Sunday, September 30, 2007

Bruce Springsteen: A Great American

Slams Bush Administration on TODAY Show

by Larry Simons
September 29, 2007

This was pretty damned great. I’ve always been kind of a lukewarm fan of Springsteen’s music, but now I’m a BIG fan of him as a true patriot. I’m sure Springsteen didn’t make O'Reilly's “Pinheads and Patriots” segment as a patriot, and aren’t we all glad of that! To be on O’ Reilly’s list of anything he admires would be frightening.

Springsteen’s new album “Magic” will be out on CD on October 2, 2007

This is what Springsteen said before his performance on the TODAY Show:

“This is a song called Livin’ In the Future. But it’s really about what’s happening now. Right now. It’s kind of about how the things we love about America, cheeseburgers, French fries, the Yankees battlin’ Boston… the Bill of Rights [holds up microphone, urging crowd to cheer] … v-twin motorcycles… Tim Russert’s haircut, trans-fats and the Jersey Shore… we love those things the way womenfolk love Matt Lauer.”

“But over the past six years we’ve had to add to the American picture: rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeus corpus, the neglect of our great city New Orleans and its people, an attack on the Constitution. And the loss of our young best men and women in a tragic war…

This is a song about things that shouldn’t happen here—happening here.”

Bruce---you’re my new hero!

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Jon Stewart and Bill Maher tap in on the O’ Reilly racism fiasco

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
September 28, 2007

Larry Wilmore visits Sylvia’s restaurant and is amazed at what he finds! Wilmore is hilarious!!

Real Time with Bill Maher
September 28, 2007

Bill O' Reilly: Racist and Fraud (My New Film!)

Watch racist Billo lie, spin, distort, omit and deflect facts... and of course, REFUSE to play the clip of his supposed "inoffensive" remarks! (That were "taken out of context")

Real Truth Films/Larry Simons
September 29, 2007

My new 11 minute expose of Billo's incredible distortion of any kind of truth about the racist remarks he uttered on 9-19-07, combined with new fresh comments (from 9-28-07) of stalking, threats and obsessed behavior about the race issue he claims he doesn't care about.

Billo continues to claim that everyone has taken him out of context, but Billo is AFRAID of his own context, which is why he REFUSES to play the clip on his show. He offers it online knowing the only ones who will listen are his loyal, uninformed, delusional sheep who already pledge blind alliegence to the Sultan of Spin.

It's a BIG DAMNED CONSPIRACY AGAINST BILLO! Conspiracies are only valid to Billo when they are AGAINST HIM. Online polls are only valid to Billo when they SUPPORT HIM. Don't be fooled about the phony AOL online poll asking if Billo's comments are inoffensive. Over 65% of the people who responded watch him sometimes or regularly. Hardly unbiased!

Pop some corn, sit back with the kiddies and watch Billo's mind deteriorate right in front of your eyes.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

More Fun with Racist Billo and his lies, spin, distortion and deflection

Billo still going nuts over the “conspiracy” of the “far-left” to label him a racist
“Far-left” definition: People who quote Billo directly and accurately

by Larry Simons
September 27, 2007

Our favorite loofah-loving racist is STILL at it. He just doesn’t let embarrassing incidents die. If I woke up in the morning with shit smeared on my face, would I advertise my embarrassment by running frantically through the streets (with the shit still on my face) asking who did it? Of course not. I’d be mad as hell but wouldn’t further embarrass myself. Billo LOVES embarrassing himself over and over and over again. Billo is like a guy who walks into Wal-Mart and pisses on the floor while standing in line waiting for his turkey to be sliced. He loves attention even if it’s NEGATIVE attention.

Billo has to know the world of shit he’s in, yet in his deranged mind, he has no choice to panic and blame the world for his latest racist rantings. It’s not HIS fault….oh nooooooo. It’s CNN’s fault. It’s NBC’s fault. It’s MSNBC’s fault. It’s ABC’s fault. It’s Media Matter’s fault. It’s the guy who pumped his gas’ fault. It’s a big damned conspiracy against Billo!!! Wait a minute. Aren’t the conspiracy people “kooks” Billo?? Ahhh, I see Billo….when it’s a conspiracy against YOU, then it’s valid…then it’s actually happening. Gotcha.

There was a smorgasbord of media coverage last night and today about Racist Billo, so without further adieu, let’s cut through the lies and spin of these clips:

First is a the latest from Real Truth Films, “The Life and Times of Racist Billo” documenting Billo lying about the “conspiracy” against him. He tells a caller on his radio show that it was the far-lefts mission to get “people who don’t know Bill O Reilly” to demonize him because his “ratings are through the roof”. But a week earlier on his radio show, he says all the patrons in Sylvia’s “WATCH THE FACTOR”….in other words…they KNOW him, contradicting Billo’s “left-wing conspiracy to get people who don’t know Billo to demonize him” claim, because one of the “demonizers” is one of the OWNERS of Sylvia’s (who according to Billo, “WATCHES THE FACTOR”) who goes on camera to express her offense at Racist Billo.


Additional clips:

WABC report

TODAY show 9-26

Interesting in this Today show clip is Matt Lauer’s defense of Racist Billo, by saying, “I looked at it and thought O’ Reilly was saying that ‘we should NOT be surprised’ other words, it’s only for the small group of people who look at the entertainment of someone like 50 Cent or a Ludicris and think that represents all of African-Americans…that those people need to get out and live life a little bit…”

The only problem with Matt Lauer’s analysis of this is, that is NOT what Billo said! Billo said he WAS SURPRISED that blacks are the same as other restaurant patrons! This is the COMPLETE opposite of what Lauer says O’ Reilly is saying! Unbelievable!

Morning Joe (MSNBC) (Joe and company are pretty funny here)

CNN (Wolf Blitzer/ Situation Room)

and of course Keith's story on it

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Racist Bill O' Reilly insults African-Americans by being amazed that they act civil, respectful and normal

Sharpton involved again but takes no action on O’ Reilly’s comments

by Larry Simons
September 25, 2007

This is simply amazing! First, let me start out with the segment on Billo’s radio show from September 19, 2007, and then I will comment:

From the September 19 edition of The Radio Factor:

O"REILLY: “Now, how do we get to this point? Black people in this country understand that they've had a very, very tough go of it, and some of them can get past that, and some of them cannot. I don't think there's a black American who hasn't had a personal insult that they've had to deal with because of the color of their skin. I don't think there's one in the country. So you've got to accept that as being the truth. People deal with that stuff in a variety of ways. Some get bitter. Some say, [unintelligible] "You call me that, I'm gonna be more successful." OK, it depends on the personality.

So it's there. It's there, and I think it's getting better. I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out: "Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it."

You know, I was up in Harlem a few weeks ago, and I actually had dinner with Al Sharpton, who is a very, very interesting guy. And he comes on The Factor a lot, and then I treated him to dinner, because he's made himself available to us, and I felt that I wanted to take him up there. And we went to Sylvia's, a very famous restaurant in Harlem. I had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful. They all watch The Factor. You know, when Sharpton and I walked in, it was like a big commotion and everything, but everybody was very nice.

And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that's really what this society's all about now here in the U.S.A. There's no difference. There's no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment -- people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you're gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody's skin. …. That's right. That's right. There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, "M-Fer, I want more iced tea…….. You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all.”

Click here to listen

Let me take you through some of these quotes.

First, Billo starts out with this, “I don't think there's a black American who hasn't had a personal insult that they've had to deal with because of the color of their skin.” Thanks to you Billo, you're keeping racist America alive and well with more and more personal insults!

Then he says this, “I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out. Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it." Blacks are STARTING to think more for themselves? As opposed to when? When they DIDN’T think for themselves? Although I despise hip hop music, isn’t that one of the signature characteristics of hip-hop? That it is a testament that this kind of music originates from original thought? I mean, what else sounded like hip-hop before hip-hop? Wasn’t Martin Luther King, Jr, Malcolm X and Medgar Evers revolutionaries? And O’ Reilly is saying they are “starting” to think for themselves?? This statement by O’ Reilly should be highly offensive to the black community!

Then, he says he “treated Sharpton to dinner”…implying or at the very least creating the idea that Sharpton couldn’t pay himself, or that “blacks don’t treat people to dinner”. This is the implication that I got, because if O’ Reilly did not want to create that idea, why didn’t he just say “I went to dinner with him” and leave it at that?

Then, the line that takes the cake, “And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship”. No difference “even though it’s run by blacks and has primarily black patronship?” Do I even need to EXPLAIN why this should be offensive to black people? Do I really?

Then, Loofah Boy says it was just like going into the Italian restaurants with everyone just “sitting there, ordering and having fun…no craziness at all” So, Billo is saying those black people shocked him by sitting there, ordering food like the NORMAL Italian people! My goodness Billo, they were having fun TOO? Even BLACKS?? Are you shitting me Billo? You mean to tell me there wasn’t anyone selling drugs? No one was rapping the words to “Cop Killer”? No one was waving a gun and holding up the place? WOW! Amazing! So, Billo, you mean they were REGULAR people? There wasn’t even ONE black who said, (quoting Billo) “M-F-er..I want more iced tea!” Can you believe that? Not ONE! They were actually acting the SAME as the NORMAL Italians…who NEVER EVER use profanity!

It’s simply amazing that Billo can get away with saying this, and not ONE person is offended. What Don Imus said was stupid and senseless, and it wasn’t even funny, but let’s put this in perspective. Don Imus said THREE words, “Nappy-headed ho’s”. He said it about a girl’s college basketball team. But, what Imus said was targeted at one small group of girls. What O' Reilly said was targeted at the entire African-American population. That alone makes what O' Reilly said far more offensive, and far less defendable. To defend O' Reilly's comments is to have contempt for an entire race of people.

This is not a justification for what Imus said. I am merely pointing out what Imus said in contrast to what O’ Reilly said. Should Imus have been fired? Maybe. Maybe not. That can be debated too. I have no personal problem with Imus being fired. Where my problem lies is when Bill O’ Reilly goes on the air and says things so unbelievably insulting (or what SHOULD be insulting) to the black community….saying basically that they are finally thinking for themselves, implying that every other race has already reached that plateau, and now blacks have finally caught up. Saying he is surprised that the black people in the restaurant were acting “normal” and pleasant, were having fun and ordering (like all other races would do) and they weren’t acting “crazy” “EVEN THOUGH it was owned by blacks and has primarily black patronship”!

How this asshole can say these things about black people post-Imus and then not just SAY them, but get away with it, is beyond human comprehension. The comments were as racist as you can possibly get. All O’ Reilly needed was a KKK robe and a burning cross. He already possessed the vocabulary.

The total irony here is that O’ Reilly had dinner (that HE paid for, lest we forget) with AL “Don Imus is evil for saying ‘nappy-headed-ho’s” SHARPTON! Where’s the Sharpton crusade to get O’ Reilly off the air? Wasn’t what O’ Reilly said JUST as offensive, even MORE so to the black community?

This is not the first example of someone saying something racially offensive around the time of the Don Imus firing in which Sharpton himself or Sharpton’s name was directly involved in. A few weeks before the Imus firing, Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show did a sketch in which someone pretended to be Sharpton singing a song called “Barack the Magic Negro” (to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon”). It is clear as crystal that there was a personal agenda by Sharpton toward Don Imus, since there has now been at least 2 examples of right-wing personalities insulting black America with BLATANT racist comments.

Of course, on tonight’s (Sept 25) episode of The O’ Reilly Factor Billo was red hot about this and even had his FOX News bought-and-paid-for stooge Juan Williams on to bail Billo out of his blatant racist comments. All Williams did was repeat different snippets of the conversation both of them had the other day. Then, Williams LIES and tells Billo’s sheep that during the interview (between Williams and Billo) that “all you were doing Bill was dismissing the stereotypes that people have with blacks” even though this exact phrase was never used in the interview. No spin zone huh? Then Billo proceeds to attack CNN and Media Matters for simply quoting DIRECT QUOTES from his radio show!

Billo and Williams resorted to spin and deflection during the segment on tonight's Factor by mentioning things that had nothing to do with Billo's direct comments about the black restaurant patrons and owners. Billo deflects away from his comments by mentioning the bad influences of rappers and the stereotypical fear of black people in the past and present and with his grandmother being afraid of black people. This was a total deflection from the topic and both O' Reilly and Williams KNOWS it! Those black patrons and employees weren't rappers or any of the bad influences of the past, so what the hell were they talking about?

Billo also tried to play the ratings card, saying that CNN was only doing this story because their "ratings are down" and that FOX News crushes them in ratings, as if offended black people will really give a shit what cable channel has higher ratings. While telling his viewers that CNN's ratings are "abysmal", Billo neglects to tell his sheep that Rick Sanchez, during the CNN segment said that he actually likes Bill O' Reilly and he's a "fan", and that he has been flooded with calls from angry African-Americans. Of course Billo would not want to repeat the words "angry African-Americans". Why would he? That would be the TRUTH. It would have interfered with Billo and Williams' spin-job.

My question is: Where is the anger from Al Sharpton? Billo said he was even going to have Sharpton on his TV show tomorrow. I wonder how much ass-kissing Sharpton will do with O' Reilly. Will Sharpton be representing the many African-Americans offended by O' Reilly? Or will he walk in the footprints of Juan Williams and lose his integrity so he can collect a nice fat check from Rupert Murdoch?

Rick Sanchez of CNN said he had a conversation with Billo on the phone about this. Billo told Sanchez that there was no racist intent intended. Sanchez told CNN that he agreed with Billo that no racist intent was implied. I disagree and here’s why: Billo used the words I COULDN’T GET OVER the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City..” The words “Couldn’t get over” are expressing there is some surprise or shock factor that black people act the same as whites or other races of people. The surprise/shock factor clearly indicates that Billo sees blacks on a lower level than other races. If you see black people as equals, why would you be shocked?

Then Billo says, “…it’s exactly the same [the ‘black restaurant’ compared to all other restaurants]…EVEN THOUGH it’s run by blacks”. The words “EVEN THOUGH” indicate another “shock factor” Billo has with blacks being the same as other races. Could you imagine a sports commentator saying, “Ken Griffey, Jr hit the ball pretty hard, EVEN THOUGH he’s black”? He’d be immediately fired the next day and it would be national news. For Juan Williams to go on the air and defend this asshole just shows you how much power a big paycheck has over journalistic integrity.

Watch CNN's story:

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The Origin of the "Petraeus/Betray Us" line: From RIGHT-wing Neo-con pill-popper RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!! gets blasted for the "Petraeus/Betray Us" ad. Limbaugh gets free pass for using the EXACT same line 8 months earlier on Senator Chuck Hagel!!

Media Matters
September 24, 2007

On September 10,'s much-discussed advertisement headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" critical of Gen. David Petraeus, appeared in The New York Times. On the September 11 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called the advertisement "contemptible" and "indecent." However, months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "Senator Betrayus." On the January 25 broadcast (subscription required) of his radio show, Limbaugh broke from his commentary on an interview of Vice President Dick Cheney on the January 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room to say: "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel." A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that Bush's escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest."

In a September 10 blog post, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith reported that the General Betray Us ad "appears to have been borrowed indirectly from Rush Limbaugh and noted that "[a]ccording to a Free Republican [sic: Free Republic] diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel." In the January 26 post Smith cited, Free Republic commenter "Recovering_Democrat" wrote that "Rush said on his show yesterday that a caller suggested the new name for Senator Hagel."

Indeed, on the February 4 edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos told Hagel that Limbaugh "calls you 'Senator Betrayus.' " On the February 5 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh played an audio clip of Stephanopoulos telling Hagel that Limbaugh calls him "Senator Betrayus." Limbaugh didn't disavow the characterization; in fact, Limbaugh said in response to Hagel's comments: "But note he doesn't comment specifically on what I say. 'Well, you know, Rush has to be somewhere, he can say whatever he wants,' but didn't dispute the substance of my point."

