Big Dogs Weblog

Memorial Project Superintendent lies about receiving threats

Joanne Hanley, superintendent of the Flight 93 Memorial Project, cannot answer the damning facts about the crescent design (now called a broken circle), so she has decided to slander the people who are pointing them out. In a speech at the Memorial Project’s August 2nd meeting, she cited a list of “threats” she had received from critics, saying for instance that her “career would be destroyed.”

In defense of Superintendent Hanley, Flight 93 family member Calvin Wilson expressed his disgust at the violent threats and charged that critics were acting like the terrorists themselves. Three Pennsylvania newspapers covered Hanley’s claims to have been threatened, one editorialized against the uncivilized critics, and a Memorial Project press release highlighted Wilson’s outraged response to the supposed threats.

It is all a lie. Here is the Letter to the Editor that Alec Rawls just sent to the duped Pennsylvania newspapers, exposing Superintendent Hanley’s deception:

A warning is not a threat. A warning is to protect against a threat.

As the lead organizer of the movement to stop the crescent design, I can tell you who made the statements that Superintendent Hanley was complaining about. I recognized every one of the phrases she cited as coming from myself. It is ME who Joanne Hanley is accusing of making threats, an accusation that is not just false, but grotesquely dishonest.

What Joanne Hanley is casting as threats were WARNINGS, trying to alert her to the threat posed by architect Paul Murdoch and his scheme to plant a giant Mecca-oriented crescent on the Flight 93 crash site. This is one of Superintendent Hanley’s excuses for refusing to heed warnings about the crescent design. She pretends that warnings are threats and hence SHOULD NOT be listened to.

When I couldn’t get Hanley to look to the facts for the country’s sake, I tried to appeal to her instinct for self-preservation, warning her of the personal consequences of Murdoch’s attempt to stab a terrorist memorial mosque into the heartland of America. (That is the meaning of a crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca: it is the central feature of a mosque.)

As I put it in a March 2006 email to both Superintendent Hanley and Project Manager Jeff Reinbold:

I have been trying to save your lives and your careers for six months. It is not too late for you. You can still do your jobs and investigate the basic facts I have warned you about, like the Mecca-orientation of Murdoch’s original Crescent of embrace, and the continued presence of Murdoch’s original crescent in the redesign.

Shortly after this email, Joanne Hanley told me why she was not concerned about the almost-exact Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. In a conference call with Jeff Reinbold, she told me that: “It isn’t exact. That’s one we talked about. It has to be exact.” (The giant crescent points 1.8° north of Mecca, ± .1°.)

If she had admitted to the public what she was admitting in private—that the giant crescent does indeed point almost exactly to Mecca—it would have been okay. The people of Pennsylvania would be able to decide for themselves whether a giant Mecca-oriented crescent makes an acceptable memorial to the victims of Islamic terrorism, so long as it does not point EXACTLY at Mecca. Instead, the Memorial Project decided to deceive the public, sending an academic fraud from the University of Texas to assure the press that there is no such thing as the direction to Mecca:

Daniel Griffith, a geospatial information sciences professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, said anything can point toward Mecca, because the earth is round. [Post Gazette, “Flight 93 memorial draws a new round of criticism,” August 18, 2007.]

Just as I warned Superintendent Hanley that her career was in jeopardy, I also warned Dr. Griffith that his career would be destroyed if he did not correct this blatant disinformation. Like Hanley, Griffith too interpreted my warning as a threat, as if it would be ME who was responsible for the harm to his reputation, when he was covering up evidence of an enemy plot by lying about basic geometry, pretending that there is no direction between two points on planet earth.

In spite of the Memorial Project’s active cover-up of Murdoch’s plot, I continued to treat Superintendent Hanley as what she is: a fellow countryman aboard a hijacked airplane who is in need of rescue. As I put it in another email to Superintendent Hanley last November:

I don’t want you to be hurt here. There is only one bad guy in this story: Paul Murdoch. I want to help everyone else get off of this hijacked airplane. … I am not your enemy. I am your friend. I am the one who has been trying to save you, for two damned years, and I still am, despite your persistent public slanders against me.

Is it even POSSIBLE to be clearer? A warning is not a threat. A warning is to protect someone from a threat, as my communications spelled out over and over. For Joanne Hanley to pretend that these warnings about the threat she is facing were threats in themselves is deliberate dishonesty. For her to tell Calvin Wilson that these attempts to protect her from Murdoch’s plot were violent threats against her, prompting Wilson to use his status as a family member to attack critics on this dishonest basis, is even worse.

Joanne Hanley is not the only person I am warning. Every Pennsylvanian is aboard this hijacked airplane. How can the newspapers of Pennsylvania let stand a fraudulent claim that there is no such thing as the direction to Mecca? How can the educated people of Pennsylvania, the math teachers, the college students, the politicians, let such a fraud stand, when every one of you knows that Muslims face Mecca for prayer?

If Pennsylvanians continue to be willfully blind to easily verifiable evidence of an enemy plot in your own back yard, history will not be kind to you.

