As for David Horowitz, here's a guy who is promoting a rash of anti-radical Islamic events on several US College campuses and in his last outing and along with his perpetual sidekick, Ann Coulter; had invited a guest speaker who turned out to be one of Britain's biggest holocaust deniers. Isn't that a kick in the shorts!?! Frankly I see him(and Coulter) in the same light as I see LaRouche, Bollyn, Piper and Carto.
(Slight retraction) Griffin was invited to Michigan State by the campus chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, not Mr Horowitz. However:
Young Americans Foundation vs Young Americans for Freedom
"Although the two always have had separate leadership, the Young America's Foundation has an informal connection with the similarly named Young Americans for Freedom, or YAF, founded in 1960. Robinson headed Young Americans for Freedom between 1977 and 1979, and much of the foundation's board and staff worked with YAF in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Robinson says that post-Watergate campaign-finance reforms undermined YAF as a political activist organization, and that it became clear that a conservative but nonpolitical educational organization would have an easier time raising money. "It was natural for us to move on," he says.
Young Americans for Freedom still exists, although president Jon Pastore says that it essentially had collapsed in 1994 when, out of desperation, all the members of the board announced their resignations and called for a new election.
"We literally started from scratch," says Pastore. "It was so bad we didn't have a list of where our campus chapters were. There are YAF groups out there that have been going along for years without any contact with us." Indeed, YAF has not even had its own office space since 1991.
But YAF slowly has rebuilt, and its first major event since 1991 will be an October conference in California. Sources in both organizations confirm that the leaders of the Young America's Foundation and Young Americans for Freedom have met to discuss an "enhanced partnership" -- a small step short of an all-out merger -- once YAF can re-create a formal national organization."
So we have Ron Robinson the president of the Young Americans Foundation as also being a former leader and fund raiser for the Young Americans for Freedom! I find this revelation quite fascinating. In fact it could be said that perhaps this whole event at Michigan State University could have been staged. If that is the case then perhaps my retraction to Mr. Horowitz was premature.
When you look at its history(Young Americans for Freedom, the same group who sponsored Griffin at Michigan State), throw in Goldwater, the John Birch Society, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, then look at Horowitz and his Young Americans Foundation, it seems that what you basically have is yet another version of the same animal. Hell even their abbreviations are the same! There are obvious clear ties to this group and how one party couldn't have known what the other party was doing is questionable.
I'm a concerned, middle aged blogger and member of the ACLU. I hail from the Bay Area. I Lobbied congress with the ACLU over the more unconstitutional elements of the USA Patriot Act. Marched in peace protests, lost a former school chum in the world trade center on 9/11.
Saturday, September 22, 2007 OK: Secret Rogue Faction that Runs the Bush Administration Note: Please read this previous post first: "Webster G. Tarpley’s Toxic Waste is Polluting the Antiwar Movement" and then this post will make more sense. I am an opponent of conspiracy theories in general and this one about the Bush Administraion in particular. This was meant as a clarification of wording in my previous post, not an endorement of a conspiracy theory. -cb
= = =
In my recent post on Webster Tarpley I wrote that:
“In 2005 Tarpley published a book that alleged the Bush Administration staged the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.”
Critics have suggested this meant I had not actually read Tarpley’s book. I have read the book. In it Tarpley contends that the Bush Administration is controlled by a secret invisible government, and that 9/11 was part of a plan to put pressure on George W. Bush as President to ensure that he continued to follow the foreign policy and economic game plan provided to him by the oligarchic faction known as the neoconservatives. Tarpley goes out is his way to make it clear that he thinks Bush himself is incapable of being part of the staged “Synthetic Terror” event the rest of us call the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
So I specifically did not suggest Bush was behind staging the attacks, I said the Bush Administration. As Tarpley himself points out, if 9/11 was a staged event, it would have been impossible to have been carried out without the complicity of high-ranking government agency and Administration officials, or as he calls it: the “rogue networks of the US invisible government” (p. 432). Specifically, Tarpley writes that the sponsors of 9/11 “were not located in a cave in Afghanistan, but were rather a network located high within the US government and military”(p. 280).
According to Tarpley, in 2004, “with the desperados of the neocon faction calling the shots” the “rogues were once again inclined to” stage another terrorist attack on US soil (p. 397). Tarpley also indicates that he thinks the necons are part of the invisible government apparatus, and that this includes “Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Luti, Schulsky, Scooter Libby, Cambone, Hadley and others who run the Bush administration.” If the neocons run the Bush Administration, and the neocons are part of the secret plot, then the Bush Administration staged the attacks, even if every person in the Administration was not part of the plot. I find all these claims ludicrous, but I can see there is room for misinterpretation due to my shorthand description.