On the September 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis responded to questions about the ad by suggesting that the ad was no less outrageous "than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like" and asking "why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism." Fox News co-host and weatherman Steve Doocy said, "I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh do that. Later that day on his nationally syndicated radio show, Limbaugh played audio from Davis' Fox & Friends appearance, and said: "I hope Fox does a program on me. I won't participate in it because I don't do that, but -- what have I said? What in the world have I said? All I said was that they're invested in defeat. I've said that it's just -- it's unacceptable, it's indecent the way they attack General Petraeus."

Listen to a montage of clips/videos on this:

In addition to his "Senator Betrayus" comment, Limbaugh has repeatedly and explicitly attacked the patriotism of his political opponents, as Media Matters for America has documented:

In a commentary segment on the September 7, 2006, broadcast of the CBS Evening News, Limbaugh said, "But some Americans, sadly, not interested in victory, and yet they want us to believe that their behavior is patriotic. Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us, when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it, when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic. Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism."

On the August 21, 2006, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose."

On the August 23, 2005, broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh said, "It's time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you're damn right we're questioning your patriotism." Limbaugh subsequently featured this self-described "brilliant El Rushbo monologue" on his website under the heading, "You're Damn Right, American Left; We're Questioning Your Patriotism."

On the September 17, 2004, edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said that half of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry's (MA) base "hates the military, hates America, hates Bush, hates the world except for France and Germany."

Additionally, on September 11, Limbaugh referred to terrorist Osama bin Laden as "U -- Ubama -- I'm sorry, Usama," continuing a pattern, which Media Matters for America has documented, of conflating Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) with bin Laden.

From the January 25 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Does that sound like Cheney is standing up in righteous indignation and pointing his finger at Blitzer and demanding that he shut up and accusing them doing a hit piece? Does it sound like that at all? No, it doesn't. Next question from Wolf Blitzer. "What if the Senate passes a resolution saying this is not a good idea? Will that stop you?"

CHENEY [audio clip]: It won't stop us, and it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops, as General Petraeus said yesterday. He was asked by [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT], among others, in his testimony about this notion that somehow the Senate could vote overwhelmingly for him, send him on his new assignment, and then pass a resolution at the same time and say, "But we don't agree with the mission you've been given."

LIMBAUGH: Right. By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betrayus. New name for Senator Hagel. Here's now one final bit -- well, two more. Question from Blitzer: "Here's the problem that you have. The administration, credibility in Congress with the American public, because of the mistakes, because of the previous statements, the 'last throes,' the comment you made a year and a half ago, the insurgency was in its last throes. How do you build up that credibility because so many of these Democrats and a lot of Republicans now are saying that they don't believe you anymore."

From the February 4 edition of ABC's This Week:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're taking a lot of heat from conservatives over your position. Here was Rush Limbaugh this week.

LIMBAUGH [audio clip]: If Chuck Hagel had been around during D-Day with the same kind of media we have today, he would have demanded that the invasion stop after the landing because there had been so many deaths. War is not something you put on a timetable.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He calls you "Senator Betrayus."

HAGEL: Well, listen, everybody has to be somewhere. Everyone has to make a living. Rush has to make a living. And he has a right to say whatever he wants.

From the February 5 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The word of my [Nobel Peace Prize] nomination just continues to roil drive-by media outlets, and it continued over the weekend. Then, on George Stephanopoulos' show on Sunday, he had Chuck Hagel as his -- as guest. They had this exchange.
[begin audio clip]

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're taking a lot of heat from conservatives over your position. Here was Rush Limbaugh this week.

LIMBAUGH [audio clip]: If Chuck Hagel had been around during D-Day with the same kind of media we have today, he would have demanded that the invasion stop after the landing because there had been so many deaths. War is not something you put on a timetable.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He calls you "Senator Betrayus."

HAGEL: Well, listen, everybody has to be somewhere. Everyone has to make a living. Rush has to make a living. And he has a right to say whatever he wants.
[end audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: But note he doesn't comment specifically on what I say. "Well, you know, Rush has to be somewhere, he can say whatever he wants," but didn't dispute the substance of my point.

From Smith's September 10 Politico blog post:

A footnote to the fuss over MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad, a favored GOP talking point of the day. (Genius? Idiocy? Interested in readers' views.)

Anyway, it also appears to have been borrowed, indirectly, from Rush Limbaugh. According to a Free Republican diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel.

From the September 11 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The Democrats are accusing Petraeus of being a patsy. The Democrats are accusing him of lying. I've suggested to you that if you ever -- 'cause, you know, I'm talented here, folks. I can read the stitches on the fastballs. I can see between the lines. I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body, and I am telling you that when they say Petraeus is lying, it means they are. When they say that Petraeus is a puppet, they are.
And I'll tell you who's pulling their strings: and that -- that contemptible, indecent ad that ran yesterday in The New York Times. The kook, fringe, left-wing blogosphere -- that's who they're afraid of. They're not afraid of U -- Ubama -- I'm sorry, Usama. They are not afraid of the enemy.

From the September 14 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: Right now, Republicans have condemned the MoveOn.Org ad criticizing General Petraeus. "Betray Us," Petraeus, you know what we're talking about. But what do the Democrats have to say, and how was President Bush's address received across America as well? Time now for a fair and balanced debate. Former special counsel to the President Clinton and author of Scandal: How 'Gotcha' Politics is Destroying America Lanny Davis joins us live, screen left, appropriately enough. And screen right, former RNC senior adviser Terry Holt. We thank you very much, Terry, for joining us as well.

HOLT: Thank you.

DOOCY: All right, Lanny, let's start with you. None of the -- I know you're familiar with Hillary Rodham Clinton, she wants to be president. She has not come out and denounced this ad. Do you think she should?

DAVIS: I think every single Democrat should say that using the expression "General Betray Us" is engaging in outrageous and, in my opinion, offensive rhetoric, but no less so than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like who have a right under the First Amendment --

DOOCY: Sure.

DAVIS: -- to say anything they want. Why we give them such credence when nobody can take seriously that kind of -

DOOCY: Right, but Lanny --

DAVIS: -- outrageous exercise of their First Amendment rights is, to me, amazing that you would start out with that subject rather than George Bush's speech last night, which is important.

DOOCY: Well, we are going to get to that. That was our lead story today, but should Hillary denounce it? I know you said all Democrats. Why hasn't she?

DAVIS: Um, I think Senator Clinton should denounce it. I don't know why, but again, you're still focused on rather than President Bush. Why are you, and you said we're going to get to that -- DOOCY: Yeah, we will. DAVIS: -- but you're still following up on an issue -- why are we -- why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism? Why hasn't Fox done one program about Rush Limbaugh? Would you answer that question? Let me interview you and Fox & Friends for a second. Why, which I denounce -- why are you not denouncing Rush Limbaugh questioning my patriotism for disagreeing on the Iraq war?

DOOCY: Lanny -- Lanny -- I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh do that. I'll look into it --

DAVIS: Why don't you -- why don't you do a study and invite me back, and we'll have a program about Rush Limbaugh rather than just focusing on what you call the left.

DOOCY: OK. Lanny, Lanny -- you're filibustering. Let's go to Terry. Terry, you're comment on this.

HOLT: Well, I think that has quickly become one of the largest and most influential special interest groups dominating the Democratic Party, and I think they won't denounce it simply because they're afraid that they'll be denounced by, who carries with them the perception that they have a stranglehold on the liberal Democratic base. I mean, this is one of those groups that nobody had ever heard of five years ago, and now every politician on the Democratic side runs in fear whenever utters a word.

From the September 14 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Lanny Davis is upset at me. The former Clinton spinmeister was on the Fox News Channel this morning on Fox & Friends, and Steve Doocy -- does the weather -- interviewed Lanny Davis and said, look, I know you're familiar with Hillary. She wants to be president. She's not come out and denounced this ad. Do you think she should?
[begin audio clip]

DAVIS: Every single Democrat should say that using the expression "General Betray Us" is engaging in outrageous and, in my opinion, offensive rhetoric, but no less so than some of the hatemongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like who have a right under the First Amendment --

DOOCY: Sure.

DAVIS: -- to say anything they want. Why we give them such credence when nobody can take seriously that kind of --

DOOCY: Right, but Lanny --

DAVIS: -- outrageous exercise of their First Amendment rights is, to me, amazing that you would start out with that subject rather than George Bush's speech last night.

