Former CIA Director and Neocon R. James Woolsey, Admits on Live TV That the Constitution Has to Be Ignored. Also Leaks How NSA Operates but No Calls for His Arrest

And they have the nerve to call whistleblower Edward Snowden a traitor? And people like Woolsey, who openly admit the Constitution must be ignored for security purposes, are patriots?

by Larry Simons
June 12, 2013

On Tuesday night's telecast of Piers Morgan Live, Morgan spoke to Robert James Woolsey, Jr. [former CIA director under Clinton] about the massive NSA surveillance program that was recently whistleblown by American hero Edward Snowden.

Morgan asked Woolsey what his reaction was to Snowden leaking the information. Woolsey explained that Snowden had "no right" to take it upon himself and leak this information, as Woolsey put it, Snowden "arrogated that entire decision to himself, he decided it was him who got to strike that balance, not the elected representatives that we vote for, not the President, not the courts.."

That made me laugh. There would be no such thing as a "whistleblower" if you're going to depend on or expect the very people involved in that which you are whistleblowing to disclose this kind of information themselves. Woolsey was basically saying, "Snowden should not have revealed this damning information, he should have waited until the very people behind violating our Fourth Amendment disclosed this information".

Well, generally anyone who commits a covert act or violates the Constitution and wants to do this in secret probably will not volunteer to reveal that secret information on their own. This is the very reason there are whistleblowers, to reveal information that under any other circumstance would not have been revealed.

watch the clip


The next part in the interview made me laugh out loud. Morgan [who, surprisingly, did a good job with the questions he chose] asked Woolsey what he thought the consequences of Snowden's decision to leak information would be. Woolsey said this:

"Well, the problem is, that once you start to al Qaeda and Hezbollah how you are operating, they can avoid what you're doing. And you can't explain to the American people without explaining to Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Once you're sitting there blabbing about how these decisions are made, you have decided you're going to tell our enemies, those who want to kill us, those who want to fly airplanes into buildings and all the rest, how this all works. And you have decided that yourself, if you're Snowden. So he could well be responsible in the future for many, many deaths...but Snowden has made it easier for them to kill Americans and others".

So, let me get this straight, Woolsey. An employee who worked for a defense contractor as a system administrator at the Hawaii NSA office reveals to the American public that the United States is manufacturing a massive surveillance grid to spy on American citizens [not terrorists] and if there are terror attacks in the future, they will be because a whistleblower informed the American people that their civil liberties are being violated in the most egregious fashion in which this country has never seen? Really?

True, Snowden no doubt violated his employers' code of ethics and must be punished for that, but Woolsey wants Snowden to spend the rest of his life in prison? On what grounds? Whistleblowing that every single person in our government who is either involved in this program or has knowledge of it is violating the Fourth Amendment to our supreme law of the land? Who goes to jail for that?

The most unbelievable part of the interview was when Woolsey goes on to answer a question Morgan asked about Americans being disturbed by the quantity of data that is being amassed by the government and how uncomfortable Morgan feels about everyone knowing about his online activity. Morgan asks, "Why should they [know]?"

Woolsey unbelievably said this:

"Well, they don't know everything about your online activity. It's illegal for them to take some steps with respect to it, such as to get into the substance of the intercept. What this is as far as Americans are concerned, it's what's called meta-data, who's calling who and so-forth. 

If you and I talk on the phone to one another every day and then one day I call [unintelligible] al Qaeda in Pakistan, yes, somebody is going to say 'you know, I wonder what has been going on between Woolsey and Piers, let's have a look at that', but routinely and systematically there's no looking into the substance of your calls and mine. It doesn't work that way."

Wait a minute! Didn't Woolsey, just 2 minutes prior to making this comment, say this?:

"Well, the problem is, that once you start to al Qaeda and Hezbollah how you are operating, they can avoid what you're doing. And you can't explain to the American people without explaining to Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Once you're sitting there blabbing about how these decisions are made, you have decided you're going to tell our enemies, those who want to kill us, those who want to fly airplanes into buildings and all the rest, how this all works."

Didn't Woolsey just tell us how it all works? Yes, he did! Why isn't he being arrested and taken into custody? After demonizing Snowden for "blabbing to our enemies" about "how this all works", he tells Morgan how it all works! [At least in the sense that telling him how the program doesn't work is essentially telling our enemies how it all does work]

Why is no one calling Woolsey a traitor? Where are the calls for his arrest? Why is no one saying he committed treason?

Morgan then brings on Ron Paul to counter the argument by rightfully stating that Snowden has done a great service to his country and how media and government love to demonize those who reveal corruption in our government by claiming they have committed treason.

Paul then made an interesting point that Obama should thank Snowden for forcing him to be more transparent, stating “Matter of fact, I think the president ought to send him a thank you letter, because the president ran on transparency and we’re getting a lot of transparency now. So finally we’re getting the president to fulfill his promise about transparency, so that’s pretty exciting for me.”

Morgan then had the Fourth Amendment posted on the screen and read it to Woolsey, after which Morgan asked this question to Woolsey:

"I just don’t see how you can say what is going on here in complete secrecy from 99 percent of the people it is being done to lives up to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is palpably a breach isn’t it?"

Brilliant question, in which Woolsey replied:

"Well, it depends on whether or not you want to preserve the country’s ability to operate in a world of terrorism in which a lot of terrorists are very technically sophisticated. If you want to defend the country you’re going to have to defend it."

Morgan then said, "Right, I understand that…but that wasn’t the question", which Woolsey insisted, "It is the question. It is the question. That balance between security and liberty is the question".

No, it was NOT the question Woolsey, you big fat un-American lying bastard. Morgan asked you how the NSA program lives up to the Fourth Amendment, and you could not answer his question. In fact, your answer was basically an admittance that the Constitution has to be ignored in order for the NSA program to operate. Woolsey is also flat out saying that there is no way terrorism can be dealt with unless the Constitution is trashed. And that, of course, is complete bullshit.

Morgan then asks, "Where is the probable cause for the 99.9% of the information being effectively seized here?"

Woolsey replies:

"Given the fact that this system was put together by the people's elected representatives, it's been upheld by the courts, that it's monitored by the FISA court, that it's monitored by the Attorney General and officials in the executive branch.. and that it is systematically supported by the people, like the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, Senator Feinstein, I think you would have to say that the government on this subject has done a reasonable job of balancing these two very important interests. If you try to look at liberty without considering security at all, you're putting on blinders".

Total bullshit Woolsey. Complete, 100%, certified, bona fide bullshit. First of all, no one gives a shit how long your list is of politicians, judges or agencies is, because if the program is not being done legally and Constitutionally [which it's not], it wouldn't matter if Jesus Christ himself approves it.

The bottom line is, Morgan asked you a specific question, "Where is the probable cause for the 99.9% of the information being effectively seized here?", and you refused to fucking answer it, because you know goddamn well you have no probable cause. You're violating the Constitution and you do not give a fuck, because you are an anti-American scumbag.

Morgan then went back to Congressman Paul, where Paul stated, "What he’s doing is repealing the Magna Carta. You can’t just do these kind of things. And this one is not only repealing the principles of liberty, but it’s destroying the Constitution."

Paul then made an excellent point about the difference between how people like Edward Snowden are treated compared to the people in Washington who attack our liberties on a daily basis.

Paul said:

"So my question should be to all of you who defend this nonsense is, ‘What should the penalty be for the people who destroy the constitution?’ They’re always worried about how they’re going to destroy the American citizens who tell the truth to let us know what’s going on, but we ask the question, ‘What is the penalty for the people who deliberately destroy the Constitution and rationalize and say, “Well, we have to do it for security”?’

Great question, and I am quite sure it would have been another question Woolsey dodged.

Woolsey is an un-American piece of garbage. This is the same fuck nut who, in February of 2012, said that Iran would attack the Statue of Liberty. According to PrisonPlanet writer Kurt Nimmo, Woolsey is a high-ranking neocon who is connected to the Council of Foreign Relations and neocon think tanks.

Nimmo wrote last year, "Woolsey is a high ranking neocon and one of the original signers of the January 26, 1998, Project for the New American Century letter sent to then president Clinton. He is a Rhodes scholar and Council on Foreign Relations insider connected to the Scowcroft Commission, the Rumsfeld Commission, and is affiliated with a number of neocon organizations and think tanks, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Americans for Victory Over Terrorism.

He is the former chairman on Freedom House, a CIA front, which makes sense considering Woolsey’s pedigree. He is also the chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, another neocon operation funded by the Bronfmans and home to a number of war on Islam advocates including Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Frank Gafney and others. It is considered a refuge for the PNAC crowd."

One has to ask themselves, who are the real terrorists? Those who want to kill us or those who want our rights and freedoms stripped from us? Keep in mind one thing: A terrorist can inflict a great deal of death and destruction. But, one thing he cannot do is take our freedom away. Only government can do that.

Hypocrite Ann Coulter: Under Obama, the NSA is Harassing Americans; Under Bush, Newspaper Editors Should Have Been Executed for Treason If They Printed Info About the NSA Wiretapping Americans

Coulter flat out lies and tells Hannity that Bush conducted his wiretapping program legally, contrary to the fact the he did not have court-approved warrants to do so

by Larry Simons
June 7, 2013

On Thursday night's telecast of Hannity, conservative hypocrite and all-around loon Ann Coulter may have achieved an all new milestone during one of her liberal-bashing rants. She may have accomplished the impossible; spewing forth what might just be the most hypocritical thing she has ever uttered.

While on the subject of the Obama administration's recent announcement that they will now be spying on all American citizens' phone calls illegally, she went on to say this:

"...In light of the revelations today about these Verizon phone calls which, again, in the abstract, if they're [the Obama administration] just looking for patterns in phone numbers called, not looking at the content of the phone call, and submitting every phone call made in America to a computer to look for patterns, to look for terrorism, well then, under an honorable administration and even an honorable Democratic administration, if you can think of one, you'd say 'fine, that's fantastic, we want to be protected from a terrorist attack'. 

The problem with this administration and with Eric Holder is we can't trust them, and in point of fact what we have learned, particularly in the last few weeks is, they don't care about terrorism, they want to spy on their political enemies."

Basically Ann is comparing apples to oranges. According to her, it was perfectly fine for Bush to listen in on the phone calls of American citizens as long as they are not listening to the actual content of the call, but "patterns" or buzzwords that the NSA may red flag. But if another administration listens in on every word being spoken, that is a direct violation to the Constitution and that president should be impeached.

The truth of the matter is that in both cases it is a violation of the Constitution and to civil liberties, but Coulter is attempting [and very poorly] to split hairs, as she always does.

Coulter adds:

"You will recall during the Bush administration when they were getting FISA court warrants to follow and listen in on phone calls made to terrorist phone numbers, to numbers found on terrorist computers, every once in a while they would cite an actual case where this was used, where this was helpful in stopping a terrorist attack.."

This nearly made me spit my iced tea all over my computer screen. First of all, the NY Times reported in 2005 that Bush signed a Presidential order in 2002 that allowed his administration to monitor international phone calls and emails of people inside the United States without court-approved warrants. Coulter is obviously getting her information from her home planet of Wingnuttia, because here on planet Earth, it was never fact that Bush received court-approved warrants.

And Lord knows where Coulter is getting her information that there was even one example where any of the illegal wiretapping the NSA conducted during the Bush years resulted in one thwarted terror attack. That was simply made up out of thin air.

Coulter's hypocrisy lies in just one of the several death wishes she has made upon her political enemies. In early March of 2009, NY Times columnist Dave Itzkoff sent Coulter a list of questions by email about her [then] upcoming debate with Bill Maher at Radio City Music Hall.  One of Itzkoff's question's was, "Do you consider yourself as speaking for the conservative movement, or just someone who has attracted many conservative fans? Something else?"

Coulter's response [and yes, it was in all caps as I have included]:

"I THINK I SPEAK FOR ALL AMERICANS WHO THINK NEWSPAPER EDITORS WHO PRINT THE DETAILS OF TOP-SECRET ANTI-TERRORIST INTELLIGENCE GATHERING PROGRAMS ON PAGE ONE IN WARTIME SHOULD BE EXECUTED FOR TREASON."

So, let's be clear about this: If you're a reporter and you simply include in one of your articles information about American citizens being wiretapped and their emails being read illegally, Ann Coulter believes you have committed treason and you deserve death simply for whistleblowing a violation of the Constitution.  But if you are the residing President and you have instructed the NSA to spy on American citizens illegally, you're protecting Americans and are doing nothing wrong.

If you're a President who just happens to be a different color and a member of the opposing party to which Coulter belongs to and you conduct illegal wiretaps and email searches, well then, that's wrong, but not because of the act alone, but because of your motive for doing it.

The bottom line is, no matter who conducts illegal wiretaps, that act alone is wrong because it's illegal. Even if the courts approved listening in on the phone calls of Americans still would not make that act constitutional unless they found evidence of probable cause of a crime. The courts are not the supreme law in the land, the Constitution is. The court's job is to simply interpret the Constitution correctly and make their decision based on the accurate interpretation of our supreme law.

This is why there are three branches of government, so that one branch [the courts; judicial] cannot rule over the other two, and the same rule follows for the other two branches.

The fourth amendment reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

If it is an illegal search or seizure, it is an unreasonable one. Period. Dirtbags like Ann Coulter do not understand this basic fact. Both Bush and Obama have violated this basic human freedom distinctly embedded into our Constitution. But assholes like Coulter want you to believe Bush did not violate the Constitution and did not assault our human rights, but only Obama has. That makes her the biggest hypocrite on planet Earth.

watch this clip from Judge Napolitano on the truth about the 4th amendment [you watching Ann?]

The Life and Times of ObamaBush: Now More Than Ever, Everybody’s a Target in the American Surveillance State

by John Whitehead
June 7, 2013

The recent revelation that the National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers, with the complete blessing of the Obama administration, should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention over the past decade.

As I document in my new book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, what we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations). What too many fail to realize, consumed as they are with partisan politics and blinded by their own political loyalties, is that the massive bureaucracies – now computerized – that administer governmental policy transcend which party occupies the White House.

This explains why the civil liberties abuses carried out by the Bush Administration have not been corrected by the Obama Administration. Rather, they have been expanded upon. Take, for instance, the warrantless wiretapping program conducted during the Bush years, which resulted in the NSA monitoring the private communications of millions of Americans – a program that continues unabated today, with help from private telecommunications companies such as AT&T. The program recorded 320 million phone calls a day when it first started. It is estimated that the NSA has intercepted 15 to 20 trillion communications of American citizens since 9/11.

To our misfortune, the Obama White House has proven to be even worse than the Bush White House when it comes to invading the privacy rights of Americans. As Yale law professor Jack Balkin notes, “We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national-surveillance state. [Obama has] systematically adopted policies consistent with the second term of the Bush Administration.” Unfortunately, whereas those on the Left raised a hew and cry over the Bush administration’s constant encroachments on Americans’ privacy rights, it appears that the political leanings of those on the Left have held greater sway than their principles. Consequently, the Obama administration has faced much less criticism for its blatant efforts to reinforce the surveillance state.

Insisting that terrorists “will come after us if they can and the only thing that we have to deter this is good intelligence to understand that a plot has been hatched and to get there before they get to us,” Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate intelligence committee, is defending the NSA’s actions, as well as the secret court order requiring Verizon to turn over its phone records to government agents. It’s a tired, overused line that preys on Americans’ fear of another terrorist attack and offers phantom promises of security while ensuring neither safety nor greater freedom. Even the vague and unsupported claim put forth by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) that the NSA surveillance program “helped thwart ‘a significant case’ of terrorism in the United States ‘within the last few years’” fails to justify a program of this magnitude, which makes everyone a target and turns us all into a nation of suspects.

Clearly, the age of privacy in America is coming to a close. We have moved into a new paradigm in which surveillance technology which renders everyone a suspect is driving the bureaucratic ship that once was our democratic republic. It will not be long before no phone call, no email, no Tweet, no web search is safe from the prying eyes and ears of the government. People going about their daily business will no longer be assured that they are not being spied upon by federal agents and other government bureaucrats.

Thus, the question looms before us. Can freedom in the United States continue to flourish and grow in an age when the physical movements, individual purchases, conversations, and meetings of every citizen are constantly under surveillance by private companies and government agencies?

Whether or not the surveillance is undertaken for so-called “worthy” (read: politically expedient) reasons such as preventing another terrorist attack, does not surveillance of all citizens gradually poison the soul of a nation and render us all data collected in government files? Does not such surveillance completely eviscerate our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by our Constitution?

The IRS’s Job Is To Violate Our Liberties

by Ron Paul
May 21, 2013

“What do you expect when you target the President?” This is what an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agent allegedly said to the head of a conservative organization that was being audited after calling for the impeachment of then-President Clinton. Recent revelations that IRS agents gave “special scrutiny” to organizations opposed to the current administration’s policies suggest that many in the IRS still believe harassing the President’s opponents is part of their job.

As troubling as these recent reports are, it would be a grave mistake to think that IRS harassment of opponents of the incumbent President is a modern, or a partisan, phenomenon. As scholar Burton Folsom pointed out in his book New Deal or Raw Deal, IRS agents in the 1930s were essentially “hit squads” against opponents of the New Deal. It is well-known that the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson used the IRS to silence their critics. One of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon dealt with his use of the IRS to harass his political enemies. Allegations of IRS abuses were common during the Clinton administration, and just this week some of the current administration’s defenders recalled that antiwar and progressive groups alleged harassment by the IRS during the Bush presidency.

The bipartisan tradition of using the IRS as a tool to harass political opponents suggests that the problem is deeper than just a few “rogue” IRS agents – or even corruption within one, two, three or many administrations. Instead, the problem lies in the extraordinary power the tax system grants the IRS.

The IRS routinely obtains information about how we earn a living, what investments we make, what we spend on ourselves and our families, and even what charitable and religious organizations we support. Starting next year, the IRS will be collecting personally identifiable health insurance information in order to ensure we are complying with Obamacare’s mandates.

The current tax laws even give the IRS power to marginalize any educational, political, or even religious organizations whose goals, beliefs, and values are not favored by the current regime by denying those organizations “tax-free” status. This is the root of the latest scandal involving the IRS.

Considering the type of power the IRS excises over the American people, and the propensity of those who hold power to violate liberty, it is surprising we do not hear about more cases of politically-motivated IRS harassment. As the first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall said, “The power to tax is the power to destroy” – and who better to destroy than one’s political enemies?

The US flourished for over 120 years without an income tax, and our liberty and prosperity will only benefit from getting rid of the current tax system. The federal government will get along just fine without its immoral claim on the fruits of our labor, particularly if the elimination of federal income taxes are accompanied by serious reduction in all areas of spending, starting with the military spending beloved by so many who claim to be opponents of high taxes and big government.

While it is important for Congress to investigate the most recent scandal and ensure all involved are held accountable, we cannot pretend that the problem is a few bad actors. The very purpose of the IRS is to transfer wealth from one group to another while violating our liberties in the process. Thus the only way Congress can protect our freedoms is to repeal the income tax and shutter the doors of the IRS once and for all.

Pat Robertson Tells A Woman Whose Husband Cheated On Her to Basically Get Over It, Forgive Your Master...Boys Will Be Boys

Great "Christian" advice from Pat "I lost my fucking mind 20 years ago" Robertson to A woman whose husband cheated on her: Stop focusing on the cheating

by Larry Simons
May 16, 2013

There are a few constants in life. Sunlight, rain, the beauty of the stars, the changing of the seasons and of course, Christian fucknut Pat Robertson's severe brain damage. I wish I was under contract to receive just twenty dollars every time this deranged whackjob said something stupid, thoughtless or irresponsible. I would own my own yacht and me and Bill Gates would be buddies.

On yesterday's telecast of The 700 Club, during its Bring It On segment, in which 150-year-old Robertson answers viewers' questions sent by email, they came to a question from a woman named "Ivy" who  asked Robertson's advice on how she should handle her husband's infidelity.

"Ivy" asks:

"I've been trying to forgive my husband for cheating on me. We have gone to counseling, but I just can't seem to forgive, nor can I trust. How do you let go of the anger? How do you trust again? God says to forgive, but it's been so hard to do. I want to forgive, so we can get on with our lives."

Enter Robertson, who should win the award for worst advice ever given to a woman who's been cheated on. There are so many disturbing elements of his response, I have no idea where to begin.

Robertson's expert Christian advice? Are you ready?

"Alright, here's the secret. Stop talking about the cheating."

Really Pat? Robertson is telling a woman whose sole purpose in writing the email was to get advice on what to do about her husband's cheating. Robertson's brilliant answer for Ivy?: Forget about the very reason you emailed me, which is the very same reason your marriage is in jeopardy and the very reason you have gone to counseling. Just forget about it Ivy.

Is it possible for Robertson to utter anything worse? Of course it is. All it requires Robertson to do is keep moving his lips. Robertson continues:

"He cheated on you. Well, he's a man. OK. So, what you do is begin to focus on why you married him in the first place..."

Did it ever occur to this fossil that the reason this woman married her husband in the first place may have been because he seemed like he would be the kind of man who would NOT cheat on her and be faithful to her? Of course not. You see Pat, the possibility of infidelity is the very reason why "Ivy" did not marry OTHER men. You can't really blame Robertson for being the closest thing to an actual zombie that can be found anywhere on planet Earth. This guy has been studying the Bible for 50+ years. His brain cells are eroding faster than sandstone.

Robertson continues:

"[focus on] ..what he does good. Does he provide a home for you to live in? Does he provide food for you to eat? Does he provide clothes for you to wear? Is he nice to the children? Do you have a happy family? Does he take the kids to sporting events? Does he go out and watch their little league games? Does he share with you stuff that's going on? Is he handsome? Or is he, ya know, what is it?"

Not only does the entire aforementioned paragraph indicate that Robertson has completely ignored the whole issue of the husband's cheating [and hence the entire reason "Ivy" sent the email], but it is clear that Robertson is still living in the 1950's when women had to be the obedient little perfect wife who had to have dinner ready for her man every single night [to show her husband that she has been thinking of him all day and about his needs when he arrives home], be rested up so she could have enough energy to attend to her husband's every need, be freshened up and looking good when he walked in the door, had to make sure the house was tidy so he wouldn't have to step through a bunch of clutter, always had to be happy to see him and suppress any negative thoughts or bad moods if her day was personally a bad one, had to greet her husband with a warm smile, never get angry if he was late and never complain or tell him about any problems, be ready with a cold drink and a fresh pillow for his chair so he could rest his head, never ask him questions or question his judgement or integrity.

In other words, it's clear that Robertson is telling "Ivy" that her husband is the Master and that she should know her place.

Robertson is telling "Ivy" that, as long as the husband is paying the bills and taking care of the family's basic needs, he can screw any woman he wishes. It is not the woman's place to rock the boat and question her Master.

Robertson is also presupposing that the husband is the prime wage-earner and because of that fact, "Ivy" should be happy that she does not have to go out into the world and work a 9-5 job. She should shut her mouth, be content and thankful that her husband takes care of everything. To Robertson, "Ivy" has no right to complain to "Master".

The questions that blew me away in the aforementioned paragraph were, "Is he nice to the children? Do you have a happy family?" How nice is it for the children if Dad is screwing other women except for Mom? How is the family "happy" if the family unit is in jeopardy of possibly breaking apart?

"Does he share with you stuff that's going on? Is he handsome?" This made my jaw drop. What could possibly be "going on" that holds more importance than him cheating? What does the husbands good looks have to do with "Ivy's" concerns for her marriage? If her husband is nice looking, that's one of the things that is detrimental to the problem. If he was unattractive, he may not be cheating!

And still the fucknut continues:

"Start focusing on those things and essentially fall in love with him all over again. And I recommend you reach out and touch him. Touch his face, touch his face. Hold his hand. Look into his eyes. Talk to him."

That's the point Pat, you shribbled up, mindless twat. How can she fall in love with him again if he is fucking other women? "Touch his face"? What the fuck does that mean? "Hold his hand"? "Look into his eyes"? It is crystal clear what's going on here: Robertson is saying that the husband is the victim! The husband is the one that needs consoled. The husband is the one that needs to be understood. Can Robertson be any fucking nuttier than this? Answer: NO.

And still, there's more:

"But as you're praying 'Oh God, keep me not to hate him for what he did when he was with that stripper in that hotel room ten years ago and I'll never forgive him' kind of thing, please help me."

WTF? Who fucking said it was a stripper ten years ago Pat? Why would she send you an email in May of 2013 if the cheating happened in 2003? Regardless of when the cheating occurred, the point is, Pat, the cheating is still happening!

Robertson: "So, what are you focusing on? You're focusing on the thing that makes you mad. Stop that. Start focusing on the good stuff."

Translation:  Ivy, your hubby pays the bills, takes care of you, plays with the children, he's good looking, he provides for you, buys you food and clothes, puts a roof over your head. Every once in awhile he likes to screw another woman. He has this one flaw. He does so much good. So, in order for you to be happy, just overlook it and don't question your Master. You owe him that for all the good he does.

Robertson: "He must have something good, you wouldn't have married him."

Yeah, Pat, one of those good attributes was the fact that he only wanted his wife, and that during the wedding ceremony, he vowed to be faithful to her. Now he has broken that vow, and what's your "expert" "Christian" advice?: "Ivy" should remind herself what good qualities she saw in her husband that made her marry him? Since the husband is the one cheating, shouldn't it be the husband's job to remind himself of "Ivy's" good qualities and for the husband to make amends? Not according to Robertson. After all, the husband is the victim!

Finally, Robertson comes to the entire point of this whole issue. He admits that the husband's cheating is "Ivy's" fault!

"So, think about those things and give him honor instead of trying to worry about it. But recognize, also, like it or not, males have a tendency to wander a little bit. And what you want to do is make the home so wonderful, that he doesn't want to wander."

Translation: Thank God you have him. Give him all the respect he deserves. Males make mistakes and it's not their fault. If you would have been a better wife and given him all the things he deserves, he never would have had a reason to go to someone else for it.

Yep, to Robertson it's Ivy's fault, because she was not the good little obedient 1950's servant wife.

So, the Christian message to all women whose husbands cheat on you: Be thankful you have a wonderful man who pays the bills, provides for all your needs and buys you food and clothes. Without him, you'd be nothing. He's your Master and you need to realize that males have a natural tendency to stray and fuck other women. If your husband does this, it has to be YOUR fault, because that is an indication that you are not doing your obedient wifely duties and satisfying your Master.

Fuck you, Pat Robertson.

If you must, watch him actually say this shit (starts at 1:55)


Oddly enough, in 2010, Robertson said almost the complete opposite thing to another woman email-er who asked almost the same question. The woman asks Robertson, "Is it my duty to stay with a man who is continually unfaithful?

Robertson's response to her?:

"I don't think so. Jesus gave an exception for divorce. God's not in favor of divorce, believe me. He's always in favor of rehabilitation and restitution. But if a guy is a serial philanderer, and his wife doesn't want to hang around, I don't think she's bound according to the scriptures. He's broken the vows, he's broken the union by his philandering, so if you feel inclined that you feel led to go, I don't think there's anything to stop you."

Well, except for Robertson's utterly unbelievable contradictory statements. In one case, the wife should obey and honor her Master after he cheats; in the other case, the wife is free to go because the husband cheated multiple times. Why is "Ivy" bound to her husband after he cheats, but the other woman [you addressed in 2010] free to leave?

Odd, I find nowhere in the Bible where it says anything about how often the sinful act must be committed for it to be wrong. Sin is sin. Committing it once is sin, and committing it 100 times is sin. The Bible does not differentiate between the two.

Only crazy Pat Robertson does.

watch Pat the nut say it's only OK for the wife to leave
her hubby if he's cheated multiple times

Christian Heavy Metal Singer [and Nut] Charged with A Crime That Would Make A Satanist's Jaw Drop: Hiring A Hit Man to Kill His Wife

Attorney for singer Tim Lambesis says his client was "set up". Was the set up before or after Lambesis gave the would-be hit man $1,000 in cash, photos of his wife, her address, codes to get through the security gates of her home, and a list of dates [of when to commit the crime] that would provide him an alibi? Hmmm.

by Larry Simons
May 13, 2013

In yet another incident to be included in the "Christians are fucking NUTS" file, Tim Lambesis, lead singer of the band As I Lay Dying, has been charged with an act that you might expect to be carried out by a Satanist, an atheist or anyone who watches Honey-boo-boo: Hiring a hit man to kill ones wife.

That's right. It does not get any nuttier than that, folks. But I have not lost hope in the Christian community. I have faith that it will get nuttier, and it will probably be sooner than later.

Apparently, it has been reported that Lambesis was arrested at a Barnes and Noble bookstore in San Diego on Tuesday after he tried to hire an undercover Sheriff's deputy to kill his estranged wife, Meggan Lambesis, whom he was married to for 8 years up until she filed for divorce in September.

Lambesis reportedly told an acquaintance at his gym that he wanted his wife killed. That acquaintance arranged for Lambesis to meet with an undercover Sheriff's deputy who went by the name "Red". As if this story couldn't get any nuttier, Lambesis' attorney, Anthony Salerno,  is now saying his client was set up.  How in the hell can you claim your client is set up if the douchebag hands the "hit man" $1,000 [for payment to commit the crime], a photo of his wife [so the hit man can kill the right person], the wife's address [so the hit man can arrive at the right house], codes to get through the security gates of her home and a list of dates that would be good times to commit the killing in order to give your client an alibi?

Salerno also said, "If I had to hang a tag on it, I'd call it a scumbag snitch set-up.." Yeah, Salerno, what a prick Lambesis' gym friend is for having the audacity to go to the police and "snitch" when someone tells him to find someone to take his wife out!

Salerno adds, "Law enforcement was fed something by someone who effectively orchestrated the whole thing ... He did not intend to harm anybody." I wonder if Salerno would feel the same way if his own wife plotted to kill him and it was "snitched" to cops and his death plot was foiled as a result? Do you think Salerno would be saying, "Yeah, well it's cool to still be alive and all, but we got to get that fucking snitch for intervening and stopping my assassination!"

"He did not intend to harm anybody"?? Hilarious. So, when Lambesis was actually telling the undercover cop to kill his wife by saying the words, "I want you to kill my wife and here's all the things you need to do it", Salerno wants us all to believe that Lambesis was actually saying, "Take my wife on a date"?

The judge set the bail at 3 million dollars and ordered Lambesis to surrender his passport, stay away from his wife and children and stay in San Diego county with the exception of meeting with his attorney.

As if it could not get any more unbelievable, Salerno also said this, "The band has a tour scheduled. There's many people who depend on him. If he can't go that would be to the detriment of many, many people."

Oh, fuck you Salerno. People depend on his ex-wife too, namely their children. How detrimental would it have been to his ex-wife's children, parents, siblings and friends if she was murdered and no longer around?

Lambesis has pleaded not guilty. Again, hilarious.

Maybe Lambesis is not solely to blame for this. After all, in many of the scriptures, killing is ordained by God for committing various offenses or holding certain titles. In fact, if the murder of Lambesis' wife would have actually been carried out, it would have been justified by God if the wife would have committed the following acts or held the following titles:

Ignoring a priest

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel."
 (Deuteronomy 17:12)

Being a witch
 
"You should not let a sorceress live."  
(Exodus 22:17)

Being a homosexual

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  
(Leviticus 20:13)

Being a fortune teller
 
"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death."
(Leviticus 20:27)

Hitting her father

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death."
 (Exodus 21:15)

Cursing her parents

"If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness."
 (Proverbs 20:20)
 
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense."  
(Leviticus 20:9)

Committing adultery
 
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death."  
(Leviticus 20:10)

Committing fornication
 
"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."
(Leviticus 21:9)

Following other Religions

"Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed."  
(Exodus 22:19)

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst."  
(Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

"Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the Lord your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death."
(Deuteronomy 17:2-5)

Being a nonbeliever
 
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." 
(2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

Being a false prophet
 
"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord."  When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through."  
(Zechariah 13:3)

Being a citizen in a town where others worship other gods
 
"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the Lord your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  "The Lord your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."  
(Deuteronomy 13:13-19)

Not being a virgin on her wedding night

"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst."  
(Deuteronomy  22:20-21)

So you see, an insanity plea might be more fitting, since you have to be insane to worship a god who is this bloodthirsty to commit and order so much death to begin with.

George W. Bush Almost Uses the Word "Conspiracy" to Describe Boston Bombings, but It's Not the Word "Conspiracy" That Is Most Damning

Bush stops himself from using the word "conspiracy", but another word he does use is more revealing

by Larry Simons
April 29. 2012

In a recent interview that aired on April 24, Diane Sawyer spoke with former President George W. Bush at his Presidential library dedication. Sawyer asked Bush, "Many people have wondered if it [the Boston bombings] took you right back to right back to 9/11 when you heard it."

Bush responded, "Well, at first I was deeply concerned that there might have been an organized plot...I was deeply concerned that this could have been, um, you know, another consp...uhh, organized, highly organized attack on the country, and it still may be."

watch the clip


Many people have posted this portion of the interview, only focusing on the word that Bush almost said, "conspiracy". My focus is on the word "another". Stands to reason that if the Boston bombings was another conspiracy, there had to be a first one. It also stands to reason that since Sawyer was on the subject of 9/11 and comparing Boston to 9/11, that Bush was practically admitting that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

There will always be those [whether it be Republicans or supporters of Bush himself] that will say, "He wasn't about to say 'conspiracy'. He could have been attempting to say anything, like "conjoined" or "contrived"...anything". Maybe so, but immediately after cutting himself off from saying the word "conspiracy", he follows it by saying "highly organized attack" [and previously stated "organized plot"] which is the very definition of 'conspiracy'. So, regardless if he had never almost said the word or not, he still openly did give the definition of 'conspiracy'.

Many are also focusing on the look on Laura Bush's face as George W. almost says "conspiracy". I honestly did not see any different look on her face as he almost utters the word than at any other time she was looking at him speak. No one seems to be focusing on the word "another". That is very significant, since Bush is known for being on record for rebuking anyone who questions the official story of 9/11 and thinks that event was a conspiracy.

Remember the words spoken by Bush on November 10, 2001? He said at the United Nations, "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty." 

watch


Why would he have even said that to begin with? It was as obvious then as it is now: to do damage control. To get the word "conspiracy" out of people's mind's before it entered them. Now Bush has been caught in a Freudian slip. The well informed already know 9/11 was a conspiracy. It's just great to finally have evidence that George W. Bush knows it was as well.

Evidence Mounts that Boston Bombers Were FBI Assets

by Alexander Higgins
April 27, 2013

(let me state that the writer, Alexander Higgins, made more than a handful of grammatical errors in the following story. I made the correct changes [inserting commas, periods, certain words like "the" or "and" that were omitted]. In no case did I change the content of the actual facts of the story. Only grammatical errors were corrected)

As tens of thousands of members of the public have come out to show support for the alleged Boston Bomber, evidence continues to mount the suspects were being handled by the FBI in a terror plot they failed to foil.

At the center of the effort are calls to have the United States government investigated for the role it is suspected in playing in the Boston Bombings.

In all, over 15,000 people have joined a Facebook page calling for alleged bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be released and thousands more have signed an online petition on the White House web page along with numerous other petitions, events and campaigns created in his support.

As more people turn to media sources outside of the control of the federal government, the more steam the effort will gain.