In the future I will make sure I state that Tarpley has written that a secret invisible government which runs the Bush Administration through the neocon-Straussian oligarchic network staged the 9/11 attacks; or at least use the phrase ‘a secret rogue faction that runs the Bush Administration,’ which is what I will insert in the text. My apologies to Mr. Tarpley if he was offended by my summary of his claims about the alleged conspiracy.
Monday, September 17, 2007 Webster G. Tarpley’s Toxic Waste is Polluting the Antiwar Movement There is no question that author Webster Griffin Tarpley has become a divisive and destructive force within the U.S. antiwar movement. The real question is why antiwar activists would pay him any attention in the first place. Activists are in an uproar over an incident at a peace encampment in Keenebunkport, Maine where Tarpley is implicated in a stunt where well-known peace activists such as Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia Wasfi, and Ann Wright were tricked into signing a document they thought was merely a call for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. The fine print in the document echoes Tarpley’s claim that Cheney is plotting a pre-election coup using a domestic terrorist attack as an excuse.
Tarpley is a former acolyte of crackpot and convicted felon Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. You remember LaRouche. He is generally described as a perennial Presidential candidate who once said the Queen of England ran the global drug trade. Tarpley may have left the LaRouche group, but it has not left him. Tarpley acts as a sockpuppet for LaRouche, spreading delirious venom throughout the antiwar movement. The LaRouche group has a long history of conning people into signing statements based on misleading descriptions of the actual text. Déjà vu.
With so much factual evidence of wrongdoing, incompetence, malfeasance, and just plain lying on the part of the Bush Administration, there is no reason to spread Tarpley’s gossip. The dramatic erosion of civil liberties in the United States is bad enough without embracing the delusional warnings by Tarpley that “neocons always prefer a coup d'etat to an election.”{1}
The current tempest traces back to July 4 th, 2007 when Philadelphia peace activists held an Emergency Antiwar Convention. It was an attempt to merge the movement against the war in Iraq with the “9/11 Truth” movement. The event featured 9/11 conspiracy films, as well as presentations from Tarpley and another former LaRouchite activist, Lewis DuPont Smith. Attendees issued a Call “In the spirit of our Declaration of Independence” urging others to join activist organizations throughout the country to collaborate and forge common strategies and actions.”{2} The statement included the phrase: “ Government by the People, not by cliques of bankers and financiers,” which could have been copied from a number of Nazi publications from the 1930s which identified the culprits as Jews.
Tarpley has introduced similar statements at other meetings, including one in Chicago.{3} A few weeks later, with his star rising in the antiwar movement, Tarpley posted a long article on the Jeff Rense website warning: "Cheney Determined To Strike In US With WMD This Summer, Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him."{4}
According to Tarpley, antiwar activists needed to quickly confront “the Cheney doctrine, which calls for a new super 9/11 with weapons of mass destruction in the US, to be used as the pretext for a nuclear attack on Iran and for martial law at home.”{5}
This is not the first time Tarpley has predicted an apocalyptic political event. In 2004, he posted a warning: "Bush Regime working out Procedures for postponing November Election."{6} The election, needless to say, actually took place as scheduled, although there were legitimate complaints about vote suppression to benefit Republican candidates.
Tarpley is co-author (with LaRouche researcher Anton Chaitkin){7}, of the book George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, originally published by the LaRouche publishing house.{8} Progressive author and blogger David Neiwert reviewed the book, noting that “Like most LaRouche texts:”
...the Bush "biography" is a mélange of fact and distortion, written in a highly suppositional style that makes numerous leaps of logic and asserts connections where there is no real evidence to support it, at other times omitting exculpatory or contrary information that reveals a more complete picture. Sifting through it requires a great deal of work, but there are nuggets of fact woven into their text that are substantiated and which deserve proper consideration.{9}
In 2005 Tarpley published a book that alleged the Bush Administration staged the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.{10} [Note: specifically a secret rogue faction that runs the Bush Administration - see blog post that follows] LaRouche takes a similar position. According to LaRouche the attacks on 9/11 should be:
”recognized, sooner or later, as the product of a witting "inside job." Finally, my detailed knowledge of the onrushing strategic crisis within which those attacks were situated, allowed no other conclusion, than that this was an attempted military coup d'état with a global strategic purpose of the most ominous implications imaginable.”{11}
While continuing to follow the polluted path blazed by notorious crackpot and homophobic antisemite Lyndon LaRouche, Tarpley is a regular contributor and featured poster on the Jeff Rense website. If we can set aside the UFO mania found on Rense.com, there is still the promotion of Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories.
At some point leaders of the antiwar movement need to have a discussion about the larger issue of conspiracism. Right now, however, it is clear that some progressives have been snared by Tarpley’s mesmerizing presentations. This could undermine the credibility of the antiwar movement, alienate its existing base, and jeopardize its relationship with existing allies. This should be obvious no matter what your individual position is on the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. The antiwar movement needs to welcome individuals from a broad range of political beliefs who share the goal of ending the war in Iraq. However this open door policy should not include allowing charlatans and hucksters to disrupt the movement. It is time to slam the door in the face of Webster G. Tarpley and his ilk.
{1} Webster G. Tarpley, “Cheney Determined To Strike In US With WMD This Summer: Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him,” 7-21-7, http://www.rense.com/general77/chens.htm.
{3} “9/11 Truth -- The Key To Stopping World War III, Resolution Submitted To The 911 Chicago Truth Conference, June 2-4, 2006. This resolution was presented to the final plenary meeting of the conference by Webster G. Tarpley and acclaimed by voice vote. Tarpley is the author of the book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.”
{6} As of September 11, 2007, the Tarpley article is still on Michel Chossudovsky's Global Research website: Webster Griffin Tarpley, “Bush Regime working out Procedures for postponing November Election, posted July 10, 2004, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TAR407B.html.
{10} Tarpley’s book is published by Progressive Press, http://www.waronfreedom.org, which also publishes a book by Eric Hufschmid, Painful Questions . Hufschmid is described as one of the researchers "who openly mix 9/11 skepticism with Holocaust denial or revisionism," see "Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth," http://911review.com/denial/holocaust.html.
Jay I wanted to thank you again for your intuitive commentary. I enjoyed your article immensely. My article now posts in it's entirety. I'm not sure how much of it you'd read the lst time(technical difficulties) . My comments went far beyond Tarpley and LaRouche who are basically just a tip of the iceberg.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 304 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 10:53:19 AM
I appreciate the info too. Hans has already corrected the situation. The stuff you have provided will no doubt be of great help on future posts. Thanks again!
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 304 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 11:19:46 AM
Let's hope Michael Shaw is sincere but ignorant about 911. Critics with intellectual and moral integrity usually proceed by examining the best evidence for a position, not the worst, and by addressing the most responsible advocates for a position, not the worst. Shaw has done just the opposite, much to his discredit. Readers who want the best 911 sites may start with
The solid 911 researchers who immediately come to mind are Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon; Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin (except for his tragic embrace of no-plane hit the Pentagon); Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed; Steven Jones, and to a lesser extent (because his scope is limited), Paul Thompson. If you google them with respect to 911, you will learn a lot and will avoid the 911 nutcases sent to smear the movement, and in some cases naturally attracted to the movement but unable to think clearly about it.
Regard,
Michael Green
by
Michael Green (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 6 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 12:38:13 PM
Well Mr. Green I take note that you didn't even bother to acknowledge there was a negative side, of which there certainly is. But rather than trying to refute the content of my article, you decided instead to advertise me as uninformed and discredited. Well I suppose that's better than calling me an agent of the MOSSAD!? Regardless, I do appreciate your commentary.
My article is aimed only at this negative side, not the many credible people behind the movement. I feel it is important in that we question certain elements and sources to ascertain if their intentions are to promote truth or suppress it? This is precisely how David Corn feels about people like Michael Ruppert and conspiracy theories in general.
"In fact, out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison."
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 304 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 1:49:31 PM
**Steven Jones promotes molten metal, but the lack of steam explosions at Ground Zero prove the molten metal to be nothing but a hoax. In addition, Jones' molten metal "evidence" has been shown to be fabricated. See here for a step-by-step analysis.
**Kevin Ryan promotes Steven Jones, who promotes the molten metal hoax.
**David Ray Griffin is for a Global Government (aka One World Government aka New World Order). Griffin says this himself in this video from a presentation he gave in Ohio.
The above people have been planted to control the "truth movement".
Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."
Those interested in a new 9/11 investigation should support those who are actually pursuing one.Dr Judy Wood and Dr Morgan Reynolds, with their attorney Jerry Leaphart, have filed actual Court Cases in the US District Court, Southern New York. These Court Cases have been unsealed and Jerry Leaphart is now notifying the Defendants.
See Dr Judy Wood's site for the Court Document and admissible evidence that Directed Energy Weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center.
In an interview with Kevin Barrett, trial attorney Jerry Leaphart has said:
"What I can tell you and the listeners, Kevin, is this. There is more admissible evidence associated with the theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed by directed energy weapons than there is admissible evidence for any single other theory out there that has been promulgated."
See here and learn that NIST contracted with manufacturers of directed energy weapons for the NIST Report.
See Dr Morgan Reynolds site for the Court Document and admissible evidence that the corporate media broadcasted a cartoon of an airplane hitting the South Tower.