LIMBAUGH: So the conversation continues with Lanny Davis bringing me back into it.
[begin audio clip]

DAVIS: Senator Clinton should denounce it. I don't know why, but again, you're still focused on rather than President Bush. Why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism? Why hasn't Fox done one program about Rush Limbaugh? Would you answer that question? Let me interview you and Fox & Friends for a second. Why, which I denounce -- why are you not denouncing Rush Limbaugh questioning my patriotism for disagreeing on the Iraq war?

DOOCY: Lanny -- Lanny -- I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh do that. I'll look into it --

DAVIS: Why don't you -- why don't you do a study and invite me back, and we'll have a program about Rush Limbaugh rather than just focusing on what you call the left.

DOOCY: OK. Lanny, Lanny -- you're filibustering.
[end audio clip]

LIMBAUGH: I welcome it. I hope Fox does a program on me. I won't participate in it because I don't do that, but -- what have I said? What in the world have I said? All I said was that they're invested in defeat. I've said that it's just -- it's unacceptable, it's indecent the way they attack General Petraeus. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know if this conclusion has come to anybody else out there, but during the Petraeus hearings -- and even in the postmortem -- you know, not one liberal, not one Democrat has asked what can we do to help you and the troops. While they were talking to General Petraeus, Lanny, there wasn't one Democrat in the House or Senate on either committee that asked the general what they could do to help him and the troops.

Rush wins Worst Person in the World!

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Alex Jones slams un-American Neo-con bootlicking scumbag Gordon Bloyer on Alex’s radio program

Bloyer: Alex Jones and Keith Olbermann should be arrested for treason

by Larry Simons
September 22, 2007

I can’t possibly write a story nearly as good as listening to the actual dialogue between radio host Alex Jones and radio host Gordon Bloyer. Bloyer admits on the air that he agrees with a lot of what Alex says, but that he (Jones) is totally wrong about the purpose or agendas of globalist organizations like the CFR, Bilderbergs and the Trilateral Commission.

Bloyer then admits things that Alex Jones talks about exist, like the North American Union, but that the United States isn’t joining it. Bloyer also says there will be no Amero. He mistakenly said “Euro”. Alex then plays clips of Bloyer from his radio show saying that Alex Jones and Keith Olbermann should be arrested for “treason”. Bloyer says that Olbermann and Jones “lies” and gives aid and comfort to the enemy. God, I am so sick of hearing this. Funny thing is, Bloyer points out that Olbermann “lies on a daily basis” but yet does not give ONE example.

Alex Jones repeatedly blasts Bloyer point by point, detailing facts about declassified documents and the history of government sponsored terroristic acts. Jones gives Bloyer fact after fact about the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, Hitler’s attack on his own Reichstag building, and many other issues. Bloyer’s response is like everyone else’s who I have encountered that cannot refute anything said….ad hominem attacks, giggling and just flat out calling Jones a “liar”, despite the fact that Alex Jones blasts Bloyer with fact after fact about issues that have even been in mainstream media outlets.

Not ONCE in the entire interview did Bloyer give ONE example that Alex Jones lies. He gives no news sources, no facts, no examples from media stories…all he does is call Jones a liar and deny what Jones says. It is very clear that Bloyer is just not informed on anything but Neo-con talking points. He even admits several times he hasn’t heard of some of the stories that Alex Jones mentions.

Bloyer then says that waterboarding is not torture, another Neo-con stance. When Jones and Bloyer get into the torture debate, it is very clear that Bloyer has not done ONE minute of research and fact checking on ANYTHING. Then Jones blasts Bloyer for being un-American (which he is) and for not being a real conservative.

Listen to this explosive interview:

Friday, September 21, 2007

Kissinger Admits Iran Attack Is About Oil

"So what?, we need the oil," sneer deluded Neo-Cons as oil prices explode due to orchestrated artificial scarcity

Paul Joseph Watson
September 21, 2007

In a new op-ed, Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger admits that U.S. hostility against Iran is not about the threat of nuclear proliferation, but as part of a larger agenda to seize Iranian oil supplies. But the true meaning behind this is lost on Neo-Cons, who are still deluded into thinking that Americans benefit from the imperial looting of natural resources in the middle east.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Former US Secretary of State Kissinger comes clean on the true motives behind the planned military assault on Iran.

"An Iran that practices subversion and seeks regional hegemony - which appears to be the current trend - must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to cross. The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend," writes Kissinger.

As blogger Robert Weissman points out, the "legitimate aspirations" that Kissinger affords Iran later in the piece "do not include control over the oil that the United States and other industrial countries need."

According to the CIA's world factbook, Iran has the world's second largest reserves of conventional crude oil at 133 gigabarrels. Adding non-conventional oil, Iran holds 10% of the global oil supply.

Kissinger's admission that U.S. control of Iranian oil supplies is the real agenda behind hostility towards Iran would raise eyebrows and bring condemnation from many, but there are a hard core of Neo-Con cheerleaders who would support such an agenda even if it is openly accepted that nuclear proliferation is just a smokescreen for looting more middle east oil.

That is because they are still deluded into thinking that foreign wars of aggression to monopolize natural resources make America, and as a consequence make them, richer and more prosperous - when nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact that the Iraq invasion was about oil is a familiar cliche that was even acknowledged by Alan Greenspan last week.

"So what? We need that oil," the Neo-Cons sneer.

Americans don't benefit from the Globalists' control of Iraqi oil because the agenda is to artificially restrict global oil supplies in order to jack up prices and reduce the living standards of industrial countries.

The oil flowing out of Iraq has never recovered to pre-invasion levels and still stands at a measly 0.5 gigabarrels a year, a huge chunk of which is piped directly to Israel.

This artificial scarcity is the stated goal of Bilderberg luminaries like Kissinger and José Manuel Barroso, who have sworn to inflate prices up to $200 dollars a barrel and spark the onset of a "post-industrial revolution", which translates as another economic depression and a wholesale "correction" of living standards that will all but obliterate the middle class.

Neo-Cons who trumpet the ethnic cleansing of the middle east using the twisted logic that it benefits Americans as their dollar sinks to peso level and gas prices explode while the cost of living becomes unaffordable are living in a complete fantasy world, but when the wake up call arrives the consequences of their ignorance are going to reap a hellish revenge.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Bill Maher endorses Ron Paul for Republican ticket

by Larry Simons
September 19, 2007

Bill Maher appeared on The Situation Room last night and when Wolf Blitzer asked Maher who he supports for the Republican ticket, he clearly and without hesitation said Ron Paul. He has said this before, so this really was no shock. But what is puzzling to me is why, when Bill O’Reilly asked him a few weeks ago on The O’ Reilly Factor pretty much the same question, Maher failed to say Ron Paul.

Maher has called Ron Paul his “hero” on his show “Real Time” in the past and has complimented him many times way before the O’Reilly appearance. Why did Maher seem to “forget” on O’ Reilly’s show? Hmmmmmmmm.

Watch the clips:

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Bush’s war machine: Full steam ahead boys

Gen. Petraeus is the smokescreen for Bush’s REAL plan: To keep his war machine rolling on ad infinitum

by David Simons
September 18, 2007

Once again, the Great Divider, George W. Bush, in his continual attempts to deceive Americans about the purpose and course of the disastrous Iraq War, is cherry-picking intelligence through his military proxy, Gen. David Petraeus. Like the boulder that chases Indiana Jones in the opening sequence of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, Bush relentlessly rolls along, seeking to steamroll his detractors. Like he has done throughout his presidency, Bush ignores and endeavors to discredit those who oppose his blatantly criminal domestic and foreign policies.

I do not fault Gen. Petraeus. He is merely following orders and doing the best he can to achieve a military objective. He is not driven by ideology and maniacal greed, as are the oil barons who occupy key posts in The White House. Petraeus is honestly trying to win this war. Bush couldn’t care less. His goal is to keep his war machine plodding along with the blood of our honorable men and women in uniform fueling each chug and sputter. And, he sacrifices our bravest and brightest for the most shameful reason of all – to pass this debacle off onto the next administration.