In fact, even members of the government are openly calling for an investigation to government’s involvement in the bombings and not only pointing out on the record but to the media as well.

What we know now is that the United States government was tipped off to alleged Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s ties to an underground militant group created and supported by the CIA which is ran by a terrorist known as Russia’s Bin Laden.

This information was revealed through Russia Today and was made public while the FBI was still hiding the fact they had been tipped off that Tamerlan made an overseas visit during which he was seen with terrorists with known ties to the CIA in 2011.

After the FBI was forced to admit they were in fact contacted by Russian intelligence, they stated Tamerlan was cleared after being investigated in 2011.

The FBI claimed the investigation ended with a request to the Russian government for more information after which there was no further contact and no further information supplied.

We now know that is not the truth and Tamerlan had in fact been put on the United States terrorist watch list and the top-secret no fly-list.

Despite being placed on these lists, Tamerlan was still allowed to fly out of the country back to Russia where he once again was observed meeting up with the terrorist cell by Russian Intelligence.

During his stay he is said to have attended a CIA-sponsored workshop, which is funded by the United States government, to promote democracy overseas and achieves such means through radicalizing local populations into taking up revolution against the government in power.

This information, which again was known to the United States government [while the media continues to blatantly lie that the bombers had no ties to overseas terrorist organizations], was again released just today by the Russian media.

The workshop was held by the NGO “Fund of Caucasus”, which is funded by the CIA-linked Jamestown Foundation, and holds workshops such as “Struggle for Independence of the Caucasus” and The anniversary of genocide of the Chechen and Ingush peoples which are aimed at destabilizing the region by stirring anger against the current Russian government.

Workshop Description: “The evening dedicated to the 68th anniversary of the Chechen and Ingush peoples deportation to Central Asia in 1944, was organized by the “Fund of Caucasus” on February 23rd, 2012. The evening was held at the conference hall of business center “Kalas”. This tragedy – mass deportation of the Chechns and Ingushes – was evaluated as a part of general imperialistic policy of the Russian Empire and totalitarian Soviet regime.”

Further thickening the plot is the recent revelation that the bombers’ Uncle, Ruslan Tsarni,  was also on the CIA’s payroll through the USAID foreign aid front. Also, Tsarni has ties to intelligence agents in his former homeland where he was a well connected oil-executive with ties to Russian crime bosses and involved in a ring of offshore oil companies that Swiss investigators learned where laundering billions of dollars for the purposes of international corruption of western public officials.

Yet despite these clear ties, the FBI lied about what they knew and allowed him to fly anyway.

The corporate media has also confirmed today that the United States government was contacted multiple times by Russian Intelligence about Tamerlan’s activities and ties to those overseas terrorists.

In fact, the Washington Post reported today that CIA was contacted directly and they had also placed Tamerlan on the terrorist watch list.

Why would the FBI first fail to disclose they were tipped off about Tamerlan, then lie about their knowledge of Tamerlan’s activities claiming they had no knowledge of terrorist activities or ties to foreign terrorist groups? Why are they still lying about it and why is the media continuing to echo their lies, while at the same time reporting contradictory information in the same exact reports revealing the feds were in fact notified, several times, and continued to allow this plot to happen?

More than likely it will soon be revealed, that like with so many previous terror plots the FBI hatched, the FBI was in fact handling the Boston Bombers.

Perhaps they intended to conduct a sting operation similar to when they enticed the 1993 World Trade Center bomber into conducting an attack – which went horribly wrong and ended up with the World Trade Center actually being bombed.

The conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 bombings fall into the category of “the government let it happen” verses “the government made it happen” offering up numerous motives for each case.

The conspiracy theories around Boston Bombings will be no different as more and more information is revealed connecting the bombers to the CIA and the “let it happen” conspiracy becomes more of a fact than fantasy.

Indeed, special operations mercenaries were photographed in operation at the Boston Bombings.

Live bomb drills were being conducted during the event, drills which were first openly reported and admitted with the media now claiming they no longer occurred.

The government’s narrative continues to change and as it changes, so does the information the corporate media echoes.

As that information changes, the government-controlled corporate media will undoubtedly continue their all-out crusade to conform public opinion against doubting the government narrative or supporting the movement to free the alleged suspect who is looking more and more everyday like he was set up as his family has claimed since the outset.

The media’s campaign of disinformation is one that has all of the hallmarks of a Black Ops information operation campaign not dissimilar to the CIA’s famed Operation Mockingbird.

Luckily, the public’s distrust in their reporting has lead to a massive tuning of the propaganda machine, perhaps much more than has ever been seen before.

Of course, this is not without good reason, as there is plenty of proof of repeated lies and manipulation by the American state run press.

This is not a conspiracy, but a provable fact openly admitted by Former President George Bush. In this YouTube video, watch him admit he plants fake news stories for political agendas.

Bush admits he participates in the long standing federal government practice of planting fake propaganda news stories in US media.

In this clip, Bush tells a reporter it has been a long standing federal government practice to pay journalists to run fake pre-packaged news stories, which serve as government propaganda to further political agendas.



Or take last year’s infamous CNN scandal in which they were caught running a staged interview with the Syria activist who had become the corporate media’s poster child in drumming up support for war in Syria.