Monday, December 31, 2007

Bin Laden murdered by the SAME man who financed 9/11? What the hell?


Bhutto tells David Frost last month that Bin Laden was murdered. No reaction from Frost. Now BBC censors that portion of the interview. Why would they censor something that Frost didn’t question or react to?

by Larry Simons
December 31, 2007



In an interview that aired in early November 2007, political interviewer David Frost spoke with the late Pakistan People’s Party chairwoman Benazir Bhutto about what Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf should be doing about possible members of Pakistan’s own government being involved with recent assassination attempts on Bhutto’s life. Frost asks who these men are. She answers and mentions that one of them had dealings with Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, and then states, “……(he is) the man who murdered Osama bin Laden”.

Osama bin Laden was murdered? Interesting. No wonder we never hear about him anymore, with the exception of when the CIA wants us to see another one of his phony “videos”. What is also interesting is that this same man, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, was also the EXACT same person who allegedly wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 to fund the 9/11 attacks.

We were told the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Osama bin Laden. Here we have Benazir Bhutto telling us that the SAME man who funded 9/11 was the same man who murdered the “so-called” ringleader behind 9/11.

What the hell is going on here?

Here is the interview from November 2, 2007 with David Frost and Benazir Bhutto. Notice when Bhutto mentions that Omar Sheikh murdered bin Laden, there is absolutely no reaction from Frost. She continues to speak without Frost interrupting her with a “wait, wait—what did you say? Bin Laden was killed? Huh?”. Nope. He ignores it, as if it is already accepted fact. What the fuck is going on here?




Here is the same interview CENSORED by the BBC, with the part where Bhutto mentions Omar Sheikh murdering bin Laden REMOVED! Hmmmmmmmm.


Thursday, December 27, 2007

Fascist Apologist Kristol Attacks Ron Paul

Neo-conservative and liberty-hater Kristol claims it's Ron Paul who hates liberty and America when it is HE who studies and practices blatant and provable anti-American ideologies!

by Lee Rogers
December 24, 2007

The fascist establishment that runs this country is getting increasingly frightened of the growing popularity of the Ron Paul presidential campaign. Today, Fox News brought on fascist and establishment hack Bill Kristol to attack Dr. Paul using baseless and intellectually bankrupt arguments. Kristol also resorted to name calling, even referring to Dr. Paul as a "crank", "anti-American" and a "crackpot". Kristol appeared openly nervous during the attack segment as he promoted the pro-Nazi and collectivist ideologies of the corporate warfare and welfare state.

Strangely enough, Fox News which uses the slogan "Fair and Balanced", allowed Kristol to spew his attacks unopposed. If Fox News had any sort of credibility, they would have invited on one of Dr. Paul's supporters, a free market thinker, a libertarian or any number of people to counter Kristol. Of course, Fox News has no credibility and they are simply a propaganda network for the military industrial complex so clearly this would be a bit too much to ask.



Kristol attacked Dr. Paul on the statements he made on Meet the Press this past Sunday in which Dr. Paul made the point that we could have gotten rid of slavery in other ways without a Civil War. To this, Kristol responded calling Dr. Paul a "crackpot" for merely suggesting that 600,000 people didn't need to die. Kristol then claimed that Dr. Paul didn't care much about liberty because of his opposition to the Vietnam War and claimed that there is currently a lack of liberty in Vietnam. This is odd considering that Vietnam has become a booming free market economy without the military industrial complex waging war in their nation. In addition, why is Kristol concerned about lost liberty in Vietnam as we continue to lose liberty here in the United States? The ever present police state, surveillance society and the passage of anti-freedom laws like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act is proof of this. If Kristol were really concerned about liberty and freedom, he should be focused in on the loss of liberty and freedom here first before being concerned with the situation in Vietnam.

Kristol then called Dr. Paul "anti-American" and a "crank" because he doesn't support the empire building policies of the past hundred years. Kristol even referred to the phony war on terrorism and used this to claim that Dr. Paul was against liberty. Considering that the phony terror war is being used to destroy liberty and freedoms here in the United States, it seems quite clear that Kristol is the one who is against these concepts.

Kristol is nothing more than a propagandist and hack for the military industrial complex. He makes the assertion that those who are anti-war and non-interventionists are either to the far left and far right of the phony political paradigm. The fact of the matter is, the supreme law of the land is still the Constitution which provides appropriate checks and balances to ensure that a declaration of war is used only as a last resort in defense of liberty. The Constitution is largely based off of a doctrine of non-interventionism and frowns on unnecessary wars being waged.

The individuals that sell themselves as moderates on the establishment media are actually the extremists. In actuality, Kristol is the anti-American, not Dr. Paul. Kristol and the establishment are scared to death that Dr. Paul's campaign is succeeding and his appearance on Fox News was a pathetic attempt to make people believe that he can't win.


Commentary
by Larry Simons

If it’s one thing that truly pisses me off, it’s a blatant lying bastard. Bill Kristol is the un-American piece of shit. I could write a book on how un-American this asshole is, but in the interest of time I will just touch a few points. Kristol is the son of the founder of Neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol. When you really study neo-conservatism, you will discover just how anti-American it is. Big government, big spending and constantly being involved in wars are just 3 of the main pillars of Neo-conservatism……all unconstitutional.

In the segment, Kristol says that Ron Paul has hated the American policies of the last 100 years. Yeah, the UNCONSTITUTIONAL ones----which are MOST of them! Kristol is a big piece of shit and he is truly one of the very small group of people that I would label blatantly and profoundly anti-American. His teacher Leo Strauss taught that Americans do not deserve freedom because they abuse it, therefore, it is the duty of the elitists to come in and create panic in the people so that they would gladly hand over their freedom for whatever protection they would be given.

In 2004, documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis did a 3-part documentary called “The Power of Nightmares”, which examined the comparison between the Neo-conservative movement and the radical Islamic movement. It also points out that the threat of terror groups like “al Qaeda” is a big myth but is used by Neo-conservatives to unite the people following earlier failures………..the EXACT same thing people like Alex Jones constantly warns us about.

Here is a film showing Kristol being heckled and booed in Texas last year.
I’m quite sure FOX “News” will NEVER show videos like THIS:



This is the 3 part film “The Power of Nightmares”

Part 1: Baby It’s Cold Outside



Part 2: The Phantom Victory



Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave

Monday, December 24, 2007

Ron Paul visits Meet the Press

Russert skips mentioning Iraq and the collapse of the dollar. Paul mentions the film “Freedom to Fascism”

By Larry Simons
December 24, 2007

Ron Paul visited Tim Russert on Meet the Press on Sunday and discussed his platform on the issues. Strangely, Russert does not discuss the big issues like the financial crises of the country and Iraq. Those 2 issues had to be mentioned by Ron Paul.

During the uninterrupted 31 minutes that Ron Paul was interviewed, Paul did discuss his stance on earmarks. Russert didn’t either understand what Ron Paul was saying, or he pretended not to.

The Texas Congressman did mention the fact that this country is moving toward “soft fascism” and got in a quick plug of the late Aaron Russo film “America: Freedom to Fascism”.

“So,” Russert follows up, “you think we’re close to fascism?”

Paul responded, “We’re not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we’re moving toward a softer fascism: Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military-industrial complex, you have the medical-industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars.”

“That’s where the control is,” says the Congressman. “I call that a soft form of fascism — something that’s very dangerous.”

Unlike the other GOP candidates that Russert hammered and came out standing, Russert was the one on the receiving end of the blows in this one. Ron Paul shined, as usual.







