Twenty-Five Arrested, Thousands Converge on Koch Brothers Billionaire's Caucus in the California Desert

AlterNet.org

NEWS & POLITICS

Firedoglake / By David Dayen

Twenty-Five Arrested, Thousands Converge on Koch Brothers Billionaire's Caucus in the California Desert

Sunday's protest against the Koch brothers' right-wing gathering in Rancho Mirage demonstrated a growing boldness by progressive causes and activists.

January 31, 2011

Note: The article below reprinted from FireDogLake by David Dayen recounts the events of Sunday's protest against the Koch brothers in Rancho Mirage, CA. The demonstration signals a series of promising developments for progressive groups and activists. Notably, the event was marked by an impressive coalition effort by the participating organizations, positive energy and activism by the attendants, and the wide-held understanding that it is the Koch's ill-gotten, obscene wealth that has made the Tea Party and hundreds of right-wing abuses of our democratic system possible. Author Jim Hightower said it well in the kick-off event in a packed large movie theater before the protest; the problem the Kochs represent is what the 19th century populists used to call "the money power," and our right to speak out against it is rooted in our "democratic authority" as citizens concerned with the general welfare of the country.

Twenty-five protesters were arrested in Rancho Mirage, California on Sunday, at a protest in front of the Rancho Las Palmas resort, site of the “Billionaire’s Caucus,” an annual meeting put on by the Koch Brothers and other corporate entities and conservative movement operators.

Riverside Sheriff’s deputy Melissa Nieburger said that the sheriff’s department did have contacts with protest organizers, which included the California Courage Campaign, CREDO, MoveOn.org, 350.org, the California Nurses Association, United Domestic Workers of America and the main sponsor, the good-government group Common Cause, prior to the event, and that they were aware that some protesters would seek to be arrested for trespassing. She would not guarantee that all 25 who were arrested were part of that coordinated operation. The police, who wore riot gear, batons and helmets, did put the arrested into plastic handcuffs. Nieburger described them as “passive restraints.” They were being processed at press time, and Nieburger would not say whether they would be released or would spend the night at the jail in Indio.

Nieburger estimated between 800 and 1,000 activists at the “Uncloak the Kochs” event. Event organizers chartered buses from several locations around Southern California and claimed 1,500 people signed up for those buses, on top of any local activists who attended. It appeared from the ground that well over 1,000 protesters were there.

While the sheriff’s deputy claimed no knowledge of who called out the Riverside County sheriffs and the Palm Springs police department to the proceedings, Common Cause was contacted by the sheriff to see what they were planning and coordinate appropriate resources. The city of Rancho Mirage contracts with the Riverside County sheriff’s department for their law enforcement needs.

Van Jones, the former green jobs deputy in the Obama Administration and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, described the anti-Koch rally as “the beginning of our fight back.” The leadership of Common Cause, generally a far more congenial organization, was a bit unusual, part of a new aggressiveness and penchant for direct action from the group. “I think you’re going to see a new Common Cause.”

The Koch Brothers, billionaires who have generously funded conservative and libertarian causes for over a generation – including the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and tea party groups like Americans for Prosperity – put together an annual meeting, typically held in the California desert, with fellow corporate CEOs and conservative operatives, to plan the year ahead. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain were reputed to attend the gathering at the sprawling Rancho Las Palmas resort. The Kochs bought out the entire resort for Saturday and Sunday. Some activists who stayed at the resort Friday night and booked dinners at their restaurants on Saturday had their reservations canceled by the resort, and were given $150 each for their trouble.

Common Cause organized the protest weeks ago, and set up a stage in the parking lot across the street from the Rancho Las Palmas resort. But from the beginning, activists were far more interested in the resort site, and they massed themselves across the street and then eventually in the driveway of the resort. The police, in their riot gear, came out very early to guard the resort, only letting in authorized personnel. Hotel guests, presumably attendees to the Koch Brothers meeting, looked on, holding smart phone cameras and taking pictures of the display. In addition, conservative provocateur Andrew Breitbart, resplendent in shorts and roller skates, mulled around the crowd with a couple lackeys and a small video camera, talking to (and arguing with) attendees. I asked Breitbart exactly who necessitated the riot police, the lady with the papier-maché puppet or the Code Pink lady’s umbrella, and he claimed to have seen unspecified “internal emails” proving the potential for violence and the need for security. Surely that will come out in the next few days. I didn’t want to keep him from his workout, so I wrapped up the interview.

