Thursday, May 31, 2007

O' Reilly is back, and guess what? He's STILL a liar!

O'Reilly: Rosie's Out, Warning to Charlie Sheen: You're Next

by Larry Simons
May 31, 2007

from YouTube: Comment: O'Reilly calls the fact that the U.S. Military have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis "nonsense" when the British government admits the reports that concluded 655,000 had been killed was accurate. O'Reilly also relays the total lies and spin of the NY Post in claiming Charlie Sheen is re-thinking his potential narration of Loose Change.



Once again, facts do not matter to Bill O’LIElly. The ringleader of the no-fact zone once again parrots lies to suit his personal agenda. Here is a link to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health whose researchers estimated that as many as 654,965 more Iraqis have died in Iraq from March 2003 to late 2006 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions. Normally, under non-violent conditions, roughly 143,000 Iraqis die per year. As of October 2006, 654, 965 more have died, according to researchers at Johns Hopkins and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Does this matter to O’ Liar? OF COURSE NOT!!!

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

Just a few days ago, the NY Post lied and said Charlie Sheen was re-thinking his position on narrating “Loose Change”, the 9/11 documentary that provides evidence 9/11 was an inside job. Immediately following the NY Post hit piece, Charlie Sheen issued this statement:

“My views and convictions regarding the events of 9/11 have not wavered. I still firmly believe the citizens of this great country, especially the family members of those tragically lost, deserve a much more accurate and thorough investigation surrounding the horrific events.

The suspicious fact that certain relevant testimonies were not included in the Keen Commission's final report, discredits the majority of their findings. A bi-partisan, democratically selected panel needs to be established that would include (but not limited to), victim family members, firefighters, rescue workers as well as key eye witnesses to the various crime scenes. Not some tepid rehash of Bush-serving lap-dogs cherry picking evidence to support erroneous and fictional "Magic Bullet" explanations.

We will not tolerate any testimony behind closed doors from subjects not placed "Under Oath". We will not tolerate the real and hard questions being dismissed for reasons of "National Security". We will not tolerate our freedom of speech being dismantled and ignored as not to "Disrespect the deceased".

I'm baffled as well by the fact Bin Laden's crimes listed on the FBI's most wanted list DO NOT include those of 9/11. If you do not believe me, see for yourselves –

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

As far as "Loose Change- Final Cut" is concerned, I await the newest version to be presented to me, at which point I will make my decision to participate (or not) based on the film's content and merit.
I remain patriotically steadfast.”


As you can see, Charlie Sheen said no such thing. Does THIS matter to O’ Liar? NOPE!

BILLO!!!!! STOP LYING!!!!!!!!!!!

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Giuliani Confronted By 9/11 Truthers, Lies About WTC Collapse

Former New York Mayor flip-flops for third time on foreknowledge of tower's implosion

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
May 29, 2007

9/11 truthers are making headlines again today after confronting Rudy Giuliani in New York on his foreknowledge of the collapse of the twin towers. Amazingly, just weeks after saying the opposite, Giuliani now claims he had no idea the towers were going to fall.

Watch the video.
(This is not a very good clip. For those of you who think this was “doctored” so that sound doesn’t match the visuals, here is a link to a better clip) :

http://video.wnbc.com/player/?id=112179




"A radical group at a Bronx fundraiser confronted Rudolph Giuliani on Tuesday morning, accusing him of being one of the "criminals of 9/11," reports WNBC.

"The Republican nominee for president was outside City Island's Sea Shore restaurant in the Bronx, speaking with WNBC.com's Adam Shapiro about his fundraising in New York."

"Afterward, a young woman claiming to be the relative of a Sept. 11, 2001, firefighter who died when the towers collapsed, asked Giuliani why he allegedly told Peter Jennings the towers would not fall that day, but did not stop the rescue efforts of firefighters and police officers."

"The woman claims Giuliani knew the towers would fall, and allowed rescuers to go to their deaths. She asked him, "How do you sleep at night?"

"Giuliani was extremely polite, telling the young woman she was wrong and that he never said what she claimed. At that point, another protester from her group, a young man, interrupted Giuliani with the same allegations."

"Giuliani replied by saying, "I didn't realize the towers would collapse." He later added, "No one that I know of had any idea they would implode. That was a complete surprise."

Giuliani was confronted by Infowars reporters led by 9/11 truth movement warrior Luke Rudkowski, head of the WeAreChange.org group, and the story has since garnered national attention, appearing on the Drudge Report early this afternoon.

In claiming that he had no idea that the towers would collapse, Giuliani has now flip-flopped on this issue for a third time.

"We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Giuliani told ABC's Peter Jennings during a phone interview on 9/11. Giuliani has never identified the source of this warning, unprecedented as it is that modern steel framed buildings would collapse from fire damage for the first time in history, and it completely contradicts his assertion today that he "didn't realize the towers would collapse."

The ABC clip is included in the video below.

Note: at 4:35 left in the clip, Giuliani says he was told the towers were coming down, which makes Giuliani a bold-faced liar in the clip above. I'm sure this is why Giuliani gives that incriminating grin and gets the hell out of there fast



In addition, during an April 19th event held at the Oklahoma City Museum and National Memorial, Giuliani said "It occurred to us all that they might ultimately collapse," in referring to the twin towers.

He was also caught in a bizarre lie when he claimed that WTC 7 collapsed in stages over a period of time when in reality it fell within just eight seconds.

Watch the video.