Even Peter Jennings at ABC News knew the video was fake. Note his nervousness and word fumbling when they play it back in slow motion in this news video clip.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 382 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 2:26:45 AM
There is overwhelming evidence that molten metal was found beneath all three WTC buildings, weeks after 9/11. To claim that because someone with ties to the govt. made this observation it is therefore false is a fallacious argument. Even liars must sometimes state the truth when they know that denying it will expose their bigger lies. Just so, the NIST and the FEMA reports contain truthful statements, even though the government's agenda has always been to cover up the real truth of what happened on 9/11. But even FEMA acknowledged having found melted steel at the site, and suggested this should be followed up in further investigations. NIST chose to just ignore the fact. Judy Wood is a very questionable character promoting unproven and discredited theories about what caused the WTC collapses. She is in stark contrast to Steven Jones, who adduces much evidence to support the thesis that the towers were destroyed in controlled demolitions. Judy Wood is an agent provocateur sent to destroy the 9/11 Truth movement. Those who support her are the same, or dupes of such agents.
by
Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 10:43:06 AM
You said:To claim that because someone with ties to the govt. made this observation it is therefore false is a fallacious argument.
Why do you say that?
It has been shown that Steven Jones' molten metal evidence is fabricated. Why would he need to make up evidence?
Jones said the molten metal was "running and in pools". Where was it running? Uphill in the day and down at night? Where did this molten metal accumulate?
And on top of all that, where were all the steam explosions? Where are the reports of FDNY personnel being burnt from splattering molten metal after spraying water? Where's the reports of steam explosions the week after 9/11 when it rained?
The molten metal story is a fairytale (just like the OGCT) put out to fool and distract people.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 382 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 2:15:06 PM
Why attack the truth movement instead of the people who perpetrated 911. It is a problem that you think creating distrust in the movement is paramount. Stop it please.
Another method of the Council is to get people from within to destroy the other. You are guilty. Stop it now. Let's not let them get away with this again. THAT is our mission, not discrediting seekers.
by
BreezyinVA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 11:23:04 PM
Sorry, but linking to an article does not prove your point. You need to explain it yourself, which you obviously cannot, since you are wrong.
September Clues does not address the physical impossibility of an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone gliding through steel girders and concrete slabs.
Airplanes did not crash into the Twin Towers.
by
CB Brooklyn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 382 comments)
on Friday, November 2, 2007 at 5:51:10 PM
Breezy with all due respect, my intentions are not to attack the entire truth movement, only elements who have infiltrated it and who have agendas beyond any search for truth. How is exposing extreme right wing elements who promote hatred hurting the movement, that is unless of course the movement sees nothing wrong with these elements?
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 304 comments)
on Thursday, November 1, 2007 at 12:16:56 PM
Good points, Michael Green. Shaw's piece reads like an extended ad hominem against the 9/11 truth movement. We can definitely find grounds to criticize people like Tarpley, from within the movement. But when it comes from people who support the government's Big Lie, it's intolerable, just another hit piece really.
by
Jeff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 10:29:42 AM
This is all ad hominem - a characteristic of those who do not want to debate the real issues. the old guilt by association and deflection trick and, gee, maybe Larouche/tarpley, et.al. actually had one or two good ideas. stick with 9-11 issues and debate them.
by
Kent Welton (49 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 1:32:10 PM
Kent, I appreciate your comments. Like you I believe we must learn and debate all we can about the events of 9/11 in all of its aspects, whether this means discussing those who are allegedly covering up these events, or those who claim to be exposing them. There are untested grounds in either scenario and until we investigate every angle, how will we ever make it possible to ascertain the undeniable truth?
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 304 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 2:32:34 PM
Although I have watched LaRouche for years with amusement and couldn't agree more with the author, I too worry that all of his arguments are made against the man and his associates rather than his arguments. This is the standard ploy of Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly, but should be beneath those of us that can actually reason. Even agents provocateur can occasionally, accidentally, be right.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 259 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 2:47:10 PM
I appreciate your analogy and in fact understand it. Also, I am by no means a fan of the folks you mentioned. However it is pretty evident if you're working for and associating yourself with anti-Semitic groups , then writing and promoting the same notions they do, there's a pretty good chance you are who you seem to be. All I've done was to bring forth associations that perhaps many others were never aware of. These connections are not a figment of my imagination.
I also believe my analogy is far different from this administration's(and its media henchmen) who based ties between Saddam and Al Queada on faulty intelligence and faulty sources, literally doctoring information. A million people died from that. The only thing that stands a chance of dying here is right wing involvement in the 9/11 truth movement.
by
Michael Shaw (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 304 comments)
on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 at 3:27:06 PM
If such articles diminish interest in the 911 truth movement
Then that is just terrible, because there is a huge amount of material justifying a new 9/11 investigation; some really good and important sites for those honestly seeking to learn more are:
911proff.com
patriotsquestion911.com
It is well know within the legitimate 9/11 truth movement that there are some despicable people trying to discredit it by intentionally raising false issues and presenting loony ideas and claiming to be part of the real movement.