No doubt he will then sit in judgment of the new President, pointing a blood-caked finger at each and every misstep and setback. George W. Bush will spend his remaining days in a town called Smirksville, arrogantly defending his failed policies and refusing responsibility for those who died advancing his selfish, crony-rewarding oil war.

President Bush gained the only thing that mattered to him with the Petraeus Report---time. He will use that time to further erode our Constitution as he has all but eradicated the Bill of Rights. And, God help us all if there is another major terror attack. Bush’s emergency response plans for the weeks and months following such an event are top secret. Members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike and even those who are high-ranking officials of agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security have been denied access to these plans.

You do not need the imagination of a Ray Bradbury to have your skin turn to gooseflesh over this troubling scenario. So, faster than you can say Fahrenheit 451 Bush will be poised to go from cooking books to burning books. And, that I am certain, is just the tip of the iceberg. Can you say police state?

The bottom line is this---once again, we have all been had. I expect the sheep that worship at the altar of FOX News to bleat with approval Bush’s new/old plan for success, just like I expect our ineffectual congress to roll over and play dead. But, those of us who are not motivated by blind allegiance to ideology or do not wish to stand on the sidelines while our great nation crumbles, need to do what they can to oppose these greedy warmongers in office….or we may all be lost.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Bill Maher: 9/11 Truthers need professional help, not publicity

Maher takes a jab at the 9/11 Truth movement in a recent "New Rules" segment

Mike Aivaz
Raw Story
September 16, 2007

"Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one who's being naive," says Maher.

“How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think 'Well, if you believe that was the cause...'
Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you."

by Larry Simons

This should be proof to all the morons out there who view my site that think all I cover are stories that I “agree” with or that I can “handle”. I’ve made it no secret that I like Bill Maher and even before this segment on Friday’s “Real Time with Bill Maher”, I knew he didn’t believe in the cover-up of 9-11. I’ve said this many times on my site. I will simply point out the inaccuracies with Bill Maher’s statements.

We never said the “government” brought down the towers. That makes it appear as if we think it was senators, congressmen or Supreme Court judges that pulled the lever on 9-11. We have claimed that it is a very small criminal element of the government, called “black ops” where “government” people usually deny doing it and only very few people really know about it.

Bill, we don’t say your naïve, you’re just wrong on this one. Maher doesn’t have to believe that 9-11 was carried out by ‘black-ops’, but to blindly deny that there has even been a cover-up about it? My God, to deny this, you simply fall into the “I never investigate this” category.

Notice Bill’s ad hominem vocabulary. Usually when you don’t really have any hard facts to support your own view, you will say words like “crazy” and “lunatic” to automatically get your listeners to agree that the people you attack are a bunch of nuts without offering any evidence that they are.

Here’s where Bill lies twice in one sentence. He says the two airplanes ignited a “massive inferno” that “burned for 2 hours”. Wrong on both counts Bill. There was no massive infernos in either tower. In fact, there are 4 major indications that this was not the case. 1) Simply observing that the fires were not “massive”. 2) The fact that the smoke coming from the towers was very black. Hotter fires leave off a grayish smoke. 3) The audio tapes of the firefighters inside the building saying that the fires (near the impact hole) were able to be “knocked down with two lines” and that the fires were “isolated”. 4) The fact that there is footage and pictures of people standing right inside the impact holes, not burning and no skin melting off their body. Maher simply didn’t do any homework.

Also, neither tower burned for two hours Bill. One burned for 56 minutes, and the other for 102 minutes. 102 minutes is close to 2, but not quite 2. So, we see even on this elementary issue Bill is not truthful on that! If he says 56 minutes is the same as 2 hours, why would we believe him on anything else?

To believe in the government's story of 9-11 means you have to believe in miracles...not just unlikely incidents, I'm talking about real Jesus-like miracles collapsing buildings (even when no planes hit them), fire vaporizing airplanes (but NOT human flesh), the existence of molten steel created from no incendiary devices, planes being able to fit inside small holes and of course NORAD not only failing to stop one plane (which is impossible by itself) but 4. Yes, 9-11 was a day of miracles for Bill Maher. Wait? I thought Bill Maher didn't believe in Jesus or miracles? Hmmmmm. Who needs Paxil, Bill?

Here’s proof that buildings with REAL massive fires don’t collapse

Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain in 2005; burned 24 straight hours, no collapse

Maher also doesn’t mention other pesky facts like: Both towers fell in near free fall time, or that no buildings in history ever collapsed (in a total collapse) due to fire, the testimony of many people inside the buildings, including firefighters and policemen that bombs and explosions were seen and heard (even before the planes hit), the concrete was totally pulverized into dust or the pools of molten metal found in the debris weeks after the collapses. When you leave out all these facts and throw in the words “crazy” and “lunatic” then yes, I guess you can persuade your audience to see things your way!

Here’s videos of more “crazy” people and “lunatics”:

Here’s Kurt Nimmo’s article on the story:

Bill Maher: Corporate “Comic” and Shill for the Official 9/11 Fable

Kurt Nimmo
September 16, 2007

I’m not sure why I bothered to watch the video posted on Raw Story, as the outcome was wholly predictable. “Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I’m the one who’s being naive,” joked Bill Maher on HBO, the “vertically integrated” supposed “entertainment” corporation owned by Time Warner. “How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think ‘Well, if you believe that was the cause…’ Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you.”

Of course, you likely need Paxil if you think kerosene fires are capable of melting steel and, more to the point, if you believe government will not kill its own citizens. History is replete with examples of the latter, even if you consider Operation Northwoods dubious. But then, millions of brainwashed Americans, watching not only HBO but Fox News and CNN, believe the government is here to help us, protect us from fantastical cave-dwelling terrorists, provide for us in old age, take care of us when we are sick, and shelter us during natural disasters, the examples of Katrina and confiscatory taxation not withstanding. It is a hard nut to crack, this deeply entrenched brainwashing, and those of us who understand the truth—government is here to rob us blind and, when it serves, feed us into wars designed to enrich and empower a small and psychotic elite. Evidence is all around, out in the open for all to see, but then most people, citizens deluded, are too busy chuckling it up over the sophistry, passing as comedy, of Bill Maher.

Bill learned his lesson when, embracing the official 9/11 fairy tale, he agreed with ?conservative? (read: neocon) political commentator Dinesh D’Souza on his ABC show Politically Incorrect that the 9/11 terrorists were not cowards and felt compelled to add: “We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it’s not cowardly. Stupid maybe, but not cowardly.” It should be considered suspicious that Maher would have a neocon such as Dinesh D’Souza—a member of the Hoover Institution, a criminal organization cranking out the likes of Condi Rice—on his show. But then most Americans have no idea who Dinesh D’Souza is or that he is a proponent of American exceptionalism, that is the right to kill people anywhere in the world, so long as it serves America, or rather the elite in America. For his ill-advised comment, Maher was bounced from ABC after advertisers ran covering their heads and Ari Fleischer, then White House press secretary, responded to a reporter’s question about Maher’s comments by saying: “…they’re reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do,” in other words, even Maher’s relatively moderate comment is unacceptable in America after “everything changed,” that is to say after cave-dwelling Muslims violated the laws of physics and made Norad stand down.

Now Bill’s a good boy and if HBO, owned by Time Warner—its death merchant division, Time Warner Telecom, in bed with the Defense Department—demands he characterize people interested in understanding what really happened on September 11, 2001, as mental patients in need of SSRI medication, of course he is obliged to comply, no matter if he believes they are nut cases or not (in likewise fashion, whores on occasion are obliged to act as if they enjoy sex with their customers).

Considering the distressing state of television and “comedy” as presented on HBO and elsewhere, it is no wonder more people are not on Paxil. But then I suppose, for those of us easily brainwashed from Sesame Street onward, right through school and later provided with more or less mandatory daily doses of slick propaganda, acting as a passive-aggressive equivalent to Orwell’s two minute hate sessions, we are comfortable with our collective mental illness delivered by psychopaths at the top and handsomely rewarded jobholders such as Bill Maher.