Though Giuliani is attempting to make a distinction of the fact that he expected the towers to fall after a period of time, this still doesn't explain who gave him the warning and why he seems to flip-flop on this issue every time he is asked about it, while wearing a strange broad grin across his face.

It also underscores the notion that the sudden implosion of the twin towers was an unnatural event and even Giuliani acknowledges this fact.

The 9/11 truth activists led by Rudowski also confronted David Rockefeller at his home as well as the CFR at their main headquarters. Reports and video footage on those events will be forthcoming.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Tribute to the American fallen

by Larry Simons
May 28, 2007

This is a very short and sweet video montage of dedication to our fallen troops in our current war and in past wars. A very nice tribute.




My anger toward this piece of shit President intensifies every time i see pictures like this:

This pathetic excuse for a President, or human being for that matter, cares nothing for these troops and it physically makes me sick to my stomach to watch him pretend to. May we TRULY honor them by wanting them alive and home with their families.

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Ron Paul makes special visit to talk with Bill Maher

Real Time with Bill Maher
May 25, 2007

Friday, May 25, 2007

Bush is one “catastrophic event” away from being dictator

New directives authorize Bush to have total control over government and the country after next mass casualty event

Paul Joseph Watson, Steve Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Wednesday, May 23, 2007

President George W. Bush has sparked much alarm by openly declaring himself to be a dictator in the event of a national emergency under new provisions that will effectively nullify the U.S. constitution, but such an infrastructure has been in place for over 70 years and this merely represents a re-authorization of the infrastructure of martial law.

New legislation signed on May 9, 2007, declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", the President can take total control over the government and the country, bypassing all other levels of government at the state, federal, local, territorial and tribal levels, and thus ensuring total unprecedented dictatorial power.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, which also places the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security", was signed earlier this month without the approval or oversight of Congress and seemingly supercedes the National Emergency Act which allows the president to declare a national emergency but also requires that Congress have the authority to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately.

Journalist Jerome Corsi, who has studied the directive also states that it makes no reference to Congress and "its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists."

In other words the new directive excludes Congress altogether from governance in a state of emergency.

While alluding to the "enduring constitutional government", the directive actually ensures the end of constitutional government as each branch, the executive, legislative and judicial, are stripped of equal authority and must answer directly and solely to the President.

The mainstream media has not reported on the directive and the White House has refused to comment.

Earlier this month it was reported that a high-level group of government and military officials has been quietly preparing an emergency survival program named "The Day After," which would effectively end civil liberties and implement a system of martial law in the event of a catastrophic attack on a U.S. city.

Though anathema to any notion of liberty or freedom, this new legislation has not come out of the blue, it is merely an open declaration of the infrastructure of martial law that the federal government has been building since the turn of the last century, which was first publicly codified in the 1933 war powers act under Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Senate Report 93-549, which was presented at the first session of the 93rd Congress, outlines just a handful of the declared national emergencies or martial law declarations that preceded the latest one.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971."

In alliance with these open declarations of martial law and the 1947 National Security Act, bills such as the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and the Military Commissions Act have all put the final jigsaw pieces in place to complete an infrastructure of dictatorship since 9/11.
We're already living under an infrastructure of martial law and have been since 1933, all that remains for it to be fully implemented is a big enough natural disaster, mass terror attack or other catastrophe that will cause the necessary carnage and panic that affords the federal government enough leeway to implement open dictatorship with the least possible resistance.

New revelations that Bush has openly declared himself to be a dictator are both shocking and demand immediate attention, but they only represent a re-authorization of the tyranny that Americans have been living under for at least the past 74 years.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Olbermann: The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans

Olbermann reveals the truth about the role of the Democrats: Say you’re against the war and promise to end it, but lie to and betray the American people by continuing to give Bush what he wants

Countdown with Keith Olbermann
May 23, 2007

This is, in fact, a comment about… betrayal.

Few men or women elected in our history-whether executive or legislative, state or national-have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear: Get us out of Iraq. Yet after six months of preparation and execution-half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president-if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history-who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats "give the troops their money".



The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans.

The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions-Stop The War-have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans. You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the "beginning of the end" of Mr. Bush's "carte blanche" in Iraq, about how this is a "first step."

Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning… is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do. Because this "first step"… is a step right off a cliff.

And this President! How shameful it would be to watch an adult hold his breath, and threaten to continue to do so, until he turned blue. But how horrifying it is to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so, until innocent and patriotic Americans in harm's way, are bled white.

You lead this country, sir?
You claim to defend it?

And yet when faced with the prospect of someone calling you on your stubbornness–your stubbornness which has cost 3,431 Americans their lives and thousands more their limbs–you, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats don't give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands. How transcendentally, how historically, pathetic.

Any other president from any other moment in the panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken, declared that no matter what the other political side did, he would insure personally-first, last and always-that the troops would not suffer.

A President, Mr. Bush, uses the carte blanche he has already, not to manipulate an overlap of arriving and departing brigades into a ‘second surge,' but to say in unequivocal terms that if it takes every last dime of the monies already allocated, if it takes reneging on government contracts with Halliburton, he will make sure the troops are safe-even if the only safety to be found, is in getting them the hell out of there.

Well, any true President would have done that, sir. You instead, used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so. Not that these Democrats, who had this country's support and sympathy up until 48 hours ago, have not since earned all the blame they can carry home.
"We seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame," Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne in the days after the British signed the Munich accords with Germany in 1938. "My feeling is that we shall choose shame, and then have war thrown in, a little later…"

That's what this is for the Democrats, isn't it?

