we see the true details and the true context, a simpler explanation emerges.

    I often wonder why so many of the conspiracy theorists pose questions with assumptions that were never in people’s minds to begin with. Such as calling these collapses “mysterious”. Who said they were mysterious? To the people on the ground (firefighters etc) the cause of collapse was obvious. What was mysterious about a building falling down after 8 hours of a large fire?

    Then the misleading data and questioning. They call the remains a small pile of rubble. It may look like a small pile of rubble in a photo on a small computer screen. But if you measured it out on site, I guarantee it was a HUGE pile of rubble.

    It is because of these tactics that make me believe that whoever started these things or whoever propogates them is either uninformed, gullible, or sinister.

    Could I be wrong? Sure I could. But I don’t think so. The reason I say so is simple. I spend a lot of time on sites like Snopes, and Straight Dope. After reading a lot of these, you get to develop a sense for urban legends. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is a tremendous neon sign of the tell tale signs of an urban legend.

  29. Carborendum
    June 15, 2009 at 10:01 pm #

    Nazis: I’m going to go back to my previous statement again. It is difficult to compare 1930s and 40s German politics to 21st century American Politics.

    I’ll focus on racism as an example.

    1) Hating minority races tends to be considered the far right.
    2) Deliberate separation of races tends to be left. (not even far left).

    Examples:
    Affirmative action. Encouragement of minority owned businesses and granting of special privileges and preferential treatment for the same.

    Encouraging minorities to ONLY do business with businesses owned by their same race. (I believe this is further to the left but not very far). This isn’t much different than the Nazi party encouraging the boycotting of Jewish owned businesses. Hey if you’re an Aryan, you should only do business with businesses owned by other Aryans because the Jews have too much money. It’s not fair to us Aryans. If you’re black you should only do business with other blacks because whites have too much money. It’s not fair to us blacks.

    After studying more about the party, I understand that it is not fair to call Nazism Right or Left. But rather, it is the perfect example of the 2D political spectrum model. Nazism is extreme authoritarian (Y-axis).

    Chris’s last post blames it all on the left. Get so busy talking about right/left that you ignore the fact that both right and left politicians are taking us towards the authoritarian direction. It’s just easier to blame the other side rather than see that there is a completely different dimension to the political spectrum.

    Both right and left citizens want more freedom. We just argue over what freedoms are more important than others. Politicians don’t want us to have freedom at all. They just want more authority for themselves and less authority for we the people. If they give us just enough freedom to hang ourselves with, but not enough to save ourselves, then we end up giving all the power to the government so they can save us. Then we find out that it is they who are putting the noose around our necks. Too late.

    I’ve changed a lot of my political ideology since I started blogging over the past few years. The main thing I’ve come to understand is that the people fight with each other far too much to ever have a hope of fighting the government. I thought the Constitution guaranteed that WE THE PEOPLE are the government. Well, I guess I was misinformed again.

  30. Chris
    June 15, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    Daniel,
    First off I think you need to read my entire last comment. The political extreme left first off promotes total government while the political extreme right promotes anarchy. That is the scale I am talking about. The true political scale not the fabricated one made up by the two parties. If you want to argue that Hitler was not a totalitarian then go right ahead. Now as for Hitler being a socialist. I guess I can’t blame you. High school education these days isn’t very good at teaching the truth. People still believe that the Neal Deal brought us out of the Great Depression.

    Now to list the ideological beliefs of Hitler and the Nazi’s and see which side it fits on. Hitler promoted vegetarianism, environmentalism, to “transcend” classes. Hitler despised the bourgeoisie, traditionalists, aristocrats, monarchists. Which is why many of these type of people fought against him during his reign. He was an activist reactionary and went against the status quo. The Nazi’s and communists often voted together in the Reichstag. German Communists also operated under the motto “Nach Hitler kommen wir” “After Hitler we take over” or “First Brown then Red.”

    The Nazi’s like many others on the left were anti-semitic and loved identity politics. Hitler always tried to convince everyone that he was a “exworker.” They called each other “comrade” used “class conscious proletarians” Heck, even the Nazi flag was chosen to appeal to communists. Hitler said in Mein Kampf, “We chose red for our posters after particular and careful deliberation…so as to arouse their attention [communists] and tempt them to come to our meetings.” And last but not least. The Nazi’s actually campaign as socialists. They were also nationalists as you said but that doesn’t mean they were right wing because that would mean Castro, Chavez, Stalin, FDR etc and others must also be right wingers because they were nationalists.

    Karl Radek communist and half jewish in 1923 said, “Fascism is middle-class Socialism and we cannot persuade the middle classes to abandon it until we can prove to them that it only makes their condition worse.” In 1928 at the behest of Stalin the Third International advanced the doctrine of “social fascism” which held the belief that there was no real difference between a Social Democrat and a Fascist or a Nazi. According to this theory and in Stalin’s own words a liberal democrat and a Nazi “do not contradict each other,” but “complete each other. They are not antipodes but twins.”

    They were anti-homosexual, and they were racists. They promoted extreme patriotism and nationalism, backed by military might.
    So these views makes them right wingers huh? So being extremely proud of one’s country makes them a right winger? So by your judgments all of the Founders must have been right wingers. Of course by the traditional political scale they would be and not because of their “extreme patriotism.” By default that would mean the liberals are not patriotic. Remember this is according to your scale not mine. Also, being backed by the military does not denote a political ideology. Mao, Ho, and countless others must also be “right wingers” again according to you standard.

    The means of production was not in the hands of the workers. It was actually closer to a kind of aristocratic capitalism.
    Or in other words a total governmental control over the economy also known as fascism. A few mega corporations in bed with the government like the Krupp family for example. Another name for it is “state capitalism.” Of course he abolished unions because what use would a dictator have of unions? It doesn’t mean he was against the working class if just means he wanted power and wanted to limit the power of others. When has any “socialist” gov’t ever placed the means of production in the hands of the workers? That is just what they say to win their support but it never has really happened in any socialist country.

    It’s ludricrous to try and claim that Nazis were some kind of leftist group. The only reason someone would try and do that is if they were a right-wing extremist, and they were worried that they were going to get tarred by association.
    That is because that is what many liberals do. Any Republican that supports Bush must be a Nazi. Actually the use of labeling people a Nazi for political purpose began in Stalinist Russia. Leon Trotsky co-founder of the USSR was labeled a “Nazi agent” so Stalin could get rid of him. A strategy he used often to “purge” people. This tool has now been taken over by liberals and others on the left to denounce their opponents and polarize them in an attempt to silence and delegitimize their opinions. No, you liberals have done a very good job at labeling people something they are not. The conservatives do have a sordid history at times but as we must accept our failures during the Civil Rights era and a few others so must you accept your failures. If you were honest and did some digging into the real history of the political left and the Progressives you’d soon discover that you have more skeletons in the closet than us on the right does.

  31. Chris
    June 15, 2009 at 10:39 pm #

    Carbo,
    Chris’s last post blames it all on the left. Get so busy talking about right/left that you ignore the fact that both right and left politicians are taking us towards the authoritarian direction.
    Um… When did I blame everything on the left? I don’t remember blaming anyone or anything. I mentioned a truth you seem to aknowledge that the left loves labeling people with often times incorrect labes such as Nazi, fascist, homophobe, racist, etc. I also just explained about the real political spectrum of total/authoritarian gov’t on the left and anarchy/no gov’t on the right. That is the true political spectrum not these phoney baloney Dem’s vs Republicans because we all know the R’s are pretty much liberals in disguise for the most part and the Dem’s are dang near if not socialists for the most part.

    Also, just so you know Daniel I am not accusing liberals or left wingers as Nazi’s or anything of the sort. That would be stupid and just plain wrong! Just to educate you that Nazi’s were in fact socialists mixed with a few modern right wing concepts but they were socialists, no if’s and’s but’s about it! There are many good books out there about the subject if you’d like to learn about it?

  32. Daniel
    June 16, 2009 at 4:43 am #

    Carb:

    You’re a Doper? I knew I liked you for some reason.

    Chris:

    The political extreme left first off promotes total government while the political extreme right promotes anarchy. That is the scale I am talking about. The true political scale not the fabricated one made up by the two parties.

    Okay, now I see the problem. Your definitions of left and right are incorrect, and by ‘incorrect’, I mean ‘based on cartoonish generalisations from Fox News’. In fact, there are lots of right-wing authoritarian states, and there are lots and lots of left-wing anarchists. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own definitions of words.

    Let me give you an exercise. Go to a university near you (or email, if it’s too far away). Find out who their 20th century Europe person is. Ask him or her, “Was Hitler a leftist?” Find out what they say. And don’t dismiss this person just because they’re at a university, and universities are crawling with leftists. These are people who are devoting their lives and talents to understanding what’s been going on in history. They’re aware of the current thinking in the field, and they’re able to avoid the naïve traps that uninformed laymen like you and I fall into.

    I think you’ll find that there’s really very little doubt among informed historians that Hitler and the Nazis were not the vegetarian hippie communists that you’re painting them as.

    It really is amazing. We’ve had a lot of far-right-wing nutcases go berzerk and shoot people lately, and I would have expected conservatives to denounce the violence that comes from the crazies over their end. Instead, they deny that right-wing extremism even exists, and then they claim that the perps are actually leftists based on superficial and contrived similarities.

  33. Connor
    June 16, 2009 at 9:07 am #

    Chris,

    You are so contentious! To avoid drawing this out into a big long debate which you’ll quit halfway through I’ll explain what I meant.

    I don’t consider it contentious to call you out on the carpet. Rather than being contentious, I simply grow tired very easily of people who cling to the false left/right dichotomy, which you have repeatedly done on this and other threads.

    Carb linked to the 2D political spectrum model which does a far better job at illustrating that the left and the right are meaningless labels that distract people from the lust for authoritarianism that they both share. This video also does a good job at explaining what the true spectrum of political ideology looks like.

    As per jumping ship on a thread, I think that in some circumstances it’s wise to follow the mission practice regarding Bible bashing. Sometimes a conversation is simply so unproductive that it’s best to just walk away.

  34. Chris
    June 16, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    Carb,
    I knew you would still deny it that is why I also spent so much time stating Hitlers socialist policies. Curious that you didn’t even try to counteract what I provided but I guess it would be folly since it is true.

    Your definitions of left and right are incorrect, and by ‘incorrect’, I mean ‘based on cartoonish generalisations from Fox News’.
    So your definition would be? Though my spectrum is true and very accepted in both the political science and historical communities. Admittedly it isn’t the most prominent or only the acceptable version. Individual rights vs no rights is a very correct spectrum.

    Go to a university near you (or email, if it’s too far away).
    My information is from university professors and several books written by professors. So try again. There is an argument whether Hitler was in fact a vegetarian but he at least played vegetarianism and animal rights off in the public to try and prove the moral superiority of the Nazi cause.

    It really is amazing. We’ve had a lot of far-right-wing nutcases go berzerk and shoot people lately..
    I really didn’t want to argue such a trivial matter but ok. Mr. Brunn hated Fox News, Bill O’reilly’ wanted to blow up the Weekly Standard, was anti-semitic, anti-Israel, etc. etc. Seems to me that would put him on the ideological left. No one ever talks about ALF or ELF who are the leading domestic terrorists both of which are undeniabely left wing. So if you want to play this for that game you would lose. Again this argument is stupid and only a devout ideologue would try and label a crazy as being part of the normal political sphere. Let’s try and stick to the rational, honest world please Daniel.