Friday, September 14, 2007

Bush Delivers Smoke & Mirrors Propaganda Speech

Ostroy: In his (Bush's) desperation to salvage his legacy--inextricably tied to this debacle--he's becoming more stubborn, more delusional and more dangerous than ever

by Andy Ostroy
September 13, 2007

Back in November, by an overwhelming majority, U.S. voters sent a loud message to Congress and President Bush that they wanted an end to the military fiasco in Iraq. Recently, polls consistency have shown that an overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens want the U.S. out of their country. And while the masses have spoken, our dangerous, delusional war-mongering psycho-in-chief went before the nation Thursday night to announce his latest hair-brained scheme: to create an enduring relationship and permanent military presence in the war-ravaged Middle Eastern country. Instead of talking about ultimately bringing the troops home and ending our occupation, Bush essentially promised never to leave, Korea-style. I truly think the man has lost his mind. In his desperation to salvage his legacy--inextricably tied to this debacle--he's becoming more stubborn, more delusional and more dangerous than ever. He also seems to be attempting to run out the clock, leaving the war for the next poor sucker to deal with.

It's infuriating how Bush has now painted a picture of two great Democracies--America and Iraq--standing up side by side to battle the brutal enemy that threatens to destroy them both: Al Qaeda. For Pete's sake, Iraq is no ally; no friend of the U.S. The fact is, the Iraqi government is closer in ties ideologically to Iran (remember the "Axis of Evil?") than it is to us. For Bush to imply that Iraq is aligned with us in this great battle for the Middle East is a despicable distortion of the realities on the ground.

We also heard how the infamous "surge" is working, but what does that actually mean anyway? Does anyone really doubt that more firepower from the greatest military force in the world could not succeed on some level in overpowering the enemy in a few select regions? (i.e Anbar, Baghdad) But it's only temporary. And it has not resulted in effecting any appreciable political progress there. And until there's political change in that country our military might is only as effective as we remain there. And that's exactly Bush's strategy. He has absolutely no vision or plan for the future in terms of how to truly achieve "victory" (whatever that means), bring our troops home and end the occupation. So he simply perpetuates the war. The longer he keeps it going, the longer he can dupe Americans and pretend that we're making progress; just keep the damned thing going so we never have to leave and face the inevitable.

To be sure, Bush is a pathological liar. He's been lying since 2002 when he first laid the groundwork for this neocon disaster. And he's continuously lied every step along the way since. He's lied over the reasons for war, the progress of the war, his plan for perpetrating the war, his horizon for the war, his justifications for the surge, his assessments of the threats and who the enemy is, and just about everything else. Thursday night was no different.

The president made his speech all about Al Qaeda, which is not the enemy we're fighting, although he'd sure as hell like all of us to believe that garbage again. Just listen to the rhetoric from his latest speech, the same smoke and mirrors from 2002:

If we pulled out of Iraq, "extremists would be emboldened"...and "gain nukular weapons and dominate the region"'d be a "humanitarian nightmare" would
"leave our children to face a far more dangerous world"...that these "dangers can reach our cities, and kill our people"...and that "al Qaeda can gain new recruits, and new sanctuaries"..and that we "must defeat al Qaeda"...."liberating your country from terrorists and death squads...." and that to Americans, "the violent extremists who are targeting Iraq are also targeting you." He mentioned al Qaeda 12 times. Al Qaeda, al Qaeda, al Qaeda. Blah, blah, blah. Enough with this irresponsible, reprehensible deception...the incessant morphing of Iraq into al Qaeda. The reason why Iraq cannot sustain a true Democracy is because the Iraqis themselves don't seem to want it, and are killing each other daily in relentless sectarian violence. It's Sunni/Shiite violence which has paralyzed that nation, not al Qaeda.

"The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States," Bush said. "A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven." But what about Gen. David Petraeus' Congressional testimony this week in which he confessed that we may not be any safer here at home as a result of the war? Doesn't faze Bush one bit. Remember, this is a guy who earlier this week said, "We're Kicking Ass" in Iraq. If we're really kicking so much ass, how come we're no closer toward a U.S. style democracy, and how come instead of pulling out a majority of our troops Bush is now talking about keeping them there forever? Congress, the media and American voters should be outraged, and should be demanding answers.

The war is a miserable failure, which is why Bush has changed the mission almost non-stop since the invasion. Consider this trail:

From the day of the invasion in March 2003: "There's a game plan, a strategy, to rid the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and rid his country of Weapons of Mass Destruction...and we're on plan.

May 1, 2003: "Major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed....."

Two years later: "We will never accept anything less than complete victory.....we will complete our mission in Iraq...and leave behind a democracy that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

Last year: "Our mission is to help the elected government in Iraq defeat common enemies. To bring peace and stability to Iraq and make our nation more secure. Our goals are unchanging. We are flexible in our methods to achieving those goals.

Then May 2, 2007: "Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success, as I've described, is, ya know, sectarian violence down."

June 28: "It's a new mission, David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it out. Its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation. To build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against the extremists in this war."

WMD, bin Laden/al Qaeda connections, Democracy, humanitarian causes, stemming sectarian violence...this war has had more freakin' "missions" than the Franciscan Church.

Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, lies.....makes me sick. In his speech Thursday night Bush referred to the "coalition" of "36 countries" fighting al Qaeda and the enemy. I rest my case...

Thursday, September 13, 2007

O' Liar loves name-calling so much now, he puts the names in segment titles!

Loofah-boy adds new segment to his show....complete with a derogatory name

by Larry Simons
September 13, 2007

Billo really makes this easy for me now. I can do stories on his lies, spin and hypocrisy with less effort than it takes me to cook a falafel. Remember back in May of this year when Billo DENIED that he calls people names every 6.8 seconds according to the Indiana University study?

Now this assface (yes, that's a name....I never denied it) has a SEGMENT on his show called "Pinheads and Patriots". It's a new segment in which he can pinpoint two different people for the respective titles. In other words, a person who is either just as much of an ass as he is, or someone who does something insignificant who will be the "patriot", and someone he hates, usually someone who tells the truth and is SANE, as the "pinhead".

I don't watch Loofah-boy every day, so I don't know (nor do I care) how many people have won the titles so far, but I have seen 2 segments. One day, Daryl Hannah (patriot) for not using foreign oil.....yippie. I guess that puts her up there with Thomas Jefferson. (Besides, what does O' Liar have against foreigners? Doesn't he have EVERY country but America making his stupid merchandise on his website store? Hmmm). The (pinhead) went to Al Franken (you know the guy who CORRECTLY exposed Billo for saying he won PEABODY awards at Inside Edition when it was really POLK awards--and it was AFTER O' Liar left Inside Edition!!!) Apparently, Franken is supported by Rosie O' Donnell (a dissenter, which makes her a TRUE patriot according to Thomas Jefferson) and another truth-teller (about how WTC 7 was brought down with explosives and how we kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) You know, those pesky FACTS that Billo hates.

Another show was Stephen Colbert (patriot) for selling his signed cast on Ebay and making $17,000 to give to the troops. You know those SAME troops that Billo wants DEAD? Yeah, Billo wants the war to continue for at least another year, even if it means 1,000 more die. Be a patriot yourself Billo! Put on some fatigues and go fight yourself you coward! Send your family over too! Oh, what's that? Chickenshit? That's what I thought. Dennis Kucinich gets the (pinhead) award for telling the TRUTH about America (how we kill innocent Iraqis) on Syrian TV. He chastised Kucinich for saying it in SYRIA and not for keeping it inside our country. Billo, YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL THE TRUTH IN AMERICA! At least Kucinich had an excuse! He wasn't IN America when he said it! WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE???

I think I'll start a new segment on my site. Idiots and Dumbfucks. Hmmmmm, which one will Billo be? Decisions, decisions.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Meigs & Fox News Attempt To Rescue Flagging Official Story On 9/11 Anniversary

Former editor of Video Review and Entertainment Weekly recycles debunked theories to attack 9/11 truth and whore his book

Paul Joseph Watson
September 11, 2007

Fox News introduced their 9/11 anniversary coverage today by promising science would reveal the truth behind 9/11 myths peddled by conspiracy theorists, so their choice to have James Meigs, whose scientific credentials include being a former editor of Entertainment Weekly and Video Review, attempt to debunk those myths was odd to say the least. (Editor’s note: And I might add that Meigs was also editor of Premiere Magazine, where all he did was talk about what actors should win Oscars. Yeah, I guess that qualifies him to run an engineering magazine!)