Their "Neville Chamberlain moment" before the Second World War. All that's missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee "peace in our time," but which his opponent would ignore with deceit. The Democrats have merely streamlined the process. Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it, with impugnity.

And where are the Democratic presidential hopefuls this evening? See they not, that to which the Senate and House leadership has blinded itself? Judging these candidates based on how they voted on the original Iraq authorization, or waiting for apologies for those votes, is ancient history now. The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided… tomorrow.

The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the President's dishonest construction "fund-the-troops-or-they-will-be-in-jeopardy," the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as closed to practical politics.

Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to-for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops-denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.

For, ultimately, at this hour, the entire government has failed us.

Mr. Reid, Mr. Hoyer, and the other Democrats… have failed us. They negotiated away that which they did not own, but had only been entrusted by us to protect: our collective will as the citizens of this country, that this brazen War of Lies be ended as rapidly and safely as possible.

Mr. Bush and his government… have failed us. They have behaved venomously and without dignity-of course.
That is all at which Mr. Bush is gifted. We are the ones providing any element of surprise or shock here.
With the exception of Senator Dodd and Senator Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidates have (so far at least) failed us.

They must now speak, and make plain how they view what has been given away to Mr. Bush, and what is yet to be given away tomorrow, and in the thousand tomorrows to come. Because for the next fourteen months, the Democratic nominating process–indeed the whole of our political discourse until further notice–has, with the stroke of a cursed pen, become about one thing, and one thing alone.

The electorate figured this out, six months ago. The President and the Republicans have not-doubtless will not.
The Democrats will figure it out, during the Memorial Day recess, when they go home and many of those who elected them will politely suggest they stay there-and permanently.

Because, on the subject of Iraq the people have been ahead of the media….
Ahead of the government…
Ahead of the politicians…
For the last year, or two years, or maybe three.

Our politics… is now about the answer to one briefly-worded question.
Mr. Bush has failed.
Mr. Warner has failed.
Mr. Reid has failed.

So. Who among us will stop this war-this War of Lies? To he or she, fall the figurative keys to the nation.

To all the others-presidents and majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party-there is only blame… for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Ron Paul Exposes New World Order & Bush Sr.

Says American empire in trouble, dollar plunging

Jones Report
Sunday May 20, 2007

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) was asked a question about the New World Order's agenda for a one-world government during a campaign stop in Austin, Texas on Saturday, amidst tremendous turnout and support.

Ron Paul responded, "The first President Bush said the New World Order was in tune-- and that's what they were working for. The U.N. is part of that government. They're working right now very significantly towards a North American Union. That's why there's a lot of people in Washington right now who don't care too much about our borders. They have a philosophical belief that national sovereignty is not important. It's also the reason I've made the very strong suggestion the U.S. need not be in the U.N. for national security reasons."




Bill Maher also vindicates Ron Paul by saying “he speaks the real truth”

Real Time with Bill Maher
May 19, 2007

Friday, May 18, 2007

Limbaugh complained Democrats are not asked why "there are no women and minorities on stage"

Another out-of-reality tirade by the drug-addicted, racist, lying Limbaugh

Media Matters
May 18, 2007

Referring to the May 15 Republican presidential debate, Rush Limbaugh asserted, on the May 16 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, that "there's a template developing for the Republican debate last night. 'How come there are no women and minorities on stage?' I guess you forgot about 2004." He then said: "And I guess -- you know, the Democrats never get those kinds of questions because it's always assumed that they're fair and just, and not discriminatory and all that."

During the debate, co-moderator Chris Wallace, host of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, directed the following question to former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore:

WALLACE: Governor Gilmore, let me start with you. It's been suggested that the 10 of you could all be members of the same country club. What does it say about the Republican Party? And you used to be the chairman of this party and tried to build the tent -- to build the base. What does it say that there is no woman, no Hispanic, no African- American, no minority in this field of presidential candidates?

Presumably, debate moderators would not ask Democratic presidential candidates why "there are no women and minorities" on stage because the Democratic field currently contains two minority candidates, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is Latino, and Sen. Barack Obama (IL), who is African-American, as well as a woman, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY).
In 2004, the field of candidates for the Democratic nomination included two African-Americans, one of them a woman, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun (IL), and Rev. Al Sharpton. President Bush was not opposed by any major candidate in the Republican primaries of 2004.

From the May 16 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Now that is a joke those of us in the media tell because that is a template. Well, lo and behold, here's a story from CNN -- and all these drive-bys are the same -- and it's a story about a poll: "Local Governments Ready for Disaster, Feds Not." This is a perfect example of how lazy journalists use a poll for a story rather than actually doing reporting. And here's the opening paragraph: "Most people say their families and local emergency agencies are ready for the next natural disaster, but the federal government is not. Women and minorities are less confident on both counts. I kid you not -- "[w]omen and minorities." Hardest hit: women. You can count on it in every -- just like there's a template developing for the Republican debate last night. "How come there are no women and minorities on stage?" I guess you forgot about 2004. And I guess -- you know, the Democrats never get those kinds of questions because it's always assumed that they're fair and just, and not discriminatory and all that.

Editor's Note:

Hey Rush!!! Yooooohoooooo! Over here.....back to reality....back to 2007.....back to planet Earth. Just incase your drug-induced stupor prevented you from noticing........don't these people (below) qualify as being "women and minorities"???? Oh my god! Look! It's an African-American, a Latino and a woman!


