Request for new 9/1 commission scrubbed from change.org

[eridani]

Dont think this is the Obama site itself--that is change.gov. Not sure who is behind change.orf

PLEASE POST AND FORWARD THIS WIDELY

Dear friends and colleagues,

This afternoon the following letter (see below) was sent to all those who voted for the idea of a new investigation of September 11th over the past 5 days. At the time this idea was purged from change.org, there were over 680 votes, and it was the top rated idea on the entire site, by double. It rocked to the top in just 72 hours.

The claim of the site managers which includes MySpace reps (owned by News Corps) is one of reserved right to exorcise any content they deem is not in keeping with the spirit of the project. I am arguing that any such Commission would also make vital policy recommendations and that any such commission would assemble brilliant minds and respected persons who would, we hope finally do justice for what happened on 9/11 and set out a prescription that puts accountability and transparency where it should be in a representational Republic, first and foremost always. And which sets forth protective policies and international law that will insure full and open investigation are the norm following any terrorist attack, with a mind to beware of false-flag terrorism a'la Gladio or Operation Northwoods.

I am seeking to have the original idea, with some new language reactivated on the site. Now is not the time to sit back and do nothing when this sort of censorship is taking place.

So I want to encourage you to vote here for this more forward and proactive idea:
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/outlaw_false_flag_terror_globally

And stay tuned to see if the original idea is restored to the site:
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/conduct_a_new_independent_investigation_into_the_attacks_of_september_11_2001

Since this is about US foreign policy please only vote if you are an American citizen. I am concerned that the project sponsors will use the foreign vote as another excuse to purge their so-called open marketplace of ideas from their social networking exercise. Also, please focus on facts and do not use the comment function just to voice your own personal conclusions or speculation even before our hoped for Commission has convened and conducted its investigation, etc.

Thank you.

Kyle F. Hence
kylehence {at} earthlink.net

Hello ,


We wanted to send you a note about an idea you recently voted on in the Ideas for Change in America competition titled "Conduct a new, independent investigation into the attacks of September 11, 2001"


We support calls for truth and transparency in our government on every subject and welcome you to directly petition the new administration about this matter, which you can do at http://change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople. However, this is unfortunately outside the scope of the Ideas for Change in America project, which aims to offer specific policy solutions rather than investigations into past government action. As such, it is not eligible to enter the second round of the competition.


We understand that good people may disagree with our vision. But this is a private effort not connected to the Obama campaign or transition team, and we reserve the right to keep the competition and its content aligned with the stated mission and overall spirit of the project.


Thank you for your understanding. As mentioned above, we welcome you to directly petition the Obama administration about your proposal at http://change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople. And we hope you continue your work to advance change.


Best,


- The Ideas for Change in America Team


http://www.change.org/ideas/view/outlaw_false_flag_terror_globally

[Bryan Sacks]

1. I'm curious: where did making marmots the national rodent rank on the list?

Must have missed that.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

2. This is Just Flat-Out RIDICULOUS

Well, we can see how much of a priority 9/11 Truth is going to be for the new administration--NOT! Frankly, I am not surprised. If the new administration had made a new investigation a priority, now THAT would have surprised me. Flat-out truth is that no one in the higher levels gives a diddlyfuck about finding out the truth on this.

[anigbrowl]

3. What's ridiculous is you not reading the OP

change.org =/= part of the Obama campaign or transition process. It says quite clearly in the OP that it's a private advocacy website.

[Twist_U_Up]

4. Evidence solidifies what we all know...

There are not two political parties. There is one political party posing as two parties.
2 heads, same animal

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RC]

6. I am afraid you are correct.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

8. That's nonsense

If you can't tell the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, then perhaps your own politics are too far out of the mainstream. And anyway, the US is not a two-party system: You can vote Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Reform, or a host of smaller parties, or independent. There is exactly one reason why none of those other parties are major contenders in most elections: That would require the support of a large number of voters. And there's a reason why neither of the two major parties will put up someone who is far out of the mainstream: To win, you need a plurality of the voters to vote for you. You do understand that that's how things work in a democracy, don't you?