After a litany of speakers – including Jim Hightower, Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, and Common Cause President and former Illinois Congressman Bob Edgar, the entire group of protesters moved to the setup across the street from the resort. Police helicopters buzzed overhead. After a while, the police agreed to shut down Bob Hope Drive, and the protesters streamed across the street and directly in front of the resort, just a few inches away from the phalanx of riot cops. The usual protest chanting and raising of banners ensued. More cops were brought in, traipsing over the flower beds. And 25 protesters were taken away in a paddy wagon. The protests were generally peaceful, and the police professional.

The protesters generally decried the Koch Brothers’ influence over American democracy, in particular their use of the Citizens United ruling to spend corporate money in elections. Koch Industries’ funding of climate denialism and other conservative causes was on the minds of the protesters as well.

After about 45 minutes, the cops opened the road again (the police originally said they would only shut the street for 7 minutes) and asked the crowd to disperse. Eventually, the crowd did so, chanting “This is just the beginning.”

Sheriff’s deputy Neiburger would not say whether this was the first time protesters had disrupted the Koch Brothers meetings, but up until last year and a series of articles by Lee Fang of Think Progress, they had not been well-publicized.

Bob Edgar, the President of Common Cause, said in a brief interview that he was happy with the turnout and the outcome. I asked him if this was evidence of a more aggressive organization. “Keep watching,” he said.

FDL’s Gregg Levine and David Dayen will have more pictures and video that they will post on FireDogLake.

David Dayen writes for FireDogLake's News Desk.

The Olbermann Era

The Olbermann Era

Tuesday 25 January 2011

by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Keith Olberman in Washington, DC, in 2009. (Photo: afagen)

A quick confession that might not sit well with many Truthout readers: I was, on a personal level, quite ambivalent about the loss of Keith Olbermann's show, "Countdown," when he announced his exit last week. If "Meh" can sum up an emotion, then that's how I felt when I heard the deal went down.

Don't get me wrong here: I was, and remain, a great and devoted fan of Keith Olbermann and the work he did at MSNBC. I have been a devotee of Mr. Olbermann since his old-school moustache days anchoring the ESPN show “Sportscenter” during the golden age of that program. But I have spent the last several years experiencing his “Countdown” work in text form, i.e. reading instead of watching, and in ten-minute online video snippets, because I avoid all cable “news” programming the way cats avoid water. All of it, even the stuff I tend to agree with.

When "Countdown" first began in 2003, I watched it almost every night - the only cable “news” show I consistently tuned in to - but quickly soured on the whole experience. I just can’t stand it, any of it. I can’t stand the emotional manipulation that comes with all forms of televised “news,” and have for many times many a day now refused to let them in my head. I also never saw the point in getting all riled up at eight o'clock at night. What was I supposed to do with all that rage after nine? Punch the walls and kick the cat, maybe indulge in a little firebombing? Didn’t seem prudent.

The production of "Countdown" - the flashes, the music, the jump cuts - made me feel like I had rocks rolling around in my head. This was not solely an Olbermann problem for me; all cable “news” programming leaves me feeling the same way, which is why I swore it off years ago. If CNN or MSNBC played footage of puppies playing with baby pandas next to a pile of bunnies and kittens, it would still give me a headache. It wasn't Keith's fault. I'm just allergic to the medium itself, and have largely avoided it for more than a decade.

All that aside, there is no doubt that Mr. Olbermann’s “Countdown” was something very special. In a polluted sea of corrupted corporate “news” brainwashing, his was a voice of loud, angry reason. He paved the way for the excellence of Rachel Maddow to make its own impressive mark on the TV “news” landscape. He spoke a great deal of truth that had not been heard on the airwaves for far too long. By modeling himself and his show after Edward R. Murrow, even going so far as to use Murrow's iconic "Good night, and good luck" sign-off at the end of every broadcast, he gave us a daily reminder that the "news" was not always like it is today, and that it can - nay, must - improve for the good of the republic.

