Friday, August 12, 2005

"Now, you can either make up your own conspiracy theories or you can watch the ones backed up by years of research, footage and documents."

I gotchoo Daft...

It shocks me that people won't believe in the possibility of a conspiracy when people have been thinking about the possibility of a conspiracy for 40 years...

Not to mention: why would we be defending it if it was crap? We're already out there in suggesting it's worth seeing, and if it was crap it'd be a waste of time to even mention with no popular support. Most of the anti-Michael Moore films were crap, they got no mainstream traction and no validation by the press and a party that would have loved to vilify him. Still, that garbage was given credibility by thousands of people wih an agenda looking to bash him who cited it as "great" for partisan political reasons, this little film will have to stand on its own.

Besides, crazier stuff has happened than a guy with CIA connections being suggested as a suspect for a hit only the CIA could carry off...

This isn't a moral issue, the Bush's can be judged on their individual actions - though for the record, I haven't seen Bush Jr. improve the world on any metric so far without losing big on another one: got Saddam = destroyed Iraq, missed Osama = destroyed Afghanistan...


Stop and think about it: someone knows who killed JFK.

And who could've pulled it off?

Calling off the military from providing an escort? Calling off JFK's Secret Service from jogging beside the car? (Check the Zapruder film - where they at?) Ensuring the Warren Commission covered it up?

Cubans? Mafia?

Nah. They would've been perfect targets for an investigation.


Better leave them alone.

Then you've got to ask yourself: why did J. Edgar Hoover write a memo with Bush Sr.'s name on it to the CIA director in 1963? Bush Sr. said he'd never done anything with the CIA until 1976. Then in 1976 he became head of the CIA, just as the former head who was in the process of implicating Bush Sr. and Co. in actual testimony was fired. Then he quickly ended the CIA's cooperation, and killed any probe into JFK's murder.

(BTW, there's a lot more of this stuff, believe you me, there's a lot more than this paragraph in the film.)

Now, you can either make up your own conspiracy theories or you can watch the ones backed up by years of research, footage and documents. If you're a reaaally good "conspiracy theorist", then go ahead: make up your own. For everyone else looking for answers, this is as good a source as any, and from what I've seen and heard: better than most.

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -



JFK II: The Bush Connection

A thorough, documented, criminal indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt as a supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy.

This is the best documentary about the murder of JFK that I've ever seen. This is above and beyond anything you've ever seen on the subject. The evidence is here and it is conclusive.

View Video Here




BONUS: "Shirley Pentaveret? Gee willikers!"

"Faith'n'begorrah sirrah'n'lassie!"


"Speak thee not ill of the Illuminati! For it is said they have one-eye, one dreaded wink, and one... giant... monocle!!! 'Tis said when a man looks into the evil eye he sees the Cataracts of the Crippled, and the Bloodshot Red of the Hookah from Hell!"

"Come hither! These woods have ears, and mein President is on Fox News chasing Armadillos for nary TWO fortnights! Ride!!!"



How come you people can't debate the facts about stuff that makes you squirm?

Let's start simple: Can you disprove anything I wrote without saying:

"That's not possible! It was that faggot Sponge-Bob Squarepants! Burn 'im! He's a gay-witch! And Cindy Sheehan! Burn 'er! She's a grieiving mother witch?"

What is it about facts you can't debate that makes you think you can win if you ignore them? Is that really proving what you believe is "right"?

Look, you can still be a fan of both Bush's and the whole neo-con thing after you learn bad stuff, just like people can still be Michael Jackson and R. Kelly fans - they haven't been convicted either. I don't know though, based on the evidence so far I'm not sure if I'd let any of them babysit my kid or my country...


BONUS: What are facts?

the internet is a wonderful thing, full of vibrant disparate and important information. sometimes, people put that information together in an entertaining way to make a story that helps us understand the world...

like... a... movie.

but alright, what is your bare minimum of proof?

i'll just track down a few:

newspaper articles - will you say they're biased?

documents - will you say they're faked?

pictures - photoshop'd?

video - CGI'd?

what Matt Drudge just did to Cindy Sheehan's "a gift" quote was reprehensible character assasination: is that who you trust? even after he's proven wrong and a hypocrite again and again? like O'Reilly? Limbaugh? Coulter?

so, people who are wrong every week are the standard: how the heck are you going to recognize the truth? they're entertaining no doubt, Coulter i find especially wicked fun, but you can't take her seriously: she thought Canada went to war in Vietnam with the U.S., and even argued the point to a standstill with a Canadian news guy. (for the record, they didn't.)

when they shoot from the hip it doesn't involve bullets from the head, and since you won't double-check you never see them get it wrong. at least we check sources we disagree with, it keeps us honest and keeps our eye on the ball (named Osama) and chain (named Economy).

frankly i was hoping someone who disagreed would have facts that clarified the story for me. i don't have to be right on this one, this is just a matter of history, not the awful foreign policy (Bush Doctrine) that allows the military to invent reasons for going to war forever.

but unbelievably, you've got nothing. hard-core Bush Dynasty fans can't tell me what the heck Poppy was up to in the 50's and 60's and Dubya was up to in the 80's. why won't they tell you?

tell you what: short of a videotaped Bush Sr. confession begging forgiveness (which you would promptly grant if the Party asked), let me know what it'll take and i'll take a minute to dig it up.