  35. Carborendum
    June 16, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    I think the problem is that Chris got this from Glenn Beck (I’m guessing). Don’t get me wrong. I like Glenn for the most part. The reason I’m guessing you got this from Glenn is that this is how he sees it. He calls it the false right/left vs. the true right/left.

    Instead most people look at these as x/y axes rather than true/false right/left.

    On the other hand I personally look at it as a 3D globe. Anarchy is at the north pole, totalitarianism is at the south pole. There are all sorts of political spectra along the equator.

    But no matter which path you take going south, you’re still going south. There are some conservatives who would love more authority in government. There are some liberals who would love more authority in government. While we’re still around the equator, we have vast differences in how we can do things. But the further south we go, the more similarities between the different policies.

    The difficulty with something like Nazism is that we are used to only 4 hours of the 24 hours around the globe. Nazism is so far on the other side of the globe AND so far south that it is difficult to categorize into the small portion of the globe we’re used to.

    I say it is a globe because I imagine there are issues that the far far right and the far far left can agree on, but we in the middle would find too far off the fringe for any of us.

    I also imagine a globe because the equator is a good place to be. If too far south, the government constricts our choices. Too far north and anarchy prevents progress. Stay near the equator and there is enough room for those on the right AND on the left to mostly do as they please.

  36. Carborendum
    June 16, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    BTW, Glenn gets his analogy from the 5000 year leap. Unfortunately he put his own twist on it.

    Skousen never said that the two scales were true or false. He merely said the founders looked at the one scale, while we in today’s politics tend to look at the other one.

    I don’t believe he put them together into a 2D model.

    Hitler didn’t really care what policy the public bought as long as he got the power. He would lie and make friends with whomever he needed to in order to get the power. So, you look at ALL the things he did and you realize, he never cared about the longitude. He only cared about the lattitude.

  37. Chris
    June 16, 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    Connor,
    I don’t consider it contentious to call you out on the carpet.
    Nor do I but it is how you do it that makes it contentious. You usually mix in back handed insults into all your arguments against me so that is why I feel you are always contentious. I am guilty of the same but have improved dramatically but I can’t say the same for you.
    Now about the video. I really don’t understand you because that is exactly the same spectrum to which I have been refering. 100% gov’t on the left and 0% gov’t on the right. Now I might not have made myself clear for which I apologize for the misunderstanding but it seems Connor that we are in agreement over which political spectrum we are using. I know you hate to admit it but we are in agreement. Which I knew was the case which surprised me more when you came out against me.

    Carb,
    Your spectrum is what I originally learned. That is why I proved Hitler was a socialist just in case your spectrum was used it wouldn’t matter. Now I don’t believe someone can be a true conservative if they aren’t for individual rights and a small gov’t. That is why I don’t belive the 3D political spectrum works. I’ve never heard of a non-authoritarian socialist gov’t because socialism denotes that the state runs the economy which would by definition make it a totalitarian, very high percentage of gov’t control.

  38. Connor
    June 16, 2009 at 12:14 pm #

    I really don’t understand you because that is exactly the same spectrum to which I have been refering.

    Au contraire. One of your original assertions was that Republicans were innocent of any socialist policies. Also, many of your comments lump Republicans and conservatives in with the “right”, thus presuming that this group of people favor small to no government (as is portrayed in the video). However, in practice there are few such individuals who actually practice what they preach on the campaign trail, and who truly favor downsizing government to the point that would be required to fit the “right” label shown in the video.

    What I’m basically saying is that Republicans and Democrats alike both favor big government (with Democrats it’s a given; with Republicans, just look at how government grew during the Bush years) and authoritarian control, and thus both fall into the “left” end of the spectrum shown in the video. Thus, those in power (from whatever party) are leftists, and on the 2D spectrum model, fall into the authoritarian camp.

  39. Chris
    June 16, 2009 at 12:35 pm #

    Connor,

    One of your original assertions was that Republicans were innocent of any socialist policies.
    I don’t remember saying this but I could have been misunderstood or maybe phrased something badly. Republicans have been guilty of socialist policies but not what I would consider a conservative.

    What I’m basically saying is that Republicans and Democrats alike both favor big government
    No argument here.

    Like I have said a few times now. The R’s over the past few years have in fact become big gov’t people which is why I don’t consider any big gov’t person as a conservative. R’s can be socialists but again that doesn’t make them conservatives. They only claim to be just like Obama claims to be a moderate when we all know he isn’t. There are some R’s who aren’t on the left side of the spectrum and those are the people I support. I feel like you are painting with a broad brush considering that Ron Paul is a Republican but no one could accuse him of being a big gov’t socialist person. Like I have said many times I agree with almost everything Ron Paul says domestically it is in foreign policy that I disagree with him which is why I can’t claim to be a true libertatian. Depsite what you think I am not a party person. I think the R’s for the most part have sold out. That is why I am devoted to my principles and not any party. If the R’s come back to where I stand then I”ll consider myself to be a Republican again but until that time I will not.

  40. Carborendum
    June 16, 2009 at 12:41 pm #

    Chris,

    You are arguing semantics. In order to have a productive debate, we need to define terms. According to Wiki, the definition of Conservative doesn’t have anything to do with size of government. You’re projecting that definition onto it. It has to do with values. People who are for old fashioned values are conservative.

    Liberal on the other hand has several different meanings. The classical liberal is essentially what we call libertarian. Today’s liberal is really a psuedonym for what was once progressive. In between, the liberals were for “new values” that would “free” us from “archaic thinking”.

    So, it is difficult to categorize because they keep changing the definitions and moving terms around so you don’t know what you’re getting.

    Progressive actually means that we always need to keep changing. Which direction? It doesn’t matter. We just keep changing policies because whatever is = bad. What we change to = good.

    But those earliest progressives (T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson, FDR) all implemented bigger government as their tool for change. Obama is also implementing bigger government as his tool for change. Each of them went a different direction. But we got change via big government.

    I see them all as on different longitudes. But they all took us south.

    RE: small government socialism. This can be achieved if we have a clear and limited definition of public goods, as well as limit the extent to which it effects us.

    Think about the family. It is a small socialist government. In some authoritative homes it may even be communist. There is a clear definition of just how far it goes. This is mostly in line with a libertarian philosophy (small government). There might be variations depending on what decade or century we’re talking about. But it is limited socialism.

  41. Connor
    June 16, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    I don’t remember saying this but I could have been misunderstood or maybe phrased something badly. Republicans have been guilty of socialist policies but not what I would consider a conservative.

    Here’s what you said in comment #21:

    No sane person can argue that anyone on the right is a fan of socialism.

    If Republicans are not on the right, then who is? And how do you define a conservative? More appropriately, if the overwhelming majority of Republicans self-identify as conservatives, how can you claim that 1) conservatives are on the right and 2) nobody on the right likes socialism, when Republicans are generally and synonymously termed “conservatives”, and have mired us in socialism just as much as their “left”/Democrat colleagues?

  42. Chris
    June 16, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Carbo,
    I guess I we will have to disagree with the definition of a conservative. While what you said was certainly true my view and the view of every conservative I know is that conservative is synonymous with small gov’t and individual rights. So I guess it depends on what dictionary or view you have of politics.

    Think about the family. It is a small socialist government.
    But wouldn’t the parents in most households be considered authoritarians? Kids only get a say when the parents allow them to get a say. My whole point was that socialism cannot exist without one level or another of authoritarian rule which all levels control most to all of the society.

    Connor,
    If you remember by argument about right vs left then my statement would be true. Real conservative, libertarians, and anarchists are not fans of socialism because they are for non-authoritarian/small gov’t, individual rights.
    R’s are to the right of the Dem’s but as you say they are both pretty socialistic right now so I don’t think there is many people on the “right.” If the scale you use if based on the two part system then ther R’s would be on the right but only because they are to the right of the Dem’s and not because they actually believe the views of those of us on the real right. Libertarians and anarchists would be the only ones I can think of who are actually on the right. I bet McCain thinks he is a conservative but no conservative would say he is, same with Bush in many cases. That is why most conservatives are leaving the R’s and going Independent. Just because someone says they are a conservative doesn’t mean they are. Actions speak louder than words. Again my view of conservatism is probably different than what you guys believe but I bet your views of libertarianism is different than many/some libertarians. My definition of a conservative is one who believes in small gov’t, low taxes, strong defense, free market capitalism, etc. etc. The list could go on but I hope you get my point.

  43. Carborendum
    June 16, 2009 at 8:20 pm #

    Chris,

    Yes that is true. My point, however, is that it is a small government, and it is socialism. You were saying you can’t have small government socialism. Well, here it is. And unless I looked in the wrong dictionary again, the old-fashioned family order is a conservative value.

    As far as the definition of conservative or other terms we used here. If we can’t agree on the definition of the terms we’re arguing about, then the debate is pointless.

    I had a co-worker who insisted Mormons aren’t Christians (I can see a thread jack coming). His position was that the definition of a Christian was one who believed in the Trinity. He and every “Christian” he knew believed the same thing.

    I thought,”you’ve really got to get out of your circle a little more.” In no dictionary I’ve ever seen does it say that.

    Chris, I’m thinking the same of you. To your credit, there are many who believe the same as you. But many of these same individuals also cheer politicians for exceeding Constitutional limits and expanding government just because they have an “R” after their name.

    “It’s not facism if WE do it.”

    if you look at it in terms of the 2D model, couldn’t it be that YOU are seeing it as a line from the southwest to the northeast? That may be the BEHAVIOR of politics today. But it doesn’t explain a lot of politicians and it doesn’t give you an overall picture of what is really happening.

  44. Carborendum
    June 16, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    Daniel,

    I’m rather surprised to think of you as a Doper. I always found Cecil’s comments to be rather libertarian–or at least constitutionalist. For instance, he seems to be for gun ownership not personally, but based on the 2nd amendment.

  45. Chris
    June 16, 2009 at 9:12 pm #

    Carbo,
    I still don’t agree with you on the small gov’t socialism but that’s ok. It is not a big deal and I don’t think worth any more debate.
    Your other points were good but it is true with everything. Many people believe libertarians to be crazy pot heads that only want marijuana legalized so they can spend all day being high. Now of course this is a ridicilious claim but there is enough truth to it to make many people who are ignorant believe it. The same is true of the Mormons aren’t Christains and the conservative debate in my opinion. I guess a lot of it comes down to personal opinion since as you mentioned originally a liberal meant something far different than it does today. The people who think something is ok as long as their party does it are morons in my opinion. Something is either always wrong or always right (obviously not in everything but you get my point). If a Dem does it then it should be judged the same if an R does it. Selective outrage is stupid!

  46. loquaciousmomma
    June 16, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    Okay, now I know that this comment section has taken a decided turn away from the original post, but I would like to take it back. I have something I have been wanting to say to the universe for a long time with regard to this subject. This seems to be my chance.

    Our culture has taken a dangerous turn. Honest, open debate is seriously stunted because of attitudes such as Glenn Beck’s with regard to “truthers”, and other people who hold opinions that are not considered conventional.

    There is a social pressure to not even entertain certain ideas if you want to be considered acceptable company. It is evident in comments like Beck’s, as well as the way things are handled on tv shows and press conferences. The way Obama’s press secretary laughed and ridiculed “birthers” when a reporter simply asked him why Obama hadn’t released his long form birth certificate, is one example. Or the way Peter Schiff was literally laughed at and marginalized when he warned of the coming economic downturn on live tv interviews a couple of years ago for another example.

    The message is clear. it is absurd to think anything but what we tell you is kosher.

    The fact that we even have labels such as truther or birther, or “crazy conspiracy theorist”, as if asking questions suddenly makes one insane, shows how limited we really are.

    What would have been wrong with honestly answering the questions of those who refused to accept the official explanation of 9/11? Why not look at their ideas objectively and if nothing else, respect their right to think differently than everyone else? That is what our founding fathers fought for, a free society where discussion was open and limited only by the need to protect the rights of others from assault.

    There is clearly societal manipulation going on here.

    I readily admit that just as a man with a hammer sees nothing but nails, so it is easy to see a conspiracy in everything when you have first allowed yourself to consider it a possibility. Nevertheless, this weakness doesn’t mean that this line of thinking is wrong, it just means that it is important to be grounded in reality while investigating.

    I do not belong to any truther movements. I don’t frequent their forums or read a daily blog of a truther. I don’t know who the big names in this area are, or what they have done.

    I do, however, question the official explanation of everything that happened on 9/11. I do question Obama’s natural born citizen status. I do think there are people with too much influence over world events that are unelected and self-appointed. I don’t know who they are. I can’t say they are illuminati, or communists, or cfr, or whatever else has been suggested as the group to look out for. All I know is that things are not right in the world. They haven’t been for a long time.

    I know that the Book of Mormon clearly stated that there would be a conspiracy to “overthrow the freedom of all lands”, and we were warned to not let the conspiracy “get above” us. I know that Ezra Taft Benson said that there was no “conspiracy theory in the Book of Mormon, it is a conspiracy fact”.

    I know that “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” as Lord Acton said. I also know that according to the D&C that when a man is given a little power he exercises “unrighteous dominion”.

    It is the common “sense” that to suspect a common person of ill intent is understandable. We lock our doors at night, use alarm systems and other such things to protect ourselves from each other. And yet, when those same human beings become government officials, we suddenly think that they become sainted and beyond suspicion. Think about it. We trust them with the power to take away our very lives, if necessary, to keep order, and yet we don’t have a plausible way to ferret out their true motives or intentions. We are to simply trust them.

    This is the true insanity here. Giving men power over our lives and then refusing to be vigilant in keeping them honest is absolutely nuts. We need to make them nervous to ever do anything questionable for the consequences they would face.

    Gary Hart was shamed out of running for president because of marital infidelity. Such a measure of a politician was eventually laughed out of consideration as an intrusion into personal life, and a bad measuring stick. I say, however, if a man can’t keep his vows to his wife, how is he to keep his oath to uphold the constitution given the incredible temptations that power holds? One by one, all of our measuring sticks for a trustworthy ‘public servant’, have been deemed foolish, and we are now left with a large number of crooks and liars in our government. Those same men we are not to question.

    I love the United States of America. I love the constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. I would never want to see it destroyed, in fact watching it deteriorate has been painful for me. Yet, as painful as it is, I refuse to close my eyes and pretend that “all is well in Zion”. I want to know the truth.

    12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—
    13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—
    14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness.
    15 Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things.

    (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 123:12 – 15)

    I believe that Heavenly Father wants us to know the truth too. If we wear out our lives shining light on “hidden things of darkness”, we are doing His work. I find the verse “much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things” important. Could this be related to the Book of Mormon warnings about secret combinations? How are we to awake to our awful situation if we don’t know what is going on? Satan knows this and so he has carefully crafted the current climate to deter good people from knowing the truth.

  47. Daniel
    June 17, 2009 at 2:29 am #

    Connor:

    I’m going to have to disagree with you that left and right are meaningless labels, though I can see why you might have little use for them. (And this is not a personal criticism.) It’s just that almost anyone would seem left to you. Things would look a bit different to a moderate.

    If these terms are losing their meaning, it could be because some people (Goldberg, Malkin, Breitbart, Chris) are using them to mean the opposite of the meaning which has been conventionally established over the last forty to fifty years.

    Carborendum:

    Hecks, yes, I love the Straight Dope, and have done for about 15 years. How could I not? Cecil tests conventional wisdom with empiricism (yum), and I’ve always enjoyed finding out that stuff I used to believe was wrong.

    But do you think the skepticism + critical thinking they do over there might be harmful to religious belief? It was for me. Seeing so many cases of something being wrong (dowsing, astrology, etc.) even though people’s experiences tell them it’s right — well, you have to wall off the religious side of your brain so it doesn’t get affected eventually.

    I also have a great fondness for the 3D political model. We need another axis besides left and right, and authoritarian/non-authoritarian seems better than anything else. If you haven’t checked out psychologist Bob Altermeyer’s pdf book ‘The Authoritarians‘, I highly recommend it, no matter what your political inclination.

  48. Carborendum
    June 17, 2009 at 8:49 am #

    Daniel,

    I’d really love to have a discussion regarding critical thinking and religion, philosophy, politics, etc. But that is beyond the scope of this thread. Maybe Connor can come up with an article regarding this.

    Connor?

    Also, the 3D model is something I just made up. Are you saying you’ve heard of it before? From someone with a lot more credibility than I?

  49. Kelly W.
    June 17, 2009 at 9:42 am #

    Wow, loquasiousmomma, that was profound. I might like to add another scripture that says that in the Last Days, even the very elect will be deceived. The elect are definitely being deceived.

    We do need to find the truth, so it can set us free. When we are bound by the propaganda the government and media feed us, we are not free.

    We must waste and wear out our lives in finding that truth, and that truth is not to be found in Glenn Beck or Fox News.

  50. Carborendum
    June 17, 2009 at 12:00 pm #

    I think it is a question of how far another’s view is from yours and how far you can see.

    Example:

    I found a website that (if I understood correctly) stated that the Mormon Church was founded by some alien beings who wanted to subvert humans into slavery. That is why it is growing so fast. The alien technology that is given to the Mormons is what allows them to have mind control over their converts.

    Thesis:

    If I’ve been a member all of my life and I am well versed in all the general culture and teachings, I don’t even entertain such a wild notion. I know from first hand experience that there is simply no basis for it. I just roll my eyes, sigh, smile & nod. After I leave, I’ll call them crazy. :)

    Antithesis:

    If I’m a believer of alien contact with Earth, and I am already suspicious of Mormons, I would give a lot of credence to this theory. I might even propogate it. In fact, I would avoid Mormons in case they use that technology on me. I mean I’m keeping an open mind. But why take a chance on mind controlling technology?

    PLEASE DON’T TAKE OFFENSE AT THIS.

    I’m NOTsaying truthers are this ridiculous. I HAD to use a ridiculous example to illustrate that when you have first hand knowledge of something and someone brings something to the table that is FAR from where you know the truth to be, you tend to roll your eyes and call them crazy.

    With regard to the 9-11 attacks, Glenn has first hand knowledge of government officials, foreign agents, and has interviewed many of the police and firefighters who were on the ground. He’s developed a zeitgeist that is FAR from the conspiracy theory. WHY WOULDN’T HE ROLL HIS EYES?

    The fact that he won’t even entertain the questions about conspiracy anymore is understandable. Notice I said “anymore”. For a time, he was asking the questions too. But ONLY OUT OF CURIOSITY. Instead of jumping to the conclusion of a conspiracy theory, he researched it. He found something else to be true.

    I finally looked at the broadcast. I take exception to him lumping truthers into the same group as terrorists. I don’t know where the heck he was coming from. I’ve questioned some things that we disagreed on before. But I’ve never found anything like this come out of his mouth before. I’m shocked.

    At the same time, I’m going to make some categories here.

    Connor has presented his position on this theory as:

    “I have some questions that I wonder about”.
    (more-or-less)

    Some extremist websites I’ve seen present their position:

    “Because these questions aren’t answered, it’s proof that the government is out of control and needs to be replaced! By the rights declared in the Declaration of Independence, by whatever means necessary, we will remove them from office.”

    Of course, there is an entire spectrum in between. How many are that far out there? I dunno.

    There is never anything wrong with simply asking questions. You just have to ask someone wth a lot of patience.

    Another example:

    There is an urban legend (even perpetuated by school teachers to their pupils) that ice or snow will melt faster in cold water than in hot water.

    Anyone with common sense will tell you you’re very gullible. But I had the hardest time convincing my brother he was wrong when he came home with this from his teacher. I’m guessing someone on this blog also believed it. Back then I didn’t know as much about heat. I entertained the idea. I tested it. I explained it.

    Now that I’ve had more education in thermodynamics and heat transfer, it has become even more basic to me. Today I just roll my eyes when someone brings it up and I state that it is wrong. If pressed I probably wouldn’t even try to explain it to them. I would probably sideline them.

  51. Kelly W.
    June 17, 2009 at 12:36 pm #

    The 9/11 Commissioners themselves now doubt the “official” 9/11 story:
    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 Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”
    Indeed, they said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)
    9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access… .”
    9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
    9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

  52. Carissa
    June 17, 2009 at 3:53 pm #

    loquaciousmomma- who are you and why aren’t we friends???

  53. Daniel
    June 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    Also, the 3D model is something I just made up. Are you saying you’ve heard of it before? From someone with a lot more credibility than I?

    There have been a few attempts. I’ve seen left/right; ideological/pragmatic, which is interesting.

    The ‘Political Compass‘ uses left/right; authoritarian/libertarian (small ‘l’) as its framework. That one’s cool because it’s a test that you can take online. I’m -6.62, -6.56. Anyone else?

  54. Carborendum
    June 17, 2009 at 7:35 pm #

    I got a 1.88, -1.59 I guess I’m closer to center than I thought. I usually get more like 3,-9 on similar tests before.

    I like Momma too. From her post, I have one question for all of you:

    I know that in the last days, even the elect will be deceived. If you are one of the elect, how do you know if you are one of the deceived or if you’re holding to the rod?

    I always took it to mean that eventually, some elect will leave the Church walking after a false God, false Savior, etc. But if 9/11 is the issue (or at least one of the issues) of deception being talked about, why do I see still faithful members of the Church whether they believe in the conspiracy or not?

  55. Kelly W.
    June 17, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    9/11 is one of many issues that members are free to believe or disbelieve. The Church has declared itself to be politically neutral. The Church never even told the German Saints what to think about Hitler.

    But most of the elect Latter-day Saints will be deceived because they are more interested in American Idol and what they will wear to church next week. Latter-day Saints have been told to identify the Secret Combinations that will take power over them in the Last Days, but they cannot even begin to identify even one of those Secret Combinations. Since they cannot identify any Secret Combinations that are currently getting power over them, they are being deceived.

    Many of the current deceptions of today’s age are the official story of who shot JFK, the official version of Pear Harbor, the official version of the Gulf of Tonkin, the official version of the Kuwaiti incubator babies, the official version of the sinking of the Maine, the Northwood documents, the official version of the Oklahoma City bombing, the official version of the free-fall speed collapse of the World Trade Center building #7, and the list can go on and on.

    This is why the scriptures are so explicit when they separate the signs of the times into WARS and RUMORS of wars.

    Today’s Secret Combinations are working hard to keep the rumors of war secret.

    If we believe Moroni, we will strive to bring those secrets to light.

    I am striving to bring today’s secret combinations to light, and many of the elect are helping me do that. But, many of the elect choose to remain in ignorance.

    If you currently CANNOT identify some of the world’s secret combinations that fit the definition and descriptions the Book of Mormon prophets described, then you are one of the elect that are currently being deceived.

  56. Carborendum
    June 17, 2009 at 10:41 pm #

    Kelly,

    I may not know everything about ALL the theories you just outlined. But I can definitely say with authority that the WTC 7 collapse was not mysterious at all.

    In fact, my steel instructor described a very similar collapse occurring in the structurally similar twin towers after the first WTC bombing. He ridiculed the bombers for not consulting him on the structure of the building. Otherwise, they would have seen exactly why the first bombs didn’t work.

    Then he went on to describe what COULD bring down the towers. It was close to what actually happened. Bldg 7 was structurally similar to the twin towers. IT actually fell EXACTLY as my professor described 6 or 7 years earlier.

    I just don’t appreciate the misdirection. Statements like,”Steel doesn’t melt at that temperature. So it couldn’t be the cause of collapse.” Really? You’re trying to tell me about my own profession?

    A blacksmith doesn’t melt steel. He softens it.

    When supporting steam lines at 250 to 300 deg, we have to make special considerations for those lines in case it experiences an “upset” condition (basically something goes wrong).

    When steel temperature is around 400 deg, we have to change the properties of the steel in our calculations. Thermal stresses get so high at that point that if we don’t keep pieces small and allow movement the entire thing will explode without any explosive device. By this I mean you will hear BOOMS very much like a bomb going off. Imagine what happens when steel members over 1000 ft get hot and can’t move.

    At 600 degrees the steel gets so soft that it has about 80% capacity in strength and about 75% in stiffness (I’ll have to consult my books to see the exact number–but it’s close). Jet fuel burns at around 900 degrees. What do you think was happening to the steel?

    With concrete, insulation, glass, shear bulk of materials, the fuel kept burning, but the rate of burn and supply of oxygen was there without anywhere for the heat to go. It built up. Experts estimate that the temperature reached in the high 1000s (i.e. 1700 to 1900 degrees). This is hot enough to melt aircraft aluminum. Can you imagine how soft the steel was at this point?

    But all the conspiracy films and statements I’ve seen continue to point to: “jet fuel burns at this and steel melts at this.” True, but misdirected. What is the correct question to ask? What properties of steel, loading, and geometry were such that caused the collapse.

    Item after item that I looked into seemed to follow this pattern. It poses a superficial question that seems worthy of note. Then you have some true facts that are equally superficial that misdirect you into believing the “mystery”. Then they stop just short of giving you the complete facts that would reconcile the issue. But by then you’re sold. They’ve given you a hammer. Now you’re only going to look for nails. (Thank LQ Momma for that analogy).

    Look deeper AND broader. Keep an open mind. Don’t jump to conclusions. Ask the right questions. Find the experts on various subjects–not just someone with access to Google and Youtube.

    You’ve named quite a few conspiracy theories. Have you ever asked yourself if you are falling for the wrong conspiracy because YOU are being misdirected and decieved? And because of that you are missing the REAL conspiracy? If you believe in most of them then some of them are bound to be real. Well, yes, I guess I can believe that since I DO believe there is a conspiracy to destroy the US Constitution.

    I find it quite prideful of you to say that because I don’t agree with your assessment of what conspiracies are true or not that I must be the one being deceived. Don’t try saying you never said that. You all BUT said it.

    BTW I found out that the movie I saw was “Loose Change.” I don’t know why it was being sent about as Farenheit 9/11. Yet more misdirection. Thanks again to Daniel for correcting me on that one.

  57. Daniel
    June 17, 2009 at 11:47 pm #

    Not at all.

    That was a great comment, Carb. I predict it will have exactly zero effect. We’ll read the same thing next week. A lot of people think they see zombie-like conformity when in fact what they’re seeing is consensus.

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the most important thing is to be able to change your mind once in a friggin’ while. Learning to pick your experts would be a close second.

  58. Chris
    June 18, 2009 at 12:33 am #

    Carbo,
    Great comments! FYI a few people have gone through every second of “Loose Change” and “9/11 Mysteries” debunking every claim and assertion with science etc. Both can be found on the internet. Just add in the word “screw” before both names. They are quite long and very extensive.

    Kelly,
    It seems that for any event if every question isn’t answered you automatically think it is a conspiracy. For a gov’t that most people on this blog including myself believe is horribly inept and stupid they sure can run a conspiracy. Which makes conspiracy making is the only thing the gov’t can do with any skill or competence. I found that highly doubtful.

    Who shot JFK? Oswald did of course. There are I am sure unanswered questions to his motives and maybe a bigger player behind him but I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.
    Pearl Harbor? I think this is a huge stretch. Of course FDR wanted to get into the war but having spoken with many military/American historians about this none find any credibility to this claim.
    Gulf of Tonkin? LBJ took advantage of an initial report of the USS Maddox that due to bad weather and confusion reported it was being attacked (the second time) when it wasn’t. No conspiracy just a President who on bad intelligence did something he had been wanting to do for some time.
    Kuwait incubator babies? Never heard of this one.
    Sinking of the Maine? It has been proven for years that the ship blew up on its own. Something with the coal or something like that. Most people believed it was sunk by the Spanish and no way to prove otherwise until many decades later. Once again an opportunistic President taking advantage of a situation to do something he always wanted to do.
    Northwood documents? Never heard of this one.
    OK City Bombing? Never heard of this one.

  59. Daniel
    June 18, 2009 at 12:56 am #

    This thread has inspired me.

    New cartoon on my blog.

  60. loquaciousmomma
    June 18, 2009 at 11:21 am #

    Carissa,

    Thanks! We merely haven’t been blessed with the opportunity to meet yet. Some day…

    Kelly- I think the quote you are referring to is in Matthew 24:24 which says ” For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

    I take great comfort in the “if it were possible” part.

    I do agree with you, however that it is television that is causing many good people to be blinded to reality, if for no other reason than that it breeds complacency.

    From my perspective, the importance of the controversies you listed has less to do with the solving of each one, than the fact that they are opportunities to uncover the deception and self-interest that exists in the government.

    Chris:

    JFK: Here is the link for the Assassination Records Review Board from 1998. I haven’t read the whole thing, yet, but the first page clearly says that the reason there has been so much controversy has much to do with the secrecy surrounding it. The American people lost trust because there were apparent inconsistencies in the released facts, and much that wasn’t released at all.

    The Gulf of Tonkin, and the USS Maine incidents both were precipitating factors in US involvement in a war. Both have official records that leave questions. The official conclusion about the Gulf of Tonkin, which led the US to send troops to Vietnam, was that it was the result of faulty intelligence. The official conclusion about the USS Maine, which was the pretext for Teddy’s baby, the Spanish American War, is that “the cause of this tragedy has never been definitively resolved”.

    Pearl Harbor is a similar situation, in which legitimate questions have been asked. Even this piece of legislation (on page 117) concludes that critical naval intelligence wasn’t sent to the commander of the USS Indianapolis. Even though it was known that the Japanese sub was in the area, he was not warned. Was it ineptitude or intent? I don’t pretend to know.

    I do know that history has shown that our country is capable of horrible things intentionally. I was furious in my college US history class when I learned of the terrible way we acted toward the filipino revolutionaries we aided to overthrow the Spanish government there. We basically led them to believe we would help them to take their own government back, and then took it over ourselves.

    What is important here is that all of these things tell us to keep an eye on our government. Read legislation, ask questions, things are rarely what they seem any more. Here is an interesting little video from David Icke in Europe that raises a good question about this.

    Carb:

    Before I ever read this article, I was pondering on the very likely loss of the freedoms we have on the net. Most especially, the loss of access to information.

    This led me to the conclusion that this is one of the reasons it is absolutely crucial in this perilous time that we rely on the Holy Ghost. This is how we will know what is truth. I pretty much take most everything I read with a grain of salt, no matter who it is from. I try to feel for any inkling that the Spirit is whispering to me about what I am reading. I don’t pretend to be proficient at it. I am sure there are things I think are true, that I will find out one day were totally false. It is actually very likely, considering the amount of propaganda thrown at us daily.

    I do know, though, that we can make it hard for the Holy Ghost to talk to us if we dull our senses with media consumption, with limited or no scripture study, or with sin.

    This is how we can be fooled, even if we are otherwise faithful latter day saints. There is a reason the scripture says to “awake to your awful situation”. In order to wake up, you must be asleep. Many good members just haven’t awakened yet.

    I personally think that we are seeing the fulfillment of the promises Krushchev made to Pres. Benson. We are falling like ripe fruit into the hands of the communists. Whether the communists are the actual group that is behind everything and they are finally getting what they have been singlehandedly fighting for, or they are merely part of something bigger, I can’t say. I do know that this is the conspiracy to overthrow the freedom of all lands being enacted in our county.

    Here is a video that I hope gets your attention. Think about what has happened in our country in the last fifty years. See what is happening today. We are being manipulated, just like we manipulated the poor filipinos.

  61. Carborendum
    June 18, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    Daniel,

    What is up with your blog? I’m at work and the company’s filter is saying it has been deemed “offensive”.

  62. Daniel
    June 18, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    Cool!

  63. rachel
    June 20, 2009 at 6:30 pm #

    I heard Glenn Beck asking for people’s prayers the other day on his radio program. He said that things were getting dangerous for him and his staff because of the things he is saying. MAYBE he has to choose something to SEEM to not believe so that he will remain among the living. Maybe he really does believe along with the 9-11 Truthers but has to act like he doesn’t. He has a lot of exposure. If he started telling people about all the conspiracies, they’d kill him off, wouldn’t they?

  64. Chris
    June 20, 2009 at 6:52 pm #

    Rachel,

    Maybe he really does believe along with the 9-11 Truthers but has to act like he doesn’t.
    Ha ha ha! I highly, highly, highly doubt it.

    If he started telling people about all the conspiracies, they’d kill him off, wouldn’t they?
    Or could it be because there are many left wing crazies that send him death threats on a daily basis which is why he has had police outside his house from time to time to protect him and his family. This happens to anyone who has a microphone and uses it to criticize the far left agenda. The same can be said as true from the right but the left is far far worse.
    For someone who probably believes we invaded Iraq for oil and big business I think if the government wanted him dead they wouldn’t bat an eye to silence one dissenter. This whole topic is a bit out there on the paranoia scale.

  65. Daniel
    June 21, 2009 at 10:59 am #

    Chris: Where on earth do you think the violence is really coming from? I can name you a few right-wing crazies who have killed people in the last two months.

    Can you name even one left-wing crazy person who has killed someone recently? (Don’t say von Brunn.)

    There’s no comparison.

  66. Chris
    June 21, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    Daniel,

    I never mentioned violence per se but just plain evilness and intimidation etc. Have you ever been on the Daily Kos, Media Matters, or any other far left websites? They consistently advocated the assassination of Bush, Cheney, Rove, and many other people on the right. When Tony Snow became Bush’s Press Secretary they were writing openly that they wanted his cancer to come back and when he died they celebrated. They celebrated when Robert Novak got brain cancer. They ran the Palin’s through the mill saying all sort of nasty and horrible things.
    Now have you ever heard of ALF & ELF? They are extreme environmental groups that have cause $100 million+ in damage along with many assaults and luckily only a few deaths. Not to mention they are the country’s most dangerous and wanted domestic terrorists. Now the difference between these left wing groups and the few right wing groups is that the left wingers are main stream liberals now. The right wingers are thought as crazies and no one gives them any credence. Clinton & Obama both went to the Media Matters and Daily Kos conventions to pay homage to them. PETA which is an organization well inside the main stream liberal ideology and financially supports ALF & ELF. So I say again the left wingers are far more hateful than any one’s on the right. Just imagine I didn’t mention a thing about ACORN and the strong arm tactics used by Unions either not to mention abortion which is responsible for 40+ million deaths since Roe v Wade. Many of which for no other reason that they forgot to use protection…

  67. Carborendum
    June 21, 2009 at 3:30 pm #

    Rachel,

    You might think he’s hiding things he believes because he fears death or strong arm tactics. You’d be wrong. He may, however, hide things to maintain credibility.

    He is very careful not to state anything on the air as fact that he cannot support with good evidence. Suspicion is not enough. Unanswered questions are not enough. He has to have solid logic and evidence before he brings it up on his broadcasts. Otherwise the liberal media would get all over him about the tiniest infraction (e.g. who said hello to whom and when). Can you imagine how hard they would trounce on him if he stated he believed in the 9/11 conspiracy?

    Opinions however are a different matter. But you can’t talk about a government conspiracy as an “opinion” in his position without serious consequences. You can talk about a person’s character or whether something is good or bad, etc. But not a conspiracy. Thus when he says truthers are akin to terrorists, a truther group sues him for libel.

    Of all the things I’ve heard him say, I’ve disagreed here or there with his conclusions and opinions. But I haven’t ever been able to say his facts were wrong–until now.

    I’m sure there are some that are so far out there, that they would go out of their way to help terrorists to PROVE that the terrorists did not bring down the WTC. This is pure folly even to most who DO question the official story. I’m fairly sure there are some extremists out there who WOULD do as Glenn is indicating.

    But the fact is, you could make similar arguments about most any cross section of society (except for maybe the Amish). :)

    This time I think Glenn’s fault really is what Connor has labeled it: Painting with a broad brush.

  68. J. Crawford Smith
    July 14, 2009 at 9:26 am #

    I called Beck’s radio show about 5 years ago. He accused me of not understanding history. Told him I was a Marine Officer, and that I taught military history at Oregon State Univ. He called me a liar on the air, then hung UP ON ME. Then with the 3 second delay they get, he told the audience that I must have been an imposter because no “real Marine Officer” is against the war, and as “proof” that “I hung up on him.” NOT! I’ll show him “false flags” governments have used to control their own people throughout history. Beck is a corporate wolf, cloaked with a “Mormon” sheep skin.

  69. Carborendum
    July 15, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    OK, folks. I’m going to have to take a 90. Not quite a 180, but I’m being given reasons for pause.

    A paper just came out last month from over 700 architects and engineers regarding the collapses of the towers. They speak my language.

    I’ve read other sites with other papers and so forth. But all of them seemed hokey. (They used their preconceived notions to determine how to interpret the data rather than letting the data inform their opinions). They also used characterizations that really showed lack of understanding of structural principles. So I felt I had reason to feel a little superior in this regard. And they characterized everything from the conspiracy angle, more than the scientific angle.

    Now that I’ve had time to go through this paper by architects and engineers, I find them to be logical, their opinions are based on real scientific method and expert experience in the appropriate areas in which expertise is called for.

    In addition, I can’t find much to argue in the paper. Everything they said was based on sound physical principles on how a building stands and falls. Everyone who said anything about building structural materials knew exactly what he was talking about.

    I have one area where I would somewhat disagree. But my uncharacteristic humility will kick in here, and bow to those with greater experience and access to the evidence first hand.

    Everything about this paper makes me believe that capable, methodical scientists were applying all known principles into the analysis of these collapses and came to similar conclusions independently.

    Again, I can’t find much to argue about in the paper. It even countered several of my arguments I’d made previously. And it did so to my expert satisfaction.

    For instance, I had some ideas because I’m used to buildings that are designed to load upto 80% capacity. This building was loaded only to 10% capacity. That meant that the columns I had in mind were a lot smaller than what was actually there. I’d seen the sizes in other reports, but having never done the calcs myself, I assumed an 80% load. But this completely changes things.

    So, why the 90 instead of the 180? The paper leads us to believe that it was indeed caused by controlled demolition. The probability of it being a chance occurrence is very low. Understood.

    The question is: Who controlled the explosions? Was it the government? Was is the Gadiantons? Was it the Gadiantons controlling the govt? Was it another team of terrorists? Was it a group of little elves who delight in bloodshed? I DON”T KNOW!!!

    So, I’m now on the side that it was most likely (nothing is 100%) controlled. But I’m not ready to point the finger at a particular party without further investigation.

    And that, unfortunately, is what that group of engineers is asking for, but not getting. Hmmm.

  70. J. Crawford Smith
    July 15, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    To answer your questions Carborendum, Some of us have looked into who did it. 1. George Bush’s younger brother had the “security contract for the twin towers and the two airports in Boston and D.C. 2. For the first time in the buildings history ALL electricity was turned off in the twin towers above…(can’t remember exaclty, but I think it was about the 70th floor) the Saturday BEFORE 9/11. A network engineer talks about having to move his server farm from their floor weeks before 9/11 because of this planned electrical outage. google it.

    Who did it? Dov Zachiem (spelling) Paul Wolfawitz (Both inside the Pentagon at the time planning war games. Dick Cheney ran it from within the White House. (Read Dick Clark’s book: Against all Enemies.) Dick Cheney was running Dov’s “Flight Termination System” a network based radio control of airplanes platform his team as Systems Planning Corp (the company incharge of the 14 or so “war games” that were taking place on 9/11.

    So there you have it. Start googling. Dov, Paul, Dick, systems planning corp Flight Termination System, Alvin Bush Security Contract on twin towers, Boston and D.C. airports etc. All that info is out there to be had.

    Have fun.

    PS: It was NOT the “government” it was a few key individuals with government jobs. Dick, Dov, Paul, etc.

  71. J. Crawford Smith
    July 15, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    PS: I have hard copies of the stuff that is no longer up on the web, like the .pdf forms that were up on the Systems Planning Corp web site about the Flight Termination System. http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

  72. J. Crawford Smith
    July 15, 2009 at 11:04 pm #

    Google “Power Down weekend preceding 9/11″

  73. J. Crawford Smith
    July 15, 2009 at 11:06 pm #

    The best evidence I held in my hands in Dr. Stephen Jones’ office 3 or 4 years ago…a ball of slag formed by Thermate. Google Dr. Stephen Jones Thermate.

  74. J. Crawford Smith
    July 15, 2009 at 11:12 pm #

    Or for a fun evening if you have 100 minutes google “Who Killed John Oneal” and watch the video on youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCFWcKVeWUE

    PS: Not PG rated.

  75. Carborendum
    July 16, 2009 at 6:52 am #

    Oh, boy! Here we go again.

    You don’t really understand what made me change my mind, do you? You’re doing the same thing that the other sources (which I discounted and found flaws in) were doing.

    I changed my mind because it is difficult to argue with the professors who taught you (Dr. Jones) and the authors of half your technical library. — Ok maybe not half. But I recognized quite a few names on that paper as authors or contributing authors to many of the books in my technical library.

    They taught me what I know. I can’t very well say that they don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to their technical expertise. Otherwise I have to say I don’t know what I’m talking about. I TRUST them.

    How am I supposed to trust you or the sources you indicate? Trust takes time. Change your tactics.

  76. J. Crawford Smith
    July 16, 2009 at 7:04 am #

    I can’t change my tactic. I took lunch one day and drove over to BYU. While there the story I related happened. I watched Dr. Jones’ nemisis change his mind about 9/11. You don’t have to “trust” me, but you are more than welcome to verify my story by contacting Dr. Stephen Jones. I’ve touched the balls of Thermate, and I’ve seen the results on Dr. Jones’ computer. I’m not an engineer (well I am, but for Telecommunications) so my ONLY tactic is to say what I’ve experienced first hand.
    NOTE: I’ve never quoted what I can’t verify…i.e. that Alvin Bush’s company owned the security company. That Systems Planning Corps’ OWN web site claims they have a flight termination system. That Dov Z and Paul W were went to the Pentagon to work on War Games Planning just months before 9/11. John ONeil was killed his first day on the job at the WTC, and his prior job before that was at the FBI as the head guy chasing OBL, and he DID come out as a high ranking public official just prior to his departure slamming the Bush administration for thwarting his efforts to catch OBL etc. All of that is verifiable in the public domain. Does it “proove” anything? No, not at all, but it does provide probable cause….at least in my mind.

  77. Kelly W.
    July 16, 2009 at 8:59 am #

    Carb asks WHO dunnit.

    I can’t say for sure, although I have my own suspicions. One thing I DO know for sure is that we didn’t get the true story on 9/11 from our own government. Another thing I know for sure is that our own government is still covering up for their theory, in spite of the “proofs” that are coming out such as you state with the architects and with the evidence of thermite residue in all the dust samples.

    This points me back to the gospel. We are told to watch for Secret Combinations in our day, and that these Secret Combinations would get power over us.

    I suggest the true story, Carb, is as you suggested – – there are Gadiantons that control our government just as they took sole management of government in Helaman’s time. These Gadiantons are the true perpetrators, merely using our government as a cover.

    Remember, the Book of Mormon is as current as our own morning newspaper.

  78. Carissa
    July 16, 2009 at 10:04 am #

    So, I’m now on the side that it was most likely (nothing is 100%) controlled. But I’m not ready to point the finger at a particular party without further investigation.

    This is where I’m at too. But to be honest, I’m not sure if I want to know exactly who was in on it. It just creeps me out to realize how highly organized it could have been carried out. What was the motive? Who has benefited? Those are the kind of things I’m generally wary of. It’s just so all-encompassing and overwhelming to think how this one event has shaped our current thinking and our current policies (practically overnight). I know it’s bad to want to be naive about the actual perpetrators. But that’s how I feel. I think it satisfies me enough to know, as was said before, that there are very real Gadiantons in powerful places among us.

  79. Kelly W.
    July 16, 2009 at 10:57 am #

    Carissa writes:

    “It just creeps me out to realize how highly organized it could have been carried out. What was the motive? Who has benefited?”

    It was indeed highly organized. (We are after all talking about Secret Combinations capable of taking over a whole government.) To find out the motives and who has benefitted, you can “follow the money.”

    This is what a group of people do who call themselves Forensic Economists. When you get serious about seeing who has benefitted and what their motives are, you can study the research of these forensic economists. A good place to start is:

    http://www.hawkscafe.com/

  80. loquaciousmomma
    July 16, 2009 at 2:17 pm #

    Carb: Welcome aboard, your tinfoil hat will arrive in the mail shortly.

    :-)

    Seriously, though…it is nice to know more skeptical people are beginning to raise their eyebrows at the official 9/11 story.

    Now…about the whole “birther”movement, what do you think this means?

    Carissa: I have struggled with those same types of feelings. I have taken comfort in the reassurances of the gospel. Heavenly Father foreknew that these machinations would occur. He knew how the country would react, and what it would mean for our freedoms. In his infinite wisdom he has made preparations for these events. It is us. The church will safeguard freedom in the Lord’s way. We just need to do our part, whatever that means for us individually.

    With God, all things are possible!

  81. Carborendum
    July 16, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    Momma,

    Yah, I just heard about that earlier today from another friend whom I’m trying to get on board wtih the tower collapse. (If you recall, I always felt in my gut he didn’t have the proof. I just couldn’t figure out how to prove anything).

