Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Homeland Security nabs UK’s International Development Minister, who they just had meetings with!! Good job boys!!!

From fake terror to now detaining people (for suspicion of terrorism) who have just attended meetings with members of its own agency….Homeland Security proves that Andy and Barney would be overqualified for their team!

by Larry Simons
October 30, 2007

After a series of meetings on fighting terrorism with Homeland Security on Monday, UK international development minister Shahid Malik (who just happens to be Muslim), was stopped at Dulles Airport. He was searched and detained, and his luggage was analyzed for traces of explosives. Who could have possibly stopped him and detained him? A couple of rookie cops on their first day of work? A couple of minimum wage security guards? NOPE!


Maybe their meetings on terrorism had to be cut short just before they got to the sessions on “why NOT to detain members of Parliament”! Of course, I’m quite sure the treatment of this government official had absolutely NOTHING at all to do with America’s embarrassing and ludicrous paranoia of Muslims (since Malik is one).

Naturally, this is not shocking when you consider who runs Homeland Security…Michael “I have a ‘gut feeling’ we will be attacked again” Chertoff. Yeah, after all, it won’t be hard finding your suspects, will it Mikey? All you have to do is hold meetings on terrorism with Muslim members of Parliament, and after they leave the meeting DETAIN THEM for suspicion of terrorism! What a complete fucking JOKE this entire administration and its appointees are!!

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11

On the stump, Rudy can't help spreading smoke and ashes about his lousy record

by Wayne Barrett
(with special research assistance by Alexandra Kahan)
The Village Voice
August 7th, 2007

Nearly six years after 9/11, Rudy Giuliani is still walking through the canyons of lower Manhattan, covered in soot, pointing north, and leading the nation out of danger's way. The Republican frontrunner is campaigning for president by evoking that visual at every campaign stop, and he apparently believes it's a picture worth thousands of nights in the White House.

Giuliani has been leading the Republican pack for seven months, and predictions that the party's evangelicals would turn on him have so far proven hollow. The religious right appears as gripped by the Giuliani story as the rest of the country.

Giuliani isn't shy about reminding audiences of those heady days. In fact he hyperventilates about them on the stump, making his credentials in the so-called war on terror the centerpiece of his campaign. His claims, meanwhile, have been met with a media deference so total that he's taken to complimenting "the good job it is doing covering the campaign." Opponents, too, haven't dared to question his terror credentials, as if doing so would be an unpatriotic bow to Osama bin Laden.

Here, then, is a less deferential look at the illusory cloud emanating from the former mayor's campaign . . .


'I think the thing that distinguishes me on terrorism is, I have more experience dealing with it.' This pillar of the Giuliani campaign—asserted by pundits as often as it is by the man himself—is based on the idea that Rudy uniquely understands the terror threat because of his background as a prosecutor and as New York's mayor. In a July appearance at a Maryland synagogue, Giuliani sketched out his counterterrorism biography, a resume that happens to be rooted in falsehood.

"As United States Attorney, I investigated the Leon Klinghoffer murder by Yasir Arafat," he told the Jewish audience, referring to the infamous 1985 slaying of a wheelchair-bound, 69-year-old New York businessman aboard the Achille Lauro, an Italian ship hijacked off the coast of Egypt by Palestinian extremists. "It's honestly the reason why I knew so much about Arafat," says Giuliani. "I knew, in detail, the Americans he murdered. I went over their cases."

On the contrary, Victoria Toensing, the deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department in Washington who filed a criminal complaint in the Lauro investigation, says that no one in Giuliani's office "was involved at all." Jay Fischer, the Klinghoffer family attorney who spearheaded a 12-year lawsuit against the PLO, says he "never had any contact" with Giuliani or his office. "It would boggle my mind if anyone in 1985, 1986, 1987, or thereafter conducted an investigation of this case and didn't call me," he adds. Fischer says he did have a private dinner with Giuliani in 1992: "It was the first time we talked, and we didn't even talk about the Klinghoffer case then."

The dinner was arranged by Arnold Burns, a close friend of Fischer and Giuliani who also represented the Klinghoffer family. Burns, who was also the finance chair of Giuliani's mayoral campaign, was the deputy U.S. attorney general in 1985 and oversaw the probe. "I know of nothing Rudy did in any shape or form on the Klinghoffer case," he says.

Though Giuliani told the Conservative Political Action conference in March that he "prosecuted a lot of crime—a little bit of terrorism, but mostly organized crime," he actually worked only one major terrorism case as U.S. Attorney, indicting 10 arms dealers for selling $2.5 billion worth of anti-tank missiles, bombs, and fighter jets to Iran in 1986. The judge in the case ruled that a sale to Iran violated terrorist statutes because its government had been tied to 87 terrorist incidents. Giuliani has never mentioned the case, perhaps because he personally filed papers terminating it in his last month as U.S. Attorney: A critical witness had died, and a judge tossed out 46 of the 55 counts because of errors by Giuliani's office.

"Then, as mayor of New York," Giuliani's July speech continued, "I got elected right after the 1993 Islamic terrorist attack . . . I set up emergency plans for all the different possible attacks we could have. We had drills and exercises preparing us for sarin gas and anthrax, dirty bombs."

In fact, Giuliani was oblivious to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing throughout his mayoralty. A month after the attack, candidate Giuliani met for the first time with Bill Bratton, who would ultimately become his police commissioner. The lengthy taped meeting was one of several policy sessions he had with unofficial advisers. The bombing never came up; neither did terrorism. When Giuliani was elected a few months later, he immediately launched a search for a new police commissioner. Three members of the screening panel that Giuliani named to conduct the search, and four of the candidates interviewed for the job, said later that the bombing and terrorism were never mentioned—even when the new mayor got involved with the interviews himself. When Giuliani needed an emergency management director a couple of years later, two candidates for the job and the city official who spearheaded that search said that the bombing and future terrorist threats weren't on Giuliani's radar. The only time Giuliani invoked the 1993 bombing publicly was at his inauguration in 1994, when he referred to the way the building's occupants evacuated themselves as a metaphor for personal responsibility, ignoring the bombing itself as a terrorist harbinger.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Cafferty viewers: Let's start another revolution

Patriotic Cafferty viewers echo the Constitutional reminder that we as citizens can overthrow our government to the sheep of America

Mike Aivaz and Muriel Kane
October 26, 2007

CNN commentator Jack Cafferty speculated on Wednesday about how George W. Bush's unilateral grab for presidential power might be reversed.

"The president of the United States didn't have the power to spy on Americans ... operate secret prisons ... suspend due process ... torture ... hide the conduct of the government from the public," Cafferty stated. "It's not like anybody gave President Bush any of these powers -- he took them, as a brain-dead Congress just stood there and watched."

Cafferty pointed out that Hillary Clinton has said she would relinquish some of those powers if elected -- but without saying which ones. "What powers should the next president be willing to surrender?" Cafferty asked his audience.

In the follow-up segment, Cafferty read a selection of emails from clearly outraged -- and outspoken -- viewers.

"Remember the 60's?" wrote one Baby Boomer. "Well, they're back. Only this time it's not a decade. It's the age on our driver's licenses. Let's start another revolution. ... It's time to overthrow the government."

Another viewer stated more cynically, "King Bush. Queen Hillary. America is now a democratic dictatorship, nobody is going to change that. Power is everything; get used to it."

And a third suggested. "George Bush is the next president. He and Darth Cheney will be surrendering none of their bounty. Forty years of planning to hand it all to Hillary Clinton? Not a chance. If you think there'll be a November 8 election, give my regards to the Easter Bunny."

The following video is from CNN's Cafferty File Jack Cafferty, broadcast on October 24, 2007

Thursday, October 25, 2007

House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill

Films becoming reality in America, one at a time

by Lee Rogers
October 25, 2007

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

First let’s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.