Maybe THIS is why Democrats never get those kinds of questions!!!!!!!

And by the way, Rush.....we DO remember 2004, very well....better than YOU do Mr. Pill-popper. We remember that EVEN IN 2004 there were MINORITIES among the Democratic nominees. I guess the pills are preventing you from remembering these people:

My oh my....it's TWO more African-American democratic nominees! Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton. But I guess it would be easy for Limbaugh to forget about African-Americans, since he hates them.

Rush, do us all a big favor and STAY on the drugs. It just won't ever be the same if you stop taking them and become a human being. You make this TOO fun. So, please, stay on the drugs....please.

Here's the audio clip of the show:

http://mediamatters.org/static/video/limbaugh-20070516-dems08.wmv

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Jon Stewart: "The country they (The Republican party) want to run is fictional!"

Jon Stewart sums up the idiocy from the GOP candidates from the Faux News debates

The Daily Show
May 17, 2007

Of course, Ron Paul is not included in this hilarious montage of GOP baffoons because Ron Paul is the only REAL Republican running and it's near impossible to include anything Paul says in a satirical segment.

Watch and laugh your ass off

Yet Another Fox News Smear Job On Ron Paul, Alex Jones & 9/11 Truth

Malkin, Gibson attack "9/11 conspiracy nut" Alex Jones, say Paul should be kicked out of debates for appearing on his show, suggest Middle Easterners enjoy being bombed and to claim otherwise is a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory

Paul Joseph Watson
PrisonPlanet
May 17, 2007

Fox "News" anchor John Gibson was joined by diehard Neo-Con Michele "put every Muslim in a concentration camp" Malkin last night to attack Ron Paul, Alex Jones and suggest that people in the Middle East enjoy being bombed and to state otherwise is a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory.

First of all, Gibson lies outright by claiming Ron Paul said the U.S. had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, something the Texas Congressman has never stated. He then brings on Malkin, who remains the poster child for a dwindling gaggle of Internet Neo-Con blowhards.



Malkin knows which side her bread is buttered on and is perfectly aware of the fact that Prison Planet alone dwarfs the popularity of her own measly Neo-Con "Hot Air" blog. She seems to have a dangerous obsession with attacking us and most of the time we ignore her but this one was too hilarious to pass up.

Malkin defines 9/11 truth as a "virus" and repeats the term over and over to ensure Fox's geriatric 80-plus viewers don't forget it. Malkin resorts to the usual fodder of smearing 9/11 truth as a leftist fringe movement, despite the fact that we are routinely shunned and attacked by the liberal media, both mainstream and alternative.

Gibson and Malkin then recoil at the temerity of the suggestion that bombing third world countries breeds hatred and characterize it as a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory!
Of course, those poor people in the Middle East love being bombed and to suggest otherwise is unpatriotic!

Malkin cites Popular Mechanics, the Hearst Publishing yellow journalism rag that is edited by a tabloid TV critic as her bastion of credibility for standing up to 9/11 truthers, despite the fact that the magazine's 9/11 hit piece has been debunked over and over and is the target of Professor David Ray Griffin's new book , Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

"I try not to spend too much time in these cesspools," whines Malkin before attacking Ron Paul for appearing on radio with "9/11 conspiracy nut Alex Jones," and suggesting that the Texas Congressman should be kicked out of the debates for doing so.

All this of course stems from Ron Paul's confrontation with Rudy Giuliani, the supposed "9/11 hero" who had the real heroes - the firefighters - arrested when they objected to Giuliani's order that their colleague's remains be scooped up by and dumped in a landfill.

In reality, the supposed "slap-down" Giuliani handed out to Ron Paul during the debate has returned in the form of the truth to whack him back in the face tenfold.

Just for argument's sake, let's accept the premise that 9/11 was orchestrated from a cave and that Osama bin Laden somehow managed to neutralize the standard air defenses of the United States for the first time in history. Both the vaunted 9/11 Commission Report and the CIA admit that U.S. foreign policy has endangered the U.S.

"The 9-11 Commission report detailed how bin Laden had, in 1996, issued "his self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia" and identified that declaration and another in 1998 as part of "a long series" of statements objecting to U.S. military interventions in his native Saudi Arabia in particular and the Middle East in general. Statements from bin Laden and those associated with him prior to 9-11 consistently expressed anger with the U.S. military presence on the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people and U.S. support of Israel," reports the Nation.

In addition, Michael Scheuer, the former Central Intelligence Agency specialist on bin Laden and al-Qaeda, told CNN that "We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

But we'd be naive to think that Fox "News", Gibson and Malkin would let the facts get in the way of a good childish name-calling smear job.



Ron Paul was asked by CNN if he was going back down or apologize for stating the fact that people in the Middle East don't enjoy being bombed. Righteously, the Texas Congressman invited Giuliani to read the 9/11 Commission Report and apologize himself.

It is now clearly evident that Tuesday night's debate and its aftermath was elaborately rigged and directed towards discrediting Ron Paul and neutralizing the wave of popular support he has received that has absolutely terrified the establishment. But it's backfired because more people than ever now know who Ron Paul is and what he stands for.

Once again, we thank Fox News for the continued attention they are bringing to the 9/11 truth movement - because for any of their viewers that still possess their own set of teeth, they will be encouraged to Google terms like "WTC 7" and "Alex Jones" and find out the truth.

We invite Gibson, O'Reilly, Malkin and their ilk to continue their desperate ad hominem attacks because anyone with two brain cells left to rub together can immediately deduce how liars and con-artists behave - and how their impetuous smear tactics are manifested.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Ron Paul beats Giuliani in FOX News poll despite Giuliani’s total misinterpretation of Paul’s comments surrounding foreign policy


Giuliani seizes another “I was there and survived 9/11” moment by attacking Ron Paul’s CLEAR foreign policy statement which Giuliani clearly misunderstood; Paul beats Giuliani in polls 25 % --- 19 %

by Larry Simons
May 16, 2007

I don’t think anyone can doubt it was the highlight of tonight’s GOP debate. Giuliani, in typical “I was Mayor during 9/11 and survived” fashion decided to seize a golden opportunity to gain more 9/11 brownie points by attacking Congressman Ron Paul when Paul was asked by a moderator if 9/11 had changed the American foreign policy model to interventionism. Paul answered that it was our pre-9/11 policy of interventionism that was to blame for the hatred of the United States by other countries, namely Iraq.

Somewhere in Ron Paul’s answer, Giuliani must have heard the words “The United States caused 9/11”. Although I personally believe that elements of our government orchestrated 9/11, this is NOT what Ron Paul was saying. Paul was simply and clearly saying that our interventions and flawed foreign policy has brought about a degree of hatred toward the United States from other countries.



“They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. ... We've been in the Middle East," Paul said in explaining his opposition to going to war in Iraq. "Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. "They are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I'm glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.' They have already now since that time they've killed 3,400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary," he continued.

Giuliani couldn’t resist but to jump in and ask the moderator if he could respond. “That's really an extraordinary statement," he said, interrupting FOX News panelist Wendell Goler. "That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that." At this point, the audience applauded.

Paul did not give in to the 9/11-evoking Giuliani but stood firm in his position by stating, “I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and they talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah, yes, there was blowback. The reaction to that was the taking of our hostages, and that persists, and if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk—that if we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free. They attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?” At this point, Giuliani wanted to jump in again, but the moderator ended the subject and re-directed to McCain with another question.

Giuliani is just another Neo-con- talking point loving, 9/11-evoking asshole. (Sorry, couldn’t think of a better word). Giuliani is living in the exact same delusional state that Bush lives in: the delusion that other countries “hate us for our freedoms”. Foreign countries have never hated the United States more at any time in the history of the world as they do right NOW, and we are not being attacked. Other countries attack us for what we do, not for who we are. They hate us for coming THERE to THEIR countries and unjustly attacking them. Ron Paul is EXACTLY right. That’s why, despite the thunderous applause for Giuliani after his “How dare you say America EVER does wrong!” comment (at least, that was my interpretation of it) by the partisan, pre-selected, senior-citizen audience, Ron Paul leads him in the FOX poll. Ron Paul even making the top 3 on a FOX News poll is a monumental accomplishment, especially when the voting period only lasted 3 hours and no Internet voting was allowed (no doubt because Ron Paul has an enormous Internet following).

FOX News' website said they received more than 40,000 votes (by text messaging). Ron Paul led the poll the majority of the voting period, getting as high as 30%. As the polling time neared its end, Paul's numbers slowly went down as Romney's went up. Paul went from 30%, then to 27%, then to 26%, finally finishing at 25%. Romney went from 26% to 29%, while at the same time Ron Paul moved from 30% to 25% in about a 20 minute period. One has to wonder if FOX News was manipulating these poll numbers to move Romney higher to win the debate, since it would be near impossible for percentages to rise 3 points for Romney and fall 5 points for Ron Paul in just a matter of 20 minutes.

When MSNBC conducted their poll 2 weeks ago after the first GOP debate, I remember checking the poll daily to see where Ron Paul had climbed (or fallen). Every time I checked, the numbers of voters increased by 3 or 4 thousand votes (and this was DAILY) and percentage points only increased or fell by 1 point at the most. Are we to believe that in just 20 minutes the FOX poll rose/fell 3-5 percentage points for Romney and Paul respectively? These high increases and decreases in percentage points would have required 15,000- 20,000 voters in just the last 20 minutes of the poll. Are we to believe this is what really happened?

After the debate, Ron Paul sat and chatted with Hannity & Colmes. Sean "King of the Neo-cons" Hannity, went at it with Paul over the same issue that Giuliani raised. Hannity has always been a “America NEVER does wrong” far-right lunatic. In typical Hannity fashion, he asked a question (to Paul), “Are you suggesting the USA caused the attack on 9/11?” and gave him 5 seconds to answer, then interrupted Paul by continually talking over him by repeating the same old talking points typical of a far-right Neo-con nutball. Hannity then talks about Saddam gassing his own people and how could we as Americans allow that to happen? Paul brilliantly responds toward the end of the segment, “we gave him the gas!!”. Excellent Ron!



Polls on ABC and MSNBC show Ron Paul annihilating the rest of the pack:



Monday, May 14, 2007

Rosie Sounds Off On WTC Demolition & Destruction Of Crime Scene

The View host lays out collapse facts to millions of ABC viewers, prominent 9/11 truthers set to appear on show

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
May 15, 2007

Rosie O'Donnell has returned 9/11 truth to prominence by laying out the facts for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and Building 7 on ABC's The View this morning. O'Donnell also exposed the destruction of the crime scene and how the WTC metal was immediately shipped off to China.



The subject of Giuliani receiving criticism on Fox News for having had the New York emergency command bunker stationed in WTC 7 cropped up and Rosie used the opportunity to educate the audience about Building 7 and the pools of molten steel found under all three buildings that collapsed on 9/11.

Resident Neo-Con Stepford Wife Elizabeth Hasselbeck was on hand to attempt to debunk the facts but sat in silence when Rosie asked her to explain how the towers fell in seconds at the speed of almost no resistance.

We have now come to understand that prominent 9/11 film makers and other activists within the movement are scheduled to appear on The View in upcoming weeks, as well as debunkers like Popular Mechanics, but that the two camps will appear on separate shows and not engage in a debate of any kind.

Expect a week long orgy of ad hominem attack pieces from Neo-Con attack dogs like O'Reilly, Hannity and the rest of the usual suspects.

Commentary
by Larry Simons


Goodness! Elizabeth Hasselbeck makes me sick….really. She’s the poster child for the average dumbed-down American who spends absolutely zero time researching facts, and admits at the end of the segment, "I take mine from Popular Mechanics". (The debunked Popular Mechanics, which has been proven debunked!) Earlier in the segment she said she’s read all the conspiracy theories. Apparently she’s ONLY read them from Popular Mechanics, because she thinks that steel can weaken at 270 degrees. Well, I guess I will never make another turkey in my oven! According to Elizabeth Hasselbeck, I will open up my oven and my turkey will be laying on the rack on fire surrounded by melted metal.

The FACT remains that steel weakens at approximately 800 degrees Celsius (which is about 1470 degrees Fahrenheit) and melts (as Rosie said) at around 2700 or 2800 degrees Fahrenheit. These numbers are FACTS regardless of who’s account you believe about 9/11. Even if Hasselbeck was correct that the fires in WTC 7 did weaken the steel, she offers no explanation as to why the building fell completely leveled all the way around the building and symmetrically, as if the fires in the building were equally burning around the perimeter of the building.

Then she says the "volcanic force" alone could have taken it down (whatever she meant by ‘volcanic force’), yet WTC 7 was the furthest building away of ALL the buildings in the WTC complex. Also, buildings right up next to WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse although the fires in those buildings were much bigger and the damage much greater. WTC 5 was completely ablaze and closer to the towers and yet did not collapse.

Hasselbeck, like most official conspiracy theory supporters simply just does not know what she’s talking about. She has not studied a thing, and depends on the debunked Popular Mechanics for her ‘facts’. I deal with people like this on a regular basis….people who claim they have the facts and yet depend on ad hominem attacks, sarcasm and ridiculous points instead of making a case.

These people are not interested in a debate, because when you provide the opportunity for one and lay out all the facts, they run like scared rabbits back to their hole to chew on more Neo-con fodder. I’ve welcomed people who post on my own site to debate me. They, too, run like little girls back to their mommies when they are met with facts, because all they have to offer is personal attacks and the same old talking points that are 2 years old, indicating they don’t study nor have interest in studying…….their only goal is to insult and bully.

At least they succeed in that!

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Ron Paul: Total Victory, Yet Censorship Continues

Texas Congressman trounces rivals in all polls but is deliberately pushed to margins by terrified corporate media

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
May 9, 2007

Ron Paul emerged from last week's GOP debate as completely victorious according to every available benchmark and yet there is still a deliberate ploy to push the Texas Congressman to the sidelines on behalf of a terrified corporate media.

Every single major online poll shows conclusively that Ron Paul won the debate by a mammoth margin, trouncing the bought and paid-for shill Neo-Con candidates that the establishment press are sworn to uphold.

After just over 18,000 votes, the ABC News poll shows Ron Paul with 15,568 compared with nearest rival Mitt Romney who is on a paltry 245. After initially scrubbing Paul from the poll altogether, ABC were forced to add his name after a deluge of furious calls and e mails.

Ron Paul led MSNBC's poll right from the start and before it had even been widely circulated. ABC News claims that activist voting and multiple voting by individuals artificially inflated Paul's numbers, but both claims are demonstrably false. Keith Olbermann reported that Paul was ahead before the link was spread around message boards and blogs and to vote multiple times is impossible - the poll only allows one vote per IP address.

At time of press, Paul currently has 40% approval and 25% disapproval, compared with 43% disapproval and only 22% approval for Giuliani.

Capital News, an arm of CSPAN, had Paul leading his nearest rival Mitt Romney by 60% shortly before voting closed. Rudy Giuliani garnered just 6% of the vote.

Yahoo! News is still censoring Ron Paul by not including him in the list of candidates on their 2008 presidential coverage page, despite the fact that he is wildly popular and has trounced every other Republican candidate in every online poll.

After receiving a flood of angry complaints, Yahoo promised to review the situation, but 24 hours later their page is still absent any mention of Ron Paul.

UPDATE: Ron Paul has just now been added onto the Yahoo page (above)

This whole fiasco underscores the reality that the President of the United States is not elected by the popular will of the people, but instead is selected from a highly restricted gaggle of pre-approved establishment lackeys.

The corporate media offer the excuse that Ron Paul is not a mainstream candidate and has little chance of winning, therefore their decision to afford him little coverage is justified. But this is a chicken and egg scenario - if the media routinely ignore so-called marginal candidates then they are never going to attain the exposure of a Giuliani or a Romney, thus the media bias becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If Ron Paul was afforded equal media coverage at every step of the way before the Republican nomination, and if America was still a free country with a democratic process that actually worked, then Ron Paul would be a shoe-in for the Oval Office.

