Title: Pat Buchanan banters about Hagee and 9/11 Truthers with Rolling Stone writer on MSNBC Source:
. URL Source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KciRZBuAqSE Published:Jun 3, 2008 Author:. Post Date:2008-06-03 16:16:11 by Artisan Keywords:None Views:1037 Comments:32
Pat Buchanan & Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone banter about zionist pastor john hagee and 9/11 truthers on MSNBC's 'morning joe' program. Taibbi refers to what he says are truthers 'nutty escapist fantasies'; the MSNBC anchors agree, using the terms 'wackjobs' & 'the great derangement'. Buchanan chimes in at the end and says the government does not provide answers.
This is a typical frivilous banter segment with a statist writer promoting his new book; Buchanan seems to try to delve deeper into the 9/11 conspiracy issue with Tabibbi, mentioning controlled demolition and 'building 5' but is interupted by the female anchor.
I've never seen buchanan address the issue of 911 truth before, have you? Although i suspect the coward knows completely all about it.
I once saw a very interesting interview from years ago with buchanan interviewing Larry McDonald and discussing jonn birchers and the conspiracy for world govt, shortly before Mcdonalds supposed death,. I suspect buchanan knows the truth but is a statist at heart.
That's interesting, i had not been familiar with them. What's your take on that group? I myself am Catholic and often refer to the Church's history of official (including current) condemnations of freemasonry.
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign subject of international law.[1]
After the conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade, it became a Catholic military order under its own charter. Following the loss of Christian territory in the Holy Land, the Order operated from Rhodes (1310-1523), and later from Malta (1530-1798), over which it was sovereign.
Although this state came to an end with the ejection of the Order from Malta by Napoleon, the Order as such survived. It retains its claims of sovereignty under international law and has been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations. SMOM is considered to be the main successor to the medieval Knights Hospitaller.
Today the order has 12,500 members, 80,000 permanent volunteers, 13,000 medical personnel including doctors, nurses, auxiliaries and paramedics. The goal is to assist the elderly, the handicapped, refugees, children, the homeless, those with terminal illness and leprosy in five continents of the world, without distinction of race or religion.[2] Through its worldwide relief corps, Malteser International, the Order is also engaged to aid victims of natural disasters, epidemics and armed conflicts. The full official name is Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta (in English) or Sovrano Militare Ordine Ospedaliero di San Giovanni di Gerusalemme di Rodi e di Malta (in Italian).
With its unique history and unusual present circumstances the exact status of the Order has been the subject of debate: it claims to be a traditional example of a sovereign entity other than a state. ....
.... The United Nations does not classify it as a "non-member state" but as one of the "entities and intergovernmental organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers".
... Professor Rebecca Wallace, writing more recently in her book "International Law", explains that a sovereign entity does not have to be a country, and that SMOM is an example of this. This position appears to be supported by the number of nations extending diplomatic relations to the Order, which more than doubled from 49 to 100 in the 20 year period to 2008.[4] The Holy See in 1953 proclaimed "in the Lord's name" that the Order of Malta was only a "functional sovereignty" - due to the fact that it did not have all that pertained to true sovereignty, such as territory.
That's interesting, i had not been familiar with them. What's your take on that group?
My take on groups such as the Knights of Malta will seem over-simplified, but here goes...These elites in control seem to have a need, or even be required somehow, to tell the public exactly what's going on. Sort of like they can later, after having been "discovered", say "we told you so!, but you chose not to do anything about it"--putting the onus on the victims. And, having all these intellectuals, like Buchanan and Schlafly and Dobbs, spewing constantly over troublesome topics serves to perpetuate the dialectic confusion. I believe Benito Mussolini was the first to recognize the Vatican's officialdom. After all, the Pope has called for a New world Order.
How do we separate the coincidences and stretched interpretations from the truth, correctly?
That's kind of a nebulous question, IMO. What do you think? The best we can do is to read as much as possible from all sides of the argument, and try to make a sane judgment. History, as best we can know it, says conspiracy is way more the case than coincidence.
I am starting to think that this is all about how we talk about things. He who writes the history, makes it. So no, this is not a nebulous question. To a large extent, conspiracy research is the reinterpretation of history. By definition, it tends to stay at the edges of what is considered accepted truth, though. We can read all we like, but until our views are the accepted interpretations, our alternate views will mostly be ignored. I think this explains why we think they're telling us the truth. It sounds like it, because we interpret things more critically than most do.
The winners always get to write history, so everybody believes their version to be correct. I guess, as human beings, we can never know many things FOR SURE to be true. Seeking the truth can become a "lofty" pursuit, and we can argue 'til blue-in-the-face about who's killing whom. Meanwhile, we are destroyed. Mission accomplished.
You know, when I was going through public schooling, getting indoctrinated, I never questioned where the information came from, nor did my parents. Ron Paul's wanting to abolish the Dept. of Education is a good idea, but have to wonder who would be writing history then. Guess this will be an ongoing problem.
It's a good question. The media reaches home schoolers through the Internet, TV, and radio. And many of their parents are Christian Zionists.
The few home-schooling parents I know personally are not Zionists, but you make a good point. We have been fed so much BS from all directions, it gets confusing, which is the intention. When the Bible has been tweaked to promote Israel (and IMO just who Israel is), and the news is written by the CIA, we are definitely getting the shaft when it comes to knowing the truth. While it's entertaining to post comments and chat with like-minded folks on forums such as this one, and I really do enjoy this myself, we must admit that doing so does not create any real resistance to the forces working against us. How's about more people sponsoring micro-transmitters for their local communities to inform their neighbors, who are being kept ignorant listening to corporate media? I've done this previously, and it's really pretty easy.