The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda. The bill even mentions streams in obvious reference to many of the patriot and pro-constitution Internet radio networks that have been formed. It also mentions that homegrown terrorists span all ages and races indicating that the Congress is stating that everyone is a potential terrorist. Even worse is that Congress states in their findings that they should look at draconian police states like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom as models to defeat homegrown terrorists. Literally, these findings of Congress fall right in line with the growing patriot community.

The biggest joke of all is that this section also says that any measure to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism should not violate the constitutional rights of citizens. However, the definition of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as they are defined in section 899A are themselves unconstitutional. The Constitution does not allow the government to arrest people for thought crimes, so any promises not to violate the constitutional rights of citizens are already broken by their own definitions.


`The Congress finds the following:

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

`(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.

`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.

Section 899C calls for a commission on the prevention of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence. The commission will consist of ten members appointed by various individuals that hold different positions in government. Essentially, this is a commission that will examine and report on how they are going to deal with violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. So basically, the commission is being formed specifically on how to deal with thought criminals in the United States. The bill requires that the commission submit their final report 18 months following the commission’s first meeting as well as submit interim reports every 6 months leading up to the final report. Below is the bill’s defined purpose of the commission. Amazingly they even define one of the purposes of the commission to determine the causes of lone wolf violent radicalization.

(b) Purpose- The purposes of the Commission are the following:

`(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.

`(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of—

`(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;

`(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and

`(C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.

Section 899D of the bill establishes a Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. Essentially, this will be a Department of Homeland Security affiliated institution that will study and determine how to defeat thought criminals.

Section 899E of the bill discusses how the government is going to defeat violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperation. As stated in the findings section earlier in the legislation, they will unquestionably seek the advice of countries with draconian police states like the United Kingdom to determine how to deal with this growing threat of thought crime.

Possibly the most ridiculous section of the bill is Section 899F which states how they plan on protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism. Here is what the section says.


`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security will develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include the results of its audit in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:

It states in the first subsection that in general the efforts to defeat thought crime shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of the United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. How does this protect constitutional rights if they use vague language such as in general that prefaces the statement? This means that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to abide by the Constitution in their attempts to prevent so called homegrown terrorism.

This bill is completely insane. It literally allows the government to define any and all crimes including thought crime as violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Obviously, this legislation is unconstitutional on a number of levels and it is clear that all 404 representatives who voted in favor of this bill are traitors and should be removed from office immediately. The treason spans both political parties and it shows us all that there is no difference between them. The bill will go on to the Senate and will likely be passed and signed into the law by George W. Bush. Considering that draconian legislation like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have already been passed, there seems little question that this one will get passed as well. This is more proof that our country has been completely sold out by a group of traitors at all levels of government.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Ron Paul chalks up ANOTHER FOX News poll win!

FOX News’ hand-picked, pre-selected crowd boo’s Ron Paul as he mentions the CORRECT % of Americans who want the war over…70%

by Larry Simons
October 22, 2007

Here are highlights of Dr. Paul’s victory. Notice the pre-selected FOX News crowd boo Ron Paul as he mentions the correct percentage of American people who want the war over…70%. Who are these audience members? Rupert Murdoch’s family tree?

Here are the poll results and the Ron Paul interview with Alan “wuss” Colmes and Sean “Ron Paul supporters are stacking the deck” Hannity. Hannity, after drying his eyes, actually gives Ron Paul a pretty fair interview. Did I just say that?

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Bill Maher: Corporate Media Gatekeeper and Security Guard

Tosses 9-11 truthers out of audience on “Real Time with Bill Maher”

Kurt Nimmo
October 20, 2007

After HBO employee Bill Maher lent a hand in evicting a “rowdy protester” from his show on Friday, the Associated Press wasted no time characterizing him as a “security guard” for the effort. “Maher on Friday night helped security remove a rowdy protester from the studio during his weekly HBO show ‘Real Time with Bill Maher,’ and it was all captured on live television,” including the point made by the so-called protester. “Maher was talking science during one of his weekly panel discussions when a protester in his audience stood up, held up a smuggled-in sign reading ‘9/11 is a cover up fraud’ and shouted comments to the same effect.”

See a video of the incident:

“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,” Maher averred last month. “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.”

In other words, for Bill and his employer, the very topic of what really happened on September 11, 2001—or simply broaching the subject—is strictly verboten. For some time now the corporate media, as a dutiful handmaiden of government—that is to say, a government purchased by multinational corporations, including HBO’s “parent,” Time Warner—has repeatedly insisted that merely asking how it is an oxygen-starved kerosene fire weakens steel and initiates the collapse of two massive buildings makes one insane, never mind that buying into the absurd Grimm Brothers story that cave-dwelling terrorists ensconced in a medieval backwater were capable of suspending the laws of physics on that day is the very definition of insanity.

On Friday, Maher was so determined to please his employer and make amends for displeasing the government in the past—when he declared the imaginary 9/11 terrorists were not cowards—he rushed from the stage to make sure the protester was man-handled and quickly ushered from the studio. “When security reached the man’s aisle and the man resisted leaving, Maher ran into the seats and helped them push him out the door, shouting ‘Out! Out! Out!’” the Associated Press continues. “Several other protesters, sprinkled throughout the audience, then stood up and shouted… ‘This isn’t the Iowa Caucus, OK, we’re not here to debate,’ Maher shouted with most of his audience cheering him on. ‘This is the problem with live television.’”

Indeed, this is “the problem with live television” and it will continue to be a problem so long as corporate shills such as Bill Maher refuse to acknowledge legitimate questions and label the questioners as mental patients.

It is not so much Bill’s refusal to address the official 9/11 fairy tale—thus rendering him a de facto neocon supporter—but rather his obvious determination to go after those who question the official fish story. Bill Maher is not so much a comedian as an apologist and advocate for the criminal cabal guilty of launching the predetermined “catastrophic and catalyzing event” cynically used as an excuse to decimate what remains of our beleaguered Constitution and foment the “clash of civilizations,” otherwise known as the neocon-neolib global domestication project, determined to reduce the planet to a slave labor gulag based on the China Model, hailed by one-worlders as a miracle.

by Larry Simons

While I agree wholeheartedly with the above story by Kurt Nimmo, let me just add where I have issue. Is Bill Maher a de facto Neo-con supporter? I don’t find much evidence of this, as he wastes no opportunity slamming the Bush administration on his show or any guest appearance he makes on other talk shows.

Is Maher of corporate shill? Possibly, but you can argue EVERYONE in the mainstream media is a corporate shill at some level. You can argue that Keith Olbermann is a corporate shill as well. How many times have we seen Keith Olbermann feature 9-11 truthers on his show? I watch Keith all the time, and I can’t think of one. What needs to be understood here is that although we as 9-11 activists know and possess the truth, what we haven’t mastered yet is knowing what the best channels are to get the truth heard.

I have no problem with truthers being bold or even fanatical, but some of us have to realize there are times and places for our type of protest. Appearing in the audience of Bill Maher’s show probably isn’t one of those times or places. Am I saying never be bold? Never have guts? Am I even saying never infiltrate an event? No, of course not. What I’m saying is, we as protesters have to think of the best and worst possible outcomes of our protest.

If we are protesting the war or 9-11 or whatever the issue, and we know that could possibly lead to arrest, then so be it. Being arrested may be a good thing if it brings awareness to the issue we protest. War protesters generally aren’t viewed as “nuts” though. They are just people unhappy about something, hence they protest.

If we go to a closed or private event where there is an audience, such as Bill Maher’s show or some presidential speech, we already know what the outcome will be. We know it will end with us having our asses escorted out of the building. We probably would accomplish NOTHING but an entire audience thinking we are raving lunatics and they would not understand any part of our message. Since we know the outcomes of infiltrating private or closed events, one has to wonder if these protests are staged just to get attention or be a part of a media story, like the man tasered at the John Kerry speech last month.

