Make a Comment

Comments in Response

Comment by Don Cordell
Entered on:
Some people are just too dumb to see what is going on, too dumb to study the downsizing of our nation, and the treaty's we've made that have ended so much manufacturing in this country that has destroyed our Middle Class economy.

I'm sorry that Mr. Renzulli refuses to see what is happening. REX 83, Public Law 87-297 to disarm all Americans and our military, the end of Habeas Corpus to ensure our rights to a criminal trial, there are so many Conspiracies going on, and now the election and swearing in of an Illegal Alien as our President, and Mr. Renzulli doesn't think that his a problem.

I hope he wakes up someday and finds WE are right. Of course some of us keep claiming the police can't enter our homes and take all weapons, we have laws.

Tell that to the Oriental "American Citizens" who were encarcerated in Detention Centers during WW II, they were "citizens", you are citizens.

Why has the goverenment passed rules telling the Army how to put civlians to work in when they are detained under Army control. You can find the answers to all of this if you search for PresidentDon on Google and see my links to proof of Conspiracies. Don't wait until you have no freedom of movement in this nation, under Martial Law to discover, why we have been downsized, laid off by the millions.

Social Security Trust Fund contains only IOU's, this nation is in a lot of trouble, and citizens sit on their behinds, believing our Elected Officials love us. We have been had. Wake up.

Comment by Duncan Druhl
Entered on:

Sir, I understand your negativity concerning the vast number of hypotheses floating around in the ether which qualify under the general category of "paranoid conspiracy theories", the adjective may or may not be necessary.

However, I would also point out that by the nature of requiring complete evidence, you are also presuming some transparency in government. To many of us, that is, to anyone that isn't a statist, per se, that assumption ranks equally with your opinion of "conspiracy theories". It was Mayor Richard J. Daley who noted, in part, that his police were "there to preserve disorder." Many of us who lived in Chicago believe this to be the most accurate statement he ever made. It has been observed by many before me that to actually know what someone thinks and believes, you have to observe their actions, avoiding the attachment of any import to their words. Nothing is more true of politicians, whose behaviours are rampant with "promises" but whose deeds consistently serve those who pay for the election campaign.

Using your criteria for conspiracies, I suspect the discovery of black holes in space would not have happened. Why? The reason is that Black Holes have to be discovered by inference - as the Planets beyond Jupiter and Saturn have been similarly discovered. Astronomers, in their assiduous observations of planetary motions, discovered the gravitational perturbations of planets that, they surmised, could have only been caused by other celestial bodies not quite observed, as yet. Using this tool, the planets were eventually observed; as were the Black Holes discovered by inference.

One cannot see a "Black Hole", by definition. However, its impact on nearby bodies is quite clear - thus the necessary inference of "something of which we are not aware", eventually discovered to be collapsed stars.

I remember, as a child, watching the report of the "Magic Bullet" and knowing at the time that this was "voodoo forensics", having observed the physics of colliding bodies and the inferred law of energy conservation. However, one has to infer "something" because you saw what happened, but the "official" explanation did not account for the reality of physics or correspond with what you saw. Similarly, the reactions of people near the shooting did not correspond to what would be the reactions were the official version true. It is a matter of observation and common sense, that's all.

Similarly, I was in the UK on 9/11. I've seen buildings come down from weakened structural supports and I've also seen buildings come down when they were "pulled". When I went home that evening, having watched the events on the internet, I told my wife that the towers were "pulled" - not being aware of any official explanations, as yet, just my observations from thousands of miles away.

The judgemental error that many "conspiracy theorists" make is that they want to attribute blame to "someone". This causes considerable controversy. I would contend that the fact that the government lies is simply a function of...well...government and the first point of establishing the playing field. The attribution of cause is not as relevant as determining that we are being played for fools. Whether or not the government believes that they are a law unto themselves is irrelevant in that their actions show them to behave as such.

It is, again, that you have to watch, observe, and know what you see. For example, it is not reasonable for the government to expect us to believe that Flight 93 "vapourised" when the Pan Am flight over Lockerbee, falling from a higher altitude, came down in identifiable pieces. Indeed different causes, but I think you can see the problem with the physics, there, to say nothing of the nature of titanium alloy physical science.

Similarly, the lack of aircraft pieces at the Pentagon on 9/11 would lead one to conclude that it was something else that caused that explosion and fire. One is prompted to ask why, but that is another issue.

