Yesterday I put out this message:
In this week's International edition of Newsweek (Dec 1, 2008), there's an article entitled "President 2.0". In reading it, I discovered that a new site (http://www.change.org/ideas) is collecting and posting ideas for the Obama administration and the top 10 ideas, the ideas that have received the most votes, will be presented to the President on Inauguration Day. An idea was just added to suggest that a new investigation into 9/11 be conducted.However, today I received this email from the site:
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 athttp://change.gov/page/s/ofthepeople. And we hope you continue your work to advance change.
Best,They shouldn't have preemptively thanked me for understanding, because I don't! This idea was in first place in the category of criminal justice, and was the leading idea on the site overall with 660 votes. The second place idea has yet to reach 400, and most other top ideas haven't reached 300. What is the point of letting the people pick the top ten ideas for "change" if you decide what they can and cannot pick. Furthermore, saying that the truth of 9/11 isn't a potential policy solution is utterly ridiculous when our foreign policy is completely based on this event, and much of our domestic policy as well. Click here to see these points in more detail.
- The Ideas for Change in America Team
change.org deletes new 9/11 investigation idea as it had more votes then any other idea
These are only the most recent censorship issues, here are some previous examples:
A video entitled "BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell" somehow failed to achieve the honor it deserved for having 390,000 views and 9400 comments. This should have ranked the video at #26 in the category of most discussed of all time, as well as #8 in most discussed of all time in the category of news and politics.
The film "TerrorStorm: A History of Government Sponsored Terrorism" found itself the apparent victim of statistical manipulation when viewing totals numbering in the hundreds of thousands were reset to zero, preventing it from reaching tens of millions of people. 9/11 truth related stories have also had trouble making it into Google search engine results at times, such was the case when the story of actor Charlie Sheens' questions about 9/11 yielded no search results.
The website PrisonPlanet.com, which covers the topic of 9/11 truth on a regular basis, is admittedly censored by MySpace when it is posted on user bulletins of people who have chosen to link to one another, the excuse being that the URL is used so frequently in user posted bulletins that MySpace's servers automatically classify it as spam and ban it.
New York Indymedia:
The site began censoring all articles questioning the official version of the 9/11 attack in June of 2005. Click here for more info.
In Feb of 2007 a computer programmer unearthed a bug on the website that allowed him to view a "bury" feature used to suppress controversial content, of course 9/11 truth was a target of this disingenuous abuse.
Is Digg Rigged?
The Huffington Post:
On 07/23/2008 Arianna Huffington admitted in an interview with Politico:
"There are certain obvious things we have, certain specific things," says Huffington. "Conspiracy theories — we don’t allow conspiracy theories. If you thought Sept. 11 was caused by the Bush administration, your comment is not going to appear unless it is a mistake."
So, Huffinton readily admits that she doesn't allow free speech, and you could gather from her comments that this is due to her thinking it is all just conspiracy theory nonsense, but perhaps she is afraid of the repercussions of such a revelation. Perhaps she fears that if government complicity were revealed that it would cause, as David Ray Griffin suggests in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking of many of the elite class, "a crisis of confidence in US institutions, or lead to a global economic meltdown," either way she is a gatekeeper. So, what of the rest? Honest mistakes? Concerted effort? Cognitive dissonance? Some combination thereof? You decide, but ask yourself this, why all the fuss over something that supposedly has no substance, why not let it prove itself as being so lacking in validity and just watch it fade away?
AllAboutJazz.com forum member, Saundra Hummer, states the following regarding this blog post:
If this is not to be believed, then why the censoring of a radical, not to be taken seriously, article? This to me is more than a little bit strange. The censorship of this position and theory, makes one more likely to believe that there is fire behind the smoke, that there is more to this article than one can imagine. A lot of bright men who know of these things, tell us not all is as we've been told.
Not a conspiracy theorist myself, but this is so odd, this censoring of those who question the validity of the 9/11 official reports. About MicroSoft, read up on the PNAC's giving of all copyrights to it involving Iraq. Sure it's going to keep things down if it can, or so I believe.Related Info:
Why on earth would anyone fuel the fire of doubt with censorship if there is nothing to it? Perhaps they believe it falls into the trap of degrading their blog site, like the senseless blather of "Nuke em", and other such nonsense. The censorship which is happening seems senseless, but then this administration, along with it's supporters and perhaps even it's detractors, those at the top, as well as their underlings, haven't always, or perhaps never, had their thinking hat's on, just their ass hat's.
We Don't Care for Free Speech...