One might say, “who cares if people think we’re nuts, we have the truth”. I don’t agree with this deduction ALL of the time. If I am on a street corner with other fellow protesters and the greater good will be getting this message out to people who can clearly hear that we really aren’t crazy people, because they are actually hearing what we’re saying, I’m all for it. If we stand up at a private or closed event and just shout things out, out of context of the message or discussion being delivered, the only thing accomplished will be getting thrown out of the place with people applauding that security is “getting the kooks out of there”. This hardly promotes our cause. It weakens it.

Of course, having said that, I also believe that Bill Maher launched this war on the 9-11 truth movement several weeks ago when he insulted them and said they need to take Paxil during his "New Rules" segment. So, Bill can't have it both ways here. He can't attack the 9-11 truthers and sit back and expect them not to respond back. I mean, after all, he chose to attack the truthers on his show, so it's only fitting the truthers fight back on Maher's show. I guess my problem is that we have to be better than people like Bill Maher.

There’s more to having the truth than just having the truth. It’s like having great wealth; you have to know how to channel it. Nimmo says in his article, “Indeed, this is ‘the problem with live television’ and it will continue to be a problem so long as corporate shills such as Bill Maher refuse to acknowledge legitimate questions and label the questioners as mental patients”. Maybe if we stop ACTING like mental patients, people like Maher will give us that same courtesy, and I say that "same courtesy" should come in the form of having truthers on his show for a debate.

Maher started the war with the truthers in his house. He should have this debate in his house too.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Establishment Media Finally Admits Ron Paul Is Top Tier Candidate; Could Win Nomination

Ron Paul has mandate for equal time during Fox News debate

Marty Eels
USA Daily
October 18, 2007

Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has broken through to the top tier of Republican candidates running for president. He knows it, GOP voters know it, and as previously reported; media outlets are grudgingly admitting it.

Ron Paul commented on the issue in a message to supporters, “The blackout is ending; our campaign is starting to get mainstream media attention, thanks to growing donations and volunteers.”

Ron Paul continued in his message to supporters:

“All over America, our support is wide and deep and growing, and young people are joining like never before. After the Dearborn debate, I went to the University of Michigan for a rally. 2,000 students turned out, something that has happened to no other candidate this year.”

It is a remarkable fact that Ron Paul has consistently drawn crowds all across the country that continuously seem to dwarf those of his opponents. Given the scant media coverage Paul has received it is a testament that his message is resonating.

The Republican Party appears to be recognizing that Ron Paul has a chance of winning the nomination. Paul said to supporters:

“After all the aggressive wars, the assaults on our privacy and civil liberties, the oppressive taxation, and the crazed spending and deficits, I believe that many Republican voters are ready to return to our roots. And the big boys feel it too.It is no coincidence that the Republican National Committee invited me to a fundraising dinner involving only top-tier candidates."

Commenting on Alan Greenspan’s recent interview on the Fox Business Channel Paul said:

” the reporter asked if we really needed a central bank. Greenspan looked stunned, and then said that was a good question; he actually talked about fiat money vs. a gold standard. Now, the ex-Fed chairman is not about to endorse our sound monetary policy, but you know our Revolution is working when such a question is asked in the mainstream media, and this powerful man gives such an answer.”

He continued on about the crowd of 2000 at his campaign’s Dearborn rally:

“They cheered all our ideas, but especially our opposition to the Federal Reserve, and our support for real money of gold and silver, as the Constitution mandates, instead of prosperity-wrecking fiat money. American politics hasn't seen anything like this in many decades. It is truly revolutionary”.

Ron Paul’s campaign does not appear to be willing to sit in the background of the presidential race any longer and made that very clear Wednesday during a press conference. Paul’s campaign pointed out that only four candidates remain viable at this time in the Republican field.

Paul’s campaign highlighted that according to the financial reports, the indication is that the only viable candidates where Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Ron Paul. Mitt Romney’s campaign is viable as long as he continues to spend his personal wealth.

Ron Paul’s campaign may do many things in this election but it has already made media polls irrelevant suggesting them to be an outdated obsolete method of rating candidates. If the polls were accurate Dr. Paul should not be in third place in the GOP money race.

The cable networks have been giving a disproportionate amount of time in televised debates to what they believed to be the top tier of candidates (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain).

Expect a reshuffling of that order, replacing McCain with Paul during the Fox News debate in Orlando Florida this Sunday, or viewers may see a flashback to the famous Ronald Reagan line from a presidential debate, when he said, “I’m paying for this microphone” but instead, Paul might say, “the American people have paid for this microphone”.

O’ Liar calls Ron Paul a pinhead over remarks Paul made that O’ Liar admitted are TRUE!

A cop, a patriot for doing his job (???). Ron Paul, a pinhead for repeating what O’ Liar said on a previous telecast, which O’ Liar said was TRUE??

by Larry Simons
October 18, 2007

On Wednesday’s telecast of the comedy show The O’ Reilly Factor, during O’ Liar’s Pinheads and Patriots segment, he gives the Patriot award to a cop for pulling a woman from a car sitting on a railroad track. Now we are patriots for simply doing our job! So, all you burger-flippers out there at McDonald’s, when you flip those burgers, you’re a patriot to Bill O’ Reilly. I mean, hell, that’s like fighting for your country, right?

Then, O’ Liar moves on to the pinhead award, which he gives to Ron Paul for mentioning (last week during a question/answer session in D.C.) that when he was on the O’ Reilly show in September 2007, O’ Reilly didn’t want to hear about any history of the United States’ dealings with Iran, which O’ Liar admitted was TRUE! O’ Reilly ADMITTED Ron Paul’s statements were true, and Ron Paul is a pinhead for simply telling a person that asks him a question what happened during the Bill O’ Reilly/Ron Paul interview???

Then, O’ Liar says, “Yes because he was dodging me on the Iran question”. Translation: Ron Paul was giving TOO many facts for Billo to handle, and since Paul wasn’t saying exactly what O’ Liar wanted to hear, then Ron Paul was “dodging the question”. Below are the clips of first, the question/answer session at the Ron Paul speech and the original interview from The Factor in which Ron Paul annihilates Bill “I don’t want to hear anything bad about the United States” O’ Reilly.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Sick Children Left Behind

Bush vetoes bill that would help sick children while the far-lunatic-fringe demonize kids (who were near death) and attack and threaten their family

Eric Boehlert
Media Matters
October 16, 2007

Between Michelle Malkin Swift Boating a traumatically injured 12-year-old boy, Rush Limbaugh denigrating anti-war veterans, and Bill O'Reilly insulting black Americans (not to mention Ann Coulter dissing Jews), the mighty right-wing media machine -- firmly attached to the hip of the Republican Party -- is in the process of driving American conservatism right off a cliff. The loudmouths whom conservatives have supported for years, and whom Republican politicians have used for political gain, have become increasingly unhinged. And their recent public antics are drawing more and more disbelieving stares.

With the Bush administration in a state of prolonged decline and with Republicans out of power on Capitol Hill, it's the right-wing media machine that maintains the highest profile among conservatives on a daily basis. And it's Malkin and Limbaugh and O'Reilly who have become the face of the Republican Party.

For liberals, that's a good thing, as the GOP is forced to deal with the sludge that keeps washing up on its shores, courtesy of its favorite media stars who now bide their time insulting black entrepreneurs, war vets, and injured children.

Make no mistake, it was that bewildering list of undeserving targets that caused so many people in recent weeks to express disgust with the conservative talkers. Their comments and attacks could not be explained away as merely Malkin, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly playing their distasteful brand of partisan hardball and taking whacks at public figures. Rather, much like the unexplainable attack Don Imus leveled at the Rutgers women's basketball team, the barbs were aimed at ordinary Americans, leading to the collective refrain of, "What is wrong with these people?"

What's wrong is their recent wild-eyed pronouncements and consuming sense of martyrdom (why should they apologize when they're the victims?) created the type of cumulative, three-week media meltdowns that we haven't seen in years. And, with specific regard to Limbaugh and O'Reilly, the fact that both men physically could not stop talking about the controversies (i.e. themselves) was a huge boost for progressives, many of whom were privately nervous the O'Reilly-goes-to-Harlem and Limbaugh-attacks-the-troops stories might fizzle after a day or two.

Instead, thanks to O'Reilly and Limbaugh's inability to look away from their own reflection or to turn down the volume of their own microphones, the stories motored on week after week, doing great damage to both men and to the conservative movement, which defends the talkers at any cost.

Then, as if on cue, Malkin unleashed her crusade to slime the family of a 12-year-old boy after he came forward to publicly support a government-funded health insurance program for children known as SCHIP. President Bush recently vetoed an attempt to expand the program. Democrats this week are trying to override that veto. The boy, Graeme Frost, survived a week-long coma after his family's SUV crashed into a tree three winters ago. Graeme's sister was even more severely injured in the crash. Today she is blind in one eye and has difficulty with memory, learning, and speech.

That's who right-wing bloggers picked as the target of their smear campaign, posting all kinds of venom and falsehoods about the family.

Honestly, the Malkin-led jihad unfolded like a parody of blood-thirsty Republican bloggers -- an Onion-worthy spoof -- the kind that even I would have been too sheepish to dream up because the premise made them seem even loonier than I thought they were. How far off the range did Malkin and company roam with their wayward attacks on the Frost family? So far that even the trigger-happy crew at Fox News refused to saddle up and join the midnight posse, out to unmask a sick kid and his needy parents. (Keep in mind that for years Malkin maintained a steady presence on Fox News, yet the channel still wouldn't touch her pet project of hate last week.)

Driven to distraction

Over the years I've found that there's a direct link between the degree to which right-wing bloggers become unhinged and how lost the issue at hand is. That's one reason the war in Iraq has collectively driven them to distraction.

The same is true with their opposition to SCHIP. Politically, it's a lost cause. Americans overwhelmingly want the program to be expanded, and Bush's veto could be politically damaging for Republicans going into next year's elections, trying to explain why the GOP picked children's health care as the one issue to draw the line on government spending.

The Republican Noise Machine cannot stomach the issue of health care and tends to label any additional government aide to be the first step toward "socialized medicine." Unfortunately for them, the debate has moved substantially since that rallying cry was used nearly 15 years ago in an effort to beat back the Clinton health-care initiative. During the intervening years, according to the polls, the Democratic Party has taken ownership of the health-care issue, which more and more Americans select as one of the nation's top priority.

In other words, conservatives are in a very deep hole when it comes to health care. And last week the right-wing bloggers dug that hole a little deeper when the Frost story began to break online after a clueless member of the FreeRepublic community posted a completely erroneous attack on the family's supposed riches. Soon the cyber pitchforks were out, with the bloggers convinced they had uncovered a monumental fraud (i.e. Rich liberal kids get free health care!).

And yes, the Republican Party was on-board with the smear campaign. Fanning the flames early was an aide to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who sent out an email to journalists urging them to follow up on the online swarm that was enveloping the Frost family. Days later the White House rewarded Redstate.com for its litany of Frost attacks by sending the site an exclusive statement regarding the upcoming SCHIP vote. (That kind of White House nod is considered to be a major coup among the right-wing blogs.)

Keep in mind that the entire premise of the vicious anti-Frost campaign was faulty: SCHIP is intended for families who aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but are not wealthy enough to afford private insurance -- it's intended for families just like the Frosts, with four kids (two of them in serious need of medical attention) and a household income of about $45,000. The bloggers kept pulling their hair out, shrieking about how the Frost family owns a (modest) house. The Frost family owns cars. The Frost parents have jobs, as if those were all shocking revelations. As if those disqualified the Frost family from receiving SCHIP support. As if those made the Frost family a fraud. They did not.

Prior to the accident, the Frosts did not have insurance because: a) they could not get any through their employers; and b) a policy purchased privately would have eaten up nearly one-third of their annual income. When a cataclysmic health-care emergency struck, the Frost family turned to the government for help for their children's medical costs. They qualified for SCHIP help because the Frost family confirmed, through tax returns or Social Security documents, their modest income status.

So where was Malkin's gotcha in all of this? There was none. None of the online vigilantes claimed the Frosts had duped the government by hiding their possessions, or that Democrats gave the family special treatment. The pointless, hateful exercise in intimidation was simply to humiliate a family whose children were nearly killed in a car accident.

Aside from feeling badly for the abuse the Frost family had to endure, in a way I was happy that everyone got to watch the hateful antics unfold in public. Like when Malkin called young Graeme Frost a "human shield" for Democrats, a term usually used in reference to Middle Eastern terrorists. (Malkin was appalled that when debating children's health care, Democrats brought forward a child like Graeme and let him tell his story.) Or when bloggers posted the Frosts' home address at a time when threats against the family were already being made. Or when Malkin did a creepy reconnaissance mission and drove by the Frosts' Baltimore home and reported which bumper sticker was affixed to their front door. Or when Malkin published a nameless email from somebody claiming to be the Frosts' neighbor with the breathless news about the numbers of vehicles the family supposedly owns.

Neighbors digging up dirt on neighbors anonymously, that's a nice touch.

The examples of depravity were everywhere last week, with virtually every robotic right-wing blogger dutifully dumping on the Frost family, and often doing it with a demented sense of glee. Go here to read Weekly Standard blogger Samantha Sault's take on the Frost story and count the number of falsehoods she passed along, while making fun ("just for laughs") of the working family with two seriously injured children. Also note that when the right-wing lies about the Frosts were quickly disproved (i.e. they do not pay $20,000 a year to send their kids to private schools), Sault failed to acknowledge the litany of smears she helped spread about a 12-year-old boy who survived a coma. (No wonder so few people take the Weekly Standard seriously when it lectures The New Republic about journalism ethics; the Standard appears to have none of its own.)

But the whole messy slime offensive against the Frost family came as no surprise to anyone who follows Malkin and her army of true believers. As I detailed last winter and spring, they're most dangerous when they accidentally bump into some facts and suddenly think they're Woodward and Bernstein.

The irony, of course, is that radical-right bloggers despise journalists and claim they're dishonest, biased, and even treasonous. But when the bloggers try to become journalists themselves, when they try (sort of) to report out a story like the supposed Frost blockbuster, the bloggers prove themselves to be comically incompetent as they publish falsehoods, connect nonexistent dots, cherry-pick information, and generally make fools of themselves. And boy, were Malkin and company busy last week doing all of the above.

Learning at Limbaugh's knee

Where did the right-wing bloggers learn their brand of drive-by invective? From Rush Limbaugh of course, who has made a career out of making hollow and erroneous allegations. So it was fitting that when Limbaugh recently stepped in it with his "phony soldiers" slur, it was right-wing bloggers who came to his rescue.

They wrote about the controversy obsessively -- you could almost hear the blood vessels pop over at RedState -- while most progressives were content to let the story play out, watching Limbaugh feed himself just enough rope each day. Like when he first claimed his "phony soldiers" comment (note the plural) was in reference to a single serviceman who faked his military service, then changed his story. Or when he later included Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA.), a retired Marine colonel and decorated Vietnam veteran who opposes the war in Iraq, on his list of "genuine phony soldiers." Or when Limbaugh claimed to play "the entire transcript" of his "phony soldiers" exchange and post it on his website, when in fact he edited out a large chunk of the discussion. Or when he likened U.S. Iraq war vet Brian McGough to a suicide bomber after McGough taped a television ad criticizing Limbaugh's comments.