Friday, December 21, 2007

Crooks and Liars lies about Ron Paul’s comments on those who oppose IRS

Ron Paul-hater Nicole Belle caught in yet another lie to smear the Texas Congressman

by Larry Simons
December 21, 2007



Liberal political blog Crooks and Liars is once again lying about Ron Paul, and as usual, the lies about him come from one of its frequent bloggers, Nicole Belle. During the Glenn Beck interview with Ron Paul on December 18, the topic moved to the IRS and taxes in which Beck and Paul had this exchange:

Beck: I believe I have read that you say if you don’t pay your taxes, you are in the category of civil disobedience..uh, akin with Gandhi and Martin Luther King…

Paul: ..I think it’s practicing the same principle..yes, because the income tax, they way it’s collected is unconstitutional. And if you believe that, and you practice civil disobedience, you have to suffer the consequences….I chose to try to change the law—I haven’t chosen that method. But people who sincerely believe that it’s unconstitutional be guilty until you prove yourself innocent and be your own…and you have to testify against yourself…I think they have a legitimate cause, ah..it’s a libertarian principle to practice civil disobedience…it’s non-violent..I think it’s a good way of doing it

This is what Nicole Belle had to say about the interview:

Ron Paul joins Glenn Beck to further his platform of eliminating taxes and the IRS. I’ll leave aside the fact that a presidential candidate is endorsing citizens break existing laws as a “reasonable civil disobedience” and merely point out that while I think everyone can get behind not having our taxes go to wasteful projects like the black hole of the Iraq occupation or bridges to nowhere, our taxes also pay for a lot of really good things as well–like federal infrastructure, education and health care for seniors and veterans, and I can’t believe people could have spent the last seven years with the Bush Administration and not see the value of keeping those programs funded.



First of all, Ron Paul never said or endorsed citizens to “break existing laws”. He simply stated to Beck that if one was opposed to the income tax because they are convinced it’s unconstitutional, then civil disobedience is “a good way of doing it”. There is a big difference between saying “if you’re opposed to something and you’re already going to fight it or protest it, then non-violent civil disobedience is a good way” and putting your stamp of approval on people breaking laws. Ron Paul clearly said, “if you believe that, and you practice civil disobedience, you have to suffer the consequences”. In other words, “if you protest it, be prepared to go to jail”.

Second of all, Belle says, “break existing laws”. There are no existing laws that say American citizens have to pay taxes. This is the very reason Ron Paul said it is unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional, then one is breaking no valid law or even one that exists. This is evidenced by several people who have went to court and won their case over not paying taxes, and the many, many people such as Ed and Elaine Brown who have asked the IRS to show them the law in which it says Americans are required to pay taxes, only to receive no answer.

Nicole Belle offers no explanation of how this country existed for 137 years (between 1776 and 1913) without the Internal Revenue Service. She simply states that taxes are needed for a plethora of government programs without explaining how these programs were funded before 1913. I guess this was unimportant to her. Also unimportant to Nicole Belle was to show the ENTIRE clip instead of just 2 and 20 seconds of it.

She slams Ron Paul for saying we should replace the IRS with nothing and wonders where the money would come from to pay for things by saying, “our taxes also pay for a lot of really good things as well–like federal infrastructure, education and health care for seniors and veterans”. What she conveniently leaves out is the rest of the clip where Dr. Paul addresses the fact that the gas tax is supposed to pay for roads, etc.. but it’s being abused. How does she think roads were built before 1913? How was health care dealt with before 1913? How was education funded before 1913?

Why didn’t you show the full clip Nicole?

Facts are unimportant to Nicole Belle, who is an obvious Ron Paul hater. She posted a story back in June of 2007 agreeing with bloggers who are attempting to smear Ron Paul and lie about him being tied to racist groups and white supremacists.

These are the same people who ignore events where Ron Paul has embraced the black community, like appearing at Morgan State University, a historically black college in Baltimore, Maryland in September for a debate conducted by panelists of color. (Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson did not attend) It seems that a racist would have run far away from this debate, especially since many had wondered if the Republican Party is racist.

Crooks and liars is mostly a left-leaning site and when most of the bloggers post stories condemning people in the media such as Bill O’ Reilly or Sean Hannity, they make valid points and expose people who are true frauds. Nicole Belle is not a fan of Ron Paul and it clearly shows in her biased posts. It’s OK to hate Ron Paul and to be biased in my opinion, but please Nicole, do research and base it on FACTS.

Once again, thank you PrisonPlanet for the post
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/221207_b_lies.htm

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Glenn Beck condemns threat made at him, but 2 1/2 years ago he said he'd kill Michael Moore

Beck gives Ron Paul a full hour, but still can’t avoid being a hypocritical fraud
by Larry Simons
December 19, 2007

Ron Paul appeared on the Glenn Beck Show yesterday and it was a first for Paul. The first time Ron Paul has received this much exposure on one program…a full hour to talk about his campaign and about the issues. Glenn Beck definitely deserves a lot of credit for being fair and allowing Ron Paul to speak for this much time. No other show has given Ron Paul this much time, so in this sense Glenn Beck definitely deserves credit.

However, later in the interview, Beck chose to sidetrack from asking Ron Paul about his campaign and the issues to inform Paul that he (Beck) has received death threats. One in particular from a video that is supposedly online and from a Ron Paul supporter who apparently says in the video that Glenn Beck should be executed. He told Dr. Paul that he would send him the feed of the video at Paul’s location during the commercial break and did not play the clip on the air.

It was becoming clear at this point that Beck may have only given Ron Paul this hour only to serve as a way of ambushing Paul and to force him to offer a defense or a condemnation of this video. It was plain to see that this was an attempt to set-up Paul or at the very least to send a message to anyone watching that “Ron Paul supporters threaten people with death”.



Naturally, Ron Paul said that he preaches a message of non-violence and non-aggression and that anyone who threatens someone, especially using Ron Paul’s name, is wrong. During this particular segment the banner at the bottom of the screen still read (as it did most of the show) “Honest questions”, despite the fact that this line of questioning was far from honest. Paul even ended his answer to this question by saying, “I don’t think I should have to answer questions like this”.

I agree. He shouldn’t. Especially since on May 17, 2005, Glenn Beck, on his radio show, said this:

“Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure”.

Glenn Beck had the audacity to go on the air and question Ron Paul about being threatened when he has actually threatened the life of Michael Moore. No one is condoning the threat made to Glenn Beck. What I do condemn though is, 1- Beck’s refusal to air the clip (he could have at LEAST aired the audio of it), and 2- Beck’s complete hypocrisy to condemn another for making a threat when he has threatened someone too.

In my personal opinion, condemning a threat made to you is your right. It is completely understandable to expose a threat and to attack it. But, when you don’t show the clip on the air, you are hiding something. I may be totally wrong about this, but if someone threatens your life and you have them on video saying it, why do you NOT expose it? For some strange reason, even if you wanted to protect the person making the threat, why wouldn’t you at least air the audio? It is also my opinion that under normal circumstances Glenn Beck has EVERY right to be angry about being threatened; he has NO right to go on the air and express his anger at being threatened when he has threatened Michael Moore.

Am I saying Beck shouldn’t be angry? No. He should be angry and take any threat made seriously and to contact authorities, etc..etc. But, for him to go on the air and tell the world that he is angry about his life being threatened when he has done the same thing, especially since finding the audio clip of Beck threatening Michael Moore is so easy to do, shows that Beck is not only hypocritical but just plain stupid.

My message to Beck is this: Glenn, I salute you for giving Ron Paul the hour you have promised you’d give him. I question your motives for doing it, but nonetheless, you kept your promise and you deserve credit for that. However, you’re still a Neo-con, hypocritical slug who will continue to be the ignorant dickhead you have been for the last 2-3 years. You may have some libertarian stances, but that doesn’t make you a libertarian. You support the Iraq war. That alone violates the libertarian view.