Similarly, the housing bubble did not cause the financial disaster we have, today. Indeed, it participated, but the kick-off was the massive unloading of securitised debt instruments in Europe, far more massive than usual for the quarterly audit clear-out - a virtual deleveraging of bank Balance sheets. One has to ask why? From a Treasury standpoint, unless the banks were covered in put options, it is an incredibly irresponsible move, one that no self-respecting bank Treasurer would ever allow. And is that not curious?

One also find it convenient that the "mark to market" rule was instituted a few years ago, this rule is what condemned the Banks to failure, by the way, when otherwise, this massive off-loading would probably have been handled in the way that the South American debt repudiation of the early 70's was handled.

Sir, the problem with any government-issue explanation is that most everyone that isn't over-drugged, virtually asleep, or a complete dullard AND is not a rampant statist finds explanations from the state to be increasingly at odds with the reality they can see, irrespective of the attribution. Being a bit or more of a statist as you might be, you might take the opposite view.

I am perfectly happy with your comfort with the state. I hope you enjoy it. However, as Jefferson said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have." Many of us presume that this, within the context of governments since 1912, means that Liberty, the cause for which many Americans died, is reserved by the state and more and more our share of this elusive quality is waning. To our mind, if I may say so, the New World Order generally means that the government controls the world and gives us the orders - which will mean simply a return to the Dark Ages culture. By the way, how comfortable are you with being part of the Third Estate?

Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:
As my "awareness" started to peak in the late 80's as a young family man , I was exposed to many "conspiracies". My experience has been that most of them have become 'common knowledge' with great regularity.

I have come to understand that there is no moral or ethical resistance to Bad Guys' ability and desire to maintain and enhance their power and influence over others. I only need to know if the physical ability to control or manipulate others is available to know if the attempt is being made or is at least being readied.

When I am asked my opinion about (fill in the blank) conspiracy theory, my response is to ask if the Bad Guys (they - them - those that won't leave us alone) have the _ability_ to accomplish the 'conspiracy'. If the technology, chemicals, methods exist to maintain and enhance their power,... then I have yet to learn of an opportunity that wasn't used. "If 'they' can,... then 'they' are", is my bumper sticker understanding of how governments have been used to fund and enforce the will of those that will not leave us alone.

Chemtrails, Public Water Additives, Weather manipulations, Earthquakes, Space Alien Invasions, Border Alien Invasions, Terrorist Attacks, Bought and Paid for Congress/President/Judges/State Politicians, Energy Sources, New Technology etc.... are all treated the same in my mind. "If They Can,... Assume that they are".

To know that just our US Government lied the world into a War of Aggression, and in violation of our own Constitution, stolen _trillions_ of dollars, Nationally Socialized our economy, force medicating our children that don't conform, create mandatory national service for our youth (these were many of the conspiracies that I recall from over 15 years ago that were laughed at then), but to somehow think that something like Elections wouldn't be manipulated, because _that_ would be Wrong, is... naive at best.

9/11? All I want to know is, where all of the molten metal come from?

Comment by Sharon Jarvis
Entered on:

I find it interesting that the three comments so far insist there ARE conspiracies. As a poor Jewish woman, when I hear that all Jews are rich and plan world domination, I ask, "How come no one told me? Why am I not rich and powerful too?" In the U.S., which is 95% Christian, there are rich and powerful Christians conspiring. In the Middle East, which controls our oil, Muslims are conspiring too. It's actually the really rich and powerful of all faiths and nations who aim to stay that way. What we need are not conspiracy theories but genuine facts and information which cannot be gotten from the mainstream media. The only people I respect and believe are investigative reporters.

Comment by Trouser Chili
Entered on:
Mr Renzuilli sounds like someone being paid by the government to inspire fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If anyone has spent just a single hour reading the articles on this site with an open mind, they would not come to such a one-sided conclusion.

Beware the infiltrators!

Comment by John Deahl
Entered on:

All one has to do is read the last part of his article to know this person doesn't have a clue about the subject or his own mind. quote "one has to ignore clear evidence that other plots and schemes by government officials have not succeeded and have been uncovered." Here he contradicts himself by admitting they do exist. Freedom Phoenix has lowered itself in my eyes by publishing this person.

Comment by Edwin Sumcad
Entered on:

In my considered opinion, this Conspiracy Theory is a theory of political conviction, an ax that grinds in the assassination of President George W. Bush's solid anti-terrorist reputation to govern and protect American lives from terror, and the murder of his administration that the angry radical Left and ideological government-haters [i.e, lovers of individual liberty and freedom versus the government] hold in question.

Why is The Conspiracy Theory a wicked theory? People are simply tired of hating and blaming Al Qaeda terrorists that engineered the 9/11 carnage because it is too obvious that this dark force of evil did it.

If an opposite theory can be developed – no matter how malevolent it may be -- that it was not the terrorists that destroyed the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C., why, think about it … won't that be a phenomenal twist of event that could be politically exploited?

Don't forget that I am demonstrating my own theory here which in politics is the antithesis of the much-ballyhooed Conspiracy Theory of the blind, deaf and dumb. They couldn't see the hijacked airlines that terrorists plowed into the buildings. Their eyes are at the back of their head that saw dynamites planted in the buildings causing the "implosion" from within.

Did anyone see in national television the doomed airlines hitting the buildings? No siree! … the theory conspirators and their captured followers will tell you that what you saw in national television was just an illusion. The Bush administration hired an illusionist to make you believe that what you saw in national television and what those in ground zero experienced, smelled death and survived, was just an illusion!

How about those buried in the rubbles after the building collapsed and the more than 3,000 dead – no, those were are not real. Conspiracy theorists are deaf that they never heard about it.

Were there really dead, that too many? No, they are too dumb to believe there were people who died in that carnage … they are so dumb they could not even speak about it!

Theory is a tool in the science of the mind that is used to prove what exists … what is real. Einstein used it to prove that general relativity exists amidst the natural laws of contradictions in motion, time and space. He devised what is known as Einstein Field Equations a "two-dimensional projection of a three-dimensional analogy of space-time curvature described in his famous Theory of General Relativity.

This genius resolved the conflict of moving objects in the natural laws of classical mechanics and special relativity because in those theories inertially moving objects cannot accelerate with respect to each other, but objects in free fall can. To Einstein, it is that simple.

This explains the fact that Theory is actually common sense. When it is use to embarrass reality, the problem is enormous. It becomes a dangerous fantasy.

For example, the Theory being circulated by Bush-bashers that President Bush would kill more than six thousands of his own people and destroy America, defies logic. People had expected that in his farewell address, Bush's last opportunity to be an angry dragon that would spit fire on his relentless detractors was well at hand. But by his nature, he is and always has been a civilized gentle person. Not an iota of anger or rage of a severely abused president was ever shown in that few minutes he had of saying good-bye to the American people.

Picturing Bush as a "monster" lacks common sense that only deadbrains would accept, believe and celebrate.

The theory that Abraham Lincoln, because of grinding poverty in his early life, was a psychopath who wanted to kill more than six hundred thousands Americans by planning America's Great Civil War, is as insane as this Conspiracy Theory is.

Comment by John Deahl
Entered on:
I regret I didn't have this link handy when I posted earlier.

So much for those that do not believe in conspiracies or those that are to mentally limited to understand the facts and opinions of those that do.

Comment by Rod Souza
Entered on:

This guy is a conspiracy theory himself who is in total denial. First of all the word conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to preform together an illegal, treacherous or evil act. Is this a theory? This guy obviously is brain dead when it comes to history and human nature.
Were not talking about theories here. If this idiot pulled his head out of his rear end to look around that probably wouldn't help him either so what's the point? When this clown is sitting in a prison camp in the near future he can recount all his thoughts about conspiracy theories.
Non are more enslaved then those who continue to exist under the illusion that they are free.

Comment by Charzhome S.
Entered on:
To the Editor:

May I officially object to labeling this Renzulli article an "Editorial"? This misleads your readers by implying that the respected editor, Ernest Hancock, vouches for the journalistic skills and integrity of the author - yet from reading the "About Us" section of Freedom's Phoenix I now realize this is not an accurate reflection of your editorial policy at all! The truth is, *anyone* can publish any sort of inaccurate drivel and have it billed as an "editorial." This _greatly_ encourages know-nothings and the reason-impaired of all stripes to **go ahead and publish.**

If you wish to offer publishing space to any and all comers
in this fashion, and THAT is your right of course, it would be
helpful to your readers if you applied a label to the 'work' of these unskilled journalists that is less prestigious than "an Editorial by..." ....How about something like: "The Unsubstantiated Opinion of _____" Or perhaps,jjust "Opinion" That'd do it for me.

Best regards,

Comment by Rocky Frisco
Entered on:
Who the hell is Mike Renzulli? If you have two humans in communication, there's conspiracy going on. Of the theories I have studied, for instance, about 911, the silliest, obviously concocted, full of lies and obfuscation, version is the official one. Buildings free-falling into their own footprint, steel melting at burning jet-fuel temperatures, massive loss of Constitutional rights as a result, all these point to some sort of official collusion.

I think Renzulli is part of the pattern: sheepmaking.

Comment by Edwin Sumcad
Entered on:

To Mike Renzulli --

Your quite daring editorial contribution --The Idiocy of Conspiracy Theories – was well-written. It is rich with illustrations showing why the theories you mentioned were idiotic.

But don't be surprise if your person is attacked. There are eyes in this Forum that watch views contrary to theirs. They punch like Mike Tyson to knock you out of your civility and self-respect, although some are just like nuisance mosquitoes that bite, when they see a written view like yours … and mine, which is also like yours.

They don't respond to the issues you raised. They have the faintest idea how to respond to ideas/views presented. They can't do it. They are not prepared for that. But in name-calling – notwithstanding that prohibits it – unbeatable!

PresidentDon: Commenting on your article, he sees "the end of Habeas Corpus". Unfounded. Obviously, he is not a lawyer like me, or a lawyer maybe also like you. Habeas Corpus is care taken by the Court of proper jurisdiction not by the people in the Executive Department commonly addressed to as the "administration" or the "government" he dislikes.

But this guy is good in saying that. Some people are just too dumb to see what is going on, too dumb to study the downsizing of our nation, and the treaty's we've made that have ended so much manufacturing in this country that has destroyed our Middle Class economy. He is wearing magic eye glasses. Others can't see, he can. Imagination has a seeing eye too. That sometimes makes reality delusional.

Duncan Druhl's comment shows promise: The judgmental error that many "conspiracy theorists" make is that they want to attribute blame to "someone". This causes considerable controversy. Just like my comment – don't blame something on someone, unless you developed a theory that that someone is blameworthy! Someone like Bush. You can be despicable if you want to.

Ernest, the Ed, uses a formula in determining who the Bad Guys are – if they have the _ability_ to accomplish the 'conspiracy' … and if they can, they are … Okay. His comment shows the way how to discuss issues raised. He is opposed to your views, but the opposition is well said. Did you see any harpoon thrown to wound your person?

But look at stupidAmerakin's & Charzhome's remarks … they call you "brain dead", "idiot", "clown", etc. Charzhome's comment was addressed to Ernest Hancock, the editor, lecturing him why he allowed writers like you to get published in this website. He specifically objected to your piece being called "Editorial"…!"

Who does this guy think he is? [1]This guy cannot even distinguish an editorially written piece from a news report. [2] He does not even know that gave contributors the privilege to participate either as "editor" or "reporter"! Where in heavens name did he come from?

This writer I am referring to and his kind can't even argue substantially, let alone politely. Their personal prejudices are so controlling that these impaired their ability to understand the issues raised and respond accordingly!

Ernest, again this is what I mean. We have shown them the way on how to conduct a discussion of issues in this Forum that our reading public needs. When an ignoramus imposes his rudeness and ignorance on others, we have an editorial sore eye on the loose. In this particular case, instead of turning himself into an ingrate he should have been thankful he is given the privilege of being here although all of us must have to bear with him. That's because others' views are important even though how frontally opposed they are to each others, or even how extremely opposite they are to yours and mine!

That's how the right to express one's view in a free society is all about. That's how free online publications like are committed to this nation's freedom of expression.

Comment by Ernest Hancock
Entered on:
Charzhome has made a very good point that I have immediately acted upon. Thank you. (His full comment at the end of this post)

About us: About Us link

Charzhome is correct in pointing out thaqt the "title" of 'Editorial' should be changed to "Opinion". While our Editorial Policy is to promote contributions from anyone willing to be tested by informed readers, it is not accurate to allow the impression that I (Ernest Hancock - Publisher) or Powell Gammill (Senior Editor) endorse all of the contributions to this site.

However I am pleased with the discussions prompted by unpopular views on this site. The structure of this site is such that these postings are of little distraction once you know who's opinion is of little value. But I have found that it is the discussions created from such posts that have more value.

The Freedom Forum and the Comments option are linked and sometimes they have been read more than the original article itself.

I'll continue to review our policy about the encouragement of alternate views being represented here on FreedomsPhoenix, but I'm likely to lean towards allowing those I disagree with the ability to subject themselves to the beatings they might deserve here for my entertainment and continued education.

Should I need to develop a different sort of interface to accomplish this without sacrificing the benefits of FreedomsPhoenix then I will (as I just have due to a reader's suggestion).

Enjoy the show.

Comment by: Charzhome
Entered on: 2009-02-02 11:30:50
To the Editor:

May I officially object to labeling this Renzulli article an "Editorial"? This misleads your readers by implying that the respected editor, Ernest Hancock, vouches for the journalistic skills and integrity of the author - yet from reading the "About Us" section of Freedom's Phoenix I now realize this is not an accurate reflection of your editorial policy at all! The truth is, *anyone* can publish any sort of inaccurate drivel and have it billed as an "editorial." This _greatly_ encourages know-nothings and the reason-impaired of all stripes to **go ahead and publish.**

If you wish to offer publishing space to any and all comers
in this fashion, and THAT is your right of course, it would be
helpful to your readers if you applied a label to the 'work' of these unskilled journalists that is less prestigious than "an Editorial by..." ....How about something like: "The Unsubstantiated Opinion of _____" Or perhaps,jjust "Opinion" That'd do it for me.

Best regards,

Comment by Charzhome S.
Entered on:

Sir, You are the hands-down champion of a very ugly form of name-calling; and if you continue to *slander* and *misquote* me I may be forced to sue you. So kindly DESIST!
This from someone who constantly accuses *others* of "vulgar speech" -ironic.

Comment by
Entered on:
Mr. Renzulli's piece presents an opportunity to examine a serious issue.

He wrote: "Conspiracy theories should not be taken seriously since they deal in speculation and not facts."

Set aside the objection that this statement is a global absolute statement, the sort that is nearly always false because a single counter example disproves it.

I'd be interested in Mr. Renzulli's thoughts on this issue: how does a person disprove a conspiracy theory?

It is not enough to engage in ad hominem: "anybody who believes in one is stupid."

It is not enough to assert that they never have been proved true -- which itself is a statement almost impossible to prove (and Mr. Renzulli does not attempt to prove it).

It is not enough to engage in ridicule by incredulity: "Do you seriously believe your own government would dyanmite two towers and arrange for drone 747s to fly into the buildings ... when any number of lesser events could have justified a war in Iraq?"

So -- how does a person disprove a conspiracy theory?

Consider the most notorious horrific event that has been claimed to be a conspiracy: the 9/11 attack and building collapses.

I have seen some of the evidence, heard some of the statements by "experts" on metallurgy, explosives, demolition, etc. There is evidence, mostly in the form of testimony by these "experts," that the orderly downward rapid collapse of the Twin Towers, in a short time after the aircraft crashes, could not have happened without an "inside job" of planting a controlled explosion.

How does the average citizen prove the experts wrong? What kind of information contradicts the conspiracy theory?

Similarly, there is the 9/11 crash into the Pentagon. The conspiracy theorists challenge: "where are the aircraft parts? Why is the hole like one made by a missile, not one that suggests there were wings on the craft?"

To date, I have not seen the 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked with facts. The theorists are ridiculed and scoffed at -- but I personally have not seen much evidence to dispute the theories.

To debunk the conspiracy theories would take perhaps some engineers and architects to sit down with the data and explain, step by step, using facts and figures, why the theories are wrong and how the standard explanation is correct.

I haven't seen that yet, not in almost 8 years. The Bush Administration should have arranged for such a debunk, instead of taking the PR hit the whole time ... yet the Bush Administration appears to have ignored the problem.

A party's failure to deny or explain a damning fact, when that fact is before the jury, and when the party has the ability to dispute the fact, is evidence tending to prove the fact is true. Bush's failure to explain these things suggests they might be true.

So the question to consider: what kind of evidence disproves a conspiracy theory?

I hate conspiracy theories, so I'm eager to learn how to actually unhook them.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:
If you are a poor nobody trying to get into politics, the thing to do is to create an emotional attachment with people - all kinds of people.

Emotionally attach yourself to the powers that be by furthering their cause in a "wordy way." Emotionally attach yourself to the common man in any "wordy way" that you can. Once that emotional attachment is there, people will often forget why it is there. It will simply be there.

Years down the road you will have an emotional base for launching a political campaign. People will remember your name because of the emotional attachment. All it will take will be a little twisting of the facts that are behind their emotional attachment, and you are on the road to fame and fortune as a politician.

Make a Comment