The Lion, the Witch, and the World Trade Center

     In the British movie The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, children are shown stepping into a wardrobe and magically finding themselves in a wondrous land called Narnia.

     In series of British movies, Harry Potter and his friends are shown walking through the wall of a train station, harming neither themselves nor the wall. Of course it was done through the magic of computer technology. They then find themselves at Hogwarts, a school for aspiring witches and wizards.

     What about Boeing 757's? Do you think that airplanes in real life can pass through walls that easily? I'll address that question later in this article.

     The most tenacious theory of events occurring on September 11, 2001, is the planes theory: the theory that commercial airliners struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This theory comes in two species. The first is the theory that novice pilots were flying some of the most sophisticated aircraft on Earth and flawlessly executed some highly difficult maneuvers. The second version is that the planes were navigated by remote control.

     A flaw in the second theory was revealed when three professional commercial airline pilots, using computer simulation, attempted to duplicate the official version of the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Only one in three was able to duplicate an attack on the World Trade Center. None of them were able to duplicate the attack on the Pentagon because it's impossible for a commercial airliner to fly 20 feet above the ground for over a mile at 530 miles per hour.

     What about the "ball" theory? At the moment that the second tower was struck, a news camera, shooting from a helicopter, on live television, showed what looked like a ball moving toward the South Tower. It was moving at a steep angle, and at a speed too slow to be a commercial airliner.

     No, I'm not going to tell you what the ball was. That's beyond my expertise.  Richard Hall, a former aerospace engineer with remarkable computer skills, has thoroughly examined the question and provided his answers. I, on the other hand, will for now stick to eliminating the impossible.

     My "eureka" moment came at the 3:26 mark of the second part of his video, "9/11 - Fake Plane 3D Analysis Proof of an inside job - Pt 2."  That's when I noticed something that Hall didn't seem to have noticed. In fact, I'm not aware that anyone has ever mentioned it.

     At that point, the video shows, in slow motion, the alleged footage of a commercial airliner passing into WTC 2. In this slow motion video, you can see that no glass shatters; no concrete pulverizes, and there are is no explosion. Even more surprising, both wings disappear into the building—supposedly crashing into steel-reinforced concrete at 590 miles per hour—without even slightly buckling. Take a look here.

     After all these years of wondering what happened to the planes—and being told by the 911 Commission that burning jet fuel (kerosene) had vaporized them—I can offer you a more reasonable conclusion: They safely landed at Hogwarts or in Narnia.

     Flight 77, which flew over—not into—the Pentagon, was not seen fading into a building. An unexpected and unrecorded tornado must have snatched it away to the land of Oz, where it suddenly landed on Nancy Pelosi's sister.

     But let's get back to the World Trade Center videos.

     At the 4:24 mark part 1 of the video ("9/11 - Fake Plane 3D Analysis Proof of an inside job - Pt 1,") Hall shows a side-by-side comparison of a live shot of the "ball" hitting WTC2 and an almost identical shot from the NBC Evening News. I say "almost" because, in the NBC footage, both the ball and the background are matted out; and the image of a commercial airliner is inserted.  (Link)

     There can be no mistake that the second video clip is a doctored version of the first.

     What about all the witnesses who claim they saw a plane crash into WTC 2?   Only 20% of the witnesses say they saw or heard a plane. Only 5% say they saw and heard a plane. In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo wrote that, if a crowd of people is told that such-and-such happened, you can always count on someone claiming that he saw it.

     Just to make sure that witnesses would claim they saw it, a D-list actor was hired for the job. He remembered his lines in spite of the unrealistic dialogue that was designed to promote the "official" version of events. (Link)

     Okay, so I've presented proof that two of the videos are fakes and that one of the witnesses is a fake. What about the others?  If the other videos and the other witnesses were legitimate, then there was no need to generate fakes—but they did generate fake videos and false witnesses. Since the powers that be saw a need to generate fake videos and false witnesses, then we must reject the theory that commercial airliners crashed into the World Trade Center.

In other articles, I presented abundant evidence against the theory that a commercial airliner had hit the Pentagon.

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/09/official-story-of-911-fairy-tale.html

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/12/world-records-that-guinness-never.html

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-easily-fooled-are-you.html

and

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-happened-to-flight-77s-passengers.html

     In one of these articles, I asked, "What happened to Flight 77's Passengers?"  If no planes hit the World Trade Center, we should ask, "What happened to the passengers of Flights 11, 175, and 77?"

     Reports vary as to how many crew members and passengers were on each of the four planes. If we take the highest number, there were 266 total. That's 233 passengers, 25 flight attendants, and 8 pilots. (Link) 

     The seating capacity (not counting seats available for crew members) for Flight 93, the only one of the planes for which substantial wreckage was found, was 182. Wikipedia gave a higher figure: 289, which I doubt. In either case, I believe that 266 prisoners and Judas goats could have been transported by that one plane.

     In a previous article ("World Records that Guinness never Mentioned") I gave evidence that Flight 93 didn’t crash; it was shot down by a missile.

     Yes, I'm getting into the theory that the planes were switched. Actually, I don't have to go that far.  My theory is that the passengers were switched.

     I'm not going to make the mistake of trying to theorize just how the switch was made. If I did, the theory would become the issue. Any flaw in the theory would give the conspiracy deniers an excuse to draw attention away from the facts.

     Other researchers have offered copious facts supporting their theories, but they were still theories. No, instead of dwelling on theory, I'll simply state the facts.

