Obama and Romney both agree on one point: Do not debate 9/11.

 

“I’m aware that there are still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11, but let us be clear. Al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody.

And yet Al-Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.” – President Barack Obama, from his speech in Cairo, Egypt, on June 4, 2009. [Video: Obama Warns Not To Challenge Official 9/11 Story].

Alternative presidential candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein told more truths about American society and American politics in eight minutes on CNN than President Obama and Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney did in their first debate, which was over 1 and a half hours long.

The popularity of both Obama and Romney is dependent upon media propaganda and a brainwashed, enchantedpublic, which shows their political weakness as candidates. Their political bases are totally ignorant and have no idea that they’re being betrayed because they fail to look past the polished surfaces of their chosen saviours. The personality and talking points of the candidates drive the political discussion, not their policies or lack thereof.

Imagine the disillusionment among voters if their favourite robot on the big stage does not win in November. Some of Obama’s supporters have threatened to riot in the wake of an Obama loss. Of course, it is a mistake to concentrate on Obama’s more violent followers because they are a fringe element, but it still worrisome that so many people are expressing their plans to cause chaos via social media if their Messiah is not declared the victor. After anothermeaningless presidential election, the last thing America needs is chaos and violence.

In a society with free elections and a multiple amount of candidates to choose from, people would not invest so much of their emotion in one candidate. The Stalinist evolution of the American political system and culture has ruined the country because it has prevented new voices from entering the mainstream political conversation.

The era of “Messiah Politics” in America, which has existed for decades, culminated in November 2008 with the victory of the first black President. The rise of Obama proved that narrative is everything and truth is nothing in the 21st century American political and cultural landscape.

Voters want a glorified and saintly image of their president, not a real person with flaws. Obama’s failure to deliver the image of a robust, assertive, and confident president in his first debate with Romney did more damage to him as a candidate than his record of lying and killing in his first term in office.

The reason is because Obama’s cult-like followers do not care about the morality, integrity, and honesty of their leader. They have fallen under Obama’s hypnosis. They only care that 1) Obama is black, and 2) Obama is not Bush.

It doesn’t matter to Obama’s mindless followers that Obama has deviously continued Bush’s policies under the disguise of a black face, because they only concentrate on the face, and not what’s underneath. It is the reverse of what the great Martin Luther King Jr. said, that individuals should, “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Instead of judging Obama by the content of his character, his brainwashed followers are judging him by the colour of his skin. This is one of the most tragic twists in history.

What makes it more outrageous is that Obama feels no shame in exploiting the gullibility and ignorance of his followers. Politicians like him thrive on public ignorance. But not forever. Peter Suderman of Reason.com says that Obama’s narrative no longer grips the American imagination. The reality that Obama is a con artist is becoming harder to hide. The U.S. media understands that its role to serve as a Soviet propaganda machine for President Obama can no longer be justified.

What does any of this have to do with 9/11?

Like Obama, 9/11 is not looked at by the ignorant segments of the public with a critical eye. The myth of 9/11 satisfies their curiousity as does the myth of Obama. Truth does not move their hearts to act; narrative does. The image is more convincing to them than the facts.

On an intellectual level, watching Obama and Romney debate is like watching the twin towers collapse in slow motion over and over again. Their credibility evaporates to dust every time they open their mouths. Their presence symbolizes the decline in the rhetorical power of the Democrats and Republicans over America’s political discourse.

It is a national tragedy and a global catastrophe that these two con men are speaking for the great people of America. They have done significant damage to America’s reputation. The world must realize that they do not speak for America. America is better than this. History has proven so.

One response to “Obama and Romney both agree on one point: Do not debate 9/11.

  1. “…..I’m aware that there are still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11…”

    Interesting turn of phrase here. The ‘or even’ subtly implies a sliding scale exists where to question what actually happened on 9/11 is one step closer to justifying the attack itself. In reality the two have absolutely no relation to each other.

    ‘…but let us be clear. Al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody……”

    In this section a very long and boring (but emotive) list of obvious facts are given regarding the number of people killed, their sex, their age, their country of origin etc. We all know this. Delivered at Obama’s trademark slow speed public speaking delivery style this reinforces the emotional trauma of 9/11 while making our rational brain fall asleep with boredom.

    However, note that it is preceded by the assertion that Al Qaeda were the perpetrators – this is the most crucial part in this whole section of the speech (the part which actually begs proper analysis and debate).

    Yet the assertion that AQ was responsible for 9/11 is slipped in right before the subsequent list of boring numbers and facts which Obama is inviting us to think about. This list of facts in no way proves or disproves who actually did carry out 9/11. But the list does give our bored brains the *feeling* that we are being given very obvious and true factual information. We accept everything about that list of facts is true. And it is likely that the assertion about AQ will be accepted as well as ‘part of the package of obviously true information’.

    The analogy can be made of feeding a child one spoonful of questionable food, followed immediately by ten spoonfuls of yummy ice cream and jelly. The jelly and ice cream make us forget what we swallowed to begin with.

    If you think this is reading too much into a speech you might like to try reading this….

    An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches

    Here is an alternative version of the speech which uses clear language and actually addresses the issues involved. Read it and compare it to the original.

    “I’m aware that there are some people who still question the official account of what happened on 9/11. There are also other people who justify the offense of 9/11.

    But let us address the first issue to begin with: the validity of the official story. Al-Qaeda really did kill nearly 3,000 people on that day. We know this because…… ” (goes on to provide reason and evidence to back up this claim).

    Language is a powerful thing!

    —–

    “…..On an intellectual level, watching Obama and Romney debate is like watching the twin towers collapse in slow motion over and over again……”

    ‘Collapse’ is actually a very specific term. The twin towers did not in fact collapse. Nor were they blown up. They turned to dust in mid air. It might seem pedantic but avoiding misleading terminology when describing the demise of the twin towers (and WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) changes everything.

    For example, if everybody refers to a recently discovered dead body as the ‘shooting victim’ we immediately limit the investigation to a shooting. Perhaps he was poisoned, or died of a heart attack?

    “….Their credibility evaporates to dust every time they open their mouths. Their presence symbolizes the decline in the rhetorical power of the Democrats and Republicans over America’s political discourse….”

    They have every right to say whatever they like. If you don’t like what they say – don’t ‘vote’ for them. ‘Voting’ is completely immoral anyway. If you ‘vote’ you are literally advocating intimidation and violence be inflicted on others (as well as yourself).

    If you’re not personally prepared (both morally and practically) to come round my house with clubs, tasers and threats of being locked up in a cage and to use these methods of intimidation and violence to rob me of half my earnings to pay for stuff I object to (such as illegal wars and so on) then you should not be ‘voting’ for a third party to rob me on your behalf, acting as your ‘elected representatives’.

    The people most lacking credibility are the ‘voters’ who ‘vote’ for other people to behave in ways that they would never dream of behaving themselves in real life…… robbing their neighbours, killing children in overseas wars of empire, torturing people, redistributing wealth at the point of a gun etc etc etc.

    When people ‘vote’ they are giving their consent and support for an agency to initiate force against the rest of the population (and increasingly the rest of the world) in order to achieve their aims. And ‘voters’ are supporting this agency’s right to wield almost unlimited power and weaponry in order to impose maximum force. And ‘voters’ are advocating for all of this to be done without even the most basic legally binding contract being drawn up and signed by all parties!

    It’s completely insane.

    If ‘voters’ were suddenly made jointly accountable for any crimes committed by their elected representatives (should they get into power), do you think anyone would dare to ‘vote’? What does that tell us about the legitimacy and morality of ‘voting’?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s