I have a few entries I have been working on for a few days. But I had a journey of web links that led me back to Alex Jones’ websites. I actually feel a bit foolish for trying to dissect The Obama Deception... knowing already that it was an Alex Jones Production.
Anyone that knows me personally, knows that I am a not a conspiracy theorist . . . I believe many of these deceptions of government control and exercises in power are not theories, but merely facts. I frequently cite Operation Ajax in reference to the situations in the Middle East. I talk about the Opium Wars, Commodore Perry in Japan, Oliver North, elite manipulation, false consciousness, government assassinations and the list really goes on. These are not “theories.” We know about Operation Ajax, it has been declassified.
I do have suspicions of other events, and vocalize them when appropriate. Like in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Not long ago, documents were declassified that showed the CIA was, in fact, involved in the displacement of the elected President of the Democratic Republic of Congo in favor of the murderous bastard Mobutu Sese Seko.
When I read the works of Alex Jones, I am initially left with little reaction. I have tried to watch several of his dozens of films. Some of his conclusions are about as sound as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or New Age wizards that talk about the healing properties of crystals the aliens left on Earth. He has made so many films, I cannot believe that there has been any laborious research involved in any of them. These movies come out faster than Steven King cranks out a new book.
Not long ago, I attempted to watch Terrorstorm. It is billed as “A History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism” – which sounds well enough. Upon watching this film, it became clear that, although it was not exactly false, there were a lot of broad leaps and gaps of missing information.
Having a broad vocabulary and being able to illustrate points and topics is a wonderful skill. In politics, this is essential. The ability to convince is one of the qualities that makes a politician successful. But, what happens when actions do not match the words? I notice this all too often in contemporary American politics.
The most obvious example is the recent Tea Party Movement and their vocalization for “smaller government” and less entitlements. This movement, supposedly, began as a movement that felt “Taxed Enough Already.” They were against excessive taxation without proper representation. This is a common grievance that goes back centuries and is typically a warranted feeling. The Tea Party coalesced into a movement that mandated “smaller government” (or “Constitutionally Limited Government”), less taxation and less regulation.
Meanwhile, many Tea Party members, who supposedly support a “limited government” also support government intrusion into whom can marry (only heterosexual, monogamous marriages), when a woman has the ability to terminate a pregnancy (if ever), who the government gets to execute, what churches and religions get to do what and where, and what steps should be taken in regard to “national security.”
I could honestly write a six thousand word rant just on how much contempt of I have for the TSA. It is taken every ounce of restraint and focus only on the political topic. The TSA and airport security has made the news recently as, first, a man in San Diego basically told the screeners he refused to go through the “body scanner” and told them during a pat down not to “touch his junk.” Then it was disclosed that pictures from the body scanners were stored and leaked. Something we were told could not happen. People like Limbaugh, Drudge, Palin, Beck, and so on, refer to Janet Napolitano, the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, as “Big Sister”, referencing her to “Big Brother.” What is interesting is that many of the policies of the TSA and Homeland Security were issued by Michael Chertoff, her predecessor. (Chertoff has a security firm called the Chertoff Group. One of their clients is Rapiscan Systems, one of the only 2 manufacturers of this technology.) Chertoff was the co-author of the Patriot Act. Bob Cesca wrote a good piece on the topic entitled “When Your ‘Junk’ Is Touched at the Airport, Thank A Republican.”
What I’m getting at with the Napolitano/Chertoff thing is that the Tea Party Movement seems to only have a problem with Big Government when it is counter to their personal beliefs. To be fair, I gave this a lot of thought and I do think this occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. Many on the Left claim that we need to promote healthier lifestyles, better education, better home environments for children, higher educational standards, and other issues that effect a personal lives. Yet, when it comes to personal privacy, there is an issue of violating a person. (I can be included in this logic.) Why is it ok to control what people eat and how they raise their children but still claim they have a right to personal privacy? It is a valid question. (A question that I could honestly answer but it would take a while.)
When looking at the message versus the actions, the Tea Party and the New Right really do take the contradictory cake. The most obvious issue is the stance for Capital Punishment but against abortion. The case against abortion is that “all life is precious.” Then, these same people want the state to take someone’s life. (And the only thing a state execution provides is that the person executed will never do anything, ever again.) If all life is precious, why does the state have the right to take a life? It is a contradiction in ideology that cannot be reconciled. (And you can argue the opposite direction, it works on some levels.)
I think this can be seen from the very namesake they have chosen. And, now, for today’s history lesson: