Cynthia McKinney: "The Emperor Has No Clothes!"
It is Rep. Cynthia McKinney who has at last raised the very obvious questions we all have, like the boy in the story, pointing out that to which all the adults had turned a blind eye. It was unmentionable, the fact that the King was naked, it was unthinkable. It was not allowed to be thought.
There was an unspoken agreement among the people, to be ignorant on this issue of His Nakedness, to deny it without thinking. Because the King had terrible authority and commanded great armies, and could kill with impunity, and was feared by the People.
And the King was a fool, who had been led to believe he was not naked, and that the People could not see His Nakedness. The King was deluded. The People could see the King's nakedness, but they had agreed not to mention it.
Now Cynthia McKinney is asking the simple and obvious question, "Why has there been no deep and thorough investigation by Congress of the events of 9-11?"
Her questions ran through the internet like an electric shock, for it was the first posing of them within the Realm of Officialdom. And her colleagues were then flustered, because she had pointed out the King's nakedness, and they did not want to see the King's nakedness, or realize that they had been deluded by the King's tailor. And the Lawmakers released statements saying that it was "dangerous" to suggest that the King had no clothes on. This could undermine the whole Kingdom. There should be a punishment for those who dared to mention the King's nakedness.
That the Bush administration tried to prevent a thorough investigation of the 9-11 tragedy is itself reason enough to warrent an objective and complete investigation by Congress! For a start, they can investigate why the administration wants to thwart any looking into the very real and obvious question: "Who did this thing?" All the world wants to know that. Why would the Bush gang want to stifle an investigation? That stifling of an investigation is worth investigating.
Yet the Congress stands impotent, oblivious to the obvious, like the "adults" in the famous story. They say to themselves, the King could not possibly be parading about naked. That would be outrageous.
And then there is the matter of the Israeli (Mossad) spying on all Washington through the phone lines. For a number of years they had the secret ability to tap almost any line in America, without detection, since they worked through a major phone company. How many of our leaders are now compromised or held in threat of blackmail? How much of the Bush cabal's plans did they overhear? Is the President himself under threat of blackmail by the Israelis? Is that why Sharon can push him around? This too, should be investigated, and the damage done by Mossad eavesdropping should be assessed.
Since 9-11 a great many questions have been raised, and these should be collected, and examined and investigated. In the confusion of that day the administration was so quick with their story, as if the story had all been prepared all along, and people accepted the theory of the Kings Invisible Clothes. The questions are indeed shocking and that is why so many people don't look at the King's nakedness. They do not want to be shocked, for it is uncomfortable to be shocked.
McKinney says: "If the secretary of defense tells us that his new military objectives must be to occupy foreign capital cities and overthrow regimes, then the American people must know why."
And speaking of Defese there is the matter of the longitudinal EM interferometers scattered around the world (sometimes called "Tesla howitzers). One of the abilities of these new superweapons is to create waves of electromagnetic energy at the distant target which can soften metal. Is THIS why the towers so unexpectedly collapsed? If so, whose "howitzer" did it? Another question to raise is: "Does the U.S. really have any defense against these new superweapons, or are we sitting ducks?" This is also worth investigation.
And the major media broadcast the story of the Invisible Clothes and remarks on their magnificence, for its Pravda-like purpose now is to set inquiring minds to rest with imaginary stories of the King and his Exploits, and there is never a mention of the King's Royal Nakedness, only praise for his beautiful Invisible Clothes.
Yet McKinney has done the unthinkable. She just wants an investigation into the "matter of the transparent clothes."
"The need for an investigation of the events surrounding Sept. 11 is as obvious as the need for an investigation of the Enron debacle. Certainly, if the American people deserve answers about what went wrong with Enron and why (and we do), then we deserve to know what went wrong on Sept. 11 and why."
Like the child in the story McKinney describes the nakeness of the King:
"Major financial conflicts of interest involving the president, the attorney general, the vice president and others in the administration have been and continue to be exposed."
She is only saying let us take a really good look at these Invisible Clothes. Let us examine them and see through them to the King beneath. A worthy question deserves a worthy answer, and the answers all seem to be covered over by transparent clothes.
"This is a time for leadership and judgment that is not compromised in any fashion. This is a time for transparency and a thorough investigation."That is a simple enough request, but it appears the "leadership"
But the "leadership" IS compromised in so many directions, in the direction of the oil cabal, for example, or in their apparent lack of understanding of the kinds of new superweapons that are aimed at us now, in top secret. I don't know what kind, but SOME kind of Cabal is sitting in the White House now, and is operating in great secrecy, and it is the greatest true "national security" issue facing the nation.
For we want to see truly, like the child in the story, who saw truly that the King was naked. I wonder if that child, like all the "adults," grew up to be a Perceiver of the Clothes.
Bill Morgan
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
