Howard Zinn is misleading his followers concerning the importance and relevance of 9/11. He's a good historian, as historians go. He has compassion. He's antiwar and anti-greed. However, he's a "just move on" sort.

Just moving on is a terrible idea. He wants people to just move on concerning 9/11 before anyone has gotten to the bottom of it. That's awful.

It would be a simple matter to find out who was involved within the U.S. government. All it would take is the U.S. government (incoming Obama administration) deciding to find out regardless of where it would lead. We would arrive at the ultimate perpetrators if we were thoroughly to investigate 9/11 as a crime starting with no preconceived ideas but from scratch (as much as that's possible). In doing so, we could then address the root cause.

We could affect a cure for society. This would be a great thing for humanity. It would not necessitate capital punishment. It could result in reconciliation, forgiveness, and a proper redress of grievances worldwide.

Howard Zinn said 9/11 has "no practical political significance." He has said the following:

I have said that what happened on 9/11 deserves to be investigated more than it has been because I don't accept and believe official investigations and official reports.

But having said that, and I want to say that this has really annoyed a lot of people, but why not, and I will annoy more people by saying that I think there are many people who have become fanatics about 9/11. By fanatics I mean, they think we should drop everything and just concentrate our energies on finding out what happened on 9/11.

I don't think the question of what really happened on 9/11 is the most important question we can ask.
To tell a movement of citizens in the United States that this is something that we really have to make an issue of, I don't believe it because we don't need what happened on 9/11, we don't need that to tell us about the crimes of the Bush administration.

I believe there are certain things that happen in history and certainly questions that are asked that divert us from the important things that we have to do at hand.

The truth is I don't think anyone will ever really know what happened on 9/11 just as I don't think anyone will really know who killed John F. Kennedy, and there are a lot of people who wasted a huge amount of time working on something that did not have any practical political significance.
I don't know enough about it and the truth is I don't much care, that's past.

Listen, if people hadn't worked on who killed John F. Kennedy, we would not realize the depth of depravity and the lengths to which evil will go for the sake of satisfying insatiable lust for all manner of things. We know John F. Kennedy was assassinated in a coup d'état. We know it, because of the magic-bullet [update], lone-shooter nonsense. Howard is doing a huge disservice with his talk about it. Kennedy had his problems, but he was learning in office and was moving toward doing what was truly best for humanity. He was moving against the dark side. He was murdered for it by the system that benefited from his murder: The Military, Intelligence, and elitist, crony Capitalists (greediest of the greedy; richest of the rich in the unrighteous mammon). There's no doubt about it.

Steve Watson listed off things that are a direct result of 9/11. Here are some of the things to which he points:

  • War on terror
  • Clash of civilizations
  • Afghanistan War
  • Iraq War (A million-plus dead?; Millions more refugees)
  • Patriot Act
  • Warrantless wiretapping
  • Guantanamo Bay prison
  • Military Commissions Act
  • Extraordinary renditions
  • Indefinite detentions
  • Torture
  • Director of National Intelligence
  • Dead and dying emergency workers
  • Military and security spending
  • Cutbacks in social programs
  • Deep recession

(Source: "Zinn: 9/11 Truth Is For 'Fanatics', Has 'No Practical Political Significance'," by Steve Watson. November 21, 2008.)

Steve could have gone on. The ripple/Tsunami effect has impacted everything to some degree. Steve Watson is mostly right about this. Howard Zinn is completely wrong about it.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.