Saturday, December 8, 2012


This has been a banner week for conspiracies and their proponents.

There's the ongoing issue of Benghazi, Libya:  The President's whereabouts are largely unaccounted for during the 7-hr assault.  Theories include he just wasn't interested, couldn't be bothered and left all the decisions to underlings;  his staff intentionally left him out of the loop (on his instructions) in order to give the President "plausible deniability" in the event of any controversy;  it was a secret scheme intended to help his re-election effort by having an embassy compound stormed and our Ambassador kidnapped, he would then stage a "rescue" and be an American hero; and that our Ambassador was operating in a dual role as a CIA operative directing secret arms shipments and was the victim of a double cross, which of course would have to have no links back to the White House. [Publisher's note/Update 1/13/2013:  The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: "the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi... was the result of a bungled abduction attempt.... the first stage of an international prisoner exchange... that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the 'Blind Sheik'..."  The plot thickens....]This all also ties in with the controversy over the possible nomination of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to the position of Secretary of State, after her statements to several Sunday morning news programs claiming the attacks were the results of outrage over a movie trailer on youtube..

There're the actions of Speaker John Boehner in the House of Representatives:  There's been an apparent "purge" of conservative, Tea Party-supported Republicans from the more important committee assignments.  Theory is that this is retaliation by the Republican leadership for not following directives and bucking the "party line" by voting against caving to Democrat demands.  A companion theory is that Boehner is taking these actions as a warning to the caucus of what will happen to members if they vote to block any deal he makes with Obama on the "Fiscal Cliff".

The "Fiscal Cliff" is yet another conspiracy hotpoint.  One theory here is that Obama and the Democrats not-so-secretly want us to go over the cliff.  The reasoning goes that going over the cliff would give them much of what they want, at little political cost.  They get the largest tax increase in American history (blamed on the Republicans) and they get huge cuts in Defense, always a favorite of Liberals;  the spending cuts on the domestic side are largely inconsequential, as Social Security and Medicare are exempted from any cuts.  Then, after the tax increases have gone into effect and the public has started to complain in earnest, Obama can propose "Tax Cuts for the Middle Class" and pretend to be the Great Defender of the Middle Class, portraying the Republicans as only out for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class should they try to block his proposals.  Included in all of this is the theory of an extra-constitutional power grab by the President in Obama's proposal that authority over raising the debt ceiling be given over to him, in direct violation of the Constitutional requirement that Congress hold sole authority to authorize any borrowing and national indebtedness.

A new one concerns the U.N. and their international development plan, Agenda21.  The theory here  for decades has been that Agenda21 is a global plot to infringe on national sovereignty and impose on the U.S. the socialistic desires of member nations in the U.N., unfriendly to the national interests of the United States.  The theory goes on to state that Agenda21 has already been instituted almost universally in your local, county and state Development Planning Boards.  Details of which, read a certain way, gives U.N. oversight authority over such things as zoning and approved land use, "conservation districts" where no development or construction is ever to be allowed, and "sustainable" housing and infrastructure.  Supporters pooh-pooh such talk as ridiculous hysteria, while others see this as yet another step in the construction and imposition of a future "New World Order" and a global government which allows for no private property or individual rights; the ultimate in wealth redistribution.

Glenn Beck has written a new book, appropriately titled Agenda 21 that is causing quite a stir.  The book is the literary version of the type of "made for TV" movie promoted as "based on actual events".  He says that what he has done is taken the details of Agenda21 from the U.N. website itself and expounded on the individual points and taken them to their ultimate conclusion, if implemented as written.  It's a fictionalized account; until you get to the end and get to the Epilogue.  In the Epilogue he has listed references and links to the actual Agenda21 documentation on the website.  This is where this particular "conspiracy theory" gets interesting.  His book came out less than a week ago.  Mysteriously, links to the U.N. Agenda21 documentation are no longer active.  You will find a "404" error message saying that the information has been taken down or isn't available.  Even if you go to the U.N.'s own website and search for Agenda21 you will still get search results that show hundreds of pages of results.  Problem is, if you click on a link to a pdf posted or hosted by the UN, it's suddenly missing.  A slightly more diligent search of the web in general will still turn up the majority of the documentation.  The full text of Agenda21 (which was offered for sale directly, on the UN website), however, is nowhere to be found.  I wonder if Glenn has already obtained a hard copy of the U.N. document.  Given his diligence (some would call it paranoia), I would imagine he has several copies in his safe.

Conspiracy theory or investigative journalism?  Crackpots?  Or clear-eyed visions of potential danger to the country?  Look into these, investigate and decide for yourself.  Just remember the conspiracy theorists' creed:  "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean someone ISN'T watching you."

No comments:

Post a Comment