Meigs appeared on Fox and Friends to whore his "non-partisan" book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, the foreword to which is penned by Neo-Con ideologue John McCain.

Meigs is now whitewasher-in-chief at the military-industrial complex rag Popular Mechanics, which is owned by Hearst Publishing, the progenitor of the term yellow journalism.

Unsurprisingly, Meigs recycled the usual debunked fallacies in an attempt to revive the flagging official story and was not called on any of his lies by the nodding Fox presstitutes.

"What we've done in three years at Popular Mechanics of looking into these theories is try to find the facts that the conspiracy theorists themselves site as evidence of their claims," said Meigs. "In this case they say that because steel melts at about 2,700 degrees and jet fuel only burns at about 1,500 degrees...but when you talk to engineers, what you see is that steel doesn't have to melt to fail."

What Meigs fails to acknowledge is the fact that NIST's own analysis of the WTC steel concluded that temperatures in the impact zone reached no hotter than 600 degrees, according to the Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.

In addition, NIST reported that, "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse."

If 250 C was enough heat to weaken most of the steel in the twin towers on 9/11, then our home ovens and fireplaces would be in danger of collapse as soon as we turned them on for the first time.

Photographs taken before the collapse of the towers show people standing in the impact zones where the planes hit. (Below)

Meigs then recycles the pancake theory in an attempt to dismiss the rapid collapse of the twin towers. The pancake theory was debunked by NIST itself after their study found that, "This type of assembly (the WTC steel) was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."

It also violates the fundamental law of physics and the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as Professor Steven Jones outlines in his research paper.

Meigs goes on to claim that falling debris from the towers was enough to topple Building 7, a high rise that stood a hefty 355 feet away from the north tower. Meigs fails to explain why the building collapsed in seven seconds into its own footprint, why first responders were told to evacuate the area because the building was going to be intentionally brought down, why police officers heard bombs tearing down the building and why a top security official who was stationed in WTC 7 witnessed bombs take out the lobby of the building before either WTC tower had collapsed.

Perhaps Fox News should give Meigs his own show, since both Fox and Popular Mechanics pose as "fair and balanced" yet do their level best to lie, smear, obfuscate and bury the truth to please their corporate and war-machine bosses.

They compliment each other perfectly.

Here is an excellent debunking of the August 2007 History Channel hit piece on 9-11 truth. Although this isn’t lengthy enough, it’s covers things pretty well.

Here is most of the outstanding interview radio talk show host Charles Goyette did with Yellow Journalism stooge Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics in August 2006. We can’t stand up to the facts huh? Then why do you fail MISERABLY in this interview Mr. Coburn? And according to Charles Goyette himself, when I spoke to him in September 2006 on the phone, he told me that Davin Coburn canceled the other THREE interviews he had that day! That’s what people who possess the truth do…they cancel interviews and PANIC during the ones they do!

Ron Paul owns O' Loofah

Ron Paul wins the debate with Loofah-boy, as evidenced by O'Liar's trademarks of panic: Shouting and cutting people off

by Larry Simons
September 11, 2007

Ron Paul did with O' Liar tonight what he does best and debates. Did anyone catch when as soon as Ron Paul mentions Saudia Arabia, Billo immediately jumps in and cuts him off? Then Billo asks him another question and Ron Paul is immediately cut off again!

I was glad to see Dr. Paul tell Loofah-boy "why don't you let me answer?" Billo's response: "Because you're not answering the question" (TRANSLATION FOR BILLO'S SHEEP: "You're not giving me the answer I WANT TO HEAR")

This is what Ron Paul does best. He gives answers Neo-cons don't want to hear, in other words, he gives them the TRUTH. Notice near the middle of the interview when Ron Paul gives the history of the last 50 years with the United States dealing with Iran, of course, Billo wants no part of the truth and puts up his hands and says, "We don't need the history lesson". (TRANSLATION FOR BILLO'S SHEEP: "You're right, there's no way I can refute that, let's move on")

Then, I LOVE when Billo points out that it's Iran's policy to attack Israel and the US----and since it's NOT policy in Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, that means they are no threat! LOL. If Iran is really the evil country you would LOVE them to be Billo, would they really CARE if it was policy or not to attack?????

My other favorite part is when Billo says "If you think if we get our people out of there, there's not going to be anymore terrorism, then you're living in the dream land!" So, in other words Billo, we are supposed to stay over there until EVERY SINGLE terrorist is dead?? That could take.....uh..let's see......FOREVER?????

Of course, it is just like O 'Liar to get his "facts" wrong about Ron Paul not wanting to go into Afghanistan....typical O' Liar lies. I was glad to see Dr. Paul call him on it. Of course, the BIGGEST lie was O' Liar saying, "We didn't let him (bin Laden) go anywhere, he escaped!" Yeah Billo, bin Laden had to HURRY up and get the hell out of there fast! He only had TWO MONTHS to do it!!!


Saturday, September 8, 2007

Alex Jones arrested in New York

Illegal immigrant-lover Geraldo Rivera calls free speech "anarchy", threatens 9-11 truth activists

Paul Joseph Watson
September 8, 2007

NEW YORK - Media activist Alex Jones was arrested by New York Police Department officers while filming a documentary about the sixth anniversary of September 11th and joining the protest against the official version of what happened on 9/11.

According to Infowars sources Jones was singled out by police from the head of a crowd of about 400 9/11 Truth Activists and protesters. He was verbally accosted and forced by the police officers to present identification which he was not carrying at the time.

NYPD officers arrested Jones for "unspecified charges" and removed from the protest crowd to be taken to the nearest police precinct where he currently remains.

Rob Jacobson, camera operator on Jones' documentary production crew indicated that a large portion of the protest crowd had moved to the precinct where Jones was being held to ensure his fair treatment and safe release.

Geraldo ridiculed protesters and lauded the arrests as live footage of Alex being frog marched away by officers was broadcast, refering to them as "anarchists," "communists" and "one of the least attractive groups of protesters I've ever seen".

In another clip, Geraldo states, "I think these demonstrators are all into rest room gay sex". He later physically threatens the protesters, saying that if violence broke out "our Fox News team can take this bunch."

The demonstrators had tried to obtain a "permit" for the protest but were refused by authorities. Officers later ticketed Jones for "using a sound device without a permit".

However, other people who were simply filming the arrest were also arrested themselves.

Alex said the arresting officer was overbearing and that having the cuffs slapped on him hurt more than when he cut his finger off in a boating accident.

The officer physically charged and assaulted individuals who were not even involved in the protest, such as Discovery Channel cameramen.

Alex Jones' cameraman Rob Jacobson was also pushed by cops and then punched in the shoulder for "obstructing police business" despite the fact that he was stood well away from the area on the sidewalk.

Two British cameramen who were part of the We Are Change UK group were also arrested for "blocking traffic".

Eyewitnesses described a chaotic scene where police simply waded in, assaulting and arresting people on a whim, but noted that Alex Jones was singled out immediately after cops arrived.

Geraldo Rivera and Fox News chiefs were responsible for calling the police and having protesters arrested.

The group were told that they didn't have a permit to protest. A permit is government permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal - meaning the right to peaceably assemble and free speech as defined in the Constitution have been officially outlawed.

"Word came in that Geraldo Rivera was giving a live broadcast only a few blocks away," writes We Are Change. A truth squad quickly dispached itself to the scene. There, the group chanted a deafening "911 Was An Inside Job" endlessly. The police were concerned with us blocking the sidewalk, but so long there was a clear path we remained about 20 feet from Geraldo. All of the signs and banners were visible on TV, and it just happened to be up on the jumbo screen in the middle of Times Square. Then the rest of the group saw Alex Jones was suddlenly pulled aside and arrested by police.

Groups headed out and searched for the precint Alex was taken to. After finding the location, the rest of the group met there and demanded Alex's release. Within only a few hours, we got what we wanted!

More footage of the Geraldo protest and the arrest from other truthers who filmed big screen displays nearby.

Tune in to Alex's Sunday show this evening on KLBJ for a full account of what happened.