In light of Beck’s blatant hypocrisy, I have made another short film exposing Glenn Beck, the fraud. (Includes the audio of Beck's threat to kill Michael Moore)

Enjoy the film!



Thanks to Paul and Steve Watson at PrisonPlanet for posting my story
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/191207Threats.htm

Monday, December 17, 2007

Dan Fogelberg: 1951 - 2007


December 16, 2007

Singer-songwriter Dan Fogelberg died today of cancer at the young age of 56. We usually don't go outside of the political arena here at Real Truth, but Dan's music was a big part of my childhood and I was a big fan. His music will be missed.

Here is my tribute. A clip of him singing one of my favorite songs, "Same Old Lang Syne"

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Interviews with Ron Paul: John Stossel and Glenn Beck

December 16, 2007

John Stossel’s interview with Ron Paul (35 minutes)



Here’s the announcement from Glenn Beck that his interview with Ron Paul (which will be for the entire hour) will air Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 7p.m. (EST) on CNN.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

O’ Loofah compares those against saying “Merry Christmas” to the Taliban! Claims he “won” the PHONY “war on Christmas”!!

Then in the same segment evokes the founding fathers to make his point when on hundreds of other occasions IGNORES founding fathers’ words

by Larry Simons
December 15, 2007

If this weren’t so much fun, it would become tiresome fast. I’m referring to exposing the lies, spin and hypocrisy of The Lord of Loofah’s, Bill O’ Reilly. A few nights ago on his comedy show on FOX “News”, “The O’ Reilly Factor”, Billo claimed he has WON the fictitious “war on Christmas”. Not only is there NOT a war on Christmas, as he alone declares, but he even gets his facts wrong when he refers to the very stories he mentions.



Billo mentions the Wisconsin state assembly restoring the name “Christmas tree” to the Christmas tree. What he fails to mention or even fails to understand (or care about for that matter) is that the entire concept of the Christmas tree is not even in the Bible. In fact, Christmas trees originated in German paganism and many religious leaders throughout the years of its origin (15th and 16th centuries) were concerned that the tree would be a distraction from God’s word and the meaning of Christmas. Nooo, Billo doesn’t care about this, does he?

Only Billo can get happy that he won something that doesn’t exist. This might be due to the fact that he wins nothing among the things that DO exist….like ratings for example. FOX News and his show are continually dropping in ratings. This is the main reason Billo attacks people or organizations that he currently BEATS in ratings. You have to ask yourself, if you were beating someone in any aspect of life, why would you attack them unless the people you attack are gaining ground on you?

During Billo’s lies about how the S.P.’s (secular progressives…..again, another made-up O’ Reilly term) have “lost” and are outraged that they haven’t been able to sue anyone this year, Billo evokes the TALIBAN by saying this ridiculous statement, “…the Taliban-like oppression of the holiday has largely ceased.” After I laughed for 10 minutes straight, I noticed that Billo was totally contradicting himself (as usual). He was against the “S.P.’s” wanting Christmas “out of the public square” but made it very clear during his lie-fest that he wanted Christianity forced on people. If anything, as Keith Olbermann says in the clip below, people that want Christmas enforced onto the public are more “Taliban-like” in spirit!

Billo then played a tiny clip of him speaking with Alexia Kelley from the group Catholics in Alliance. Conveniently, as Billo often does, he only plays a clip showing the point he is trying to make in a favorable light, and not airing portions that would diminish his ideology. Miss Kelley INVITED Loofah boy to join in their campaign to “lift up the message of the common good” of the holiday season, in which Billo ignored her. THIS is why Billo doesn’t air BIG portions of clips, because he agreed with Alexia Kelley a lot during the segment, but since it didn’t support what he was saying at the time, it was irrelevant.

Billo also lies during the clip, saying to Miss Kelley that stores last year was telling their employees NOT to say “Merry Christmas”. First of all, it wasn’t store(S). It was ONE store. That store was Crate & Barrel, and they were NOT telling their employees to NOT say “Merry Christmas”. I personally called Crate & Barrel’s spokesperson Betty Kahn when this story broke out and she told me it was all a lie. Crate & Barrel had a policy of telling their employees that they weren’t REQUIRED to say Merry Christmas. Naturally, the Lord of Loofah’s did not see the difference between not being REQUIRED to say something and being told NOT to.

Here is the FULL clip of O’Loofah and Alexis Kelley:



In his unsurpassed hypocrisy, the most unbelievable comments during this segment was when he evoked the founding fathers by saying this:

“John Adams would be appalled! James Madison would have canceled his subscription to the Philadelphia Daily News. Benjamin Franklin might have even moved out of Philly. All of the founding fathers encouraged spirituality in the public square and opened all of their meetings with a prayer”.

OK, let’s break this down. John Adams was a Unitarian. Unitarians do not believe that Jesus was God himself, but only a great man and prophet. They do not even pray to Jesus, but to God himself, and since Jesus was NOT God himself to them, praying to Jesus would not much sense.

James Madison was an Episcopalian. Although they believe Jesus is the Son of God, many of their origins trace back to Catholicism. Since Billo evoked James Madison, then he should have been 100% on Alexia Kelley’s side and her campaign, instead of IGNORING it. As far as Madison canceling his subscription to a newspaper? He could have OWNED it, since he was pretty damned rich!

Benjamin Franklin was a Deist and had doubts as to the divinity of Jesus.

Also Billo, here are more FACTS for you. Since Christmas wasn’t a federal holiday until 1870 when Ulysses S. Grant made it one, I doubt if any of the founding fathers would have ANY of your views about Christmas. You know, the whole separation of church and state thing---heard of that?

Amazing how when Billo wants to make points to support HIS agenda, he evokes the founding fathers, in which, as I showed above, he even failed doing that! But when he has Ron Paul on his show and Ron Paul tells Billo that the founding fathers did not believe in interventionism and wanted peace with other countries, Billo wants to hear NONE of that shit. Billo supports the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is unconstitutional; therefore the founding fathers would be against it. Billo doesn’t evoke the founders then, does he?

When Billo has a 9-11 truth activist on the show and they are expressing their views about the government and the President, and Billo threatens them with possible FBI investigations or says they should be LOCKED up, I don’t hear the evoking of the founding fathers THEN either. Of course not. The founding fathers wrote the First Amendment granting free speech. Billo is AGAINST free speech, so the founding fathers get the finger from Billo this time too.

Here's yet another example of Loofah boy's BIASED, UNfair and UNbalanced FAKE patriotism. On his stupid website, his latest poll question reads, "At this point in the campaign, which Republican candidate do you prefer?" He lists FOUR candidates (shown below). He EXCLUDES Ron Paul, the one who follows the Constitution and NEVER, EVER votes in violation of the Constitution and the closest one (by far) to our founding fathers. So, not only is O' Liar NOT being fair and balanced (as his network claims) by not posting ALL NINE Republicans running, but he excludes the one who is most like our founding fathers, Ron Paul.

I can hear his sheep saying, "Well, he's listing the front-runners". No, he's listing who FOX News LIKES. Ron Paul, by every category of what defines a "front-runner" IS a front-runner. He has won the most straw polls (35) to Fred Thompson's (34). He is #1 in military contributions. He has won nearly every online and televised poll after a debate. He is #3 in most cash on hand and he is currently setting single day records like the one on Nov. 5 where he raised 4.3 million in ONE DAY, and now is on pace to make nearly 7 million on Dec. 16. He has the most hits on YouTube of ALL candidates running. He has the most meet-up groups in the country with over 1,200. What else is required of someone to be front-runner? Answer: NOTHING

As stated above, when Billo wants to make his point to "appear" patriotic, he evokes the founding fathers. When a candidate like Ron Paul is running who is the closest candidate to Thomas Jefferson or George Washington we've had in 200 years, he EXCLUDES him from a poll!!!