    Unfortunately, I was convinced by structural arguments because I’m a structural engineer. He’s a mechanical/chemical engineer. Out of my area of expertise.

    While he trusts my structural analysis, it will take an electrical/chemical argument to convince him entirely. I told him about the magnesium find. But there is plenty of magnesium to be found in aircraft. Anyway, I’ll keep working on him.

    And to be honest, I’m not entirely convinced myself. But at least I no longer have the structural argument to stand on.

  82. J. Crawford Smith
    July 16, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    Some said they don’t want to point a finger at a “party.” This is NOT about party. The only “party” these folks belong to is the CFR, Bilderbergs, TC…etc. The Gadiantons are in both parties.

    Paul Wolfawitz started as a Democrat, now he’s a Republican.
    Dov Zackiem is a duel citizen in Israel,
    Dick Cheney is a waremonger.

    look at these guys as individual Gadiantons not Dems or Reps…they only play party politics to keep us fighting.

    e

  83. Carborendum
    July 16, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    OH. Momma,

    Since you mentioned the tin-foil hats, you’ve got to see this video.

    It is fairly slow. But it essentially says that tin-foil hats will actually AMPLIFY the signal rather than attenuating the signal.

  84. J. Crawford Smith
    July 16, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    OK all you engineers, quit focusing on Twin Towers 1 and 2, and focus on WTC 7. How did it come down with paper, carpet and desk furniture fires on only a few floors? That’s a structural FIRST! Or the Pentagon…Where ARE the wings on that “plane?” Or better yet, google “William Rodriguez 9/11 Hero.” Watch his story on google video. Here is a guy that was given awards for saving 17 OUT OF THE BASEMENT where the bombs blew up UNDER HIM (he was on the 2nd basement floor of i believe 6). His testimony, and that of Mayor G. were the only ones taken in secret, and his was NOT published in the “9/11 Report.” Why? Because he testifies that bombs blew up in the basement BEFORE the plane hit the tower…. HELLO all you engineers….How else do you get a building to fall in on its own footprint unless you blow out the center structural beams?

    Again, here is a man that obtained awards from Bush and Mayor G. for heroism, for saving 17 lives FROM THE BASEMENT, but his story is NEVER told…because the question would then be “How on earth did explosives destroy the 4th floor of the Basement BEFORE the plane hit?” Good question. Oh, and of the 17 confirmed people he saved from the Basement….NONE of them were interviewed by the 9/11 commission. Hummmm?

  85. J. Crawford Smith
    July 16, 2009 at 10:49 pm #

    Oh and after you listened to William Rodriguez’ story in his own words, then watch this quick clip from a news cast.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQgEAEb4YKQ

    You’ll note William says the explosion “that pushed us upwards in the air.” UP because the explosion was BELOW him and he was on the 2nd floor of the basement! WOW! BUT the TV station edits his comments and then says the “Boom” he heard was the plane hitting the building 70 floors above him! WHAT? Wouldn’t an explosion ABOVE HIM push him DOWN? (ASSUMING that a plane hitting 70+ stories above him would have any immediate impact on the 2nd basement floor at all. Maybe that explains why all the granite on the ground floor was blown off the walls we saw as the firefighters ran in and out of the first floor….because the bombs in the basement blew them up!

    Wake up world, the TV isn’t conservative or liberal, it depends on corporate advertizing and some of the largest ad purchases are companies like GE which make lots of money from war. WAR IS the ONLY “good” which sits outside the laws of “supply and demand” which is large enough to move our economy. I saw someone asked “who benefitted?” Does anyone recall the words “dot com bust?” THAT is what 9/11 fixed…..It gave George and Dick the “mandate” to print money and put it into the economy on “waistful” things…i.e. war which can “stimulate” the economy, but does NOTHING to advance it. Well OK, war also makes those who loan money to the Government at interest rather rich, but the rest of us suffer…unless we have stock in little companies like Halliburton who’s stocks went from $7 a share to $70+ a share in just a few years…..Dick owes OBL a BIG HUGE….or whoever it is that controls the trust Dick put his Halliburton stock into to avoid the “conflict of Interest” created by moving from Sec of Def, to Pres of Halliburton, to VP….Hummm… And there are still some of you out there that don’t want to point fingers. Dick’s an evil man, even if he does have a PhD from BYU….honorary type.

  86. Carborendum
    July 17, 2009 at 7:11 am #

    JCS,

    When I said I don’t want to point a finger at a “party” I wasn’t talking about Rep/Dem, etc. I was referring to a particular group/entity/individual, etc.

    Please slow down. You’ll miss things like that and jump to conclusions . . . like you just did.

  87. Kelly W.
    July 17, 2009 at 10:02 am #

    Do you blame JCS? I’d be mad too if I knew the responsible “party” had not been caught or brought to justice and was still out there.

  88. lisa
    August 5, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    just found your blog…i’m really disappointed that a fellow lds member would be so negative about beck. unlike mitt romney or harry reid, i would say glenn beck is doing more to uphold the constitution and awaken a sleeping majorirty and use his public image for good than most lds people in the media spotlight. he has inspired hundreds of thousands in the past few months to stand up for freedom and has begun a huge movement in this country along with the tea party people. i think you can cut him a little slack and see what good he is doing.

  89. J. Crawford Smith
    August 5, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    I don’t own a TV, nor listen to Beck on the Radio, but yesterday a friend sent me a 3 min video clip with Beck in it. He must have used God’s name in vain at least 6 times….Sorry not on my “Good Mormon Boy” list.

  90. lisa
    August 5, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    if you know anything about his history you would again cut him some slack…he is a convert and has even said (my memopry of the quote) ‘please don’t look at me for an lds example…i’m still working on it, there are be better members than me.’ let’s not get too self righteous as lds people…i mean what’s worse saying God’s name in vain or giving $50,000 to support gay marriage (steve young’s wife) or saying you support abortion and are not sure if God has appeared to anyone since moses (Romney-way to be a mormon)???? beck is doing a lot of good.

  91. lisa
    August 5, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    you could also watch this…wow

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z58eHBnEHhk

  92. J. Crawford Smith
    August 5, 2009 at 10:35 pm #

    Last time I checked “Thou shalt not take the Lord thy God’s name in vain” was one of the 10 Suggestions….I seem to have missplaced the one about “thou shalt not give money to gay marriage supporters.”

    BECK is a cheeseball. Re-read my comment #68
    I called Beck’s radio show about 5 years ago. He accused me of not understanding history. Told him I was a Marine Officer, and that I taught military history at Oregon State Univ. He called me a liar on the air, then hung UP ON ME. Then with the 3 second delay they get, he told the audience that I must have been an imposter because no “real Marine Officer” is against the war, and as “proof” that “I hung up on him.”

    NOT! I’ll show him “false flags” governments have used to control their own people throughout history. Beck is a corporate wolf, cloaked with a “Mormon” sheep skin.

  93. lisa
    August 5, 2009 at 10:45 pm #

    sorry you feel that way…sorry he hung up on you.

    this is my last comment cause i don’t want to argue. i just wanted to stick up for beck, cause i think he is doing just what all church members should be with regards to upholding our Constitution.

    and btw going directly against the first presidency may not be one of the 10 commandments, but it sure seems to call into question your membership in my eyes…I think people may slip out a swear word here or there and yes, maybe even a OMG…but to give money to an organization that is aimed at destroying the family , that is pretty hard to swallow. maybe you don’t keep up w/ CA church news…

    http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage

  94. J. Crawford Smith
    August 5, 2009 at 11:33 pm #

    Yes you’re right Lisa….Beck is doing alot of good…..for the Military Industrial Complex which keeps Babylon The Great the Mother of All Harlots, in power as the world’s only Empire. . . . until “Assyria” aka “The Beast” (Isa 10-23/Rev 17-18) comes to wipe her out “in an hour” in “one day.” If you think I’m twisted with that interpretation re-read 3N16, 20 – 23 and 1N13-15,22 and compare those chapters with Isa and Rev. references above….ooops it’s all about the same empire being destroyed, only Nephi and Jesus make it clear we’re talking about the “mighty Gentile nation” (1N22:6-8,17; 3N16:8-15) and not some nebulous “spiritual Babylon” as is so often mis-quoted from D&C 133:14. Ver. 12 makes it clear “Babylon” = the “Gentiles”

    Beck works for and backs Babylon and the Military Industrial Complex that supports her economic materialism i.e. “Idolatry.”

  95. Carborendum
    August 6, 2009 at 7:52 am #

    JCS,

    Falling into your old habits again?

    So, let me get this straight: In your mind taking the Lord’s name in vain is worse than supporting gay marriage?

    Read my past comments (the earlier ones) and you’ll realize that even though I tend to support Beck, I do condemn where it is warranted. I condemned him for his comments about truthers.

    But your condemnation of his use of the Lord’s name is NOT warranted.

    Consider how much Muslims use the name of Allah & Mohammed in casual conversation. This is because it allows them to always have him be a part of their everyday lives.

    If you listen to the context and tone, MOST of the time, he REALLY is crying out a little prayer. Every once in a while he does just say it in vain. But like Lisa said, he’s working on it. Give him a break.

    He came from being an alcoholic and drug addict, and a first rate @$$ to being a successful political watchdog. Have you ever made such a monumental change in your life? It is not an easy thing. He was so far down that he was ready to consciously overdose.

    Obviously you disagree with him on facts. But that is no reason for you to attack his character. He’s had longer climb than most of us, and he’s been making it. How far have you had to climb on your character mountain?

    BTW, I remember your call with him — if it was you.

    1) You were being your regular “loveable” self, complete with your trademark courtesy and diplomacy.

    2) From the listener’s end, it was difficult to tell who hung up on whom or if it was a simple disconnect. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    3) As far as the “real Marine Officer” comment, I don’t remember hearing that. But it was a while ago. So, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt here.

    I agree with you that it was close-minded and unfair of him to label you that way. But at the same time, how would he know?

    I’ve said to you before: I don’t know who you are. How do I know you really are a marine officer or anything else you say? How do you know I’m really a structural engineer?

    Whether it’s this forum or on a talk show, you’ve got to BUILD trust. You can’t just jump right in, flash your credentials, and expect everyone to bow down to your greater knowledge and wisdom. So far, I’m not feeling all warm and fuzzy over anything you’ve said–on this post or any other.

    Frankly, you give me the creeps.

    A marine officer who has turned into a pacifist? That’s a weird combo in anyone’s book. In a way, you would have had as long a climb as Beck.

    How would you feel if I said,”No, you’re not a real pacifist. You get angry too easily. You spew out hatred so often that you’re not in my ‘good pacifist boy book’.”

    If you want people to give you a break, cut Beck a little slack.

  96. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 9:42 am #

    Lisa: I’m NOT in ANY way supportive of gay marriage. Just the opposite, I AM EXTREEMLY opposed to gays having legal marital rights. Why? Because I was born John Crawford Smith, and promptly given away for adoption. When I found my natural parents at age 18 I asked the question…why? The answer: “We were using an experimental contraceptive device that obviously didn’t work. We felt the family nucleus was complete with 2 children. (I was #3) and abortion was illegal.” I was subsequently adopted by the most loving Mormon parents any child could ever want and to think that two men or two women could have the legal right to adopt me is beyond my mental capacity, and therefore I DO NOT support gay marriage, nor do I believe the State can provide homosexuals with the legal rights to that which nature has not…i.e. the ability to have children.