His very existence became a thorn in the side of the corporation that owns his network, and the corporations behind all the other networks. He kicked some cash to a few Democratic candidates - Rep. Gabrielle Giffords being one - and it turned into a nine-day wonder of a debate about broadcasting standards and the hypocrisy of MSNBC's upper management. It still cracks me up when I think about it: here were these corporate network owners who scream bloody murder about money equaling speech, but when Olbermann exercised his constitutional right to participate in the political process by way of that particular brand of "speech," he got a two-day rip and a public scolding. The whole charade shamed his bosses deeply and publicly, and probably had more than a bit to do with his eventual departure from the network he pretty much single-handedly put on the map.

To me and so many others, he was a beacon of sanity during the bleak darkness of the Bush years. Remember the timeline here: the 2000 election catastrophe was followed by a ceaseless cable “news” refrain of, "This is an orderly transition of power, nothing to see here, go back to bed," which infuriated everyone who knew that particular game had been fixed. This was followed by the push for war in Iraq ballyhooed by every cable network - "Navy SEALS rock!" - until the bullets started flying and the IED's started going off. All throughout, the myriad scandals and crimes of the Bush administration went largely ignored and unreported...until Keith came along, reminding us that, "Today is the 521st day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq."

Mr. Olbermann was one of the only voices in broadcasting who openly discussed the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame by the Bush administration. When the 2004 election results in Ohio were corrupted by brazen manipulation and vote fraud, it was Olbermann who raised the loudest televised cry. It was Olbermann who, day after day, hammered the awful truth about the invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it was Olbermann who pounded home the fact that the Bush administration was little more than a deranged criminal enterprise that threatened the very fabric of the nation.

For me, Mr. Olbermann delivered his most memorable, impassioned and important "Special Comment" in 2006, in the aftermath of George W. Bush's press conference in the Rose Garden, in which Bush played the Nazi card and essentially implied that anyone who disagreed with him and his policies was an ally of al Qaeda. That night, Mount Olbermann erupted:

It is to our deep national shame - and ultimately it will be to the President's deep personal regret - that he has followed his Secretary of Defense down the path of trying to tie those loyal Americans who disagree with his policies - or even question their effectiveness or execution - to the Nazis of the past, and the al Qaeda of the present.

Today, in the same subtle terms in which Mr. Bush and his colleagues muddied the clear line separating Iraq and 9/11 - without ever actually saying so - the President quoted a purported Osama Bin Laden letter that spoke of launching, "a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government."

Make no mistake here - the intent of that is to get us to confuse the psychotic scheming of an international terrorist, with that familiar bogeyman of the right, the "media."

The President and the Vice President and others have often attacked freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent, and freedom of the press.

Now, Mr. Bush has signaled that his unparalleled and unprincipled attack on reporting has a new and venomous side angle: the attempt to link, by the simple expediency of one word - "media" - the honest, patriotic, and indeed vital questions and questioning from American reporters, with the evil of al-Qaeda propaganda.

That linkage is more than just indefensible. It is un-American.

Mr. Bush and his colleagues have led us before to such waters.

We will not drink again.

And the President's re-writing and sanitizing of history, so it fits the expediencies of domestic politics, is just as false, and just as scurrilous.

"In the 1920's a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews," President Bush said today, "the world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible price."

Whatever the true nature of al Qaeda and other international terrorist threats, to ceaselessly compare them to the Nazi State of Germany serves only to embolden them.

More over, Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama Bin Laden and others seek - a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety.

It thus becomes necessary to remind the President that his administration's recent Nazi "kick" is an awful and cynical thing.

And it becomes necessary to reach back into our history, for yet another quote, from yet another time and to ask it of Mr. Bush:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

The forces against independent journalism are growing. Help Truthout keep up the fight against ignorance and regression! Support us here.

The manner of Mr. Olbermann's departure remains shrouded in mystery; the man himself has made no comment on the matter, which may have something to do with the deal that was cut to end his contract two years early. Many have opined – correctly, in all likelihood - that the looming Comcast takeover of NBC Universal played a large role. As Buzzflash Editor Mark Karlin wrote over the weekend:

According to James Wolcott of Vanity Fair, the chairman of Comcast Spectacor, Ed Snider, is funding a right-wing cable channel/Internet site called "RightNetwork." Wolcott sniffs at "RightNetwork" as a "pseudo-populist operation" starring an array of right-wing freaks.

Ominously, Wolcott notes "that it was Snider who invited Sarah Palin to drop the hockey puck at the Flyers' season opener in 2008, and Palin's been dropping pucks ever since."

There's little reason to doubt that Olbermann's abrupt exit from MSNBC was the first puck to drop as Comcast slap shots MSNBC away from being a progressive beachhead.

In one man we find the confluence of so many pressing issues. Mr. Olbermann stands at the center of the dire need for – and dire lack of – progressive voices within “mainstream news” broadcasting; he threw his shoulder against the wall of corporate hypocrisy; he stood and bellowed against the misdeeds of those in political power; and, ultimately, he stands today as the likely victim of the continued right-wing domination of the “news” media.

People are understandably outraged and disturbed over his abrupt and ill-defined departure from MSNBC…so how, in the face of all this, can I justify my “Meh” reaction?

Well, I already explained the first reason.

The second reason is simple: Keith Olbermann is not dead. He was not beamed to Neptune, never to be seen or heard from again.

Write it down, carve it in stone, make a note, and bet the farm:

Olbermann will be back.

Somewhere, somehow, some day, in one form or another, Mr. Olbermann will be with us again. We will hear or read his own words on the matter of his departure, and then we will hear him again, and again, and again. Giants do not fall easily, and this particular era of political commentary is not over by a long chalk. Edward R. Murrow had his own troubles with management in the darkness of the McCarthy days, and it did not keep him down or silent one iota. So shall it be with Mr. Olbermann in these dark days of corporate hegemony.

Same as it ever was.

Giants do not fall easily. Count on it.

In the meantime, good night, and good luck.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

January 8, 2011 at 12:44:31

Dissent, Once The Highest Form Of Patriotism, Now An Endangered Concept

By michael payne (about the author)

opednews.com

Dissenters by Michael Payne


The historical quote, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" has often been attributed to Thomas Jefferson but historians have been unable to verify that belief. Who actually said it matters little; what matters is the intent of the words themselves that tell us American citizens have a patriotic duty to dissent and to speak out when it is apparent their government is creating policies and taking actions that are in conflict with the best interests of the people and the laws of the land.

The right of patriotic dissent has been a part of America since those days that brought us our independence. However, in recent years, especially since 9/11, the notion that Americans have the right to dissent has become more and more problematic. Right-wing conservatives and their many associates in the controlled media have tried to silence voices of dissent in America. Serious attempts to question the actions of our government, especially in matters relating to war, are met with charges of unpatriotic behavior and treasonous intentions.

A great example of patriotic dissent can be found during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower. While some historians consider his presidency to have been devoid of great achievements, during his time in office, from 1953 to 1961, after he had ended the Korean War, America enjoyed a period of peace without war. That is certainly a great achievement.

Eisenhower was a five-star general and the commander of the allied forces in World War II. After the war he became the first commander of NATO. This was a man who knew war, a man who had conducted a massive invasion of France and Germany. Here's an excerpt from his wise and insightful speech entitled, "The Chance for Peace" that he gave to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16, 1953, shortly after he became president:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

Is there no other way the world may live?"

These are very powerful words that should resonate across the full spectrum of America in this great time of national crisis as our government leads us further and further into a massive quagmire of foreign wars.

Yes, this was a man who knew what war was all about. He knew how to conduct wars; but he also knew that wars were not the real answers to nations' differences. At the end of this speech he said these words of great wisdom -- "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

That speech was given after he had just returned from Korea where he had witnessed that conflict first hand. He returned convinced that the war had to be ended and that peace negotiations had to be initiated. He was met with great opposition by his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and Defense Secretary Charles Wilson. He was subjected to the scathing criticism of the military and congressional war hawks who called him an appeaser, and even threatened him with impeachment. But he knew what he had to do and he prevailed.

It was said that "Ike" blew the whistle on those who were determined to continue on the path to war. President Eisenhower was a true American patriot and, by that speech and similar statements, he was exercising a form of patriotic dissent while he was a part of the government that he knew was going in the wrong direction. Yes, anyone can and should exercise the right to dissent, when the situation requires it; even a president of the United States.

He was not hesitant to speak out and directly challenge the views of those elements of the government, the military, and the defense industry that had intentions of using America's military power to pursue and sustain an agenda of global hegemony. As he was leaving office in 1961 he gave a notable farewell speech in which he stated, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Consider this recent headline from the Huffington Post website: "63% of Americans Oppose War in Afghanistan." That's great news but also troubling. It's easy to respond to polling, but when the majority of America is against that war, where is the real dissent, where are the voices of the people? There are some dissenting voices in the progressive movement such as antiwar activist David Swanson, and even a handful of those in Congress, if you can believe it. However, the mass media, including liberal voices, are simply not speaking out. For the most part passive silence has become the order of the day.

These trying times call for more involvement -- not less -- by Americans in questioning the actions of their government. Going into the future, one of the greatest dangers to this nation will be the suppression of dissent by those in positions of power. When the voice of the people is silenced out of fear of retribution, America will become a pacified, controlled society. Sad to say, that eventuality is far closer to reality than we realize.

Michael Payne is an independent progressive who writes articles about domestic social and political matters as well as American foreign policy. His major goal is to convince Americans that our perpetual wars must end before they bankrupt our nation. (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Responding to the Conservative Propaganda Machine

Responding to the Conservative Propaganda Machine

Saturday 02 January 2010

by: Joe Brewer, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Photo: paparatti)

So now you've seen the power of conservative propaganda for setting America's agenda. During the November 2010 elections, we saw the annihilation of progressive ideas by the most sophisticated, deeply funded and precisely orchestrated public relations system ever concocted.

And they are preparing to take things up a notch now that they've won. The gears are well-greased and the engine is humming. Prospects are slim for President Obama and the remaining progressives in Congress. If we don't act now, 2012 will mark the end of the progressive rise to power in American politics.

Now is the time to respond with force.

We have to rally together and stop the message machine that aligns corporate wealth with the American story. The stakes are too high for us to ignore this threat any longer. Our enemy is not a party. It is a system designed to manipulate public perceptions about what it means to be American - and it is unraveling the tapestry of our culture and destroying our democracy.

I've watched the progressive leadership closely in the last five years as they have repeatedly underestimated this oppositional force and overlooked its fundamental threat to America's future. They have invested nearly all of their time and money in candidates and policies, naively thinking that rational discourse would save the day despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Very little has been done to build the twenty-first-century communication infrastructure we need to counter the vast network of think tanks, media outlets and cultural myths that preserve the status quo.

To give you a sense of exactly what we're up against, consider how the Tea Party movement came into being:

1. A group of billionaires organized by Koch Industries came together and designed the initiative.
2. Spokespeople were planted in the mainstream media to suggest that it was time for a revolution reminiscent of the founding days of our country.
3. A massive media platform, including Fox News and conservative radio, spread the meme to every corner of the country.
4. Seed funding was provided to organize the first rallies, all the while painting it as a "grassroots movement."
5. Narratives that had been planted by conservative think tanks throughout the last forty years were evoked as "traditional values."
6. Real concerns by people suffering under corporate corruption were tapped to evoke strong anger and fear.
7. People came out in droves to support Tea Party candidates who were actually in cahoots with their corporate benefactors.

All of the investments have paid off. The Democratic majority in Congress is gone. President Obama has been put on the defensive. And local initiatives across the country have advanced conservative policies into law at the city, county and state levels.

Put simply, we're getting our asses kicked.

Now more than ever, we need effective governance in the various sectors, including both public and private, to save our country from collapse. Yet what we have is a deep collusion between wealthy corporatists and a significant cabal in government. Their collusion is profoundly anti-democratic and even anti-market (as demonstrated by the devastating impacts of their policies on financial markets in 2008). So what we're getting is a group of financiers who set up communication systems to manipulate public perception and drive boom-crash cycles in the economy to siphon all forms of wealth into their coffers.

We can't let this happen any longer. Now is the time to act.

Are you concerned about the future of America? Would you like to finally see the American people have a stronger footing than large corporations in our politics? Then you should invest wisely in the infrastructure that is capable of elevating progressive ideas so that they can dominate public discourse. Stop dumping all your money and time into reactive campaigns to save progressive policy from the conservative hammer. Break out of the election cycle mold and build for the long haul. And start being strategically proactive by targeting the source of power our opposition holds – the conservative worldview.

When I was a fellow of the now-defunct Rockridge Institute, I saw the potential for decisive strategic action that reframes political debate. It was painful to watch progressive philanthropists turn their backs on this foundational work and pour all their money into the 2008 campaign. What would have happened if they had instead pooled a few million dollars to invest in the design of a communication framework that brings coherence to the progressive vision? How might this year's election have been different if progressives across the country were taught how to deconstruct conservative stories and challenge them in a manner that fundamentally weakens their influence?

It's getting late in the game and our side is way behind. Our only chance for a comeback is to respond directly to the conservative propaganda machine. Right now we don't have adequate capacity for getting our messages out to the public, and we rely too heavily on outdated tactics that repeatedly fail in the face of such a powerful opposition.

We have to be smart. We have to be organized. And we have to be strategic. It's now or never.

Are you with me?

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

January 1, 2011 at 11:18:46

Compassionate Resistance - #5 Conspiracy Theory

By Jeeni Criscenzo (about the author)

opednews.com

#5 CONSPIRACY THEORY: The courage to think critically

The other night, on our local news, there was a report about the flooding at Qualcomm Stadium following days of torrential rain. The stadium and the shopping centers in Mission Valley were built on a flood plain. Everyone knew this was a floodplain and that sometimes floodplains flood. But the way the reporter told it, the reason the stadium and shopping centers flooded was because environmentalists had held up channel clearing in Murphy Canyon Creek. No one said a word about the developers who pulled strings to build in a flood plain the first place, or the fact that the City has known about this situation for years and could have done the necessary impact review long ago. I wonder how many people watching that report caught the insidious way that the developer-controlled media used this event to disparage environmentalists. How many people asked themselves, What do environmentalists have to gain by insisting on ecological safeguards versus what do developers have to gain by disregarding them?

Does it matter if we'd rather not think about whether or not what our government/media/military/corporations tells us is the truth? We have so much to deal with just trying to survive, what difference does it make if we're not being given the real story? And, isn't it possible that sometimes we're not being told everything for our own protection? We can't possibly investigate everything ourselves, so we just have to trust that our government is protecting us. So maybe some people make some money along the way, but basically people are good and they wouldn't do something that would jeopardize our country and the American people. Right?

If we are going to build a resistance movement, we are going to have to confront those thoughts, in both ourselves and our family and neighbors. A good place to start is the official account of the events of September 11, 2001. Has any part of that story ever seemed suspect to you? When you watched the twin towers collapsed at freefall speed, over and over again, did you wonder how that could happen when the planes hit the upper parts of the building. When you heard about Building 7 collapsing later that evening, did that seem strange? When they showed photos of the Pentagon, did you wonder where the debris from the plane was? When they displayed photos of the 19 hijackers on TV that day and identified Osama bin Ladin as the perpetrator, did you wonder how they got that information so quickly?

If we question the official story told to us by the 9/11 commission, we are immediately labeled conspiracy nuts. Everything else we try to do will lose credibility. So there's not a lot of motivation to "go there". Even progressive media sources like "Democracy Now" avoid the subject of 9/11. Liberal intellectuals who speak and write extensively about the crimes of the Bush administration, yet depend on government grants, remain mum. The few politicians who have dared to question the official story have not been re-elected. Investigative journalists Gary Webb and Hunter Thompson, who dared to touch the subject, have paid dearly -" both were "suicided". Ah, but that sounds like just another conspiracy theory"

Fear of repercussion is not the only factor that compels otherwise intelligent people to avoid questioning the outrageous inconsistencies in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. There are so many levels of fear involved: fear of acknowledging that Americans could have been so universally duped; fear that there are human beings with so much power and totally lacking in moral restraints, who could pull this off; fear of seeming paranoid; fear of fear itself. We have so many nice rational reasons to just letting sleeping dogs lie"

I don't pretend to know who was actually responsible for 9/11 or if it was in fact a conspiracy, but by publicly questioning the findings of the 9/11 Commission and THEIR conspiracy theory, I have been labeled a "Conspiracy Nut". I think that 9/11 was a test: a test to see how willing American's were to deny the obvious when it was too uncomfortable to acknowledge it; a test to see how easily we could could be controlled by fear; a test to see if we were willing to relinquish personal freedom and our innate sense of morality in order to protect our personal comfort zone.

When I was writing my daily blog, "CPR4Democracy" between 2003 -" 2005, I asked a lot of questions that no one wanted to answer, not just about 9/11. I asked why the investigation into the anthrax attacks was suddenly dropped when the source was attributed to a U.S. government lab. I asked why we were attacking Afghanistan when the supposed hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. I asked why were attacking Iraq when they had no WMDs. It seemed like no one was listening.

But here in San Diego, one woman read an article I'd written called "Qui Bono", that listed how everyone on the 9/11 Commission had profited from the 9/11 attacks and the two wars it justified. And she was motivated by that article to find out more. I suggested that she read a book written by Dr. David Ray Griffin, a shy theologian who asked a lot of questions about the things we were being told about 9/11 that didn't make sense in a book titled "The New Pearl Harbor". She began to tell others about the unmistakable inconsistencies in what we were being told took place on that terrible morning in September 2001. Since then, Nelisse Mugga has built one of the most active "Truther" groups in the country (www.sd911truth.org). Every month 100 or more people show up at their meetings at Joyce Beers Community Center.

What drives people like Nelisse Muga to work relentlessly to educate people about something they would rather not know about? I suspect it has something to do with how much they love their freedom and the realization that if we don't start asking questions, we are going to lose it. They know that 9/11 wasn't the first BIG LIE foisted on the American people, although it might have been the most dramatic. And it wasn't the last. Our collective willingness to deny what our eyes can clearly see has opened the door to a continuous barrage of assaults on our democracy and our future. Here are two of the most pressing, in my opinion.

Chemtrails: Almost any day, in almost any part of the WORLD you can look up in the sky and see planes laying a grid of cloud-like trails across our skies. They are doing this in plain sight and hardly anyone questions it. If you do, you are labeled a "conspiracy nut" and that shuts most people up. But who is doing this and what are they doing? The cost of this global operation boggles the mind. Who has this kind of money and who has the power to do this throughout the world without answering to any government? If they are doing something good, why aren't we being told about it? "What in the World Are They Spraying" (http://www.viddler.com/explore/Drewsick/videos/24/) is an excellent video to get you thinking -" I promise you will never be able to look up in the sky with innocence again.

BP Oil Spill -" so you think that somehow, magically, BP capped their "leaky" well and all the oil in the Gulf of Mexico disappeared? This disaster is still unfolding and its consequences are so far-reaching that it boggles the mind. Maybe that's why we're not being told anything. Do your homework and use the internet and you will learn that oil and gas continue to pour into the Gulf through fractures in the sea bed. The Gulf Loop, a critical part of the ocean conveyor system, has by some accounts stopped. Possibly the entire Gulf Stream has stopped or slowed and this could be what's causing the brutal winter in Northern Europe and could usher in a mini ice age.

It's overwhelming and yes, and it's depressing. Once you realize the scope of the deception we are under, you start to question everything. That doesn't make you paranoid -" it makes you prepared. If something doesn't make sense, consider what hidden agendas are behind the message and who benefits? You can't have a resistance movement if you are afraid to acknowledge who and what you are up against. Only the truth will set us free. Be certain that you will be mocked, perhaps even threatened in your pursuit of the truth. No one ever said resistance was easy, but the alternative will be far worse.

www.criscenzo.com

Jeeni Criscenzo is an entrepreneur, peace activist and author. She was 2006 Democratic candidate for Congress - 49th District. In 2003 she traveled around the country in an RV, writing her daily blog: CPR4Democracy. She is also a founder of (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.