But the fact remains, as is painfully underscored by the media's treatment of Ron Paul, that America is a banana republic where the president is not elected by popular will but selected by the corporate and military-industrial kingpins that for whom, upon inauguration, he becomes the puppet.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Sean Penn: “Bush, Cheney, Tenet and Rice should be in fucking jail”

Penn tells Bill Maher top members of the Bush administration should be in jail including Bush himself, to the thunderous applause of Maher’s audience

by Larry Simons
May 7, 2007

Sean Penn is a true patriot. The O’ Reilly’s and the Hannity’s of the country will attack Penn for comments like this and most likely say he is “un-American” for simply stating his opinion in a society that has freedom of speech. They already have attacked Penn in the past for opposing the Iraq war. I can’t wait to see Monday’s FOX programs just to see the Neo-con, globalist NWO attack dogs demonize Sean Penn for comments that I am sure most Americans actually feel, but few may be afraid to speak.

This clip from “Real Time with Bill Maher” is just about the best segment of ANY show I’ve seen in a very long time. Penn speaks the 100% truth. The crimes and treasonous acts of this administration are endless and I am filled with utter glee that someone like Penn had the balls to say what desperately needed to be said.

Watch and enjoy!

Monday, May 7, 2007

Corporate Media Censor Ron Paul's Debate Success

Establishment press ignore massive popular approval for Texas Congressman in every poll, ABC only add Paul to poll list after furious complaints

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
May 7, 2007

Ron Paul won the debate hands down - all the polls show it - but the establishment media are loathe to report it, because if a tree falls in the forest and the corporate press choose not to report on it then it doesn't make a sound. After several days of voting, the online MSNBC poll has Ron Paul leading in every single positive category, proving that the vast majority think he won the debate. In an ABC News poll, well over 7,000 voted for the Congressman with Giuliani and Romney receiving a paltry 100 votes each. In a CSPAN poll, 69% voted for Ron Paul, with his nearest contender garnering just 9% of the vote.

Many would attribute this to be a reflection of focused online activism rather than overall national opinion, but the fact is that Paul was way ahead of the other candidates in the hours after the debate ended and before the polls had been widely publicized by websites supportive of the Texas Congressman. This tells us that the American people are crying out for a real conservative and Ron Paul would be a serious contender for the White House if the media afforded him equal coverage with the likes of Romney, McCain and Giuliani. However, as Alex Wallenwein points out in his OpEdNews.com article, the establishment media completely ignored public sentiment and handed the victory to either McCain or Romney, barely even mentioning Ron Paul's sterling performance and popular approval.

"Unsurprisingly, not a single report of the actual political news story of the decade, namely, that a virtually unknown "dark horse" beats even the media favorite Romney handily - and utterly crushes the rest of the field," writes Wallenwein. The headlines seen from a Google News search using the keyword "debate", at the time of this writing show only this:

"John McCain Wins First GOP Debate" (Fox News)
"Who Won the First GOP Presidential Debate? (Answer provided in article: "Mitt Romney" - National Review Online)
"Republican Presidential Debate Gives No Clue on GOP Leader in Race" (Axcess News)
Apparently the Axcess News editors don't have a clue - unlike actual debate viewers.
A news search for the keywords "won debate" reveals this:
"Noonan, Pundits: Romney Won Debate" (NewsMax)
"Giuliani Wary of Repeal of Roe" (Washington Times)

Readers tell us that ABC didn't even include Ron Paul on their original list and his name was only added to the poll after furious calls to ABC's head office. This website also claims that comments on ABC's message boards expressing outrage at the fact that Paul had been censored were soon deleted. Even the usually much vaunted Keith Olbermann and his MSNBC co-host Chris Matthews ignored Ron Paul's clear anti-war stance in claiming that none of the Republican candidates opposed the occupation of Iraq.

As if we needed a reminder, the aftermath of the GOP debate has taught us that the path to the Oval office is off-limits to any candidate who is not bought and paid for by special interests and the corporate media. Barely a handful of pre-approved identikit lackeys are selected and lavished with dominant media coverage while anyone who stands for real issues or offers a viable alternative is shunned and censored.

Ron Paul's message of getting government out of our personal lives, destroying the IRS and returning to a founding father foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements is clearly evergreen and craved for by a huge chunk of informed, engaged and active American citizens.
Trust in mainstream media has rapidly eroded for the best part of a decade and their credibility is shot. We need to continue to use the Internet to create synergy with the burning desire of the people to restore constitutional values and ensure that the corporate press can censor Ron Paul no more, save they expose the fact that they are complicit in completely undermining the democratic process in America.

Friday, May 4, 2007

Ron Paul leads "Big 3" in GOP debates on MSNBC poll!

MSNBC poll shows that people care more about the issues, the Constitution and opposing the Iraq war than they do about who is more popular by elevating Ron Paul over the "Big 3"

by Larry Simons
May 4, 2007

I am smart enough to realize that this probably won't mean a whole lot, but at least it is a small victory, even if it is short-lived, that Ron Paul leads Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney on an MSNBC poll after the GOP debates on Thursday. As of 3 a.m. Friday here are the results:

Results are listed under "Negative", "Neutral" and "Positive" categories. Ron Paul leads in both, positive (highest %) and negative (lowest %) categories.