     On March 13, 1962, the CIA presented then-President Kennedy with a proposal called Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a planned false flag operation designed to blame Cuba for terrorist acts against the United States, thus providing an excuse for an American invasion of Cuba.

     There are two points to consider here. The first is that the CIA had proposed false flags similar to 911 and for the same purpose as 911: to start a war to advance government policy.

     The second point is that Operation Northwoods envisioned the switching of planes to carry out some of the terrorist acts. It isn't necessary to prove that the CIA really could switch planes on 911; it's necessary only to show that the CIA seriously believed that they could switch planes and that they had the will to do so. (Link) 

     It's not likely that all the passengers were shot out of the sky. In a time of panic and confusion, some passengers would have been needed as Judas goats to herd the innocent passengers onto Flight 93.

     I've already provided compelling evidence that at least one September 11 passenger is still alive and living under another name. ("What Happened to Flight 77's Passengers?") If my theory is correct, there are likely others. Many researchers have noted that all four flights carried an unusual number of government and military insiders. Some of them may have been the Judas goats, and they may be alive somewhere.  Other researchers are already at work on this issue.

Our Valley of Decision

     In a separate article, I wrote that businesses, society, and the environment are mutually dependent. I argued from that that the most sustainable model for businesses as well as for society and environmentalists is one that recognizes this fact and seeks a dovetailing of interests.

     That’s the way things work for most businesses anyway. As long ago as 1776, Adam Smith wrote that, when businessmen and politicians converse, corporate social responsibility is the furthest thing from their minds.

     Our history books tell us that from 1869 until 1877, William Magear (“Boss”) Tweed and his cronies stole an estimated $200 million from the city of New York. In today’s dollars, that would be around $2.7 billion.

     Just think of how much they could have stolen if they’d been in control of something larger than a city—say, the United States Treasury. Hmm. Just how did they do it?

     Well, pretty much the same way that Dubya Bush did it, and Mr. Obama is doing it now. Bush, Cheney, Emanuel, and Obama didn’t invent such embezzlement schemes as bid-free contracts, or regulatory waivers that favor friends and shut out competition, nor did they invent economic blackmail. They did, however, perfect them and come up with a few ideas of their own.

     By comparison, Boss Tweed was practicing a life of austerity and self denial. The Bush-Obama Administration has stolen more than $14 trillion from America’s taxpayers, and there’s no end in sight.

     They get away with it because we let them. Oh, worse than that; we rewarded them after they had done it, thereby encouraging them to steal ever larger sums of money and further violate our liberties.

     In the year 2000, Bush stole the presidential election and employed fraud to launch—not just one, but two—wars that have been highly profitable for himself and his cronies. Some 1.5 million innocent Iraqi civilians were killed as a result, but what’s a couple of million Iraqis compared to trillions of dollars in stolen assets?

     Under the laws of every jurisdiction in the United States, it’s a capital crime to commit a felony that results in a death. Fraud is a felony in every jurisdiction in America, and thousands of Americans died as a result of that fraud.

     According to noted court attorney Vincent Bugliosi (http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/ ), any district attorney whose jurisdiction had been the home of a serviceman killed in Iraq can bring capital murder charges against George W. Bush.  In Texas, Bush’s home state, governors are especially fond of the death penalty.

     It would have been poetic justice for Bush and Cheney to suffer a lethal injection by means of a flu shot made by Baxter. http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/08/vaccine-deaths-and-injuries-skyrocket.html    Instead, the American people re-elected Bush President. 

     Bush and his cronies rewarded American gullibility by getting greedier and more brazen. In just one day in late 2008, they stole $1.2 trillion, with no accountability as to where the money went.

     As you will recall, it was informally called the Bankster Bailout Bill. The banksters had made home loans to people who they knew could not repay the loans, then they took their homes away from them, then the fraudsters cried poverty. Not one homeowner was saved by the Bankster Embezzlement Bill.

     Obama was elected on the promise of Hope and Change. What he delivered was a seamless transition. The only way you can tell the difference between Obama’s policies and Bush’s before him was by the date that the crimes were committed.

     I’ve recently learned that Obama’s embezzlement has gotten even greedier and more brazen than I could have previously imagined. Let me give you a preview:

     With no legal authority to do so, Obama has ordered standards that no coal-fired electrical plant in America could possibly meet. In the same act, he has given General Electric a waiver. One of the consequences of this deed is that the City of Austin, Texas, has to buy electricity from Mexico at premium prices. Who do you think owns that plant in Mexico? General Electric; that’s who.

Please take a look at the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr3l4oPXiAw

     For a video that’s both entertaining and infuriating, see Max Keiser’s take on a wide range of embezzlement issues over the past ten years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i-B2V2l_6QE

     During the 1870’s, Boss Tweed and his cronies were limited to stealing everything they possibly could from one city: the City of New York. During our time, high-level gangsters are using national leaders to steal everything they can from all of America and many other nations.

     The Truth is a powerful weapon against these robbers and mass murderers. Boss Tweed and his cronies were ousted by an informed public. The Truth—reliable information—can save us in our time as well.

     Don’t expect that a change of political parties can save us. Only this month—February 2011—Republicans in the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to extend the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, the measure that shredded the Bill of Rights and ushered in rendition and torture of political opponents, electronic strip searches at airports, warrantless wiretapping of our citizens, and too many other abuses and usurpations to count.