    Lisa: What I do support is “Agency.” As I understand it THAT was the issue we fought over in heaven. And unlike Carborendum, I do believe there is a BIG difference between a verbal debate, and the destruction of life. I can disagree with Carborendum all day long, and NOT be willing to take his life. But Beck supports aggressive, “preemptive” war…which in my book is NOT Constitutional, nor is it acceptable under ANY international treaty America has signed. So to continue telling me Beck is a “Constitutionalist” I must disagree….he is a “Constitutionalist” when and if it fits his fancy. The reason HE hung up on ME was because I said something to the effect of “Then lets talk about Operation Northwoods, which was signed by the JCS as a preemptive pretext to war with Cuba.” That’s what was cut during the 3 second lag where he hung up on me.

  97. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 9:54 am #

    Carbordendum: You ask: “So, let me get this straight: In your mind taking the Lord’s name in vain is worse than supporting gay marriage?” Yes breaking the Ten Commandments is worse than supporting Agency. Beck, as exposed by just this blog string as breaking at least 3 of the 10. Thou shalt not KILL, nor “bear false witness” (against me on the radio) nor “take the Lord’s name in vain.” Sorry, guilty.

    It’s all about agency my friend. The war in heaven was fought over agency, and that has NOT changed here on earth. See D&C 121. So although I am vehemently opposed to gay marriage, as explained above, I still feel people have their agency. Killing (as in the pre-emptive war stuff Beck supports) take….permanently….ones agency. Gays, and their ability to marry, do not end agency as preemptive war does. Do I support gays, NO, but I do support agency.

    Yes I’m a Marine. Conner has copies of photos I sent him of me marching with my Officer uniform on in SLC years ago. I told him he could post them. In fact I made sure to smile for all the cameramen on the tops of the buildings as we marched to make sure they got a perfect picture of my face!

    How do you know who I am? Wasn’t it you I offered to join my Facebook page? If not, contact Conner have him give you my “adopted name” and my real email address and I’ll invite you to my facebook page where you can see our farm in Mexico.

    You adore Beck because of his struggle to get up the corporate ladder. I enlisted, got meritoriously promoted from E-1 to E-5 in less than 2 years…then got selected as an officer…got out of the Corps with three degrees (BS, MS, MBA) went on to become a VP making well over $200K…BUT unlike Beck who parrots what his corporate sponsors want him to say (“two wrongs make a right” i.e. “Even though we didn’t find WDM, we’re over there so we must continue the fight.” The illogic I called his show about and for which he hung up on me) I, when I saw the USA was an Empire, GOT DOWN OFF THE LADDER OF CORPORATE SUCCESS, AND MOVED MY FAMILY TO MEXICO..and am currently soliciting my Mexican Citizenship. We live in what my dad calls a “hovel,” and no it is nothing like the 7200 sqr foot VP home we once lived in, and yes most of my family members, to include my father, and “friends” outright reject me now as even a friend. Climbing up the ladder isn’t nearly as hard as getting off of the ladder. (Alma 15:16) Believe me, I know.

    So why do I go by my original name on this blog? Because the post Benson church does NOT look kindly on those that take a stance against the Empire….just try and buy up some of H. Verlan Andersen’s books, like “The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil.” Then call Hans, his son, and ask him, as I did, why he no longer publishes his father’s works. If dead GA’s get censored for speaking out against the American Empire,…I’d rather just stay anonymous to the general public, but offer freely my friendship to anyone that wants to get to know me better…..even you.

  98. Neil
    August 6, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

    I agree with you J. Crawford Smith 100%. Nobody and I mean nobody in the main stream media is talking about the shadow government that has hijacked our Republic. The CFR runs both political party’s and every administration since Woodrow Wilson and most people don’t even know who and what their goals are. So why doesn’t Beck talk about real things like Liberty vs Tyranny instead of Right vs Left. Read all you can on how the Founders felt about the correct form of government and you will see how far off we’ve come. But maybe Beck’s life or his families life is threatened. The powers that be have no problem with murder to protect their agenda.

  99. Neil
    August 6, 2009 at 8:25 pm #

    Oh yea, he also calls his listeners of his show sick twisted freaks. Which I personally don’t care for.

  100. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    Neil, thanks for saying what I’m not talented enough to say in long dissertations in just a few words. This is NOT about Right and Left, Rep vs. Dem. Conservative vs. Liberal. This is about Liberty (agency) and Tyranny. Has been since WWI (in heaven) up to the present. Why do temple going members seem to forget Satan has made it VERY clear what his game plan is…and the number of tyrants using the treasures of the earth to buy up armies and navies to control the world is ample evidence. What astonishes me is the gullibility of the average Mormon that thinks “this time” (AKA any war since WWI) the war is “Justified” because it is a “holy war.”….and obviously God is on our side. NO, the only “god” that supports war is the “god of this world.” (D&C 98)

    All the other issues, in my humble opinion, that the media gets us rapped up about are secondary to the real issue that Isaiah, John, Nephi and Christ (while in America) spent their time warning us about….. Military Empires code named “Babylon.”

  101. Carborendum
    August 6, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    Because the post Benson church does NOT look kindly on those that take a stance against the Empire….

    Have you ever heard of the philosophy of the reed?

  102. Carborendum
    August 6, 2009 at 9:32 pm #

    BTW,

    Yes, that was me you invited onto your Facebook page. I declined then for the same reason you’re not winning me over here.

    I once attended a book club on Michael Savage’s book “The Savage Nation.” The consensus was that we tended to agree with his primary mantra of “borders, language, culture”. But we didn’t agree with the details and his attitude (constant anger, hatred, scathing, and arrogance).

    Essentially, we couldn’t get past him enough to really pay attention to his message.

    Now, I want to make it clear that I don’t think you’re as bad as Savage. But you do show many characteristics that makes it difficult to get past you to even hear your message.

  103. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 9:34 pm #

    No, I have not. Please enlighten me if it is of worth.

    When I asked Hans Anderson why the Church asked him to quit publishing his father’s books, he said he did not ask. I asked if he had an opinion. He said, “The Samuel Principle.” i.e. we get what we want……even from prophets. (1 Sam. 8:6-22, or Alma 29:1-5)

  104. Carborendum
    August 6, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    Neil,

    So why doesn’t Beck talk about real things like Liberty vs Tyranny instead of Right vs Left.

    He does. Don’t you ever hear the statement he repeats . . . repeatedly . . . again . . . and again . . .

    It’s not right or left, but right or wrong.

    No, he’s not saying the left = wrong. Lately his message has been that we’ve been sold out by BOTH major parties.

    Many months ago he started promoting the reading of “The 5000 Year Leap”. See my comments #35 & #36.

  105. Carborendum
    August 6, 2009 at 9:39 pm #

    The philosophy of the reed:

    If a tree wishes to stand up against the storm, it can only do so as a mighty oak. But the weak trees will not stand, but become uprooted.

    A single reed will bend with the wind. It will never lose its roots. But it will, above the surface, appear to be moving.

    As more reeds grow around it, each reed bends somewhat creating some resistance, never being uprooted, but appearing to move.

    Eventually, many reeds grow close together being an impenetrable wall against the wind.

  106. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    Carborendum,

    Concur…as my wife tells me often “I don’t suffer fools well.” That’s fine, you don’t have to extend to me the same rules you’d like me to follow with Beck…i.e. “give him a little slack”……wasn’t it?”
    As you said, “A marine officer (and by the way Marine is ALWAYS spelled with a capital “M”) who has turned into a pacifist? That’s a weird combo in anyone’s book. In a way, you would have had as long a climb as Beck.” You know what Carborendum, You’ve asked me to “give Beck a break” because he came from an alcoholic background……HUM….Maybe all the killing and hate training the Marine’s gave me still seeps out of my pen, I’m sorry…but believe me it would never again slip out of my trigger finger to take life…EVER! Not my trigger finger, NOR the trigger finger of my proxy agents as a US Citizen, our military.

  107. Carborendum
    August 6, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    I’m about to say the following because I believe you’re trying to make friends. OK, I see the olive branch and am walking towards it.

    I WOULD say “apology accepted” and I WOULD start to apologize myself. But I don’t really appreciate being called a fool either.

    I’m perfectly willing to “give you a break”. But are you really trying? I’ve got my devils & demons to deal with too. And I’m probably not making much progress against them . . . But I keep trying. And that is enough for now.

    I’m not going to judge you on this question. Tell me and I’ll believe you. If you realize you have shown some of your faults here and you are at least trying, that’s good enough for me. That’s all I’m able to do myself. So, I can’t expect more from anyone else.

    But if you don’t even recognize what you’ve done is wrong/inappropriate/unkind, etc. nor are you willing to try to change, that is a different matter.

    Thank you for correcting me on the M. Since you’re correcting my grammar, I’ll return in kind: It’s “Marines” not “Marine’s”.

  108. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 9:56 pm #

    Carborendum,

    Do you still vote for leaders that send troops as your “proxy agents” to kill innocent people overseas? Do you still pay taxes to an empire that does the same? I DO NOT! I pay taxes and support a nation that has as its official foreign policy the “Estrada Doctrine.” Google it. You see I practice, really practice, what I preach….. You say I spew “hate?” OK that’s your opinion. But do you support war and an empire with your taxes? Which is worse, heated discourse or hot lead? I made that choice, and to do so I had to “flee Babylon.” Not figuratively, so I can feel good at church, but literally…. Have you? Which of us truly supports “hate” and “murder?” You or me? My taxes have not supported the killing of anyone in the last two years, neither has by vote. Can you say that of yourself? I don’t think so.
    Have you read the first chapter of Isaiah lately? You’ll note that in the “last days” “Israel” (or those that call themselves “Israel,” who’ve made a covenant with God, and worship in the temple ) are condemned by “the Prophet” (as Nephi calls him) for having “hands full of blood.” Have you ever contemplated what that might actually mean in your personal life? I have, and that’s why I’m no longer a Marine. That’s why I no longer support the empire…that’s why I get frustrated with those that “call evil good and good evil.”

  109. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrada_Doctrine

  110. Carborendum
    August 6, 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    The answer to both your primary questions is: NO.

  111. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    I was NOT calling you a “fool” Carborendum. I said, my wife says I do not suffer fools well….she doesn’t even know I”m on this blog. I was admitting that my pen is rather sharp and as you stated, is NOT kind. I’ve tried to “tone it down.” I’ve written a book on Babylon….and I’ve asked a number of people to proof it with that very issue in mind. Am I able to get my message across without offending? Thus far I’ve NOT been successful, and thus far I’ve NOT published anything I’ve written. I must not have the talent my uncle Cleon had. Who knows, maybe I’ll never publish.

  112. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 10:17 pm #

    I liked the Naked Capitalist better than the 5000 year leap.

  113. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 10:29 pm #

    Please don’t anyone misinterpret what I just said to Carborendum. Just because I’ve chosen to “lay down my blody sword” like some fabulous Lamanites did…does NOT mean that I think everyone living in the USA and paying taxes is a murderer. It just means as I contemplated the ramifications of my actions, and the implications in the scriptures, I made the choice to lay down my weapons of war, and leave, just like the Lamanites did. Period. I’m not starting a movement nor am I inviting anybody to come live in my “compound.” Nor am I suggesting Mexico is a perfect place to live. Those are just choices my wife (also a prior Marine Officer) and I have made. ;-)

    Oh and Carborendum, the reason I pointed out the “M” thing is because you were questioning my being a Marine, not because I care about your grammer….and even writers for the NY Times get that wrong. Its just a “Marine thing,” that most people don’t understand unless they’ve been a Marine.