BONUS: No takers?

I mean really, what's with the whole ostrich approach?

I think secretly a whole bunch of you know that the Bush's have skeletons in their closet, and for better or worse, you're down to ride. Some of you may admire them for getting away with it, but many will simply refuse to look for fear of looking foolish at your faith in the men who asked you for it. It would be a tragedy to agree to that trust and have it abused, so rather than face criticism honestly you bury your heads in the sand while screaming "It's a lie!"

Dubya's Army of Dedicated Doubters: "Ready, aim, fire!!!"

"That's dumb!"

"That's silly!"

"Ohmigod, look at her butt!"

As seen above this post, you'll unlease The Dogs of Shallow Sarcasm to debate, smirking about the impossibility of something until it becomes a mantra, and as soon as it becomes a pile-on it's legitimized: "We all feel this way! We're all Right! Pile-on!"

So, you don't have to deal with things that might prove you wrong, a horrible check and balance on making sure you're "small R" right.

And who's to say anybody can't be right?

I'm a "What's he saying?" guy in a "Who's saying it?" world, and I think the potential quality of arguments on the Left is becoming unrecognizable to the Right - and vice versa. Historically, intelligent thoughts have come from across the spectrum, and now you think the Right has a monopoly? That humans can't be critical of anything outside of someone else's parameters? That independently researched criticism is worthless? That arguments can't be aimed at improving society?

I'm pro-gun and anti-war, and if you think: "How's that possible?" then you've slipped massively in your ability to think of people outside of labels. This happens on both sides, and I've argued with the Left as well. As others will note, there's a massive difference between citizens keeping guns in their home for protection, and citizens being consistently lied to by governments to get our permission to send our sons and daughters off to kill and be killed themselves. Also, any government that screws our kids ("veterans" - yeah right!) when they get back by cutting benefits and leaving many violent, depressed, homeless or addicted to drugs, while at the same appropriating billions of tax dollars for corporate friends to develop experimental weaponry... is a government that having a few guns around to protect against ain't a bad idea. (To borrow one from The Founding Fathers, if you don't mind.)

(BTW, This is happening in Iraq: Where did the "87 billion!" increases go if our kids are STILL without body armor? Why are benefits cut TODAY when they get back? Who would criticize this stuff when it could be so easily disproven if it were untrue? I mean ALL of it?)

I saw the Right, I saw the Left, and I saw what I wanted to think. I'm still grounded by my own reasoning, and prefer this to having faith in the purity of an ideology's ability to form perfect policy as sold to me by politicians: on it's face that's madness...

A "Man of Faith" can always repeat his infallibility and others who think the same will applaud, but if you look at any human being you'll see they're fallible - including The President. Your approach makes you terrible for a democracy: how are you supposed to look at anything critically? If the whole Left is bad, is the whole Right good? What happened to "corrupt politicians" as a RULE not an exception? What happened to keeping an eye on things? What happened to looking at the effects of POLICY?

Now, I know there's a lot of debate and discussion and message boards and such, but it's within a very narrow spectrum of debate: increase troops, decrease troops, stay for 2 years, stay for 12 years... and most of it is crap. The military makes decisions completely independently of public opinion unless it is forced to listen, and with carefully controlled info and changing conditions we're just burning straw-men for the fun of it. The intellectual hierarchy is often built on someone finding nuggets of new information that generally support policy, adding only nuances to the agreed upon paradigm.

There's no context without an assessment of all the facts - including the ones the mainstream media is afraid to report that are dug up by heroic journalists - with evidence, and without an examination of the worthiness of the debate itself.

With 62% disapproving of the War in Iraq despite a media-blackout on serious coverage and years of cheerleading, it appears people have checked for themselves or checked with their friends - and it's about bloody time. The whole erosion of "trust" in America is a byproduct of the current Right Wing Strategy filtered down through the ranks, where anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong, intellectually inferior and easily branded a party to the most extreme Left values in history. This is simply not true, it never has been, and just calling everyone you can't argue with "a crazy commie" won't make you any smarter either.

So put down the Kool-Aid and deal with the facts: Watch the video, tell me how it's a complete farce, and I'll be done believing it's possible. I promise. I will never mention it again, and I'll trash its worth as a critique of the Bush Family if it's mentioned in front of me.

I can change my mind without compromising my loyalty to my own ideals: can you?

Or are your marching orders to dismiss any attempts at intellectual evolution as a dreaded: "flip-flop?"

Peace, (NOW!!!)



Black Krishna Brand

Philosophy -

Music -


P.S. Red Dragon, I quickly Googled exactly what you wrote:

"J Edgar Hoover stalled all investigations into JFK's death"

And came up with nothing in the first few results despite all the JFK stuff available. Plus Hoover was closer to JFK than the CIA was so that makes less sense... as far as I know

Now, I'm not saying it's not true, but where did you hear that?


Got a good movie I can watch? (Laughing)