     How did your congressman (I won’t call them representatives) vote? Here’s a link to how they voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml

     Americans who had already kept themselves informed didn’t believe for a minute that a change in party leadership in the House of Representatives would signal a return to liberty. For the banksters and their kleptocratic henchmen, it’s business as usual.  Remember that the election of Obama was largely a reaction against the robber Republicans, and that didn't work for us either.
     Don't expect any other quick fixes such as a constitutional amendment or a Constitutional Convention either.  There is no quick fix that will free us from the responsibility of safeguarding our liberties.

     To oust the kleptocrats and restore the Bill of Rights, we don’t have to go as far as Egypt and Tunisia did, nor must meekly submit to being herded to the FEMA camps. Peaceful resistance is still an option in most countries. There are countless reliable web sites informing us as to how we can protect ourselves and how we can restore our freedoms.

     Scroll to the top of this page and find the link for Recommended Web Sites. That’s a start. Find the Table of Contents at the top of this page and read other articles telling people how systems really work, as opposed to how most people think they work. Stop buying into the kleptocratic lies that divide Democrats against Republicans, conservatives against liberals, native-born against immigrants, straights against gays, blacks against whites, Christians against Muslims—well, you get the picture.
     There are 307 million of us in America (6.7 billion in the world) and only a few thousand of those gangsters. The criminal sociopaths at the top know that they can succeed only if they keep us divided against one another. If we stand united in passive non-cooperation, they are powerless against us.

     By all means, pray; but roll up your sleeves and pray on your feet.

Sustainable Fit for Business, Society, and the Environment

     Regardless of whether you consider yourself an environmentalist, almost every person has certain things in common with environmentalists.

We want our food, water, and air to be free of things that are likely to make us sick or kill us. However we understand the word likely, we agree that we want to be healthy. Many of us would like to enjoy optimum health.

     We also appreciate beauty, especially natural beauty. You don’t have to be an environmentalist to appreciate beautiful scenery, especially if it’s a vacation destination. No brochure for a travel agency or tourism bureau ever displayed a polluted pond full of dead fish.

     Environmentalists and other people are not divided by their differences in values or necessarily by matters of fact. They are divided by perceptions that are often mistaken by both sides of the debate.

     Many of the perceptions that divide us are mere shibboleths. A belief or disbelief in global warming has nothing to do with whether you want a clean environment. People on both sides of the debate want to be healthy, they appreciate natural beauty, and they want goods and services of reasonable price and quality.

     The latter point brings us to another thing that environmentalists have in common with almost everyone else. We’re often divided by the mistaken belief that there’s a conflict between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate profit. There isn’t. No matter how much people hate business, they still want jobs.

     Businesses, societies, and the environment have mutual needs. To whatever extent the needs and values of all three areas dovetail, the interests of all three are advanced.

     Thus, it doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game in which each side benefits only to the degree that the others lose.

     That’s not to say that any business can locate wherever its managers please, then magically come up with a sustainable strategy. Sometimes the fit just isn’t there, and the business is not suitable for that particular society or environment. Australians, for example, would probably never consider starting a dingo farm next door to an infant daycare center.

     This farm (above) is located only a few meters from the wetlands outside the city of Taipei, Taiwan.  Clean water, of course, is vital for raising food crops.  A gray heron, one of many wetland birds, (at right) co-exists with human activities on this farm.

   

     The stream you see at left is waste water .  The  protected wetland helps to purify the water.  Because of the cleaner water, fishermen are able to make a living by catching fish that are safe to eat. (See below)

     A clear example of a win-win situation is the Golden Riverside Park in New Taipei City (formerly Taipei County), Taiwan.

     More than ten years ago, the Danshui River was horribly polluted, the ferry had been defunct since the Guandu Bridge was built, the fishing industry was ailing, and Danshui itself was a sleepy college town. It was such a sleepy town that, at night, motorcyclists could race along its major streets with little fear of hitting someone.

     Wetlands—the lungs and kidneys of Taiwan’s environment—were freely used as trash dumps by businesses and individuals. This was especially tragic, since only 20% of Taiwan’s wastewater is treated at waste treatment plants. Wetlands shoulder the burden of cleaning up the rest.

     Since the Guandu River Bridge was built during the 1980's people no longer need a ferry to cross the Danshui River.  Since the wetlands have been restored, and the water is much less polluted, the Guandu River Ferry has enjoyed a new career as a picturesque form of tourism.
 
     The lamentable economic and environmental situation changed when the Taipei County government laid plans to restore the wetlands. Restoration of the natural wetlands and the construction of other wetlands has improved water quality, attracted wildlife, attracted tourists, created businesses that rely on tourism, and improved the social and economic well being of the entire area. 

     The photos above and at left were taken at one of Danshui's tourist areas on a slow weekday.  On weekends, it's far too crowded for bicycling. 

      Just think of how many jobs are saved or created, and how many other human needs in the area are met by fully functioning wetlands.


     The video below shows a panoramic view of tourist-related businesses along the riverbank, bicyclists, the Guandu Ferry, the mountains, the wetlands, and the Guandu Bridge.

(For more information on the importance of wetlands, click the following URL:)
http://eng.sdec.tpc.edu.tw/bin/home.php 

     On the other hand, let’s suppose someone were irresponsible enough to allow the construction of a chemical plant along the wetlands. Let’s further suppose he were reckless enough to permit the dumping of toxins into the air and into the wetland’s water table, on the grounds that this measure would create jobs.

     It’s true that expanding a petrochemical plant into an ecosystem's lungs and kidneys could create some jobs. We can be sure that  jobs would be created for medical personnel specializing in the treatment of various cancers and respiratory ailments.  Furthermore, undertakers (illustrated above center) wouldn't have to wait as long for customers, nor would hospitals or medical schools have to wait as long to make claims on your organ donor card (illustrated above right). 
     Can we say, though, that the only jobs that matter are the ones created by businesses with pockets deep enough to contribute oceans of money to political campaigns?

     How many jobs would be lost? How many lives would be shortened due to cancer and respiratory illnesses? How much natural beauty would be destroyed? No, each person is valuable, as are each person’s health and general well being. Any business that is given privileges at the expense of society and the environment becomes a menace to society, the environment, and most other businesses.

     The value of a person’s job can’t be measured by how much it contributes to the GDP. GDP measures money spent, but it doesn’t measure value received.

     Look at a loaf of bread. The manufacture of a plastic bread wrapper contributes more to the GDP than the production of the wheat that goes into the bread. The wheat, on the other hand, contributes more value to the finished product. It’s the fit among all factors—the ingredients of the bread, the quality of the water used in growing the wheat, and social needs—that give bread its overall value.
     In the video below, you can see what happens at the end of the river.  At low tide, people forage for crabs and various other foods from the sea.  They, too, depend on relatively clean water for food safety, and GDP has nothing to do with it.  Each person has value that can't be measured in dollars and cents.

     Just as “jobs” is used as a rationale for corporate greed and depredation, certain giant corporations sometimes use “environmental protection” as a rationale for destroying their competitors. In such cases, environmental legislation is written to give favored businesses virtual monopolies.

     But that’s the subject of another article.

The Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) Con

     Since the late 1970's,  some 34 states have called for a new Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) that purportedly would be limited to considering a Balanced Budget Amendment or other amendment.  From the get-go, opponents of the Con-Con have called it the Con-Con con, in that a constitutional convention is exactly what the name implies: a constitutional convention. 
      In a 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger wrote that a constitutional convention could not be limited to single issues or even a few issues. Specifically, he wrote the following:
     "...[T]here is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention.  The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.  Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey.  After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda.  The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress 'for the sole and express purpose.' 
     "With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecdy, with no pres coverage and no leaks.  A Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.
     "Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a 'miracle.'  Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved.  A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.  I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a Convention."
     Here's the link to Chief Justice Burger's letter:  

http://www.jbs.org/action/downloads/freedom-campaign-downloads/15-warren-burger-letter-to-phyllis-schlafly-re-an-article-v-constitutional-convention

      In a nutshell, a constitutional convention, regardless of the motivation for calling it, is still a constitutional convention. Anything and everything in the Constitution would be up for grabs.  There is no quick fix for the problems that ail America, and a new constitutional amendment or convention is no substitute for a vigilant, well-informed citizenry.
    Recently, someone began circulating a resolution for a major political party to present at a state party convention.  The resolution in its original form contained divisive language: language pitting Republicans against Democrats and conservatives against liberals.  It's not a partisan issue; it's an American issue.
     I've taken the liberty of changing or deleting the divisive language and correcting the punctuation and grammar.  As it was written strictly for one political party in one state, I've made other needed changes.  Please make any other changes you believe are necessary.  Below is my emended version of the resolution against the Con Con.

RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

WHEREAS, the State Legislature will be/may be considering a number of Senate and House Joint Resolutions calling upon Congress to call a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) for the purpose of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment or other supposedly limited purposes to the Constitution, and

WHEREAS , there is no provision in the Constitution or in law to limit the convention to any one agenda item, and

WHEREAS, a runaway convention carries a host of unintended consequences:

• Repeal of the Second Amendment

• Repeal of the Tenth Amendment

• Repeal of the Electoral College in favor of a popular presidential election

• Repeal of presidential term limits

• Recognition of International Law as a part of our Supreme Court decision making (which is already being done unconstitutionally

• Re-write of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding the “under the jurisdiction thereof” phrase to include children born of Illegal Aliens

• Adoption of a North American Union (open borders as proposed by George W. Bush,) and

WHEREAS, a Balanced Budget Amendment without a cap on federal spending and taxes would require a large tax increase and/or exorbitant fees to match the revenue with the spending, and

WHEREAS, a Balanced Budget Amendment without built-in safeguards to cap spending would merely give constitutional cover to the big spenders to raise taxes, and

WHEREAS, the cost of waging an effective campaign against bad amendments would be enormous and possibly a losing effort, and

WHEREAS, the original constitution was intended to protect the people from excessive governmental control and is still sufficient to meet today’s needs if the president, the congress and the judiciary would honor and enforce the original intent, and


WHEREAS, only 34 states are needed to force congress to call a ConCon and only two more states are needed, now therefore


BE IT RESOLVED BY ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬_____________________________that all (name of state) legislators be contacted and urged to vote NO on any and all resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention for any reason however well-intended., and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1979 resolution, or any other resolution, calling for a Constitutional Convention be rescinded, and


BE IT FURTHER RESLVED that a copy of this resolution be faxed to every state  Senator and House Member.

PASSED AND APPROVED this ___day of January, 2011

A Critical Look at those Curious Hand Signs

     In public writings, I like to stay away from conspiracy theories.

     It’s not that I don’t believe that there are political conspiracies. Oh, far from it. To doubt it means accepting the view that politicians and bureaucrats always tell the truth and never have ulterior motives. It means that bills before Congress are always intended to do what their sponsors say they’re designed to do. It means that Nixon didn’t know a thing about Watergate. It means a lot of other things that no reasonable person can accept as fact.

     I prefer to stay away from them because, in most arguments, the theory has a way of becoming the issue. Any limitation in the theory—and all theories have limitations—will be taken as an excuse to reject the facts.

     If you’re going to espouse conspiracy theories, you should at least try to limit your theory's limitations. That is, adjust your theories to fit the facts and not the other way around.

     Let’s take the theory that a Great Conspiracy blankets the whole world and that its participants signal to one another via Satanist hand signs. There’s one problem with seeing a conspiracy every time we see one of these hand signs: Each of those hand signs has multiple meanings.

     One of these signs—the index and middle fingers raised together—can mean “peace,” “victory,” “I have marijuana,” or “I’m Taiwanese.” (When Taiwanese see a camera, they immediately grin and hold up two fingers for no apparent reason. By that gesture, you can tell to that their nationality is Taiwanese and not Chinese.)

     Inverted peace signs can signify the number two in America or an insulting gesture in Britain.

     Another sign can be a clumsy way of waving “hello.”

     Yet another is commonly used to mean, “I love you.” Some conspiracy theorists argue that Helen Keller, an alleged Satanist, was a proponent of sign language. Linking misconception unto fancy, they conclude that the "I love you" sign must signify service to Satan.  Well, I don’t know about the Satanist part, but Helen Keller was opposed to sign language—notwithstanding that a form of sign language was used to teach her to communicate.

     What about the corona—that is, the sign that involves holding up your index finger and pinky, and holding your middle and ring fingers down with your thumb? That one can mean, “Go to hell,” “Go, Longhorns (a football team in Texas), or it can be a Satanist sign. In certain European countries, it means, “Your wife is cheating on you.”

     So you see, ascribing the same meaning to all of these signs under all conditions means twisting facts to suit theories rather than the other way around. It’s not just a loophole in the conspiracy theory; it’s a gap so large that and eighteen wheeler could turn around in it.

     Let’s tighten it up a bit, shall we? For the purpose of this article, let’s ignore all the hand signs that are commonly used for various purposes throughout the world. “Peace” signs and inverted peace signs are out, and so is the American Sign Language sign for “I love you.”

     Let’s narrow our examination to two signs: the inverted “I love you” sign and the corona. Taking this further, let’s exclude the photos in which the corona obviously refers to the Texas Longhorns sports team. Since the corona is also said to be used as a Buddhist and Hindu sign, (though I've never seen an example of this) let’s exclude any photos that depict Buddhists and Hindus giving anything that may resemble this sign.

     What do we have left after all this narrowing down and exclusion? We have a few photos in which the corona might—I stress might—refer to Buddhism, Hinduism, or the Texas Longhorns; but we also have photos that beg explanation. We also have the inverted “I love you” sign under circumstances that couldn’t possibly mean, “I love you.”

     Trusting as I do the ability of each person to decide for himself, I offer only a minimum of personal comment in the following clip:

Or check it out on You Tube: Those Curious Hand Signs

     A lot of professing Christians reject the conspiracy theory that the world’s opinion molders and other powers and principalities are under Satan’s control. After all, isn’t the Lord of Heaven also the Lord of All?

     Is that what the Bible says? At least eleven New Testament verses address that question. A useful site called gotQuestions.org quotes all eleven of them here.

     Of course, the religious question raised in the previous paragraph may be unrelated to the questions concerning hand signs, or they may be inseparably intertwined. I won’t try to make up your mind for you. You’ll have to do that for yourself.

     As I said in the beginning of this article, I like to avoid conspiracy theories in my public discourse. I offer facts and trust people to form their own conclusions.

Micro-tells Expose Beijing’s Hostile Intentions and South Korea’s Weakness

     You may be wondering what a micro-tell is. A micro-tell is an unintended signal that—if noticed—can reveal hidden thoughts. A micro-tell differs from a tell in that it’s so brief or minute that it can easily escape detection, yet its message can be of great importance.

     Yes, I’ve borrowed the term from the study of body language.

     So what about those secretive critters known as politicians, who often hold the destiny of nations in their conspiratorial hands? They’re quite adept at hiding their intentions and their weaknesses when it comes to dealing with other nations, but their behavior in smaller matters can give them away.

     Hence, I’ve written this article about an obscure taekwondo competition in Guangzhou, China, on November 17 of last year.

     Many athletes at some time or other have had to “swallow” unfair rulings. The Yang Shu-chun incident, however, was thread that, once tugged a little, unraveled a tapestry of deceit and aggression of international proportions. At one end of the thread was that one, obscure event; at the other was my discovery of the degree to which South Korea has slipped under Beijing’s hegemony—as well as a strong indicator that “China’s peaceful rise” is a lie for temporary convenience.

     At the 2010 Asian games in Guangzhu on November 17, Taiwanese athlete Yang Shu-chun was favored to win a gold medal. On that date, she competed against the Vietnamese athlete T. H. Vu (Wu Shr Hou, in Chinese) in a taekwondo match in the 49 kg. category. If Yang had been allowed to win, her next and final competitor would have been a Chinese athlete.

There was just one problem: One of the two judges that day just happened to have been the Chinese athlete’s coach, a Mr. Chao. Hmmm. It already smells like a conflict of interest. With China hosting the event and the coach of a Chinese competitor judging the event, how would you think it turned out?

     Before the match, each competitor was testing the sensors on her socks. Because the technician claimed that Yang’s sensors weren’t working properly, she had to change socks. Because Yang’s feet were very small (22 ½ cm.), the only socks available to her were an older pair that will be allowed until July 2011.

     These socks had an extra sensor on each heel, which was promptly removed and placed on the floor beside Yang’s coach’s seat.

     A series of photos from the blog Applause for U picks up the story from there:

http://applauseforu.blogspot.com/2010/11/yang-shu-chun-is-not-cheater.html

     The above-linked series of photos was taken from a video. Applause for U also features a You Tube video of the incident.

     With only 12 seconds remaining in the first round, Yang Shu-chun was ahead 9-to-0. Videos show that the Chinese coach stopped the match, walked over to where Yang’s coach sat, picked up the sensors from the floor, and claimed that he had removed them from Yang’s socks.      As obvious as the deception was, it was backed up by the Korean-based World Taekwondo Federation.

     Ordinarily, I’m not interested in spectator sports. If they enjoy their sport, it’s their lives and they’re free to live them as they see fit; but I’d rather live my life than watch someone else live his.

     I was, however, intrigued by the heavy hitters who went to bat for the Chinese even when videos clearly revealed that Yang had been cheated out of the victory that was rightfully hers. Why would the World Taekwondo Federation risk its credibility by obviously cheating in a competition they were sponsoring? The world at large would scarcely notice it, but athletes who have worked for years to get to the Asian Games would like to believe in the fairness of the system—unless they happened to be favored by referees who cheat on their behalf.

     As the Internet buzzed with still photos and videos showed that there were no sensors on Yang’s heel, and that the Chinese coach had picked them up from the floor, the World Taekwondo Federation website ran the headline “Shocking Act of Deception!” The “shocking” cheater, according to them, was Yang and not the Chinese coach.

     I teach a course in Journalism English to Taiwanese college students. I immediately gave them assignments in investigative journalism, trying to cover all bases.

     Are there any clear photos of Yang Shu-chun’s heel during the match? What would Korea gain by cheating on behalf of Beijing? Has Korea cheated on behalf of Beijing before? I was assuming that, for an international sports organization to stoop to the level of the World Taekwondo Federation there must be weighty reasons for their obvious and shocking acts of deceit. Also, for Korea’s cheating on Beijing’s behalf to be meaningful, Beijing would have to welcome it or even encourage it. Does Beijing itself have a record of cheating in international athletic events?

     Most of the teams came through with flying colors. Here are the links to the simulated “newspapers” that they created for the course:

"Taekwondo federation accuses Taiwan athlete of cheating, but pictures tell a different tale"

"Yang Shu-Chun was disqualified from the videos" (sic)

(Here’s the link this team provided: http://old-school-news.blogspot.com/2010/12/yang-shu-chun-was-disqualified.html )

"Korean officials would cheat on behalf of China."

Yang Shu-chun incident not the first time

-The previous questionable decisions by Korean athletic officials

     My students were unable to find any information about Beijing cheating without outside help; and they were unable to find information as to South Korea’s motive in cheating on behalf of Beijing. No matter; I found both after about 10 minutes of searching.

     According to the article “China stripped of 2000 gymnastics medal for underage athlete,” dated April 28, 2010, the answer is, “Yes.” Details of the article reveal that Chinese cheating in athletic events is so pervasive, and at such high levels, that much of their cheating (such as producing fake passports can be carried out only with high-level government assistance. 

     Gangster regimes, lacking the legitimacy that comes with the consent of the governed, seek legitimacy wherever they can get it—even if they have to steal it.

At the 1938 Olympics in Munich, Hitler sought ratification of his “super race” fantasy. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union entered some decidedly masculine-looking entrants in women’s weightlifting competitions. Now it’s Beijing, with its Middle Kingdom fantasy pumped up with a narcissic craving for “great nation status.”

     What about South Korean motives for cheating on Beijing's behalf?

     The following article in the Chosunilbo (an English-language, on-line Korean newspaper, dated December 17, 2007) reveals that South Korean legislators are concerned that their government too often tries to “curry favor with China.” The title of the article reveals a motive for cheating on Beijing’s behalf: “It's Principles vs. Profits in Dealing With China.” (sic)

     In the final paragraph, we read, “Fifteen years after the establishment of ties with China, South Korea leads the world in investment in China and the number of students studying there, and it is concentrating more on China than ever before. But unlike the German case, South Korean politicians and diplomats are always trying to curry favor with China.”

     So, there we have it; but what exactly do we have? We have strong circumstantial evidence that South Korea, losing confidence in America’s promises of security, is slipping under Beijing’s hegemony.

     We also have concrete evidence that “China’s peaceful rise” is just a façade. We can discern a nation’s intentions with regard to other nations by observing their treatment of individuals in those nations. Beijing was willing to call upon the resources of one of the most powerful nations on Earth—China—in order to gain bragging rights in a sports competition that would soon be forgotten.

     With Beijing, that’s nothing new. Only a few months ago, they called upon their resources in a childish attempt to deny one of their citizens—a blogger—a Nobel Peace Prize. In the process, they showed astonishing ignorance of how the Nobel Committee actually operated. They imprisoned the blogger for stating facts that Beijing dared not refute, and denied his family the freedom of receiving the prize.

     Going back to March 31, 1994, Chinese soldiers robbed and murdered 31 Taiwanese tourists in what has become known as the Lake Qiandao (pronounced Chiendao) Incident. After weeks of claiming that the tourists had died in a boating accident, Beijing arrested three civilians for the crime. That’s right: In a gun control zealot’s paradise, three people supposedly robbed and murdered 31 people. To this day, Beijing has never given an accounting of what had happened.

     During the Cold War, the Soviet Union often did that sort of thing to American citizens just to show that they could get away with it; it demonstrated their power and America’s weakness. Like a dog returning to its vomit, Beijing appears to be doing the same thing.

So much for great nation status. So much for China’s “peaceful rise.”
     Oh, please allow me to conclude on a cheerful note.  Yang Shu-chun returned to a hero's welcome in Taiwan.  Taiwan's national government is pursuing the issue all the way to an international sport arbitration in Switzerland.  A fan in Taiwan ordered a "gold" medal struck for Yang, and the maker of the medal charged only for the materials that went into it.  Yang's boyfriend proposed marriage to her in front of the news media.  She replied, "Don't talk foolishness.  My parents are present."

Avarice, Ambition, Lawyers, and Politicians

     The American Action Report had posted the following article as a stand-alone page.  For the convenience of my readers, I've placed all reposted articles on one page.

America’s present economic and political systems are controlled by people steeped in avarice and ambition

[The following message was written by a Harsha Sankar, a Virginia resident whose messages generally focus on problems caused by lawyers. I have made no changes in his message other than the correction of two typographical errors and the spelling of a single word.]

Dear Citizen, May 2010

One in five Americans is “laid off”, underemployed, or simply not working. One in eight mortgages is in default of foreclosure. Today, one in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month. The economic crisis has eliminated over $5 trillion from pensions and savings. Ten million homeowners are facing homelessness.

In the 1960’s, median family income, adjusted for inflation, rose 33%. In the 2000’s, it rose just 1.6% as families were spending twice as much, adjusted for inflation, on mortgages than a generation ago. Families are also spending twice as much for healthcare. They are now spending all income and savings to barely stay afloat. One bad diagnosis, one punitive legal action, or one pink slip will push millions over the cliff. Hard work and productive skills are no longer guarantors for economic viability. Tens of millions of once-secure middle class families now live paycheck to paycheck. Decent retirement is just a dream.

So obviously the middle class is being squeezed. Many have benefited and prospered at their expense. Boring and simple banking, once possible with a boring and simple legal system, has given way to “creative” banking. The financial industry generates many billions in fees. This is only made possible by deceptive terms buried in the fine print of incomprehensible and opaque contracts. Shysteristic banking is only due to a shysteristic legal system.

Homelessness has become common phenomenon because of this.

Where does this shysterism radiate? Please read the following.

1. Environmental groups have filed more than 3,300 suits. Every single suit seeks attorney fees and many have charged $650 per hour. While federal law usually limits attorney fees to $125 an hour, these environmental attorneys have received $37 million from federal taxpayers. These monies had nothing to do with environmental protection.

2. For hardly any work which involved several hearings, Acorn and its allies received $450,000 in attorney’s fees from Missouri taxpayers

3. A 9/11 settlement up to $657.5 million to more than 10,000 ground zero rescue and recovery workers will be decided by attorneys and attorney judges. It will not be decided by lawmakers.

4. In another typical lawsuit for money against the pharmaceutical industry, Pfizer was held liable for its marketing of its epilepsy drug neurontin. $142 million in damages were awarded despite the fact the plaintiff offered no testimony from any physician claiming he/she would not have prescribed the medication had they known better.

The voices of reason and restraint are today being drowned by the BAR. Americans are driven to distractions by the omnipresent,”omniscient” and omnipotent legal profession. The haves and well-connected can break and make the laws while the rest face road stops and unlawful searches, surveillance,and seizures.Too few Americans fully comprehend the extent the lawyer/lobbyists unconstitutionally have over government and society. The bar associations have to be deemed a criminal organization. It is an international cabal with no allegiance to Americans.

America’s present economic and political systems are controlled by arrogant people steeped in avarice and ambition. Impoverished people will rebel if America’s economic decline remains unabated. Societal instability happens when there are gruesome gaps between rich and poor. Americans must unshackle themselves from the chains that all non-democratic institutions place on them.

Very Truly Yours,

Harsha Sankar

908 Valley Ridge Road

Covington,Virginia 24426

[Note from American Action Report: In a separate letter, Mr. Sankar wrote that, in the midst of the aforementioned greed-fueled political and economic crisis, the U.S. House of Representatives voted almost unanimously to spend your money on a missile defense system for Israel. The Congressional Budget Office has not given a cost estimate, but the Obama Administration, which requested the expenditure, has estimated the cost at $205 billion of your money. The FY 2009 budget for the entire Department of Defense was $653 billion.] Source

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 284

H R 5327 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 20-May-2010 1:48 PM

QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended

BILL TITLE: To authorize assistance to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system

DEMOCRATIC YEA 244 NAY 3 NOT VOTING 6

REPUBLICAN YEA 166 NAY 1 NOT VOTING 10

TOTALS 410 4 16

---- YEAS 410 ---

Ackerman

Aderholt

Adler (NJ)

Akin

Alexander

Altmire

Andrews

Arcuri

Austria

Baca

Bachmann

Baird

Baldwin

Barrow

Bartlett

Barton (TX)

Bean

Becerra

Berkley

Berman

Berry

Biggert

Bilirakis

Bishop (GA)

Bishop (NY)

Bishop (UT)

Blackburn

Blumenauer

Blunt

Boccieri

Boehner

Bono Mack

Boozman

Boren

Boswell

Boucher

Boustany

Boyd

Brady (PA)

Brady (TX)

Braley (IA)

Bright

Broun (GA)

Brown (SC)

Brown, Corrine

Brown-Waite, Ginny

Buchanan

Burgess

Burton (IN)

Butterfield

Buyer

Calvert

Camp

Campbell

Cantor

Cao

Capito

Capps

Capuano

Cardoza

Carnahan

Carney

Carson (IN)

Carter

Cassidy

Castle

Castor (FL)

Chaffetz

Chandler

Childers

Chu

Clarke

Clay

Cleaver

Clyburn

Coble

Coffman (CO)

Cohen

Cole

Conaway

Connolly (VA)

Cooper

Costa

Costello

Courtney

Crenshaw

Crowley

Cuellar

Culberson

Cummings

Dahlkemper

Davis (AL)

Davis (CA)

Davis (IL)

Davis (KY)

Davis (TN)

DeFazio

DeGette

Delahunt

DeLauro

Dent

Deutch

Diaz-Balart, L.

Dicks

Dingell

Doggett

Donnelly (IN)

Doyle

Dreier

Driehaus

Duncan

Edwards (MD)

Edwards (TX)

Ehlers

Ellison

Ellsworth

Emerson

Eshoo

Etheridge

Fallin

Farr

Fattah

Filner

Flake

Fleming

Forbes

Fortenberry

Foster

Foxx

Frank (MA)

Franks (AZ)

Frelinghuysen

Fudge

Gallegly

Garrett (NJ)

Gerlach

Giffords Gingrey (GA)

Gohmert

Gonzalez

Goodlatte

Granger

Graves

Grayson

Green, Al

Green, Gene

Griffith

Grijalva

Guthrie

Gutierrez

Hall (NY)

Hall (TX)

Halvorson

Hare

Harman

Harper

Hastings (FL)

Hastings (WA)

Heinrich

Heller

Hensarling

Herger

Herseth Sandlin

Higgins

Hill

Himes

Hinchey

Hinojosa

Hirono

Hodes

Holden

Holt

Honda

Hoyer

Hunter

Inglis

Inslee

Israel

Issa

Jackson (IL)

Jenkins

Johnson (IL)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Jordan (OH)

Kagen

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy

Kildee

Kilpatrick (MI)

Kilroy

Kind

King (IA)

King (NY)

Kingston

Kirkpatrick (AZ)

Kissell

Klein (FL)

Kline (MN)

Kosmas

Kratovil

Lamborn

Lance

Langevin

Larsen (WA)

Larson (CT)

Latham

LaTourette

Latta

Lee (CA)

Lee (NY)

Levin

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (GA)

Linder

Lipinski

LoBiondo

Loebsack

Lofgren, Zoe

Lowey

Lucas

Luetkemeyer

Luján

Lummis

Lungren, Daniel E.

Lynch

Mack

Maffei

Maloney

Manzullo

Marchant

Markey (CO)

Markey (MA)

Marshall

Matheson

Matsui

McCarthy (CA)

McCarthy (NY)

McCaul

McClintock

McCollum

McCotter

McDermott

McGovern

McHenry

McIntyre

McKeon

McMahon

McMorris Rodgers

McNerney

Meek (FL)

Meeks (NY)

Melancon

Mica

Michaud

Miller (FL)

Miller (MI)

Miller (NC)

Miller, Gary

Miller, George

Minnick

Mitchell

Mollohan

Moore (KS)

Moore (WI)

Moran (KS)

Moran (VA)

Murphy (CT)

Murphy (NY)

Murphy, Patrick

Murphy, Tim

Myrick Nadler (NY)

Napolitano

Neal (MA)

Neugebauer

Nunes

Nye

Oberstar

Obey

Olson

Olver

Ortiz

Owens

Pallone

Pascrell

Pastor (AZ)

Paulsen

Payne

Pence

Perlmutter

Perriello

Peters

Peterson

Petri

Pingree (ME)

Pitts

Platts

Poe (TX)

Polis (CO)

Pomeroy

Posey

Price (GA)

Price (NC)

Putnam

Quigley

Radanovich

Rahall

Rangel

Rehberg

Reichert

Reyes

Richardson

Rodriguez

Roe (TN)

Rogers (AL)

Rogers (KY)

Rogers (MI)

Rohrabacher

Rooney

Ros-Lehtinen

Roskam

Ross

Rothman (NJ)

Roybal-Allard

Royce

Ruppersberger

Rush

Ryan (OH)

Ryan (WI)

Salazar

Sanchez, Loretta

Sarbanes

Scalise

Schakowsky

Schauer

Schiff

Schmidt

Schrader

Schwartz

Scott (GA)

Scott (VA)

Sensenbrenner

Serrano

Sessions

Sestak

Shadegg

Shea-Porter

Sherman

Shimkus

Shuler

Shuster

Simpson

Sires

Skelton

Slaughter

Smith (NE)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Snyder

Space

Speier

Spratt

Stearns

Stupak

Sullivan

Sutton

Tanner

Taylor

Teague

Terry

Thompson (CA)

Thompson (MS)

Thompson (PA)

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Tiberi

Tierney

Titus

Tonko

Towns

Tsongas

Turner

Upton

Van Hollen

Velázquez

Visclosky

Walden

Walz

Wasserman Schultz

Waters

Watson

Watt

Waxman

Weiner

Welch

Westmoreland

Whitfield

Wilson (OH)

Wilson (SC)

Wittman

Wolf

Woolsey

Wu

Yarmuth

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

---- NAYS 4 ---

Conyers

Kucinich Paul

Stark

---- NOT VOTING 16 ---

Bachus

Barrett (SC)

Bilbray

Bonner

Diaz-Balart, M.

Engel Garamendi

Gordon (TN)

Hoekstra

Jackson Lee (TX)

Johnson (GA)

Kirk Sánchez, Linda T.

Schock

Souder

Wamp