Candidate/Positive/ Negative

Ron Paul 41% /27%
Mitt Romney 34% / 35%
Rudy Giuliani 22% / 44%
John McCain 20% / 45%

UPDATE: As of 7:00pm Friday the poll now stands: (after 71, 585 votes)

Ron Paul 32% / 29%
Mitt Romney 30% / 35%
Rudy Giuliani 27% / 39%
John McCain 20% / 42%

UPDATE: Well, it seems this is no fluke. Ron Paul is clearly the winner. As of 4:30am Saturday, the poll now stands: (after 76, 145 votes)

Ron Paul 34% / 28%
Mitt Romney 29% / 36%
Rudy Giuliani 26% / 40%
John McCain 20% / 43%

UPDATE: After 83, 256 votes Ron Paul leads by even higher margin!:
Ron Paul 38%
Mitt Romney 27%
Rudy Giuliani 24%
John McCain 19%

FINAL UPDATE: After 89, 596 votes (as of May 10). This will be my last update. I think it has already been proven Ron Paul won, even without further updating.

Ron Paul 40%
Mitt Romney 26%
Rudy Giuliani 22%
John McCain 18%

Pretty amazing accomplishment by Ron Paul, considering the complete blackout of press concerning him and his lack of usage of buzz words like "9/11", "God and country", "New York City during 9/11", "my prisoner of war friends" and "Ronald Reagan"

This is simply amazing since there has been a virtual blackout of Ron Paul in the mainstream media. On the other hand, it is a known fact that Ron Paul is extremely popular on the internet. Not only is there a blackout in the mainstream press on Ron Paul, you could clearly see the bias with the moderator Chris Matthews tonight, asking McCain, Giuliani and Romney the bulk of the questions and giving them more time to speak even after their time was up. When Ron Paul spoke and his time was up, Matthews immediately stopped Paul and went to the next candidate.

Paul was very strong on issues such as opposing the Iraq war, taxes (inflation tax), foreign policy, defending the internet (which I'm sure must have been hard for McCain to hear) and being vehemently against National ID cards. Paul is also opposed to federal funding of stem cell research because he said last night, "Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it."

When Paul was asked if he trusted the mainstream media, he said this, "Some of them.....but I trust the Internet a lot more, and I trust the freedom of expression. And that's why we should never interfere with the Internet. That's why I've never voted to regulate the Internet. Even when there's the temptation to put bad things on the Internet, regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently. But, no, there's every reason to believe that we have enough freedom in this country to have freedom of expression. And that's what is important. And whether or not we trust the mainstream or not, I think you pick and choose. There are some friends, and some aren't so friendly". The candidates were finally asked, "How would you be different from President Bush?". Paul said, "I certainly would continue on my earlier theme that foreign policy needs to be changed -- Mr. Republican, Robert Taft, we have a statue of him in Washington. He advocated the same foreign policy that I advocate. I would work very hard to protect the privacy of American citizens, being very, very cautious about warrantless searches. And I would guarantee that I would never abuse habeas corpus".

It was fun to watch flip-flopper McCain flip-flop right in front of my eyes! McCain was asked by an emailer if he believed in evolution. He had this to say:

MCCAIN: Yes.
MODERATOR: I'm curious, is there anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?
MCCAIN: May I just add to that?
MODERATOR: Sure.
MCCAIN: I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also.

This was unbelievable that this wasn't challenged by the moderator! He had JUST said he believed in evolution, then 2 seconds later said this lame shit about when he's at the Grand Canyon he sees the hand of God too. ???????? What???? Which is it McCain? Do you believe the world evolved into existance or that God created it? There ARE many who believe God created the world, and then just left it and forgot about it, and things evolved later....BUT, that is NOT what the Bible teaches....so once AGAIN, McCain's true flip-flopping colors clearly show.

This poll may mean nothing and one of the big 3 may make the Republican ticket next year. If Paul does not make the ticket, wouldn't it be incredible if makes contention or even wins the Presidency by write-in votes! I could be completely wrong and the poll means that people are finally, finally waking up and seeing that it doesn't matter who is popular, it doesn't matter who was Mayor on 9/11, it doesn't matter who was a prisoner of war. Hopefully, these poll results mean that the American people are finally beginning to scream with a loud voice that things like the Constitution, Habeas Corpus, bringing troops home alive, ending a pointless, senseless war and bringing America back where it should be are IMPORTANT and they know Ron Paul will be that candidate to make America great again. Only time will tell, but regardless of what the long-term outcome is, this is a victory tonight for America!











I love the above clip where John McCain smiles as he gets educated by Ron Paul blasting National ID cards right after McCain just said he supported them.

This story will be updated. Below is the link to the poll on MSNBC:

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

The mission of a madman

Olbermann: Of course, exactly what that mission is, or was, remains unclear. Saddam Hussein‘s regime is disarmed, the threat of WMD is gone, even Saddam Hussein is dead, if U.S. troops remain still seeking to accomplish whatever this administration declares on any given day, whatever the mission happens to be.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann
May 2, 2007

Here is an outstanding segment from Keith last night:

OLBERMANN: And yet, four years later, continued reliance on military power undercuts his own argument that freedom has the power to transform that region. Four years later, continued reliance on deceit at home to enable the stated mission of nurturing democracy abroad demonstrates that it will forever remain beyond the reach of a man who does not understand freedom ever to claim that the mission of freedom has been accomplished.