Friday, December 14, 2007

Facts Don’t Count to Bush

Reese: Iran hasn't invaded another country in more than 100 years. It hasn't threatened to invade another country. The much-publicized statement about wiping Israel off the face of the map was a mistranslation

by Charley Reese
December 11, 2007

As everyone can see, the National Intelligence Estimate that stated Iran has no nuclear-weapons program and hasn't had one for the past four years has not affected George W. Bush. He still wants to present Iran as a dangerous country and to cripple the country with sanctions.

What this tells you is that facts and truth have no relevance at all to Bush. That makes him a truly dangerous president. He and Dick Cheney really should be impeached, although that will not happen because Congress is full of cowards.

The American people have a right to expect a fact-based foreign policy. What they get from Bush is a foreign policy based on a secret agenda and perhaps, God forbid, even mental fantasies. I suspect the secret agenda has to do with oil, but no one on the outside really can know what worms are roiling about in Bush's and Cheney's brains.

Is Iran a dangerous country? Iran hasn't invaded another country in more than 100 years. It hasn't threatened to invade another country. The much-publicized statement about wiping Israel off the face of the map was a mistranslation. The Iranian president really said that the Zionist state would pass away like the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, Iran has no intercontinental ballistic missiles, no nukes to put on them if they existed and none of the logistical means to support an invasion.

As for Iran's support of Hezbollah and Hamas, you should note that both organizations existed a long time before the U.S. got around to labeling them as terrorist organizations. In fact, neither is a terrorist organization.

Al-Qaida is a terrorist organization because its only agenda is to kill people it considers as enemies. Hezbollah is a Lebanese patriotic organization with a widespread social, political and welfare operation. It fought the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and, if intelligence can be believed, it fought us when we occupied a portion of Lebanon.

Hamas similarly has a wide program of education and welfare. It has a small military wing that has occasionally used suicide bombers against the Israelis. Hamas opposes Israeli occupation, which is something we should also do. Just because an organization that has no airplanes or artillery employs suicide bombers doesn't mean it's a terrorist organization. God knows our Army and Air Force have killed thousands more civilians than Hamas. The number of Israelis killed by Palestinians is very small in comparison with the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis.

Both organizations should more accurately be classified as guerrilla organizations opposing occupation by the most powerful military force in the Middle East. Their quarrel with Israel should not concern us. They represent no threat to the U.S.

As for Iran, it has a legal right to enrich uranium to provide fuel for its nuclear reactors. Bush, who has demonstrated that he has no real interest in nuclear nonproliferation or even disarmament, demands as a precondition for talks that Iran stop what it has a legal right to do. That is unacceptable to the Iranians and should be to the American people.

If the U.S. had told the Soviet Union that a precondition for any talks was dismantling the Soviet missile force, there never would have been any talks or treaties. There probably would have been a nuclear war.

As silly and ridiculous as Bush often appears, it is extremely dangerous to have a muddled-thinking, ignorant man in the White House. He controls far more destructive power than he is capable of using in a sane and proper way.

All wars are started by political leaders, and all wars are destructive of human life and civilization itself. Just read a little history and look at the political idiots who caused World Wars I and II. What a gargantuan waste of life and treasure those two fiascoes were.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Chertoff setting the stage for HR 1955 to officially carry out its purpose….to label bloggers and protesters terrorists


Chertoff says an attack will happen soon and it will be “homegrown”, conveniently coinciding with the soon-to-be-passed HR 1955, which can target Internet bloggers as terrorists

by Larry Simons
December 13, 2007

Speak your mind now before it’s too late. Before you can be officially labeled a “terrorist” by Homeland Security for simply protesting the war or expressing your anger at the government or the Bush administration. Works are under way now in Washington to pass HR 1955, or the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

It has already been passed in the House by a vote of 404-6. SIX! SIX people opposed this bill! This doesn’t just stab America in the back. This stabs it, throws it in the hole in the ground and buries it forever. This is a betrayal to the American people of gargantuan proportions. This bill goes to the Senate soon. Not soon enough for Michael Chertoff, who announced today that he feels an attack will happen soon in this country. Not by outsiders…oh no, but by people right here in this country. Hence, homegrown. Of course, by his admittance, this information is not based on any evidence predicting an attack. I guess he is having another “gut feeling” like he said he had this summer about an imminent attack. I am guessing his “gut” feeling is that the Senate will pass HR 1955 soon, and then he will be able to target a wide variety of people. Bloggers, war protesters, 9-11 truthers and people angry with the government.

The bill was submitted in April by Democrat Jane Harman who has defended the bill despite critics, such as Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, who say the bill is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Harman says, “HR 1955 is not about interfering with speech or belief. The hearing record makes that abundantly clear. Radical speech, as I have said repeatedly, is protected under our Constitution.” What she fails to mention is that this bill does not give a definition to the word “radical”. It can mean whatever the government says it means. If believing that 9-11 was an inside job is interpreted as “radical”, then quite simply, under this bill, you are a terrorist.

Chertoff defines a “homegrown” attack as “a single person or small group of people living in the United States who were "recruited" on the Internet and had pledged allegiance to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden”. “Well, as long as I don’t pledge allegiance to bin Laden or al Qaeda, I’m OK” one might ponder. Problem is, the bill does not mention any specific groups in its language. Are we to believe that Chertoff expects us to believe that if someone who planned an attack on the Internet but was not connected with al Qaeda or bin Laden, they’d be off the hook?

Chertoff knows damned well…all TOO well, in fact, of the enormous “terrorist” pool he has to choose from. Bloggers, 9-11 truthers, war protesters, Muslims, authors, activists...the list goes on and on. Hell, he may even include you in the list of potential terrorists if you are business partners with the bin Laden’s. Oh, but wait, that means he would have to arrest George Bush and call HIM a terrorist. Ok, I guess business partners of the bin Laden’s are exempt from prosecution.

Naturally, the sheep of America will deduct that this very story I’m writing is a love letter to the terrorists of the world. These are the same sheep that support the un-Constitutional, unauthorized war in Iraq and want to bomb Iran. These people have no clue what the Constitution says, and more frightening do not care what it says. While George Orwell’s ghost looks ominously over us with a big “told you so” grin, the pens of fascism are getting ready to erase the Constitution, when the Senate signs this bill into law.

“They hate us for our freedoms”, Bush has said quite often to us, the American people, in reference to the terrorists hating us. I’ve come to realize that what Bush was referring to when he said “they” was the Neo-con, Constitution-haters inside this country. Why would terrorists hate US for OUR freedoms? They seem to have more freedom than we do these days.

On December 5, Ron Paul gave an excellent speech before the US House of Representatives concerning HR 1955. Here is that speech:

I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against "violent radicalization."

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called "suspension" bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as "non-controversial."

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for "facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process" in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of "violent radicalization" – a claim for which there is no evidence – there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes "radicalization." Could otherwise nonviolent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to "contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism." I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally- protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

This bill is not anti-terrorism. It’s anti-Constitution. It’s anti-freedom. It's anti-American and if we don’t elect people like Ron Paul to run this country, our Constitution will be a distant memory…very soon.

Saturday, December 8, 2007

Friday, December 7, 2007

Olbermann to Bush: “You, sir, have no business being president”

Countdown with Keith Olbermann
December 6, 2007



There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr. Bush has left us with tonight.

We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War III about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole, or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked, at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so, whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed were still even remotely plausible.

A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency an unapologetic warmonger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.

After spokeswoman Dana Perino’s announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear.

In August the president was told by his hand-picked major-domo of intelligence, Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what “everybody thought” about Iran might be, in essence, crap.

Yet on Oct. 17, the president said of Iran and its President Ahmadinejad:
“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon.”

And as he said that, Mr. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.

Or was it, Sir, to scare the Americans?

Does Iran not really fit into the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used to scare us about Iraq?

In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, Sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility.

A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience.

Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bush.

The Chicken Little of presidents is the one, Sir, that you see in the mirror.

And the mind reels at the thought of a vice president fully briefed on the revised intel as long as two weeks ago, briefed on the fact that Iran abandoned its pursuit of this imminent threat four years ago, who never bothered to mention it to his boss.

It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan’s presidency it was widely believed that he was little more than a front man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes string-puller.

Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historic malfeasance, it is inescapable that Dick Cheney is either this president’s evil ventriloquist or he thinks he is.

What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and gravity and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a congressional investigation or a criminal one?

Mr. Bush, if you can still hear us, if you did not previously agree to this scenario in which Dick Cheney is the actual detective and you’re Remington Steele, you must disenthrall yourself: Mr. Cheney has usurped your constitutional powers, cut you out of the information loop and led you down the path to an unprecedented presidency in which the facts are optional, the intel is valued less than the hunch and the assistant runs the store.

The problem is, Sir, your assistant is robbing you and your country blind.

Not merely in monetary terms, Mr. Bush, but, more important, of the traditions and righteousness for which we have stood, at great risk, for centuries: honesty, law, moral force.

Mr. Cheney has helped, Sir, to make your administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860s and 1870s and 1880s, the ones that abandoned Reconstruction and sent this country marching backward into the pit of American apartheid.

Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland — presidents who will be remembered only in a blur of failure, Mr. Bush.

Presidents who will be remembered only as functions of those who opposed them, the opponents whom history proved right.

Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland ... Bush.

Would that we could let this president off the hook by seeing him only as marionette or moron.

But a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian snake-oil salesman.

The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post’s Web site.

It is staggering.
 March 31: “Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon...”
 June 5: Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons...”
 June 19: “consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon...”
 July 12: “the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons...”
 Aug. 6: “this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon...”

Notice a pattern?

Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.

Then, sometime between Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the president, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror but there may not even be a tree there....

McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then.

 Aug. 9: “They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program...”
 Aug. 28: “Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons...”
 Oct. 4: “you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon...”
 Oct. 17: “until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the **capacity**, the **knowledge**, in order to make a nuclear weapon.”

Before Aug. 9, it’s: Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.

After Aug. 9, it’s: Desire, pursuit, want ... knowledge technology know-how to enrich uranium.

And we are to believe, Mr.. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003....

And you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on Oct. 17.
And that’s just a coincidence?

And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week?

Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be legally true, something like “what the definition of ‘is’ is,” but with the subject matter being not interns but the threat of nuclear war.

Legally, it might save you from some war crimes trial, but ethically it is a lie.

It is indefensible.

You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up.

You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar.

And moreover, you have just revealed that John Bolton and Norman Podhoretz and the Wall Street Journal editorial board are also bald-faced liars.

We are to believe that the intel community, or maybe the State Department, cooked the raw intelligence about Iran, falsely diminished the Iranian nuclear threat, to make you look bad?

And you proceeded to let them make you look bad?

You not only knew all of this about Iran in early August, but you also knew it was accurate.

And instead of sharing this good news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent, you merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people, to legally cover your own backside.

While you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of, as you phrased it Aug. 28, “nuclear holocaust,” and, as you phrased it Oct. 17, “World War III.”

My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase “George Bush has no business being president.”

Well, guess what?

Tonight: hanged by your own words, convicted by your own deliberate lies....

You, sir, have no business being president.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

It turns out Ahmadinejad was the truthful one


Scheer: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...has now been vindicated in his claims that Iran has abandoned the weaponization program

by Robert Scheer
Truthdig
December 5, 2007

Bush is such a liar. Or is he just out to lunch on the most important issue that he faces? In October, he charged that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was bringing the world to the precipice of World War III, even though the White House had been informed at least a month earlier that Iran had no such program and had stopped efforts to develop one back in 2003.

Is it conceivable that Bush was telling the truth at his press conference Tuesday when he stated that he learned of the National Intelligence Estimate report, which contained that inconvenient fact, only last week? Even if Bush read the NIE report, he clearly doesn’t respect it, for at his press conference he said “the NIE doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world-quite the contrary.” Not that he has anything against the NIE, whose directors he handpicked. “I want to compliment the intelligence community for their good work. Right after the failure of intelligence in Iraq, we reformed the intelligence community.”

But whether or not the intelligence agencies are reformed, the president still ignores them. He didn’t listen when they told him he was wrong in claiming that Iraq had purchased yellow cake uranium from Niger and he doesn’t listen now when they tell him his alarms about Iran are without factual foundation. The difference this time around is that because Bush is a discredited lame duck the intelligence chiefs were a bit more forthcoming with their findings in a report that has, in part, been made available to the public.

The whole episode shows that our democratic system retains at least some essential checks and balances, but it also is depressing to see that, in this instance at least, the fanatical leader of a theocracy seems to have a higher regard for truth than does the president of the world’s greatest experiment in representative democracy.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office as Iran’s president in August of 2005, two years after Iran’s nuclear weapons program ended, has now been vindicated in his claims that Iran has abandoned the weaponization program. Not so Bush, who has summarily dismissed the intelligence community’s findings and, using his favorite tactic in dealing with debacles, is sticking to his original story. A story, as in the case of the earlier Iraq threat inflation, that too many in the mass media and Congress, including some leading Democrats, have bought.

Take Hillary Clinton, who said that “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that” by way of defending her vote for a resolution that, like the one she voted for before the Iraq war, blindly supports rather than seriously questions the president’s case for war. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was absolutely correct in calling candidate Clinton out on that vote and challenging her lame excuse that she had not read the full intelligence report before her Iraq war vote. “Members of Congress,” Obama cautioned, “must carefully read the intelligence before giving the president any justification to use military force.”

Not a bad idea. In the case of Iraq’s non-nukes, the intelligence evidence supporting Bush was flimsy at best when it did not directly contradict his key assertions. In the case of Iran, it is now publicly understood that there is no such evidence, flimsy or otherwise. But don’t count on that to stop the bipartisan coalition of invasion hawks from pushing on.

Once again, they will attack the United Nations’ experts, who have been proved right in Iran as they were in Iraq. A spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency pointed out that the NIE report supports the agency’s view that there is “no evidence” of an undeclared nuclear weapons program in Iran and “validates the assessments of [IAEA Director General] Mohamed ElBaradei, who continuously said in his public statements that he saw no clear and public danger, and that therefore that there was plenty of time for negotiations.”

Can we get ElBaradei to run in the Iowa caucus? Why are our leading presidential candidates so easily fooled?

It’s humiliating to all of us who believe in a free press, separation of powers and individual liberty that a system of government designed by its founders to hold leaders accountable can be so easily manipulated by an unremarkable loser who has been rewarded throughout his life for screwing up. It is hoped that this time around the truth will catch up with him before he gets us in yet another bloody war, just to show he can.

Robert Scheer is editor of http://www.truthdig.com/ and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.

Bush gets something that 3,900 American families won’t get this year (or ever), a call from their child

Another sickening “awww” moment designed to make Bush appear like Ward Clever in a much needed time for him; when he is lying about Iran, his lowest approval ratings ever and 75% of the country wanting the war OVER

by Larry Simons
December 5, 2007

On Wednesday’s Ellen Degeneres Show, Jenna Bush, daughter of President Bush, appeared to promote a stupid book and to be a part of another “awww” moment created to make the Bush family appear “normal”, “sane” or like the average American family. In reality, it was just a psy op by Degeneres to cloud and manipulate the minds of the already fooled and dumbed down in this country.

Is Ellen a part of a conspiracy to make Bush seem like a “regular” guy? Who knows? But it’s really not the point here. The point is, Ellen doesn’t care about getting down to facts or confronting injustices. It’s just a nicey-nice show meant to entertain and remove people from the realities of their lives, even if it’s just for an hour.

What angers me is that in a time of war when soldiers are dying on a daily basis and the majority of this country wants this war over this kind of bullshit TV still fools people, and it makes me want to vomit for various reasons.

First of all, you can’t separate having the daughter of the President on your show, even if it’s to promote a book, from the realities of what is going on in this country. No mention of the war, civil liberties being violated, the latest NIE report on Iran……….nothing. No mention of their family history either…being tied to the bin Laden’s or her great-grandfather Prescott being tied to the Nazis. Nothing. This is the kind of TV you get in America. No wonder 9-11 doesn’t get investigated. We don’t even ask daughters of Presidents tough questions!

One might say, “it was the daughter, not Bush himself on the show”. If O.J. Simpson’s daughter was on the show, would she not be asked about ANYTHING concerning O.J. and Nicole Brown? How much more important are issues about this country than the irrelevant O.J. Simpson?

Secondly, I am tired of celebrities and politicans acting as if they are regular people. While on the phone with her Dad, Jenna says, “You’re not mad are you?”, in which Bush says, “No”. Ellen then says, “"Oh, she's great. She's scared she's going to get in trouble because I just said, `Is it easy to just pick up the phone and call your dad anytime?'"….."And now she's scared she's not going to get any Christmas presents."

Yeah, ok, she’s not going to get any presents. What the fuck does she need????? Her family gets billions from the Saudis and Ellen wants us to believe that she’s a regular person. Obviously, Ellen said that as a joke to make the idiots of America go “ha, ha, ha”.

I am sick of this kind of Beaver Cleaver TV. The country is going to total shit and we are supposed to sit back and laugh while Bush gets to do something that nearly 3,900 families in this country don’t get the privilege of doing…..talking to their children this Christmas…..or EVER AGAIN for that matter. It’s really disgusting and I’m sick of it.

Not one mention of Jenna going to Iraq and fighting either…or even asking if she would. Of course, we already know the answer to this one. In September she told ABC News “I think there are many ways to serve your country. I think ... what's most appropriate for me to do is to teach or to work in UNICEF and represent our country in Latin America."

Why does she get to pick and choose how she serves her country when her father is sending thousands to their deaths every year? Amazing.

Yes, I know. I’m “far left” and un-American for even suggesting that Jenna Bush serve in Iraq. A cause that is SO great and noble and Bush’s own children do not find it great and noble. How dare me!

Watch the stupid video, if you must:

Friday, November 30, 2007

Ron Paul educates McCain on vocabulary and world history. Continues to dominate online polls


McCain is asked about taxes and decides ‘what a great opportunity to attack Ron Paul’…and is booed and like everyone who talks about “winning” in Iraq, fails to give a definition to the word “win”

by Larry Simons
November 29, 2007

John McCain is a bought and paid for Neo-con stooge. How else do you explain after being asked about taxes, that he picks this opportunity to attack Ron Paul about wanting our troops to come home? It almost looked scripted. McCain found out, like the other candidate have, that when you attempt to attack Ron Paul, it just blows back up in your face and makes you look like an idiot. In McCain’s case, it made him look more idiotic than he usually is!

McCain played the “the troops want to win the war” card, and told Paul, “I was just over there and their message was ‘Let us win’”. Of course, who knows what the fuck “win” means? And naturally McCain, like all the rest who support this illegal, unconstitutional war, fails to provide a definition of the word “win”.

Does “win” mean going for the Guinness Book records for invading the most countries under a single administration, being hated by the most countries at once or coming up with the most excuses for invading a country? (war on terror, Iraqi freedom, WMD’s, 9-11, defeating al Qaeda, killing Saddam, finding bin Laden) If this is what the warmongers mean by “win”, then we are on the brink of victory.

The truth is, “win” is neither an option, possibility or even the goal of this war by Bush. Bush wants this war to be chaotic. He wants the death. He wants the destruction. He wants this because he wants this war to last DECADES. He wants a permanent occupation of the middle east so we can control the oil and establish military bases in every nook and cranny of that region. Bush once had most of the country fooled into believing we were there to actually “win” something. With the war going as bad as ever (2007 now the deadliest year of the war) and the polls now at over 75% of Americans who want this war over, Bush’s plans are not going so swimmingly.

Of course, facts mean nothing to McCain. Ron Paul made McCain look like the bumpy-jawed moron he really is when Paul reminded McCain that he receives the most campaign dollars of any candidate running from active military personnel. I’m sure McCain knows this. Even as he was in Iraq having dinner with the two troops that actually wanted to be IN Iraq, I’m sure he knew he was behind Ron Paul in financial support from the military. And that had to be like a knife through his warmongering, Neo-con heart.

Ron Paul also explained the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolationism adopts the non-interventionalist policy but also includes not trading with countries. Ron Paul has been very clear that we should still trade and talk with countries but stay the hell out of involving ourselves in wars that have nothing to do with our self-defense.

How ironic that McCain began his tirade by saying, "You know, Congressman, I've been listening to you in these debates say how we should bring our troops home..." He must have heard everything Ron Paul said except for the parts where Paul said we should still trade with people. As Ron Paul was giving McCain a lesson in definitions to vocabulary, you can see McCain grinning. Was the grin saying, "I'm an idiot and maybe dumb America won't notice", or was the grin saying, "Damn, I didn't know there was a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, so I'll just stand here and grin and just make it look like a disagreement?"

McCain then says, "We let Hitler come into power with that kind of attitude of isolationism". McCain simply forgets or perhaps just doesn't know that Hitler came to power after being appointed Chancellor and became a full-blown dictator after he had his own Reichstag building set on fire. Does McCain also "forget" that World War II began a whole FIVE years after Hitler came to power? World War II began with Germany invading Poland in September of 1939. The United States had STAYED out of all of this (which the Constitution says to do) until we were brought into the war on December 7, 1941 when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Of course, we now know that Roosevelt KNEW about this attack beforehand and that he froze all relations with Japan, thus provoking Japan to attack so we could enter the war and become INTERVENTIONALISTS. We had to stage an attack and have our men die at Pearl Harbor in order to involve ourselves in a war. Where does McCain get that we ALLOWED Hitler to come to power?

It's none of our business what an evil dictator does unless our national security is threatened. The founding fathers understood this and so does Ron Paul. Getting ourselves involved in alliances is what CAUSES the hatred toward us which is EXACTLY what Ron Paul was saying to Giuliani in one of the first couple debates! What part of all this does McCain NOT comprehend?

The AMAZING thing is that McCain just MINUTES before this exchange with Ron Paul said that Iraq was a FAILURE. Yes, in the SAME debate! So, did McCain just forget he said it? Or does he have multiple personalities? How can he say Iraq is a FAILURE and then attack someone for wanting the war OVER and wanting our troops home? This is mind-numbing, heart-stopping hypocrisy! Here's the clip:



Maybe John McCain is just pissed off over reports like this:



This loss of sanity by McCain won him only the silver in Worst Person tonight on Countdown:



As usual, Ron Paul leads all the online polls including the one from CNN. It’s getting a bit tiresome posting them but…….actually, it’s not tiresome at all. Here’s a glance at a few of the polls:


From here on the smears on Ron Paul will only be increased as the establishment goes deeper and deeper into panic mode as they observe things like Ron Paul’s record-setting donation amount of 4.3 million in one day and his upcoming donation drives in December, which are estimated to be record-setters as well.

Here is McCain embarrassing himself on national TV:



McCain Peddles False History, Takes Cheap Shot at Ron Paul
Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet
November 29, 2007

As if to desperately claw his way back into the limelight, almost forgotten presidential candidate John McCain attacked Ron Paul during the CNN/YouTube debate. It looked more like “an episode of Jerry Springer than a presidential debate,” notes Crooks & Liars. “Senator John McCain was asked a question about taxes and decided to go way off topic and attack Rep. Ron Paul for his stance on Iraq and wanting to bring the troops home.” Instead, it looked like a classic drive-by, a crass attempt to discredit Ron Paul, a break-away candidate with a good chance of taking the Republican nomination.

In his attack, John McCain comes off as a blithering idiot, not that many probably noticed. McCain, citing the long ago discredited official history, declared Ron Paul to be an isolationist and World War II the fault of American isolationism, a claim so out of touch with reality as to be speculative fiction.

“Mussolini enjoyed a great deal of admiration in corporate America from the moment he came to power in a coup that was hailed stateside as ‘a fine young revolution,’” writes the historian Jacques R. Pauwels. “In the 1920s many big American corporations enjoyed sizeable investments in Germany…. By the early 1930s, an √©lite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gilette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT.”

Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America’s investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman. The Union Bank was intimately linked with the financial and industrial empire of German steel magnate Thyssen, whose financial support enabled Hitler to come to power. This bank was managed by Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was allegedly also an eager supporter of Hitler, funnelled money to him via Thyssen, and in return made considerable profits by doing business with Nazi Germany; with the profits he launched his son, the later president, in the oil business.

In other words, the United States was not isolationist, as McCain claims, but was in bed with fascism. Prescott Bush’s relationship with the Hitler regime is more than an allegation, it is a fact entombed in the U.S. National Archives, although “little of Bush’s dealings with Germany has received public scrutiny, partly because of the secret status of the documentation involving him,” according to Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell, writing for the Guardian.

The documents “reveal that the firm [Prescott Bush] worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.”

As Robert Lederman notes, the Bush family was far more involved in the banking business of the Nazi regime than even the Guardian would have us believe. “As senior managers of Brown Brothers Harriman, [the Bush family] had to have known that their American clients, such as the Rockefellers, were investing heavily in German corporations, including Thyssen’s giant Vereinigte Stahlwerke. As noted historian Christopher Simpson repeatedly documents, it is a matter of public record that Brown Brother’s investments in Nazi Germany took place under the Bush family stewardship…. The enormous sums of money deposited into the Union Bank prior to 1942 is the best evidence that Prescott Bush knowingly served as a money launderer” for both the Nazis and the Rockefellers. “If Union Bank was not the conduit for laundering the Rockefeller’s Nazi investments back to America, then how could the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank end up owning 31% of the Thyssen group after the war?”

It should be noted that this money laundering was accomplished under the aegis of Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld, the Dutch monarch, who proudly served in the German Reiter SS Corps. Prince Bernhard also worked for IG Farben, the chemical company married to Standard Oil, that is to say the Rockefellers.

Lederman concludes:
The bottom line is harsh: It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920’s, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush’s bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed allied soldiers. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen’s coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family’s complicity.

In short, McCain should be accusing the head of his party, George W. Bush, or his family, of causing World War II, not the sort of “isolationism” Ron Paul supposedly advocates. But then, of course, John McCain is a neocon, albeit one who will soon drop from sight in the presidential campaign, as increasing numbers of people realize Ron Paul is the only viable candidate, one who is not so much “isolationist” as dedicated to constitutional principles.

It was George Washington who wisely stated that the country must avoid “foreign entanglements” and “foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues,” as “overgrown military establishments” are, “under any form of government… inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
John McCain, however, does not represent “republican liberty,” but instead its obverse: neocon military totalitarianism, both abroad and at home.

If elected in 2008, Ron Paul will put an end to all of this destructive nonsense.


Here is a montage of how brilliant, once again, Ron Paul was during the debate

Thursday, November 29, 2007

One more item to add to the list of things O’ Liar loves more than protecting troops: MONEY

Cuban: I had someone call FoxNews and tell them specifically, unequivocally that we wanted to run an ad for the movie Redacted.

FOX’s reply: No problem. Do you want to run the ads in both the live show and the repeat ?

by Larry Simons
November 28, 2007



Bill O’ Loofah keeps amazing me. He continues to surpass himself in the levels of hypocrisy that only Billo can achieve…and THAT takes some doing! He continues to smear Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban over his financing of the movie “Redacted” although 1) he’s never seen it, 2) Mark Cuban has done more for the troops and military recruiting in the past month than O’ Liar has done in his entire career and 3) (are you ready for this?)…..they (FOX) have aired trailers of the film “Redacted” during The O’ Reilly Factor!

Yes, that’s right folks. O’ Reilly claims the movie is “vile, awful, and anti-American” and the film could “PUT OUR TROOPS IN DANGER” but when Mark Cuban’s CASH is flashed under O’ Reilly’s nose, O’ Reilly just can’t resist cashing in. Let me get this straight Loofah boy….the movie itself is a “danger to the troops” but airing the trailer for the film during YOUR show isn’t a “danger to the troops”?

At this point, I would normally say “unbelievable”, but it’s not unbelievable. This all falls in line with how much of a pathetic, flaming FRAUD Billo really is! The FACT is, there is no doubt in my mind that The Lord of Loofahs has generated at least thousands more people to see this film that would have never seen the film if O’ Liar had just IGNORED IT! There’s one main reason Billo mentions these “vile, awful, anti-American” things (OTHER than the MONEY from the ads): He knows that this film will actually do well and what better way to get more viewers to watch his failing show than to stir up controversy….where no controversy exists.

Keith Olbermann does a great story on this from Monday’s “Countdown”:



and here is Keith mentioning from a previous show the fact that O’ Reilly aired the clip of “Redacted” during The O’ Reilly Factor:



Here is the clip that aired at approximately 8:37pm on November 15, 2007 during The O’ Reilly Factor



Perhaps, there’s no one better to shed some light on this story than Mark Cuban himself. The following is from Cuban’s website “Blog Maverick”:

Bill OReilly - Principle vs Money?
Nov 16th 2007 5:45PM
by Mark Cuban

To say Mr OReilly has had it in for me the last month or so would be an understatement. Every day he seemed to take pride in calling me every name in the book and questioning my patriotism. I've already covered my feelings on that subject in blog posts here and here. I've talked about what I, or anyone can do to serve their country here.

What I was curious about was whether this really was important to Mr OReilly, or whether he was just a ratings whore and would say whatever he needed to say to get more people to watch.

I needed to design a very simple test to determine Mr OReilly's motivation. It occured to me to see if FoxNews would take an ad for the movie Redacted.

I had someone call FoxNews and tell them specifically, unequivocally that we wanted to run an ad for the movie Redacted. The same movie Bill OReilly was so upset about.

They said no problem. Do you want to run the ads in both the live show and the repeat ?

Our first reaction was that this was just the sales department and at some point , someone at FoxNews would step in and stop the ads from running. The call to say they were stopping the ads never came.

The ad ran in both shows. Here is a link with Bill's smiling face at the end.

So Mr OReilly , the king of the OReilly Factor, the man who called this movie Anti American and said erroneously it could cause harm to American Troops, was willing to overlook those points and take our money to promote the movie.

We aren't talking about an ad in a show that Mr OReilly has an interest in. This is an ad in the TV show that bears his name. This is a show that he controls from top to bottom. He knowingly took multiple ads for a movie that he he hasnt seen, but believes to be vile. What does that say about Mr OReilly


Of course Mr OReilly can make the argument that he is not involved in the sale of ads, he leaves that to other people. OK, but lets think about the scenario at Fox News if that is the case.

If Mr OReilly doesnt know about the ads, I would think that the people at his show would know and care about his positions, wouldnt you ?" So the question is, do they know that Mr OReilly is all about the money first , last and every bit in between and thats why they took the ad ?

Or is it that they know exactly what Mr OReilly stands for and hate him for it, or could care less what he thinks and they took the ad to spite him ?

Is it that no one involved with Mr OReilly actually watches the show ? Which is why after the ad ran in the live show, no one caught it and had it replaced in the replay ?

its about responsibility Mr OReilly.

And while Im on the subject of Mr OReilly and his ethics, let me add a couple thoughts:

In response to Mr OReilly's comments that "he is going to be my worst nightmare". Well you have succeeded Mr OReilly. The people who take you literally took it upon themselves to call my businesses with bomb threats, threaten employees, myself and others with physical harm and wish every manor of death , injury and illness on us all. They also managed to fill up the telephone lines of the Fallen Patriot Fund so that we couldn't conduct business, and maybe its coincidence, but the fund's website went offline for the first time ever yesterday.

What say you Mr OReilly

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Alleged Trainer Of 9/11 Hijackers a CIA Informant


Sakka attempts to plug holes in 9/11 official story, claims Hanjour did not pilot Flight 77

Paul Joseph Watson
PrisonPlanet
November 27, 2007

The man who claims to have trained six of the 9/11 hijackers is a paid CIA informant according to Turkish intelligence specialists, who also assert that Al-Qaeda is merely the name of a secret service operation designed to foment a strategy of tension around the world.

In a London Times report, Louai al-Sakka, now incarcerated in a high-security Turkish prison 60 miles east of Istanbul, claims that he trained six of the 9/11 hijackers at a camp in the mountains near Istanbul from 1999-2000.

Sakka was imprisoned in 2005 after being caught making bombs that he planned to use to blow up Israeli vessels.

Sakka asserts that he is a leading Al-Qaeda operative, having directed insurgency attacks in Iraq and also the beheading of Briton Kenneth Bigley in October 2004.

Some of Sakka’s account is corroborated by the US government’s 9/11 Commission. It found evidence that four of the hijackers – whom Sakka says he trained – had initially intended to go to Chechnya from Turkey but the border into Georgia was closed. Sakka had prepared fake visas for the group’s travel to Pakistan and arranged their flights from Istanbul’s Ataturk airport. The group of four went to the al-Farouq camp near Kandahar and the other two to Khaldan, near Kabul, an elite camp for Al-Qaeda fighters.

When Moqed and Suqami returned to Turkey, Sakka employed his skills as a forger to scrub out the Pakistani visa stamps from their passports. This would help the Arab men enter the United States without attracting suspicion that they had been to a training camp.

"But, as with many things in the world of Al-Qaeda, there might be smoke and mirrors," reports the Times. "Some experts believe that Sakka could be overstating his importance to the group, possibly to lay a false track for western agencies investigating his terrorist colleagues."

However, when one considers what other experts have said about Sakka, it appears that his intentions towards "western agencies" are anything but deceptive - since Turkish intelligence analysts concluded that Sakka has been a CIA asset all along.

Prominent Turkish newspaper Zaman reported that Sakka was hired as a CIA informant in 2000, after receiving a large sum of money from the agency. This would explain why he was "captured" but then released on two separate occasions by the CIA during the course of 2000.

Sakka was later captured by Turkish intelligence but again ordered to be released after which he moved to Germany to assist the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

Shortly before 9/11, Sakka was allegedly hired by Syrian intelligence - to whom he gave a warning that the attacks were coming on September 10th, 2001.

In his book At the Center of the Storm, former CIA director George Tenet writes, that “a source we were jointly running with a Middle Eastern country went to see his foreign handler and basically told him something big was about to go down.”

"This is very likely a reference to Sakra, since no one else comes close to matching the description of telling a Middle Eastern government about the 9/11 attacks one day in advance, not to mention working as an informant for the CIA at the same time. Tenet’s revelation strongly supports the notion that Sakra in fact accepted the CIA’s offers in 2000 and had been working with the CIA and other intelligence agencies at least through 9/11 ," writes 9/11 researcher Paul Thompson, who was also interviewed for the London Times article.

Were the alleged "interrogations" of Sakka on behalf of the CIA merely a smokescreen to enable instructions to be passed on? This is certainly the view of Turkish intelligence experts, who go further and conclude that "Al-Qaeda" as a whole is merely a front group for western intelligence agencies used to foment a "strategy of tension" around the world.

Is Sakka still in the employ of western intelligence agencies? His apparent effort to plug the holes in the official 9/11 story is fascinating.

According to Sakka, Nawaf al-Hazmi was a veteran operative who went on to pilot the plane that hit the Pentagon. Although this is at odds with the official account, which says the plane was flown by another hijacker, it is plausible and might answer one of the mysteries of 9/11.

The Pentagon plane performed a complex spiral dive into its target. Yet the pilot attributed with flying the plane (Hani Hanjour) “could not fly at all” according to his flight instructors in America. Hazmi, on the other hand, had mixed reviews from his instructors but they did remark on how “adept” he was on his first flight.

Exactly how "adept" one has to be to pull off maneuvers that would be impossible for veteran crack fighter pilots is not explored in the Times report.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Ron Paul: Smear Attempts Reflect "Frightened," "Insecure," "Panicking" Establishment

Congressman says detractors who linked his supporters with terrorists don't understand freedom and are losing control

Paul Joseph Watson
PrisonPlanet
November 23, 2007

Speaking about recent smear attempts on behalf of people like Glenn Beck, David Horowitz and Bill O'Reilly to link Ron Paul supporters with violence and Islamic terrorists, the Congressman himself said that the attacks were symptomatic of a frightened and insecure establishment who are dumbfounded that people are turning away from authoritarianism and embracing freedom.

"They're getting awfully frightened," said Paul, "I think we are a threat to the establishment, and they represent the establishment."

"I think they represent a philosophical position which is diametrically opposed to us and our interpretation of the Constitution - I think it's serious business when people strike out like that and start using names like Islamic fascism - they're working on fear," the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show this week.

"I see these people as very insecure - they don't understand what freedom is about and they have to resort to this threatening, but turning around and calling us the violent people - I think they're very insecure with their ideas and probably deep down in their heart they think they're being good Americans," said Paul.

"But I don't think their understanding is clear enough where they feel secure and confident enough so they strike out at us and start calling us names," he added.

The Congressman said that the likes of Beck and Horowitz, who recently accused Ron Paul supporters, anti-war types and libertarians as being "in bed with Islamofascists," were dumbfounded that the people are flocking in droves to support the message of freedom and turning away from fearmongering and authoritarianism.

"I think both sides agree that the American people have lost confidence in the government - it's what we're going to replace it with," said Paul, adding that attempts to smear his advocates as potentially violent were "preposterous".

The Congressman cited Martin Luther King and Gandhi as two of his heroes who were able to change the course of history by engaging in non-violent civil disobedience.

Paul said that a recent Fox News segment where host Brian Kilmead called for people who confront politicians to be Tased was "a reflection that they're panicking and they're insecure about what they believe in and how to present their case and they're afraid they're losing control."

Click here to listen to the MP3 of the interview with Ron Paul.