  114. Carborendum
    August 6, 2009 at 10:38 pm #

    Well, let me make a few points here.

    1) I never said you were evil. Nor did I ever say you believed in evil things.

    2) I have not voted for either major party in any national office for the past 10 years.

    3) I get around paying taxes and end up giving quite a bit to charity. Not anymore. I’m currently unemployed.

    4) I said that a Marine turned pacifist was weird. It is. I didn’t say it was wrong. I didn’t say it was BAD. In fact, I applaud your change of mind on an issue like this. But you must admit that it is at least unusual? Or am I speaking out of ignorance here?

    5) As far as “not offending”– I don’t think that’s the right word for it. It is about love. It’s a question of force. Actually, it’s a question of agency.

    You’ve heard the old adage,”No one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.” I used to think it was a meaningless axiom made up by trite individuals. But as I’ve gotten older, managed people at work, raised kids, I’m just beginning to understand how true it is. Consider “The Greatest Salesman in the World”. Consider 1Corinthians 13.

    I was never offended at anything you said. I just felt like I was being shoved rather than led. Others will agree with you because they’re already there with you. But if you want to persuade someone to move from their position, you can’t shove. You have to lead.

    If you throw things at people (be they epithets or ideologies) they tend to either return the attack, or they run away. If instead, you lead:

    by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

    If you love others, they will tend to want to come to YOU. If you fight, they will want to run.

    While I’m no master at this myself. I at least try. And I believe a lot of the gospel is simply trying. As long as you keep trying, I will call you my friend.

  115. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    Here is half the problem Carborendum, we’re not sitting on a porch talking about this stuff and my inability to right screws us up.

    1) “I never said you were evil. Nor did I ever say you believed in evil things.” When I quoted Isaiah there I, as he, was speaking about war. War is what many “conservative” Mormon’s accept as OK because this one is a Holy War. When Bush had a 13 – 18% approval rating in the rest of the States over his war in Iraq, Utah and Wyoming were still above 50%.

    2) “I have not voted for either major party in any national office for the past 10 years.” I gave up on that with the Perot, Bush, Clinton thing…what was that 1990?

    4) I said that a Marine turned pacifist was weird. It is. I didn’t say it was wrong. I didn’t say it was BAD. In fact, I applaud your change of mind on an issue like this. But you must admit that it is at least unusual? Or am I speaking out of ignorance here? Concur.

    5) As far as “not offending”– I don’t think that’s the right word for it. It is about love. It’s a question of force. Actually, it’s a question of agency.
    Agree 100%. And your comments about getting people to follow the train of logic, IS good. D&C 121 is the “most important” revelation in our day according to Pres. David O. McKay. It just seems some of these topics…like 9/11 for instance, are issues people don’t WANT to understand. My adopted father would rather believe a “nephew” of his that doesn’t think the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions OVER my personal witness in Dr. Jones’ office as his nemesis, another PhD in Physics changes his mind as he saw the results from the “thermate balls” that Jones showed us. Or my natural father, who IS a Nuclear Physicist, and said he “just can’t look into it right now because of the fires (He lives in Santa Barbara) and he does not want anything else depressing in his life…” So two of the men I most respect on this planet, refuse to look into the events of 9/11.

    How does one get that message across to people that refuse to even “look into it?” Its frustration, not “hate” that is seeping out. One must be willing to educate themselves….but MOST won’t.

  116. Carborendum
    August 6, 2009 at 11:14 pm #

    Well if I could answer that last question, I would be smarter than God.

  117. J. Crawford Smith
    August 6, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

    And you know what, that’s probably the very question God asks Himself has he looks at my life….”Now why can’t that boy just listen and obey?”

  118. Neil
    August 7, 2009 at 12:04 am #

    Well I barely woke up about a year ago so I was neck deep into party politics. Listened to Hannity, Rush and O ‘Reilly everyday. Wanted to see the mititary wipe every country off the face of the earth that even looked at America wrong. Now I see what false information and media can do. Very complex combinations operating around us every where. Learning the real truth about history and life has been quite liberating. It was kind of hard to admit I was wrong. I even had to go to people I had challenged before on politics and say sorry I was wrong. I feel the last stand for freedom is going to be fought in America and many of the saints blood will be spilt. Satan does want the free agency of man since the begining and he will use corruption in government or any other tool to rob us of it.

    I perfer Lou Dobbs over Glenn Beck myself.

  119. J. Crawford Smith
    September 3, 2009 at 5:27 pm #

    Carborendum, I went in and got my Marine EGA Tattoos burnt off today. Just sent the pics to Connor. I told him to forward them to you. That should clear up if I was a real Marine Officer or not. I like the pic with the blood ooosing out of the eagle….kind of symbolic.

  120. loquaciousmomma
    September 5, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    Hey,

    I am curious to know what you folks think about Glenn Beck’s painting “truthers” as marxist useful idiots?

  121. Kelly W.
    September 5, 2009 at 5:15 pm #

    Often I am asked how someone is supposed to know if a website, program, station or pundit is telling us the truth or not. Usually I will answer that by their fruit you can know if the source can be trusted or not. I have had about 8 years of watching numerous sources in the media and Internet, and have come to be able to trust some and mistrust others because of the fruit they’ve born over the last 8 years of my scrutiny.

    But, I have come to realize that many sources are in a gray area where you don’t know for sure because some of the things they will say DO bear fruit, yet some of the things they say end up bearing bad fruit.

    I have come to realize there is a simpler way to be able to definitively judge whether the source is proclaiming Truth or whether it is there to deceive you. Here is my simple way to judge:

    If the source also recognizes that 9/11 was an inside job, then you can trust the site or source. If the source is silent on this issue, or if the source denies 9/11 Truth, then you can know the source is out to deceive or cover-up the truth.

    Therefore, since Glenn Beck denounces 9/11 Truth, the things he says which “sound and ring true” are only there to deceive you. This puts Beck in the camp of a “gate keeper.”

    A gate keeper is one who will let the public only go so far – – he will bash Obama and even bash Bush and will bash the government in order to keep a group of followers in his camp. But when his followers want to discuss other taboo things (like 9/11), he is there to “keep the gate” and not let any discussion go into that realm of questioning the anomolies of 9/11 and who might really be the culprits behind the greatest crime of the history of the earth.

    The reason that 9/11 is the key to whether the source can be trusted or not is that there are all sorts of gate keepers. There are right-wing gatekeepers and left-wing gate keepers. But no matter what persuasion the gate keeper is, none will let their followers past the gate of 9/11 Truth.

  122. rachel
    September 8, 2009 at 12:02 pm #

    I was interested and surprised to find out that Van Jones, the former “green jobs czar,” was a 9-11 truther. That confuses everything.

  123. Kelly W.
    September 8, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    Rachel, you are right. He WAS a 9-11 Truther. He now denies he ever was, though. He apparently once signed a petition to have another investigation because of all the new evidence since the original 9/11 whitewash commission.

  124. Kelly W.
    September 15, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    It appears that Van Jones’ biggest offense was that he signed a statement in 2004 calling for a new investigation of 9/11.

    This shows you that anyone who questions the leadership of the USA is not fit to hold office.

    Doesn’t sound like the America I was raised to believe in.

  125. Connor
    February 11, 2010 at 4:24 pm #

    It’s been eight months since I wrote this article, where I said:

    This is hardly the first time Beck has sought an opportunity to target the community with a loose reference from a singular event; based on his behavior, I’m guessing it won’t be the last.

    Here’s the latest example of Glenn wetting his pants when encountering somebody who dares to not pledge allegiance to the 9/11 Commission Report.

  126. Liz
    February 2, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

    Glenn Beck is not a fool. That’s just rude. At some level, he’s a freaky genius.

    9-11 truthers such as Van Jones are not seeking truth. Any discriminating mind would see that it’s this activist’s personal agenda directing his actions. His “inquiries” into the truth are not based on honestly held beliefs. He’s a hater.

    My neighbor is also a truther. Decent, hard-working, blue collar type guy believes George Bush brought down the towers. I think that’s nutz, but my neighbor is beyond distrustful of government and believes it to be sophisticated and coordinated to a truly phenomenol degree. You might call him an honest truth-seeker, or maybe he’s just looking for a reason his life isn’t as good as it could be, nonetheless he’s not signing petitions or forming marches. He’s simply watching doctored videos on You Tube. There’s the difference.

    I’m naturally suspcious of “truthers”, just because I haven’t heard a plausible theory yet. And secondly, because of the obviously political agenda behind the movement.

  127. 9.12'er
    March 31, 2011 at 11:12 pm #

    Liz, Carborendum, and Chris…you three are clearly less easily deceived than the rest on here. When you get a chance, come join the 9.12’ers over at http://www.the912project.us – rather than a place to endlessly argue against those who refuse to deal with the facts, it is a place for education, action, and networking.

    Now about this thread…Connor’s bias vs. Glenn Beck would be comical, if it were meant in jest, but I get the impression, based upon Connor’s words, that he harbors a deep resentment of Glenn Beck and all who enjoy Glenn’s unique fusion of entertainment and enlightenment. The sort of immaturity about, rudeness toward, misrepresentation of, petty personal attacks against, and outright hostility toward Glenn Beck make clear that Connor doesn’t think straight when the subject of Glenn Beck is raised. Connor is right about most things, IMHO, but on the subject of Glenn, he’s off his rocker.

    For those who refuse to listen to or watch Glenn Beck, and therefore know not of what they type, Glenn has had many death threats from 9/11 ‘truthers’ and other Ron Paul fanatics, and since he and his family have been the target of many death threats, from phoned-in death threats to a car with a Ron Paul sticker attempted to force his tour bus off the road shortly after he made his earlier comments re: 9/11 ‘truthers,’ to a specific threat that required him to hire an additional six dignitary protection officers to supplement his security detail when he visited Utah back in 2008 (IIRC), the nutjobs vehemently hate Glenn Beck. I’m not saying that Connor or his readers are like that, but they don’t appear to be aware of this fact.

    Glenn Beck is a threat to both the left, and the insane right, and the crazies from both sides of the spectrum want him dead. Glenn Beck has had more grief from 9/11 ‘truthers’ than anybody alive, from what I have gathered (save George W. Bush and his cabinet, obviously!). And I’m not just talking the sort of grief that is merely frustrating. I’m talking the sort that prompts you to pray more earnestly for the safety of your family, and to wear bulletproof vests, and to pay an extra $Million a year for enhanced security options from your security provider.

    So his attitude toward 9/11 ‘truthers’ is understandable, regardless of any other factors. I doubt any of his detractors on here would be nearly so kind about their adversaries if they were acting in such a dishonorable, violent, hateful manner.

    And for the record, Carborendum, http://debunking911.com is a great resource for those who don’t buy into Alex Jones’ (and Van Jones’) conspiracy theories.

    IMHO, the 9/11 troofer conspiracy theory is just a smokescreen (which was conjured up by the radical left) to distract from the actual conspiracy fact which they knew would eventually come out, and which is now being exposed by Glenn Beck each and every day.

    When the radical left accuses our side of doing something, you can bet they’re guilty of the same, or something substantially similar!

  128. Jim Davis
    April 2, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    9.12’er,

    …speaking of broad brushes

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.