But here's what was most telling: It wasn't just bloggers who rushed to Limbaugh's defense, it was also key leadership members of the Republican Party. It was presidential contenders Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. It was Senate Republican Conference chairman Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). It was House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and his number two, Roy Blunt (R-MO), along with fellow Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), who supported legislation that commended Limbaugh following his "phony soldiers" crack, and Eric Cantor (R-VA) who unveiled a Stand With Rush e-petition, urging "conservatives around the country" to fight for Limbaugh.

An attack on Limbaugh is now seen by Republicans as an attack on the party itself. Why the GOP prefers to have a polarizing, hateful, and widely disliked talk show host as its point person remains open to speculation. What's not debatable, though, is that Limbaugh can often be an anchor around the GOP's neck.

Does anybody think Limbaugh helped Republicans win a single extra vote last autumn when, on the eve of the midterm elections, he uncorked a startling attack on actor Michael J. Fox for having the nerve to tape a television commercial urging political support for stem-cell research. Limbaugh claimed Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, was faking his life-threatening ailments during the commercial: "It's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox." While Limbaugh made his audacious claim on the radio, in-studio video captured him making mocking, herky-jerky motions, as he did his best Parkinson's patient impersonation.

When Media Matters highlighted the bewildering attack and a full-fledged media firestorm ensued, Limbaugh, just like with the "phony soldiers" snafu, refused to apologize for his hateful and widely condemned harangue. A CNN poll taken at the time found that just 26 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Limbaugh. Days later Republicans were swept out of office. And if the Democratic Party had sent over a gigantic gift basket to Limbaugh's EIB Broadcasting headquarters, it would have been completely appropriate.

Based on the recent ranting and ravings from Malkin and Limbaugh and O'Reilly, a lot more progressives may be expressing their thanks in the months to come.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

My New Film: Lies and hypocrisy of Billo on the Shawn Hornbeck story

by Larry Simons/ Real Truth Films
October 14, 2007

My latest film about O' Liar's lies/hypocrisy on the Shawn Hornbeck case proves to be another instant classic. Watch Billo implode right before your eyes!

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Scumbag Billo acknowledges Shawn Hornbeck was tortured; refuses to apologize or even say Hornbeck’s name!

O’ Liar calls what was done to Hornbeck “evil”, “brutal”, calls acts “atrocities” and says Devlin should be executed when 9 months ago said Hornbeck’s experience was “fun” and that he “liked” it; refuses to apologize

by Larry Simons
October 13, 2007

On the October 8 telecast of The O’ Reilly Factor, Loofah boy discussed the newly revealed details of what pedophile Michael Devlin did to Shawn Hornbeck (the 15 year old Missouri teenager kidnapped at age 11) in the early stages and during the course of the 4 years Hornbeck was held captive by Devlin.

During the entire segment when Billo is describing the acts as “evil”, “brutal” and even acknowledges the acts as “atrocities” and that Devlin should be executed for the crimes, not ONCE does he offer anything that can even remotely be interpreted as an apology to Hornbeck for saying Hornbeck could have escaped if he “wanted to” and the fact that he didn’t was because he “liked his circumstances” and it was “fun” to be with Devlin.

On the January 15, 2007 telecast of The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo whistled a different tune, saying this about Shawn Hornbeck’s experience:

"The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted."

When Van Susteren pointed out that "[s]ome kids like school," O'Reilly replied: "Well, I don't believe this kid did. And I think when it all comes down, what's going to happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances."


Watch the clip:

This is what Billo had to say the other night (October 8, 2007): (my comments in purple)

O'REILLY: I'm Bill O'Reilly.

In the "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, two difficult situations, both involving torture allegations.

Forty-one-year-old Michael Devlin pleaded guilty today to kidnapping and sexually brutalizing two young boys in Missouri. One of them he had held captive for four years. (Billo: The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents…..there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances.)

Devlin will spend the rest of his life in prison, but is that enough punishment for a monster like this? (Punishment? For providing “fun”)

O'REILLY: Now, Devlin. I have to tell the audience that I have seen the FBI report, because kidnapping is a federal crime. And I'm not going to name the boys, because the boys have been through enough. (Translation: “I’m not going to say Hornbeck’s name out loud in hopes that my indoctrinated sheep will forget about this story so that I will never, ever have to mention the comment I made in January 2007 that Shawn Hornbeck had ‘fun’ and he ‘liked his circumstances’ and so I will never have to apologize….because I won’t apologize anyway)

But the boy -- one boy was taken to Quantico, Virginia, and put under FBI supervision to try to get him back psychologically. And I saw the report. And I have never, in my 30 years of doing reporting, seen worse atrocities committed on a human being that Michael Devlin committed on this boy he held for four years. (Billo: The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents…..there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances.)

I don't think life in prison is enough for this guy. I wouldn't execute him. But there's got to be a hard-labor component. (Billo: The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents…..there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances.)

But Monica, the failure of our elected officials to deal with the horror of these kind of individuals. (Horror? Don’t you mean FUN Billo?) You know, you have eight states that still haven't passed Jessica's Law here. I think it's cowardice. Why do you think the politicians don't engage on this more?

CROWLEY: It is a very curious question that you raise, Bill. Because to me, you know, when I look at politicians running for president or other high office, it seems like an issue like child predators would be a no-brainer for them. Very easy. Sort of a softball issue for them, that they're going to prosecute these guys to the wall.

O'REILLY: Yeah, go after them.

CROWLEY: And yet, neither Republicans nor Democrats -- I don't think I've heard a single presidential candidate talk about it yet.

O'REILLY: We had -- Ted Kennedy did the right thing, finally, after we, you know, brought it right to his doorstep on the computer setup, and we have to get these guys in a database.
But Powers, in Vermont, they actually celebrated not passing Jessica's Law. They're actually proud of the fact that they're not tough on these people.

POWERS: I mean, I can't understand it. And I don't understand, frankly, why the pedophiles get back out, because they have such a high rate of recommitting these crimes. And so why -- why are they getting out of jail in the first place? And –

O'REILLY: Well, the horror that they wreak on children is beyond anybody's comprehension. (There you go saying “horror” again instead of "FUN")

POWERS: And there is a bizarre, like, lax attitude about it.

O'REILLY: I actually had nightmares after I read that report about this Devlin, what he did to that boy. I mean, you know, I've seen it all. I have seen it all. This guy -- Devlin is the right name for this guy, ladies and gentlemen. (You had nightmares reading that Hornbeck had FUN and he LIKED his circumstances, Billo?)

CROWLEY: You know, it seems like such an obvious issue for somebody like Senator Hillary Clinton, who's running for president as sort of –

O'REILLY: They're not going to touch it. They're afraid of it.

CROWLEY: -- the nation's maternal candidate. Rudy Giuliani, former prosecutor.

O'REILLY: Well, he may. He may. But they ought to get behind it.

CROWLEY: Mitt Romney, running on family values. These guys should be talking about it.

O'REILLY: They ought to get behind it. All right, ladies. Thanks very much. We appreciate it.

From the February 20 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: The issue of child rape is extremely complicated. Each situation's different. When the Shawn Hornbeck case broke, many pinheads in the media ran out screaming "Stockholm syndrome." That is the captive identifies with the captor. That's just bull. And anyone who said that's irresponsible.

What happened to Shawn Hornbeck and thousands of other kids is called child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. That is, the child is literally tortured into accepting his circumstance. This is so evil, it's almost beyond comprehension. The guy who did this to Shawn Hornbeck, Michael Devlin, doesn't deserve to live another day in this world. That's how evil the man is.

"Talking Points" is not going to report specifics about the Devlin case. I'm going leave that to the authorities. But everybody should know this is beyond horrifying. And no rehab should ever be in play.

The bottom line is that every American must understand child molestation is evil, not a disease, not an aberration. It's evil, and it must be punished as harshly as possible. I hope you watch the Oprah program tomorrow. And we'll discuss it later on that night on the Factor. OK? Right here tomorrow evening. And that's the "Memo."

Billo: The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents…..there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances.

Here are Shawn Hornbeck's parents (Craig and Pam Akers) on Countdown with Keith Olbermann telling Keith that Bill O' Reilly should not speak unless he has FACTS, and that they have NOT received an apology yet, either to them OR to Shawn Hornbeck!


Thursday, October 11, 2007

Sick bastard Bill O' Reilly should be forced to apologize to Shawn Hornbeck, or be FIRED

O' Liar's January 2007 words on the Shawn Hornbeck case even more vile in light of what he hates and fears the most.....FACTS

by Larry Simons
October 11, 2007

Now that we have the facts and details of what happened to Shawn Hornbeck (the Missouri teenager who was kidnapped at age 11 by Michael Devlin) we re-visit the repulsive words of Bill O’ Liar who said these words back in January of 2007:

O’ Liar: Let me answer your question. This is what I believe in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, child of privilege. All of a sudden she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs and she enjoyed it. The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted.

Greta van Susteren: Some kids like school --

O’ Liar: Well I don't believe this kid did. And I think when it all comes down what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances...

Watch the clip:

Here is an excerpt from the testimomy of what Michael Devlin told authorities:

But then Devlin began telling the judge in graphic detail what he had done to their boy, his high-pitched and raspy voice devoid of any emotion. Devlin didn’t seem to notice when Pam Akers collapsed weeping into her husband’s arms.

After the boy, then 11, was abducted at gunpoint while riding his bike in rural Washington County, Devlin took him to his apartment in suburban St. Louis and repeatedly sexually assaulted him. Days later, Devlin took Shawn back to Washington County in his pickup truck, apparently intent on killing the boy.

He said he pulled Shawn from his truck and began to strangle him. Shawn resisted. “I attempted to kill (Shawn) and he talked me out of it,” Devlin said Tuesday.

Devlin stopped the choking, but then sexually assaulted the boy again. Prosecutors say it was at that point that Shawn told Devlin he would do whatever was asked of him to stay alive.

It was a “devil’s bargain” that kept Shawn under Devlin’s sway, even as the boy had phone and Internet access, said Shawn’s stepfather, Craig Akers. “We know now the details that made him not run away,” Akers said after the hearings.


BILLO: The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted.

…and I think when it all comes down what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances...

This won Billo another Worst Person statue


Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Ron Paul crushes his opponents in more online debate polls. One “mysteriously” disappears after Paul’s numbers get too high

CNBC claims “technical difficulties” is the reason why online poll in which Ron Paul embarrassed his opponents was “mysteriously gone”

by Larry Simons
October 10, 2007

Chalk up another victory for Ron Paul, as he not only embarrassed his GOP opponents during the actual debate (this, the 8th debate held in Dearborn, Michigan) but, as usual, embarrassed them in online polls. (Some sites say it's the 6th debate only because the mainstream media does not count the 2 debates in which the media's frontrunners [Giuliani, McCain, Thompson and Romney] did not attend)

Here is a brief montage on Ron Paul being brilliant again:

One of the highlights of the debate was when Ron Paul had answered a question on whether a declaration of war is needed from Congress to strike Iran, in which he said, “Absolutely, absolutely..”, and told his GOP opponents to read the Constitution once in a while (which was excellent) also adding that “yes, if there’s an imminent attack on us…” (implying that this is an example of when we might not need a declaration of war to strike a country) …..“we’ve never had that happen in 220 years… (an imminent attack)…this is just war propaganda, continual war propaganda, preparing this nation to go to war and spread this war, not only in Iraq but into Iran unconstitutionally is a road to disaster for us as a nation…” .

After this, Rudy “what would I do without 9/11?” Giuliani, when he was answering a question by Chris Matthews, stopped and added, “..the point, I think it was Congressman Paul made before, that we’ve never had an imminent attack…I don’t know where he was on September 11th..” Paul responded, “that was no country…that was 19 thugs that had nothing to do with a country”. Giuliani then made these ridiculous statements, “I think it was kinda organized in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and if we had known about it, maybe hitting a target there quickly might have helped prevent it. In any event, we’ve had 23 plots since Sept. 11 where Islamic terrorists are planning to kill Americans” (bad English I know, but it was his actual quote)

First of all, tell me Giuliani, how in the hell would we have stopped 9/11 from happening by attacking Pakistan or Afghanistan “quickly” even if we had known about it if the hijackers were HERE in the UNITED STATES since 1996?? Oh, and another thing Rudy, we have NOT had 23 terror plots in the United States since Sept 11. We all know you only said this so you could say “Sept. 11” again. Everytime you mention 9/11 when addressing Ron Paul, you get totally SIZZED.

I think it’s interesting to note here that Ron Paul is correct. An example of an imminent attack that would probably not require a declaration of war from Congress is what we are doing in Iraq right now, invading them. Paul said “we’ve never had that happen in 220 years” referring to the Revolution. Interestingly, and sadly I must point out to Giuliani is that the last war in this country that was authorized by Congress was World War II, a war in which a “9/11 style” attack (Pearl Harbor) triggered us to enter.

Here is an interesting clip by Jim Condit showing the media manipulation of Ron Paul in this debate:

Here are the screen shots from the polls from last night’s debate:

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

New Evidence that the Official Story about 9/11 is Indefensible

David Ray Griffin
October 9, 2007

Early in 2007, Interlink Books published my Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. The stimulus for my writing this book was the appearance in August 2006---just before the fifth anniversary of 9/11---of four publications intended to bolster the official account by debunking the alternative view, according to which 9/11 was an inside job. The most explicit and well-known of these publications was a book by Popular Mechanics entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths.

My book’s introduction and conclusion dealt with the irresponsible way the press, including the left-leaning press, has dealt with this issue. One of their failings, I showed, was simply to accept the official reports --- especially The 9/11 Commission Report and the report on the World Trade Center put out by the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) -- as neutral, scientific reports. They thereby ignored the fact that the 9/11 Commission was run by Philip Zelikow, who was virtually a member of the US. Bush administration, and that NIST is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce and hence of the Bush administration (which has distorted science for political purposes to an unprecedented extent).

The book’s four chapters then demonstrated that none of the documents of August 2006 actually served to debunk the claims of the 9/11 truth movement. The first two chapters dealt with two documents---including a new book by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission -- that tried, by creating a completely new story, to debunk the claim that the U.S. military’s failure to intercept four hijacked airliners could have occurred only if there had been a stand-down order. I argued that this new story was too inherently implausible, as well as too contradictory of previous statements by the military, to be worthy of belief.

The third chapter dealt with NIST’s reports on the Twin Towers, showing that they are political, not scientific, documents, because they ignore all evidence not consistent with NIST’s theory, such as testimony showing that massive explosions had occurred and that steel had melted---even though the fires could not have gotten even close to the temperature needed to melt steel (which means that there had to have been another source of energy).

The fourth and longest chapter dealt with the Popular Mechanics book, which discusses all the issues (the failures to intercept, the WTC, the Pentagon, and United 93). My critique showed this book to be filled with distortions and outright lies. Although the Popular Mechanics book has been used as the basis for two TV specials intended to bolster the official story---one on the BBC and one on the History Channel in the USA (which is partially owned by the Hearst Corporation, which puts out Popular Mechanics) -- the fact that the public is increasingly seeing through this book’s deceptions is shown by recent reviews on Amazon.com.

My book, although it has yet to be reviewed by a single mainstream publication in the United States, has been supported by well-respected political commentators from the left and the right. Howard Zinn wrote: “Considering how the 9-ll tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9-ll deserve to be investigated and addressed.” Paul Craig Roberts, who was the assistant secretary of the US Treasury during the Reagan administration, wrote: “Professor Griffin is the nemesis of the 9/11 cover-up. This new book destroys the credibility of the NIST and Popular Mechanics reports and annihilates his critics."

My book was even endorsed by a former senior official of the CIA, Bill Christison, who had for the first five years after 9/11, he admitted, studiously avoided looking at the evidence that it might have been an inside job. He called my book “a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official US government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies.”

Book reviewers in mainstream publications were evidently not moved even by Publishers Weekly. Although it had dismissed my first two books about 9/11 as “ridiculous” and “pure speculation,” it said of Debunking 9/11 Debunking: “All but the most dogmatic readers will find Griffin's evidence -- from the inconsistencies between NORAD tapes and the 9/11 Commission Report to rigorous exploration into the physics of the collapse--detailed and deeply unnerving.”

Another source widely used to determine whether a book is worthy of review is Choice, put out by the American Library Association. It has recently spoken, saying: “Griffin exhibits exceptional skill in detailed scholarly analysis. He concludes with a call to the reader, and all of us, to bring these issues into full public discussion and to expose the truth about 9/11, whatever it may be. Indeed, such ‘truth’ has certainly not yet been revealed due to extensive gaps and contradictions in official theories that he documents in detail.” Whether this endorsement will lead to any reviews remains to be seen.

In any case, I was motivated to put out the Revised and Updated Edition primarily because of new information about the alleged phone calls from passengers on the flights to relatives, through which reports of hijackers on the airplanes reached the public.

In the first edition, I presented extensive evidence that reported cell phone calls from the airliners, including the approximately 10 reported cell phone calls from United 93 (which crashed in Pennsylvania), could not have occurred, because the cell phone technology at the time did not allow calls to be made from airliners flying at a high altitude (Flight 93 was at 34,300 to 40,700 feet when the calls were reportedly made). I argued not that the relatives of the passengers had lied about receiving the calls but that they had been duped---by means of voice morphing, which is now perfected to the point that, advertisers brag, you can fool your spouse.

Even after my book appeared, Popular Mechanics continued to claim, on the basis of very weak evidence, that high-altitude cell phone calls were indeed possible (see the History Channel special, “9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction”). However, as I reported in the Revised and Updated Edition of my book, the FBI had in 2006 presented, as evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (sometimes called “the 20th hijacker”), a report on phone calls from the four airliners. According to this report, there were only two cell phone calls from United 93, and they were made at 9:58, shortly before the plane crashed, when it was down to 5,000 feet. When the FBI had to present evidence in a court of law, therefore, it would not claim that any high-altitude cell phone calls had occurred. (These two low-altitude calls from Flight 93 were, according to the FBI report, the only two cell phone calls made from all four flights).

The most well known of the reported cell phone calls from Flight 93 were four calls that Deena Burnett reported receiving from her husband, Tom Burnett. She knew that he had used his cell phone, she reported on several TV shows and later in her book, because she saw his Caller ID number. However, as I reported, there are now devices, such as “FoneFaker,” that will produce the person’s Caller ID as well as his or her voice. Deena Burnett and the others, I believe, were not lying; they were duped.

The most famous of the reported calls from the flights supposedly came from Barbara Olson, the well-known commentator on CNN who was married to Ted Olson, who was then the US solicitor general. Olson reported that his wife had called him twice from American Airlines Flight 77, stating that hijackers with knives and boxcutters had taken over the plane. Besides providing evidence of hijackers, this call also provided the only evidence that Flight 77 was still aloft (it had disappeared from radar and there had been reports of an airliner crash nearby). Although Olson went back and forth on the question of whether his wife had used a cell phone or an onboard phone, he finally settled on the latter.

In the first edition, I challenged this claim on the basis of evidence from American Airlines that their Boeing 757 (which is what Flight 77 was) had no onboard phones. After publishing the book, however, I became worried, because of some new evidence, that that statement from American Airlines, made in 2004, had referred only to their 757s at that time -- that their 757s in 2001 may well have had onboard phones. So I published a retraction, saying that the claim was uncertain.

That retraction, however, evoked new evidence, including a statement made by American Airlines in 2006 that their 757s in 2001 had had no onboard phones, so that anyone calling out from Flight 77 had needed to use a cell phone. Barbara Olson, therefore, could not have used a passenger-seat phone. That left open, of course, the possibility that Ted Olson was correct when he said that his wife had used her cell phone.

However, the evidence from the Moussaoui trial ruled out this possibility. In its report on AA 77, it listed one attempted call from Barbara Olson, which was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds.”

This was an astounding discovery. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. And yet it had undercut the testimony of the DOJ’s former solicitor general, saying in effect that the two calls that he reported had never happened. The implication is that unless Ted Olson had, like Deena Burnett, been duped, he had lied. Although this should have produced front-page headlines, it has thus far not been reported by any mainstream publication.

The Revised and Updated Edition of “Debunking 9/11 Debunking” provides the documentation for these reports from American Airlines and the FBI, which pretty thoroughly undermine the idea that any of the reported calls were genuine: If the cell phone calls were faked, why should we believe that the reported calls from onboard phones were genuine?

This new edition also contains more quotations from former military officers calling the official conspiracy theory impossible.

It also contains a report on Rudy Giuliani’s problematic response to a group of activists who asked him, with camera running, how he knew that the Twin Towers were going to collapse. (He had told Peter Jennings on ABC News on 9/11 itself that he had been warned.) Given the fact that he Giuliani is currently the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, evidence that he had inside information on the collapse of the towers---an event for which there was no historical precedent---should certainly be investigated.

This new edition has garnered some further endorsements. I was especially pleased to get one from former CIA case officer Robert Baer (the author of See No Evil, which inspired the movie Syriana), because he had written a critical review of my first book, The New Pearl Harbor. Having more recently, like Bill Christison, become convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, he wrote: "Until we get a complete, honest, transparent investigation--not one based on 'confession' extracted by torture -- we will never know what happened on 9/11. David Griffin will never let this go until we get the truth.”

Also, hoping that my new book would be found even more convincing than my earlier ones, I was very pleased to see that John Whitbeck, an international law specialist, had written: “After reading David Ray Griffin's previous books on the subject, I was over 90% convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. Now, after reading Debunking 9/11 Debunking, I am, I regret to say, 100% convinced.”

The implications of this conclusion are, of course, enormous. But will you see the evidence for this conclusion discussed in the mainstream press? Don’t hold your breath.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Ann Coulter hypocritical on abortion; says Bush opposers are "traitors"

Geraldo Rivera, of "Fair and balanced" FIXED Noise invites Coultergeist on his show. ONLY Coultergeist. "Fair?" "Balanced?"

by Larry Simons
October 7, 2007

This story made Newshounds! Thanks Chrish

Geraldo Rivera had right-wing Neo-con Ann Coulter on his program "Geraldo at Large" Saturday 10/06/07. Geraldo read portions of Coulter’s new book, "If Democrats had any brains, they’d be Republicans".

Geraldo read the following portions of her book: "this is the logic of the pro-abortion zealots, (a.k.a. the Democratic Party): either lift every single restriction on abortion or every woman in America will be impregnated by her father and die in a back alley abortion."

Rivera asks, "so you would support Rudy Giuliani even though he is pro-choice?"

Coulter says, "um, will he be running against a Democrat? Yeah, I think so; I’ll vote for whichever idiot the Republicans nominate. I kinda think it may not be Rudy for that reason when a Republican is having trouble getting to the right of Hillary Clinton on the social issues, he may not make it through the primaries"

(Comment: Of course, FOX News being the "fair and balanced" channel it claims to be, why would they pass on having the bootlicking Geraldo throw her softballs and not challenge what she does best…bash Democrats? The hypocrisy of Coulter is mindnumbing here. She criticizes the logic of Democrats who are pro-choice, then proceeds to tell Geraldo why she will STILL vote for a Republican, despite (in her words, all of them being "idiots") and that she will still specifically vote for Giuliani although he is pro-choice!)

Geraldo then reads another excerpt from Coulters’ book: "Are all the American people who don’t support Bush dumb?" Ann says, "No, I think as indicated in my last book, they’re traitors"
Coulter responds, "yes", followed by Geraldo saying, "Come on...stop" (while you can hear him laughing)

Comment: Only on FOX Noise will you see a statement like this go unchallenged. Calling Americans traitors for not supporting a President that lies to its people and takes the country into an illegal and un-Constitutional war? A war that now over 70% of the country wants ended? Traitors for not supporting a President that has trashed the Constitution and Bill of Rights by illegally wiretapping Americans and signing the Patriot Act? Traitors for not supporting a President who ended Habeas Corpus, violated the Geneva Conventions by torturing detainees and who lies to its people continually? You’re right Ann, how dare us!

What the blonde Neo-con slug will not tell you is that questioning our leaders and not supporting them when they blatantly go against the will of the people is what a true patriot does. Thomas Jefferson said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"and Theodore Roosevelt said, "That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public".

I guess Jefferson and Roosevelt are traitors too, huh Ann?

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Ed and Elaine Brown: Patriots ‘til the very end

New Hampshire tax protesters arrested in their home finally begin their 5 year prison sentence for true patriotism: Refusing to surrender to non-existent income tax laws

by Larry Simons
October 6, 2007

I have never done a story on Ed and Elaine Brown (the New Hampshire husband and wife who were convicted of tax evasion in April for refusing to pay an un-Constitutional income tax) on my site for one reason only, because this was an ever-changing developing story that I believe everyone knew would eventually end with either the Browns’ capture or God forbid, their deaths. Thank God it ended with the former. Since their sentencing in April of this year, I thought of what I would say when this day came. It hasn’t been any easier thinking of what to say after 6 months.

All I can say is this. We can truly say that we don’t see real patriots like this too often. In the day and age we live in now, when people like Bill O’ Reilly purposely mislead his zombie viewers into thinking that patriotism is buying one of his stupid books or windbreakers or using vegetable oil for fuel, we can have comfort in knowing that there are people like the Brown’s that know the meaning of TRUE, REAL patriotism.

Patriotism. Standing alone and fighting something you know isn’t popular. Fighting something you know isn’t widely accepted. Being the lone voice of dissent in the midst of uninformed multitudes that have no clue they are being fooled and controlled by fascism and tyranny. Now they are being taken to a prison cell. To serve time for “breaking a law” that no one has provided documentation for. Even after telling law enforcement they would pay the money if someone just simply showed the law to them. Of course, no one will provide the documentation of the law, because it has to exist for it to be provided.

To the deceived millions who might applaud the arrest of the Browns capture, all I can think of to say are the poignant words of the great Mark Twain: “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

Ron Paul on the Browns: “Heroic”, “True Patriots”; compares them to Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr

Here is Ron Paul speaking on Ed and Elaine Brown in June 2007

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Rush “I’m the REAL phony because I got DEFERMENTS so I wouldn’t have to serve” Limbaugh and his FULL transcript of his ANTI-troop remarks

Claiming he was “taken out of context”, the Real Truth posts Lush Fuckballs’ FULL context, something even HE won’t do on his own show!

by Larry Simons
October 4, 2007

In an attempt to save his fat ass from his own anti-troop remarks that he spewed to a caller on September 26, Rush “I’d piss my size 56 pants if I ever had to fight in a war” Limbaugh re-aired the clip on his September 28 radio show. He lies to his callers and says that he is about to re-air the ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT which, he says runs about 3 minutes and 13 seconds. The TRUTH is the REAL entire length of the call was over 6 minutes.…roughly 6:10. The Neo-con fatass cut out over a minute of the INTRO of the call, and 1:35 after he said “phony soldiers”.

I couldn’t find the entire clip of the call in SEQUENCE, but I DID find different clips of the ENTIRE call on several separate clips, so I merged the clips together to show you that this was the FULL call. To show you that I did not unfairly leave portions out or change the sequence of the dialogue of the call, (as I overlapped the segments) you will notice that I purposely ended one segment with a piece of dialogue then continued the segment with the repeated dialogue, (similar to how 8-track tapes repeated the portions as they clicked tracks). Example: if one segment ended with “…exactly sir”, the next segment begins with “…exactly sir”.

Following the FULL clip of the call on the film is the segment in which Rush claims he is re-airing the FULL clip and incriminates himself by saying it is only 3:13, when in FACT the full length of the call was 6:10. Enjoy the latest from Real Truth Films

In 2 parts:

Below is a FULL transcript of the dialogue so you can easily follow the full length of the call.

Rush Limbaugh, you are a pill-popping, fatassed, Neo-con, chickenhawk, America-hating FRAUD

In RED (what was cut out in the Re-airing)

LIMBAUGH: Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER 2: Hi Rush, thanks for taking my call.

LIMBAUGH: You bet.

CALLER 2: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am a serving American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

LIMBAUGH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER 2: And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, if we pull -- what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it'd take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse, and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. And –

LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what –

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I --

-- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --

CALLER 2: A lot of them -- the new kids, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you --

LIMBAUGH: -- know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you signed up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.

CALLER 2: Exactly, sir. And, and my other comment was -- and the reason I was calling for -- was to report to Jill about the fact that we didn't, didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that [inaudible] been using against us for awhile now.
I've done two tours in Iraq. I just got back in June and there were many instances of -- since [inaudible] not know what they're using in their IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. They're using mustard artillery rounds. The VX artillery rounds in their IEDs.
Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it just kind of -- it, it didn't really hurt anybody but there are -- those munitions are over there, it's just -- it's a huge desert. If they've buried it somewhere, we're never gonna find it.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you know, that's a moot point for me right now --

MIKE: Rush --

LIMBAUGH: -- the weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're, we're there. What -- who cares if, if -- we all know they were there and, and Mahmoud [Ahmadinejad, Iranian president] even admitted it in one of his speeches here about -- talkin' about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people -- but that, that's moot, right? What, what's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working.
And all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and, and your colleagues over there is, is a great threat to them.

LIMBAUGH: It's just, it's frustrating and maddening, and it is why they must be kept in the minority.

Look, I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. I gotta -- let me see -- got something -- here is a "Morning Update" that we did recently talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. And they have their celebrities.

One of them was Jesse MacBeth. Now, he was a "corporal," I say in quotes -- 23 years old.

[reading from "Morning Update" (subscription required)]
What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart. It wasn't his being affiliated with post traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, though. What made Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage in their view off the battlefield.

Without regard to consequences, he told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq: American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account translated into Arabic and spread widely across the internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way:

'We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.'

Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, a poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court, and you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs' claim and his Army discharge record.

He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly -- 44-days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger. Never was. He isn't a corporal. Never was. He never won the Purple Heart and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen."

You probably haven't even heard about this, and if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template of the drive-by media and the Democrat [sic] Party as to who a genuine war hero is.

Don't look for any retractions, by the way, not from the anti-war left, the anti-military drive-by media or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth's lies about our troops, because the truth of the left is fiction, is what serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities 'cause they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the U.S. military.

In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

[end audio clip]


On the October 2 broadcast of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh denounced a recent ad by VoteVets.org that featured Iraq war veteran Brian McGough, calling the ad "a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into." Limbaugh went on to say that "[w]hoever pumped [McGough] full of these lies about what I said ... has betrayed him." Limbaugh even admitted "I haven't watched the ad." SHOCKER!

In the ad, McGough says to Limbaugh, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service."

This was McGough’s response on Countdown with Keith Olbermann