[Bryan Sacks]

9. I think it may be you who doesn't understand, William

The similarities between the two parties far, far outstrip the differences, William. If you can't see that, then you're insufficiently critical in your thinking.

You can vote Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Reform, or a host of smaller parties, or independent. There is exactly one reason why none of those other parties are major contenders in most elections: That would require the support of a large number of voters.

Support for candidates is a function of media exposure and money, primarily. The Dems and Repubs have enormous resources, and they deploy them to lock out other voices from the process. This isn't speculation, but objective fact. You make it sound as if the lock the major parties have on elections is a function of the superior policies they espouse. THAT is obvious nonsense.

This becomes obvious when, from time to time, a polling agency asks voters not which PARTY they support, but which POLICIES. It turns out people are far more supportive of progressive/green policies than would be indicated by merely looking at vote tallies.

Thus, the question becomes: how is it that people wind up supporting parties that do not support their own political views? The answer is well known and fairly obvious. Thomas Frank, for instance, understand it just fine.

And there's a reason why neither of the two major parties will put up someone who is far out of the mainstream: To win, you need a plurality of the voters to vote for you.

Red Herring. Progressive/green positions are right smack in the center of mainstream opinion. Democrats would win MORE elections if they ran to the left, and stood up to media attempts to paint them as radical. Any media asshole that wants to argue with a progressive candidate for office would get his HEAD handed to him if the candidate was given fair time, and had the courage to criticize the functioning of the corporate media along Chomskyan lines (e.g. Manufacturing Consent). That kind of media critique RESONATES with the average person, when they have a chance to hear the full argument and see some of the evidence.

A perfect example is the disgraceful behavior of NBC News and Brian Williams vis-a-vis Barry McCaffrey. It just takes a few minutes to see McCaffrey's obvious conflict of interest, and the inarguable disingenuousness of both NBC and Williams. An eye-opener like that goes a long way to bringing people around to progressive points of view.

And for the record: wanting a truly independent, thorough and non-partisan investigation of 9/11 is a progressive position. Transparency in government. Not hard to understand.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. "Democrats would win MORE elections if they ran to the left..."

We seem to be doing OK. Thanks for your concern.

[Bryan Sacks]

11. Who says I'm concerned about you?

I'm concerned about ordinary people getting representation in government. Learn to read.

And thanks for showing (once again) that you're more concerned about party success than principle.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Please read my words. I said WE, as in Democrats.

As a Democrat, I thank you for your concern with our party's electoral chances. As I also stated, we seem to be doing all right. But again, thanks for your concern.

[Bryan Sacks]

12. and I'll take your silence on the matters of substance I raised. . .

to be an indication that, as usual, you have nothing of substance to add

[Bolo Boffin]

14. "wanting a truly independent, thorough and non-partisan investigation of 9/11 is a progressive..."

"...position."

Let's see. How to discuss this intelligently?

:rofl:

I guess that will do for starters.

[Bryan Sacks]

15. no response needed, other than "Wow." n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Well, make up your mind!

If no response is needed, then you didn't even need to hit reply.

But you did, to say "no response needed."

And then you said "Wow."

So there was a response. But why would you say no response needed, if you then felt the need to respond with "Wow"?

Wow, indeed. You have progressed from concern ... to amazed. I suppose that's progress for such a progressive mind as yours.

[Bryan Sacks]

17. You sound insane. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Trying to make sense of your posts does sound insane, doesn't it?

Perhaps your concern is misplaced.

[Bryan Sacks]

19. "Trying to make sense"? You forget who you're talking to

We know who you are down here, ol' boy.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Anyone posting anything as ridiculous as that quote of yours I repeated

...go ahead, know me all you want. As long as you keep asserting that 9/11 truth has anything to do with true progressivism, I revel in your characterizations of me. One more thing for you to be wrong about.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bryan Sacks]

20. Tell us: did William Seger ask you to run interference for him?

Or did you decide to do it on your own?

[JackRiddler]

21. Caped Crusaders!

[William Seger]

31. Don Quixotes!

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Here's a better response for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4585884

Go be progressive about this. Being progressive about 9/11 Truth is an intellectual dead end. It is sugar in the gas tank of the progressive movement. It is a soporific meant to keep you from being progressive about actual issues.

[jberryhill]

23. "a truly independent, thorough and non-partisan investigation of 9/11"

Then why don't you organize one?

Who is it that you want to organize this "independent" investigation? The government?

[Bolo Boffin]

24. You sound insane.

:hi:

[jberryhill]

25. I was in Australia for a while...

...and all of the blood flowed up to my brain.



It's tough to remember to wear the suction shoes that are needed to stay on the planet there.

[Bryan Sacks]

26. Are you being willfully stupid? Because this new tack your taking is a doozy

Try to follow, jberryhill: ANYONE could undertake an independent investigation, so long as they had full access to classified documents, subpoena power and no ties to those who stood to gain or lose from full disclosure.

If the government were to appoint someone unconnected to the big players in the 9/11 attacks was appointed by Congress and let them have free reign, that would qualify as independent.

Are you suggesting that's impossible?

[jberryhill]

29. Has anyone ever proposed such a "someone"?

Yes, Bryan, I'm being "willfully stupid" because I live in mortal fear of such an investigation. Why... I'll be found out and imprisoned.

What steps have you taken in the direction of having such an investigation done?

[William Seger]

30. Hmmm....

> "The similarities between the two parties far, far outstrip the differences, William."

Well, gee, I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything to the contrary. In fact, I gave an explanation for that: In terms of actual political philosophy, the majority of the US population is liberal (but not necessarily progressive), because this country is based on the liberal theory of government.

> "Support for candidates is a function of media exposure and money, primarily."

And my whole point is that the converse is also true; it goes both ways, in a "feed-back loop." Money goes to people who are most likely to be beneficial to the donor (in one way or another) and who have a chance to win because they have support in the electorate, and media attention goes to whomever the media decides is "newsworthy" (for whatever reason, which often includes shear novelty; witness Ross Perot and Sarah Palin).

> "That kind of media critique RESONATES with the average person..."

And yet, ironically, the "average person" seems to think he is above all of that, and the problem is with all the other "average persons" who are easily swayed by the media. Just look at this: Your "average person" theory doesn't explain Obama's landslide victory this year. What we saw this year was the media constantly trying to catch up with the flow of majority opinion as Obama beat Clinton in the primaries and then started polling ahead of McCain -- which I doubt anyone in the media would have predicted last year, and which I certainly didn't see being driven by the media. And where did all of that money come from, according to your theory?

> "And for the record: wanting a truly independent, thorough and non-partisan investigation of 9/11 is a progressive position. Transparency in government."

Yes, transparent government is progressive -- and I suspect that's one of the (many) reasons you won't find much support for CheneyCo on this site. But Twist_U_Up is one of those "truthers" who would like this "thorough and non-partisan investigation" to begin by finding out what hit the Pentagon, since it couldn't possibly have been Flight 77, and then it should find the culprits who faked the videos of a plane crashing into the tower, and then it needs to determine if the towers were brought down by explosives, thermite, mini-nukes, or the Death Star beam weapon, or was it really a combination. You can rest assured there will never be any serious momentum behind a "thorough and non-partisan investigation" with those objectives, and it has nothing to do with the progressiveness of the electorate or the power of the media. It has to do with the idiocy of those theories. Anyone who sincerely wants an investigation into the serious open questions about 9/11 would be well advised to completely disassociate himself from the "truth movement."

I'm deliberately playing devil's advocate on this issue because I'm sick and tired of the abject negativity and hopelessness expressed by such statements as Twist_U_Up's, "There is one political party posing as two parties." Most often, what that really means is, "Neither major party is putting up the candidate I want" (e.g. a 9/11 conspiracy crackpot). But my point is, if 9/11 conspiracy crackpottery was a popular issue, at least one of the parties would likely put up a candidate that appealed to that sentiment.

I believe that progressive liberalism is based on the notion that it's our government, as determined by the democratic process; that we can make it better if we have the will; and that we can use our collective political power to make our society better. If our political party isn't to our liking or isn't serving our best interests, then it's our responsibility to either fix it or create a new one. If our democracy itself isn't working, then we have no one to blame but ourselves, and more importantly, no heroes are coming to save us if we can't do it ourselves. In my opinion, if you don't really believe that, then you aren't really a progressive, regardless of any laundry list of "progressive" issues. And, if you believe that you and other elites should decide our leaders -- to save the "average person" from the mind-control of the media and the power of political contributions -- then you aren't really a progressive, either.

[Bryan Sacks]

32. Lots to reply to in your post here. . .

I'll take it up tomorrow, since it's late.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. All my "interference running" for nothing.

I don't know why he asked me to do it in the first place... grumblegrumblegrumble

[Bryan Sacks]

34. Part I

>In terms of actual political philosophy, the majority of the US population is liberal (but not necessarily progressive), because this country is based on the liberal theory of government.

I think you're conflating two senses of 'liberal'. This country 's founding principles are drawn from classical liberal political theory, yes. But that theory is broad enough to support both 'liberal' and 'conservative' points of view as they are known today (neoliberal and neoconservative we can argue about).

Progressivism overlaps with liberalism but progressives, unlike many liberals, insist on government transparency and a social safety net, support whistleblowers and in general are unwilling to compromise on social justice.

>(Campaign) Money goes to people who are most likely to be beneficial to the donor (in one way or another) and who have a chance to win because they have support in the electorate, and media attention goes to whomever the media decides is "newsworthy"

Support in the electorate is largely a function of exposure (not entirely), and media attention goes mainly to the candidates of the two major parties. You seem to be suggesting that the coverage could go anywhere. It cannot and does not. Ross Perot was excluded from the presidential debates in 1996 by agreement of his competitors, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, despite having garnered 19% of the vote in 1992 and polling near 10% in 1996.

Here's Democrat George Stephanopoulos talking about the debate negotiations in 1996 with Bob Dole's campaign:

STEPHANOPOLOUS: " didn't have leverage going into negotiations. They were behind. They needed to make sure Perot wasn't in it. As long as we would agree to Perot not being in it, we could get everything else we wanted going in. We got our time frame, we got our length, we got our moderator."

CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Why didn't you have the debates when people were watching the election?"

STEPHANOPOLOUS: "Because we didn't want them to pay attention. And the debates were a metaphor for the campaign. We wanted the debates to be a non-event."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2732

The two major parties do not view media attention as something every candidate should have. They've used the Commission on Presidential Debates for the purpose of excluding third-party candidates. I was no Perot supporter, but one does not have to be to see unfairness in the way he was treated.

>ironically, the "average person" seems to think he is above all of that , and the problem is with all the other "average persons" who are easily swayed by the media.

I agree. People think the same think about all forms of advertising (namely that it is very influencial, just not on them), but what people think about the effects of media does not determine the effects of media. In the US, the media are a potent tool to cloud people's core beliefs in social policies that help sustain communities and service individuals who need service. It works. It works on me, it works on you - it works. Not perfectly, of course. It can be resisted once a critical awakening occurs, but without that critical awakening the major media are likely to be seen are seen as a reflection of the world as it basically is.

> Your "average person" theory doesn't explain Obama's landslide victory this year. What we saw this year was the media constantly trying to catch up with the flow of majority opinion as Obama beat Clinton in the primaries and then started polling ahead of McCain -- which I doubt anyone in the media would have predicted last year, and which I certainly didn't see being driven by the media. And where did all of that money come from, according to your theory?

Obama is a great speaker, a very attractive man and became the vessel into which the ordinary person's hope got poured. All perfectly understandable and foreseeable once he defeated Clinton (which I agree was not easily foreseeable). He also was a superior choice to McCain on a number of fronts. But Obama, as his cabinet picks have thus far indicated, has no intention of making sweeping political change. Regarding the structure of everyday life, he expressly represents a continuation of the status quo.

Sending money to a candidate over the internet is an easy thing to do in support of one's hope. If it makes one feel like they're actually doing something to turn around the country, even better.

Even so, the returns say he won by 7%. That's a landslide now?

[Bolo Boffin]

35. "Obama, as his cabinet picks have thus far indicated, has no intention of making sweeping..."

"Obama, as his cabinet picks have thus far indicated, has no intention of making sweeping political change."

:rofl:

Aw, gee. Your sentences sure are pretty, but your brain keeps tripping over garbage like this.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.