Alec Rawls
Palo Alto CA
August 12, 2008

Morality requires trust in truth

Imagine if one of the passengers on Flight 93 was told that if they did not retake the airplane, they would be killed when the terrorists flew the airplane into a building. If the passenger was Joanne Hanley, she would say: “Stop threatening me!”

Any excuse to avoid the truth, no matter how nonsensical or even suicidal. A photo-negative of the fighting spirit of Flight 93.

Asked by Pilate to account for himself, Jesus answered: “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” (Jn. 18:37.) Jesus wasn’t a witness for the truth only sometimes, or only about matters of salvation. He proceeded from the factual truth of every situation that crossed his path, and called upon the rest of us to similarly trust in truth.

Secular moral reason demands the same thing. Anyone who thinks that it can somehow be right or in their interest to avoid or suppress the truth will through that avoidance of the truth become divorced from reality, with the inevitable effect that their ideas about what is right or in their interest can only be wrong. This is the irrationality of the Memorial Project. They proceed on the assumption that the crescent design is innocent, while self-consciously covering up evidence that it is not.

This malfeasance puts the rest of our society to the test. All of the people who we pay to check and report the facts: government, academia and the media, are all desperately trying to suppress the truth. That leaves it up to the rest of us to witness and communicate the truth about Murdoch’s plot. (Some basic facts, and how to verify them for yourself, posted here.)

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

(Click for blogroll)

Tags: Flight 93, memorial

Joe Lieberman has faced some tough circumstances in the past couple of years. He faced a tough challenger in the Democratic primary and lost only to win the general election running as an independent. He decided to caucus with the Democrats thus giving them a one vote majority in the Senate. Lieberman could not force himself to switch parties or caucus with Republicans and now he will more than likely pay a heavy price.

Lieberman has been supporting John McCain and this is really rubbing the Democrats the wrong way. The very people who abandoned him in the primary are upset that he will not support Barack Obama for the presidency. On the campaign trail Lieberman said something that really ticked off the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi made it known that Joe will likely lose his committee chairmanship.

This should come as no surprise. The Democrats have wanted to strip Lieberman of any committee responsibilities for quite some time. They have not done so because they are worried about losing the majority in the Senate. However, if they pick up enough seats that they do not need him they will strip him of everything and he will be fortunate to even get table scraps from the party that once put him up as a vice presidential nominee.

I stated in the past that Lieberman should have switched parties or caucused with Republicans because I knew it would only be a matter of time before the Democrats turned on him (more so than they did in the primaries). Lieberman could not force himself to switch and now will suffer the consequences should the Democrats no longer need his services.

Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that they have not stripped Lieberman because they want to keep the majority and she made it just as clear that he could lose quite a bit for backing McCain and for saying things about the sainted one. Pelosi is in the House and has no direct influence on Senator Lieberman but anyone who thinks Pelosi is the only one with vengeance on her mind is severely lacking in the ability to think. It is a foregone conclusion that Lieberman will get screwed if the Democrats pick up seats in the Senate. Since it looks like the Republicans will lose seats it is not looking good and Lieberman will have blown his chance at his own revenge. He should have screwed the Democrats right after the last election.

The only way Lieberman does not get screwed is if he either starts drinking the Obama Kool Aid or if the Democrats do not gain seats. Neither looks like it will happen.

I admire the fact that Lieberman has been loyal to his friend John McCain and I think it is even more remarkable when one considers what he will certainly lose because of that support.

Regardless of what happens in November, Lieberman should switch parties and move to the side that has treated him well.

Source:
SF Gate

Tags: lieberman, Pelosi, punishment

I told you it would not be long. I was right on top of it after Barack Hussein Obama stated that he would be open to drilling for our own oil. I remarked at that time that it would not be long before people from the left who opposed drilling would jump on board. That has happened as of this week when Nancy Pelosi stated that she would be up for drilling our own oil with certain conditions. One of those conditions is a release of oil from the strategic reserves which is unwise to say the least.

Pelosi called the Republican request to drill a hoax and stated that she was trying to save the planet. She adjourned the House for a five week vacation without scheduling a vote and had all the lights and cameras turned off on the way out the door. When Republicans stayed behind and started making noise Barry Obambi changed his mind (dare I say flip-flopped) and stated he would be OK with drilling, and basically endorsed the plan John McCain has been pushing.

I knew it would not take long. Pelosi was (and still is) vehemently opposed to drilling. She knows that some of her Democrats are vulnerable and has secretly told them to push for drilling so they can win over people in their districts. Pelosi knows that she cannot go against Obama if she wants him to have a chance to win so she has to take a position under the bus in order for Obama to look like a leader. Pelosi is also aware that the ban on drilling must be renewed each year and it looks like she will not have the votes to renew it. If they wait too long all the names of the Democrats who dare to vote against it will be fresh in the minds of voters come election day.

But none of this should fool anyone. Pelosi is only playing to the majority of people who want us to drill for our own oil. The oil off our coasts, in ANWR, and the shale in the west will provide us with oil for many years to come especially when we consider how many places there are to get the oil. But none of this will matter because it is all smoke and mirrors. Pelosi believes that Obama will win and that she will pick up plenty of seats in the House and that the Senate will gain as well. With a Democratic president and a huge majority in Congress Pelosi will be able to bring the issue up for a vote after the new president and new Congress swears in. At that time they could put a complete halt to any drilling and take us right back to where we are now. She can do this and there won’t be a thing the American public can do about it.

Don’t let Nancy Pelosi or any other Democrat including Hopie Obama fool you. They will say anything to win but as soon as they do they will forget any promise they made and will impose their wills, their true intentions, upon us.

And just remember, there is no cure for buyer’s remorse. We will have to wait until the next election to express our dissatisfaction and by then most people will have forgotten. It has been said that we get the government we deserve.

Certainly we deserve better than this.

Tags: deception, drilling, lies, Obama, oil, Pelosi

Barack Obama is said to be unnerved by the celebrity tag applied to him by the McCain camp. Obama does not like the ads depicting him as a mega star and he has called such ads a distraction from the issues (though Obama has recently put out a similar “distracting” ad). I wrote before that if Obama did not want to be viewed as some kind of celebrity then perhaps he needs to stop hanging out with celebrities or acting like them.

The sainted one has not learned. He has been hanging out with ultra liberal George Clooney who has been providing advice on how the sainted one can polish his image. Clooney is an actor whose profession is to make people think he is something that he is not. This is a perfect fit for Obama because he is trying to make us think he is something that he certainly is not.

Clooney has tried to keep his contact with Obama under wraps so that the liaison will not damage Obama’s chances at the White House. In other words, Clooney the ultra liberal knows that being an ultra liberal will not sit too well with a majority of this country. He does not want people to make the connection that Obama is as much an ultra liberal because he wants Obama to win.

Clooney text messages Obama and talks to him once or twice a week with advice. For instance, Clooney told Obama that he needed to be more balanced on issues such as US-Israel relations. Clooney is pro Palestinian which means he is on the side of the people who do not recognize Israel’s right to exist and who want support terrorist organizations that are hell bent on destroying Israel. Nice. I am unsure if Clooney wants Obama to be more balanced as in not so favorable toward Israel or more balanced to give an appearance that he supports Israel. Given Obama’s associations with anti-Semitic pastors and so called leaders it is a safe bet that Obama is no friend of Israel.

One of the last things America needs is advice on how we should be run by George Clooney. This is a guy who could not run his own life, who is a past drug abuser (just like Obama), who abuses alcohol and who has slept with countless women. Then again, this guy is perfect for the Democratic nomination…

If Obama wants people to stop thinking of him as some kind of celebrity then he needs to stop hanging around with and taking advice from the very people who help get him labeled with the celebrity tag.

Barack Hussein Obama and George Clooney are two peas in a very liberal pod. God help us if Obama wins especially if he is taking advice from Clooney a man who could not pour water from a pail if the directions were written on the bottom.

Source:
Daily Mail UK

Tags: advisor, clooney, liberal, Obama

Barack Obama, like most Democrats, opposes school choice and voucher programs. He believes that all children should be forced to attend the public school system where they will be properly indoctrinated into the mindset of government run everything. The Democrats are in bed with the teacher’s unions and therefore have to support programs that require all children to attend a public school system that is failing miserably mainly because the unions care more about teacher pensions and less about child performance. Yes, the Democrats believe that parents should not be allowed to send their children to private schools on a voucher program because, to them, the public system is adequate.

Adequate for everyone else’s children. It is no secret that many politicians send their children to private schools. It is also no secret that while they are giving speeches about how great the public school system is, they are ensuring that their children do not attend the public schools. When asked, they indicate that this was the best choice for their children. In other words, they believe that they should be able to choose but you should not. Barack Obama is no different.

While Obama is deriding voucher plans as tired schemes and while he receives the endorsement of the teacher’s unions and while he is extolling the virtues of a public education he is sending his little darlings to a private school. He is paying over $15 thousand a year per child to send his girls to private school and he says it is because that is the best choice for them. In other words, Obama’s kids deserve what is best for them and because he can afford it, they get it. The rest of you rubes have to send your kids to the public school system because no Democrat will allow vouchers so that your kids can get the same good education.

It has to be that way. Chelsea Clinton got her private education, the Kennedy kids went to private schools (as do nearly all children of politicians) and now the Obama kids. All the while, your kids are attending the substandard public school system. This is the way it has to be in order for the elite in this country to continue their rule. If your kids did not go to public schools who would Obama’s kids rule over when they get elected to office?

Look at all the people in politics who have children in some sort of service as either politicians or as lobbyists. This is a nepotistic system that allows generations of families to rule the rest of us and the only way they can continue to do this is to ensure that their children have all the advantages while they keep the rest of the children in the country stuck in the mire of the public system.

The next time Obama tells you that the public system is great ask him why his kids are not in it. As with every other hypocritical position, he will give you a BS answer as to why things should be different for him and his family than they are for you and yours.

Source:
IBD Editorials

Big Dog Salute to GM Roper

Tags: elitism, Obama, private school, public school, vouchers