Editor's note:

Here is a clip from Geraldo Rivera from FIXED News reporting on this calling the 9-11 truthers “anarchists”. What ever happened to FREE speech in America? What ever happened to the RIGHT to protest? I love how he calls dissenting Americans “anarchists” but yet he LOVES ILLEGAL immigrants!

According to post-ers on Alex Jones' myspace page, supporters flooded the precinct with calls and Alex has now been released

I will report more on this as I hear about it

UPDATE: Video of Alex after release

OFFICIAL CHARGE: Using a sound device without a permit. Oooooooohhh. Why wasn't he taken to Gitmo????

The truth about Giuliani

Members of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) speak out and expose Giuliani

by Larry Simons
September 7, 2007

Members of the IAFF (International Association of Fire Fighters) expose the truth about Mayor Giuliani’s incompetence and disgraceful actions during his entire run as Mayor of NYC. It’s not just firefighters that think Giuliani is a disgrace. Most 9-11 familes do too. Giuliani is scheduled to speak at the 6 year anniversary of 9-11, and most families want him silent. Click here for article.

And NONE of these people are “conspiracy kooks”

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Hannity Lies To Discredit Ron Paul After Debate

Claims "Paulites" flood voted to skew text poll, yet only one vote per phone number was allowed

Paul Joseph Watson
September 6, 2007

Fox News and Sean Hannity tried to discredit Ron Paul last night after the latest debate by claiming the Texas Congressman's runaway success in the subsequent text messaging poll was due to "Paulites" flood voting, when in fact only one vote per phone number was allowed.

Ernest Raposa, a viewer in New Bedford, MA, decided to text in his support for Ron Paul and received a message back stating, "FOX News UVOTE: Thank you for voting! Watch Hannity & Colmes for the results."

"As the show progressed, it became obvious, as we have seen previously, that Ron Paul had the most support, hovering around 33 per cent," writes Raposa. "Around 11:25pm EST Hannity declared that though Ron Paul had DOUBLE the support of the tied for second place Giuliani and Huckabee it was clear that the "Paulites" were simply dialing in over and over again, devaluing his lead."

Aiming to test Hannity's theory, Raposa attempted to text in a second vote for Ron Paul from the same cellphone. He received a message back saying, "You have already voted on tonight's debate. Thank you for your participation."

Only one vote per cellphone was allowed, therefore Hannity's contention that Ron Paul supporters were "were simply dialing in over and over again" was nothing more than a brazen lie intended to dismiss the Congressman's widespread popularity. No one at Fox News bothered to correct Hannity and no retraction was issued.

Here's the nuts and bolts in a You Tube clip.

Debunkers continually claim that Paul's success in text message and internet polls is merely a result of a small group of supporters zealously "spamming" or "flooding" the polls when in fact votes are limited to one per IP address and one per cellphone number.

Such dirty tactics from Neo-Con stooge Hannity and Fox News were merely a continuation of Fox's policy to attack Ron Paul throughout the broadcast.

Despite the fact that the New Hampshire audience broke out in spontaneous wild applause at almost everything the Congressman said, Fox News deliberately boosted the microphones of the other candidates when Paul was speaking, making sure the snickers of Giuliani, Romney and the rest were clearly audible.

Establishment darlings were once again afforded shed loads more time and even nobodies like Huckabee and Brownback got twice the amount of questions compared to the Congressman. Paul got the chance to answer just three direct questions in a 90 minute debate.

Fox News moderators weighed in with glee in an attempt to ruffle, smear and sidetrack Ron Paul. His first question revolved around a purposeful misquote of the Congressman's position on allowing pilots to be armed and it only went downhill from there.

"The second question though revealed the unbelievable bias of Fox News," writes Anthony Wade. "In response to a question about Iraq and troops, Paul reiterated that we needed to pull the troops home, period. He has consistently said that we need to address the entire foreign policy and start protecting our own borders and our own country. In response to the false notion that there would be a “bloodbath” if we just pulled out, Paul quickly reminded everyone that the same people speculating that there would be a bloodbath are the same people who said Iraq would be a “cakewalk” and a “slam dunk.” He then correctly pointed out the faulty logic that says we need to stay for stability when it is widely reported that our presence on the Arabian Peninsula is what prompted the attacks of 911. The response from Chris Wallace was to pose his own follow up question which was, “So you are saying you would take your marching orders from al Qaeda?”

"Are you kidding me? The inherent bias in the question was disgusting during a debate forum and Chris Wallace revealed himself as nothing but a whore for the machine and not a credible newsperson. Thankfully, Dr. Paul was up to the task by responding that he would take his marching orders from the Constitution."

The last question was another manufactured "hypothetical" in which Iran had nukes and was threatening to use them on Israel. Fox News were sure to go to Ron Paul first in order to have the other candidates gang up on him after.
As soon as the debate was over, Giuliani and Hannity were busy attempting to mock Congressman Paul with more sophomoric barbs.

The desperation of the Neo-Cons and the establishment to ridicule Ron Paul again highlights the sheer terror that they are experiencing in light of the fact that a real candidate communicating about real issues is putting the rest of the shills to shame.

By continuing to smear, lie about and dismiss the Congressman, Hannity, Fox and their ilk are nervously praying that they can keep the lid on the Ron Paul Revolution and prevent the Texan from breaking into the vaunted "top tier" and obliterating the bought and paid for competition.

Ron Paul obliterates other GOP candidates and moderators at New Hampshire debate
by Larry Simons
September 6, 2007

I don’t know how it’s possible to keep outdoing previous performances but yet Ron Paul keeps doing just that. In making an attempt to not repeat anything in the story above, I will simply just throw out my 2 cents about last night’s debate. With the exception of the introductory question about Fred Thompson joining the race, Ron Paul had to wait roughly 35 minutes for his first question. He had three major questions asked of him in the entire 90 minute debate.

Amazingly, despite the obvious eclipsing of Ron Paul’s message by the Neo-con bootlickers at FOX News, people see his message and his consistent convictions about the Iraq war, taxes, illegal immigration and Iran and see this message as coming from a candidate who is the real thing. Finally, at last, this country has a candidate who is what we’ve always dreamed of in a Presidential candidate. A person of morals, honesty, a proven and consistent record, and most importantly, a candidate who strives to bring this country back to its Constitutional roots and to follow the rule of law.

Other than the boosting of the microphones technique used by FOX News to amplify the laughter of some of the candidates during Ron Paul's questioning by moderators, they also used the split-screen effect, showing Giuliani giving a stupid grin during Dr. Paul's answers. This was done to aid the viewer into joining Giuliani in snickering in order to discredit Ron Paul.

Chris Wallace, at one point asked Ron Paul why he would seek to eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Homeland Security and even the FBI, and how we as a country would gain intelligence of possible threats to our country if these institutions didn't exist. This was another FOX News technique used in order to make Ron Paul appear 'crazy'. What FOX News leaves out, of course, is that nearly all of the institutions named by Wallace are either unconstitutional, corrupt or both. Paul's response, again, was brilliant and once again backfired on Wallace.

How sweet it was to see Sean “Nazi” Hannity say he’s “going crazy” over the fact that on FOX News’s OWN poll, Ron Paul wins yet another debate. Unlike after the last debate when Ron Paul led Romney just by 2 or 3 percentage points and FOX was able to manipulate the numbers in the last 10 minutes of the program to put Romney in the lead, (although as I pointed out in my story after that debate, getting that many votes to move 3 or 4% into the lead would take MUCH longer than 10 minutes since 1 percentage point alone would be approximately 2,000 to 3,000 votes) this time it was Ron Paul receiving 33% of the vote while falling in 2nd place was Huckabee with 18%. Of course, it’s no secret that Ron Paul wins all other polls too. Like this one from MSNBC:

I guess this 15 point percentage gap was too vast to manipulate numbers, so FOX News had to resort to accusing voters of “re-dialing over and over” as even Alan Colmes admitted. Of course, we know that re-dialing is impossible since people were only allowed one vote per cell or IP address. It all boils down to rule #1 in the FOX News playbook: If we don’t like what we hear, we make things up or simply ignore it.

Here is a montage of Congressman Paul’s brilliant performance: