Broadcast live Fridays 8 to 10 Eastern on Revolution.Radio
First hour: In 2010 Dr. Alan Sabrosky’s forceful and unequivocal statement that the Israeli Mossad did 9/11 sent shock waves through the 9/11 truth movement. Dr. Sabrosky (Ph.D. University of Michigan, former director of studies at the US Army War College) put it bluntly: “I have had long conversations over the last two weeks with contacts at the Army War College and the headquarters, Marine Corps, and I’ve made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation.’ Period. The Zionists are playing this as an all-or-nothing exercise. If they lose this one, they’re done…..”
Mentioning Alan’s name during the Q&A at public events can get you arrested, as Jeremy Rothe-Kushel found out the hard way:
Dennis Ross: Well, look, I don’t think that as a matter of policy, that the United States or Israel engage in acts of terror. Terror is you target deliberately civilians for an expressed political purpose. The idea that Israel had something to do with 9/11 is just outrageous – they had nothing to do with it.
Rothe-Kushel: Tell that to the Marine, Alan Sabrosky.
Now Alan Sabrosky, “he who must not be named” during Q&As at public libraries, is back in the pages of Veterans Today with more provocative commentary. His new article James “Mad Dog” Mattis and the Bane of Civilian Control questions yet another sacred cow: civilian control of the military. Is it really such a good thing? Asking that question is a lot like questioning the value of democracy, the official stories of 9/11 or the Holocaust, or the existence of Santa Claus. (Well, actually, there may be reasonably good cases for civilian control and democracy, but that’s another story…)
“’The sky is falling!’ scream the global warming alarmists, interpreting every instance of unusual weather—even blizzards—as omens of the extreme weather which awaits us if we don’t stop spewing fossil fuel-generated CO2 into the atmosphere.”
I have been reading up on the case against climate change, thanks to the listener who has been sending me books on the subject. So far, my main takeaway is that the real arguments (as opposed to deceptive, superficial talking points) are so complex and mathematical that those of us who are not in the field, and don’t have time to become experts, are in a difficult position. So the best I can do is try to sift through the way the arguments are presented in order to evaluate the credibility of various sources. I’ll be weighing in on these matters in the not-so-distant future…