Friday, June 29, 2007

London Bomb--What a Crock of Crap!!

And yet again, more fake terror and exaggeration from media to scare us into submission

Larry C. Johnson
June 29, 2007

So I turn on the telly this morning and find breathless CNN anchors hyperventilating over the nuclear suicide car weapon of mass destruction discovered smoldering outside of a London nightclub. One report from the scene notes that:

London police were contacted when witnesses saw a Mercedes being driven erratically near London West End night club Tiger Tiger, and the driver jumped out of the automobile and ran away. The car was reported to have two gasoline canisters and be full of nails.

CNN adds:
Explosives officers discovered the fuel and nails attached to a "potential means of detonation," inside the vehicle. Officers "courageously" disabled the trigger by hand, he said. Security sources told CNN that the "relatively crude device" in the first car contained at least 200 liters, or about 50 gallons, of fuel in canisters.
You know what you call a vehicle with 50 gallons of gas? A Cadillac Escalade. The media meltdown over this incident is simply shameful.

For starters, gasoline is not a high explosive. If we were talking 50 pounds of Semtex or the Al Qaeda standby, TATP, I would be impressed. Those are real high explosives with a detonation rate in excess of 20,000 feet per second. Gasoline can explode (just ask former owners of a Ford Pinto) but it is first and foremost an incendiary. If the initial reports are true, the clown driving the Mercedes was a rank amateur when it comes to constructing an Improvised Explosive Device aka IED. Unlike a Hollywood flick the 50 gallons of gas would not have shredded the Mercedes into lethal chunks of flying shrapenal.

Here is Larry Johnson discussing this in further deatil on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

The fact that "officers courageously disabled the trigger by hand" coupled with the report of the smoke in the car leads me to believe that the mad London "bomber" tried to construct a Molotov cocktail of sorts and lit a cloth fuze. Fortunately he left the windows in the car up and there was not enough oxygen to really get the fire going. Looks like the brave British police reached in and snuffed the flame.

Judging from the overreaction to this non-incident I think we can safely conclude that Osama Bin Laden will remain holed up in Pakistan and let the fear mongers at CNN, MSNBC, and FOX do the dirty business of scaring the shit out of people.

UPDATE: Ahh, the panic continues. Yuppie terrorists are on the loose. Now we're being told there are two cars (both Mercedes I might add) with a Rube Goldberg contraption consisting of propane tanks, some petrol, a light bulb (or maybe light bulb filaments), etc. A propane tank explosion makes a hell of a noise but does not create widespread shrapnel dispersion. Busted eardrums and broken glass are more likely. Getting these tanks to explode is difficult. The ones I have witnessed occurred when a house under construction caught on fire. But there is nothing in two 25lb propane tanks inside a Mercedes that will detonate with sufficient force to shred the automobile and send hundreds to meet their Allah, God, Buddha, or whatever. Still a crock of hype and over-reaction. Let the police do their job. Investigate the culprits and get these nitwits out of circulation before they harm themselves.

Larry C. Johnson is a former intelligence officer of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, where he served for four years, until 1989, when he became deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, until October 1993. He is the CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management. He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

My First Film

Real Truth wakes up and smells the You Tube

If you like evil dictators and the Alan Parsons'll LOVE Dick-tator!

Real Truth Films
June 28, 2007

Boulder High Student, Jesse Lange, Calmly Exposes Bill O'Reilly's Hypocrisy

16 Year Old SCHOOLS Billo with his OWN WORDS!

June 27, 2007

Bill O'Reilly will go to any length to be right so he decided to keep poking sticks at Boulder, Colorado after the controversy about a student forum had been resolved reasonably despite his interference. When he learned that Bud Jenkins, Boulder High Principal, had apologized to the parents who found the sex and drug education assembly offensive, O'Reilly tried to suggest he was responsible. Anxious to gloat about his imagined victory, he invited two students on from the school, Andrew Wishner and Jesse Lange but things just didn't turn out the way he planned.
with video

O'Reilly really wanted to make the issue sound provocative last night calling the situation a "sex and drug scandal". However the only thing scandalous has been O'Reilly's unrelenting barrage of attacks for the last four weeks against Boulder.

On 6/19, BOR announced that Bud Jenkins had apologized commenting how they had to chase him around as if his ambush in the school parking lot did the trick. Last night he claimed to have been a " driving force" making it seem like Jenkin's apology was some big deal and proved he had been right to carry on the destructive campaign.

Andrew Wishner, Boulder High Sophomore, had spoken out against the forum at a recent Boulder School Board meeting but according to several sources at the school, Wishner wasn't even there that day. So it seems that O'Reilly didn't have that information or just decided to overlook this important detail.

When Jesse Lange was originally contacted by O'Reilly producers,6/19, he was told he would be doing a one on one interview. He was not told about the addition of Andrew Wishner until yesterday late morning making the interview a 2 against 1 affair for Lange.

Despite the disadvantage, Jesse Lange, did an admirable job confronting O'Reilly calmly and rationally. In fact, he riled Bill so much , he got branded a pinhead which he considers a badge of honor. It's interesting to note that a reader contacted us to report that the pinhead comment had been scrubbed from The Factor late rerun. I was unable to confirm that since the the video of the segment was not posted on O'Reilly's page when I looked at 11AM. No doubt, it will show up later.

Here's the video of Jesse Lange making Bill O'Reilly look very foolish.

by Larry Simons

An interesting footnote to this story is that Lange also says that in a brief pre-show interview, O’Reilly asked him not to quote the incendiary parts from The O’Reilly Factor For Kids. Hmmm, I wonder why Billo would ask someone NOT to quote from his own book???? Hmmmmm. Then, when Lange DID quote from the book and was told by Billo he was "taking it out of context" (Billo's signature: Calling DIRECT QUOTES "out of context") Lange offered to read the WHOLE paragraph, in other words, IN CONTEXT, and of course, Billo would have no part of someone reading his very OWN words from his very OWN book!

Billo has now sank to an all time low, even for Billo......getting annihilated by a 16 year old! I bet Billo will think twice now about having teenagers on his show. Maybe Billo will do much better next time with pre-kindergartners!

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

The Bitch is Back

Terrorist Ann Coulter spews her hypocrisy and terroristic threats across the airwaves once again

by Larry Simons
June 27, 2007

Coultergeist, the war and hate mongering bitch that loves attention is back, and these media assholes keep giving her what she wants…the spotlight. On Monday’s Hannity and Colmes show, the topic was the speech made by Barack Obama in a church this past weekend about how the religious right has hijacked religion. When Coultergeist showed her disapproval of Obama speaking in church to “advance his nomination to be the Democrat Presidential nominee”, Alan Colmes said, “Oh, so only Republicans can talk in churches?”

Coultergeist’s brilliant reply?: “No, but I do think someone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using hijack and religion in the same sentence."

Ahhhhhh, so in other words, you can’t think of ANYTHING to attack Obama on except for something he had NO control over…………his NAME! Let me get this straight Ann, you’re against words like “hijacking” because it’s associated with terrorists, hijacked planes, etc? Then surely YOU would never say such things, right? Right?

Coutergeist on GMA Monday:

So, Ann…’s totally wrong for Obama to use the word “hijack” when referring to the religious right “hijacking” religion------which is NOT a threatening remark, NOT a terroristic comment, nor is it vile in ANY way. But YOU can say that you wish that John Edwards would be killed in a terrorist asassination plot----and that’s perfectly OK, despite the fact that that IS threatening and a terroristic comment????

Here, Ann is confronted by Elizabeth Edwards. Watch how Coultergeist AVOIDS just about everything Elizabeth Edwards says, even catching Coultergeist is a LIE—where she said she said NOTHING about John Edwards on a show the previous day (“Good Morning America”). Chris Matthews is a total waste as well. How ironic the show is called “Hardball”. Everything Chris threw at Ann was soft.

And naturally, these events led to another Worst Person in the World award for Coultergeist:

I know how Elizabeth Edwards feels. Dealing with people who insult, name call and use ad hominem attacks is all I get from people. It's never about debating the issues, just character assassination and sarcasm, because debating issues is impossible with these people. I know people will read this and naturally they will spin the fact that I show my disdain for Ann Coulter because she attacks people and calls them names when I have called her names.

They will say, "but you called Ann Coulter a terrorist!" Well, that's because she's made terroristic threats and she does it quite OFTEN. She has wished the deaths of every employee at the New York Times by means of anthrax being mailed to them, and has said she regretted that Timothy McVeigh didn't bomb the New York Times building (instead of the federal building in Oklahoma City). And now, she wishes for the death of John Edwards. This isn't terrorism? Don Imus loses his job for saying "nappy headed hos" and nothing happens to Coulter for wishing DEATH on a Presidential candidate? Can anyone say Bobby Kennedy or Sirhan Sirhan?

In the near 40 years since Bobby Kennedy's assassination, could anyone have imagined we would once live in a day where someone could go on national television and wish for a Presidential candidate's death, and NOTHING happens to them????? This is simply mind-numbing! Why isn't anything being done to Ann Coulter? Why do people still give her a national platform in which to speak? Can anyone tell me why??

Here's what John Amato of Crooks and had to say about the disgraceful Chris Matthews during his show:

John Amato
Crooks and Liars

Matthews was utterly steamrolled by Annie for the full show and I can’t even list the amount of lies she told that he had no answer for. Every insane talking point you can think of was on display: “YES, it’s a fact!,” she’d say…And Chris would move on to a new topic or poll…..Obviously, she shouldn’t be given this type of format, but what’s needed is for the host to jump in and correct the record. Have a backbone….

She claimed Saddam was working with al-Qaeda, we didn’t go to war with Iraq because of WMD’s, but Iraq had them anyway. It was just the whiny liberal press (Matthews included) who made those claims. They/she had “other reasons” to go to war with Iraq. Matthews tried to slow her down a bit, but she shouted at him with an over the top exuberance and he haplessly moved on…These conmen can see a mark a mile away and Annie found a nice one. You can see more video at MSNBC

ON FAUX NEWS—even Bill O’Reilly and Hannity and Colmes limit her air time. With H&C, she usually gets two segments, but the Factor Man usually does just one. Not Matthews, he had her all to himself…and the wind…and the fans that probably were sent down by Coulter’s PR firm.

Elizabeth Edwards called in and for a brief instant tried to bring some balance and rationality back to the show—someone who had been a victim of her hate speech got a chance to confront her. Coulter just cackled and laughed at her and Matthews let that moment die, switched topics to some “chubby legs” comment she made and never even said goodbye to Elizabeth Edwards as she hung up. OMG. It was like she never called the show….This was a perfect time to have Elizabeth Edwards confront her for another segment, but Chris just hung up on a Presidential candidate’s wife.

Mediabloodhound emailed Nicole and asked if this is the same fan-thug crowd that showed up for the last Coulter in the Square event that Matthews had for her. I haven’t had time to check, but I wouldn’t doubt it…

It was a grotesque display for a man who considers himself a serious journalist and opinion maker, but we know otherwise…I can’t tell you the amount of email I received that said they were going to stop watching Hardball. Since I cover the media, I’ll be around, but I know he angered quite a few viewers yesterday...

Saturday, June 23, 2007

'Ron Paul, who?' no longer applies

GOP hopeful big hit in YouTube videos

Jose Antonio Vargas
Washington Post
June 17, 2007

Washington -- On Technorati, which offers a real-time glimpse of the blogosphere, the most frequently searched term last week was "YouTube."

Then came "Ron Paul."

The presence of the obscure Republican congressman from Texas on a list that includes terms such as "Sopranos," "Paris Hilton" and "iPhone" is a sign of the online buzz building up around the longshot Republican presidential hopeful -- even as mainstream political pundits have written him off.

Rep. Ron Paul is more popular on Facebook than Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. He's got more friends on MySpace than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. His MeetUp groups, with 11,924 members in 279 cities, are the biggest in the Republican field. And his official YouTube videos, including clips of his three debate appearances, have been viewed nearly 1.1 million times -- more than those of any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, except Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

No one's more surprised at this robust Web presence than Paul himself, a self-described old-school, pen-and-paper guy who's serving his 10th congressional term and was the Libertarian Party's nominee for president in 1988.

"To tell you the truth, I hadn't heard about this YouTube and all the other Internet sites until supporters started gathering in them," said Paul, 71, who said that he raised about $100,000 after each of the three debates; his campaign had less than $10,000 when his exploratory committee was formed in mid-February. "I tell you I've never raised money as efficiently as that, in all my years in Congress, and all I'm doing is speaking my mind."

That means saying again and again that the Republican Party, especially when it comes to government spending and foreign policy, is in shambles.

Although many Democrats have welcomed the young and fresh-faced Obama, who's trailing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in most public opinion polls, Paul is barely making a dent in the Republican polls.

Republican strategists point out that libertarians, who make up a small but vocal portion of the Republican base, intrinsically gravitate toward the Web's anything-goes, leave-me-alone nature. They also say that Paul's Web presence proves that the Internet can be a great equalizer in the race, giving a much-needed boost to a fringe candidate with little money and only a shadow of the campaign staffs marshaled by Romney, McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Paul, an obstetrician and gynecologist, is known as "Dr. No" in the House of Representatives. No to big government. No to the Internal Revenue Service. No to the federal ban on same-sex marriage.

"I'm for the individual," Paul said. "I'm not for the government."

If he had his way, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education, among other agencies, would not exist. In his view, the USA Patriot Act, which allows the government to search personal data, including private Internet use, is unconstitutional, and trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement are a threat to American independence.

But perhaps what most notably separates Paul from the crowded Republican field, headed by what former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore calls "Rudy McRomney," is his stance on the Iraq war. He's been against it from the very beginning.
After the second Republican presidential debate last month, when Paul implied that American foreign policy has contributed to anti-Americanism in the Middle East -- "They attack us because we're over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," Paul said -- he was attacked by Giuliani, and conservatives such as Saul Anuzis were livid. Anuzis, chairman of the Michigan GOP, threatened to circulate a petition to bar Paul from future Republican presidential debates. The petition has not materialized, but Anuzis' BlackBerry was flooded with e-mail and his office was inundated with calls for several days. The culprits: Paul's growing number of supporters, some of whom posted Anuzis' e-mail address and office phone number on their blogs.

"At first I was skeptical of his increasing online presence, thinking that it's probably just a small cadre of dedicated Ron Paul fans," said Matt Lewis, a blogger and director of operations at Townhall, a popular conservative site. "But if you think about it, the No. 1 issue in the country today is Iraq. If you're a conservative who supports the president's war, you have nine candidates to choose from. But if you're a conservative who believes that going into Iraq was a mistake, Ron Paul is the only game in town."

Terry Jeffrey, the syndicated newspaper columnist who ran Patrick Buchanan's failed White House bid in 1996, said: "On domestic issues like spending and taxation and the role of government, Ron Paul is saying exactly what traditional conservatives have historically thought, and he's pointing out that the Bush administration has walked away from these principles. That's a very attractive argument."

Especially to someone such as Brad Porter, who obsessively writes about Paul on his blog, subscribes to Paul's YouTube channel and attended a Ron Paul MeetUp event in Pittsburgh last week.

The 28-year-old Carnegie Mellon student donated $50 to Paul's coffers after the first debate, and $50 after the third debate.

"For a poor college student, that's a lot," said Porter, a steady Republican. "But I'm not supporting him because I think he could get the nomination. I'm supporting him because I think he can influence the national conversation about what the role of government is, how much power should government have over our lives, how much liberty should we give up for security. These are important issues, and frankly, no one's thinking about them as seriously and sincerely as Ron Paul."

Bill O’Reilly Likes His Women Muzzled

O' Reilly cuts off guests' audio and video feed again....his trademark

Robin Swanson
June 20, 2007

When I was invited to tape a segment on the O’Reilly Factor today, I knew that I would be walking onto a set-up program that would be biased against any reasonable Democratic point of view, but I’ve appeared on many FOX News (FNC) programs before, and felt comfortable responding on the topic of the day.

On previous FNC programs, such as "Hannity & Colmes," while there’s a clear conservative skew, panelists usually are allowed to make their points, even if they have to shout to be heard.

But despite the well-deserved perception of FNC as a conservative monolithic "news" outlet, they continue to do well in the ratings game, and their viewers run the gamut of the ideological spectrum. So Democrats from across the country, including myself, brave the landmine-riddled terrain that is FNC in order to attempt to deliver a Democratic viewpoint in otherwise hostile territory.

Normally, you’ve got about 15-20 seconds to make your point in segments that run from about 3-7 minutes long. Most of the time I’ve been able to deliver a few salient points, and other times I’ve been less successful.

But today was different.

In the midst of a debate where O’Reilly was trying to pit the Left of the Democratic Party against Senator Hillary Clinton, I dared to disagree with his premise. I had the audacity to suggest that the fissures about the war in Iraq were actually in the Republican Party, not in the Democratic Party.

O’Reilly was clearly perturbed that I didn’t allow him to bully me. So, mid-sentence, apparently taking his cue from the season finale of the Sopranos, he cut my audio and video feed. Fade to black.

For a news organization that laughingly calls itself "fair and balanced," this was a new low. O’Reilly claims that his program is a "No-spin zone," but apparently, it’s "No-speech zone" if you disagree with him.

O’Reilly’s censorship of guests who don’t perform on-cue like trained monkeys is truly Orwellian. If you disagree with him, you don’t exist -- he cuts your feed.

No debate, no argument, no fighting to get in the last word -- simply pushing a button, and sending guests’ satellite feed back into space.

Perhaps I should have expected this treatment from a network whose president, Roger Ailes, made jokes comparing Barack Obama to Osama Bin Laden, but with O’Reilly leading the charge, FNC has achieved the journalistic integrity of the National Enquirer. And at least that rag is entertaining.

And in the ultimate ironic twist, O’Reilly began tonight’s program with a whiny segment complaining that Democratic Presidential contenders have refused to appear on his program.

All I have to say is: Keep dreaming O’Reilly -- your on-air temper-tantrum today is proof positive that your "no-spin zone" is anything but.

Friday, June 22, 2007

New 9/11 Study Has Direct Links To Government, Pentagon Black Ops

"Independent" study financed by Feds

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
June 22, 2007

A newly released Purdue University animation showing how fire caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 claims to be independent but in reality has been federally funded and was conducted by individuals with direct links to the Pentagon and the White House.

Earlier this week we covered the news that the new study roughly correlates with the findings of the 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report and supports the official line that the airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

While the New York Times today lauds the study as "a counterpoint to the conspiracy theories promulgated by such outspoken figures as Rosie O’Donnell", has actually done some research into the origins of the study.

In addition to the inerrant flaws and conflicts we pointed out in our previous article, it has now come to light that the so called "independent" structural engineers behind the study are anything but.

The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…".

The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices. Last year the Bush Administration doubled the NSF's budget to $6.02 billion.

At the time Arden L. Bement, Jr. stated:
"This is a great day for NSF, and that means it's a great day for the nation, there has been a lot of rhetoric about doubling the NSF budget, but now the Administration is behind it. The FY 2007 Budget Request is the first installment. We are grateful to the Administration for its recognition and leadership,"

In addition it turns out that structural engineer Mete Sozen, the lead investigator in the Purdue study, was also on the American Society of Civil Engineers research team that confirmed the government's story about the OKC bombing in 1995, despite the huge amounts of inconsistencies and conflicting testimony.

Coincidence? From the ASCE web site

Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering,Purdue University
Specialty: Behavior of reinforced-concrete structures

Dr. Sozen is currently the Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Prior to joining Purdue in 1994, Dr. Sozen was a professor of civil engineering at the University of Illinois for over 35 years. Dr. Sozen also served on the ASCE team that studied the Murrah Federal Office Building collapse.

So while it claims to be independent the study was in fact funded by the government and carried out by long time government hired hands. The study clearly set out not to attempt to discover anything new but to prove the preconceived official fire theory.

Again this underscores the fact that a truly independent investigation into 9/11 is the only way the mountains of evidence pointing towards a controlled demolition will even be considered.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Olbermann exposes the idiocy and hypocrisy of Billo….AGAIN!

by Larry Simons
June 20, 2007

Billo is at it again…more lies and hypocrisy. This time about NBC actually giving time and more coverage to a story about the deaths of 7 Afghan kids killed in a U.S. air strike than any other station. Here’s what O’Liar had to say on his show.

“Last night, all three networks reported 7 Afghan children were killed in fighting between the Taliban and U.S. forces. ABC spent 15 seconds on the story….CBS, 10 seconds, but NBC news gave it a full 2 minutes. Dead Afghan kids killed in an American air strike? NBC news is jazzed”.

How dare those bastards at NBC for spending time on a story where if it was a story on the deaths of AMERICAN children by the enemy, Billo would have talked about it for 2 weeks straight and showed clips repeatedly.

As Keith pointed out, “He (O’ Reilly) also claims that he brings his listeners and viewers stuff that is new, stuff that is relevant to your life." Here is a list of news that Billo has recently decided is more important than the hell and reality of war. All these stories (sadly) have been on O’ Reilly’s show just in the past week.

More important than war, our troops or dead Afghan children (according to Billo) are:

*The dangerous threat of BEARS (hold on, I hear a noise outside, maybe it's one of those man-eating bears I see outside my door on a daily basis--lol)

*Blocking the rock group The Monkees from induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

*Body language expert analyzing Rosie O’ Donnell

*A study on having sex in your sleep (Bill loves these sex segments...just ask Andrea Mackris)

*Asking about the film “Smokey & the Bandit” during his culture quiz segment

*Promoting stupid merchandise like his “spin stops here” pens (oh brother!) (what about the "Culture Warrior" loofahs? lol)

Keith also explains that Billo once AGAIN has facts about the WWII era wrong….AGAIN, saying this:

“In a more serious aspect to all of this, Bill-O also got the Second World War wrong again. You will remember his insistence that the slaughtered American prisoners at Malmedy at the start of the Battle of the Bulge were actually war criminals who had murdered German prisoners.

Now, to rationalize criticizing actual news organizations for showing actual news, he‘s bulldozed over the facts of the greatest generation yet again. “What about President Roosevelt setting up the Office of War Information in 1942?,” he asked, “which censored, among other things, the results of enemy action and American casualty lists. Roosevelt did that to prevent the erosion of morale here in America.”

Actually, the OWI, under the leadership of the very liberal former CBS News man named Elmer Davis, was responsible not for censorship, but for patriotic posters and radio broadcasts and warnings to the public about accidental revelation of war secrets. Loose lips sink ships. And eventually it created the Voice of America.

Censorship, the decision not to show the results of enemy action, like American dead, was actually discontinued during the Second World War when President Roosevelt himself decided that keeping such information secret was keeping Americans at home from realizing how serious, how vital the war was, that censorship was eroding morale here in America. Famously, Roosevelt personally lifted the ban on publishing photographs of dead American servicemen, and “Life Magazine” printed an astounding photo, the first of U.S. casualties engulfed in the sands and maggots of the beaches at Buna, New Guinea. So, Bill O‘Reilly‘s reporting lives up to its usual 27 percent standards.”

Arianna Huffington was Keith’s guest and she made a GREAT point when she said, “But the ultimate contradiction for me is when Bill O‘Reilly, again and again, criticizes those of us who are opposed to the war as being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. But he thinks that he is supporting the troops by ignoring their deaths, by ignoring their ultimate sacrifice. I have no idea how he can justify that. I wonder is anyone holding him accountable.”

To see this hottie scortch Billo and call him out on his hypocrisy and lies is hot to watch---wow.

Watch the clip to witness for yourself a montage of “news” that Billo has delivered to his sheep (just in the past week). I call this, ‘The news according to Billo and other delusions and made up ‘facts’”


Ron Paul is asked about investigating 9/11

June 21, 2007

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

BREAKING NEWS: 9/11 Bombshell: WTC 7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building

Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower collapsed

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
June 19, 2007

The Alex Jones show today welcomed Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Burmas to discuss an exclusive interview they have conducted with an individual with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 and has descibed and detailed explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero on 9/11.

The interview, to be featured in the forthcoming Final Cut of Loose Change is currently under wraps but the creators have allowed some details to leak purely to protect themselves and the individual involved who has asked to remain anonymous until the film is released.

We can reveal that the individual concerned was asked to report to building seven with a city official after the first attack on the North tower but before the second plane hit the South Tower and before their eventual collapse, in order to provide the official with access to different floors of the building.

The city official he was escorting was attempting to reach Rudy Guiliani, who he had determined was inside building 7 at that time. According to Avery and Burmas this official now works for Guiliani partners.

The individual was also asked to provide access to the Office Of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of the building, this was the so called "bunker" that was built inside WTC7 on the orders of Rudy Guiliani.

When he got there he found the office evacuated and after making some calls was told to leave immediately.

It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building:

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."

He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex.

The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.

listen to the clips here.

Avery and Burmas, who played the two short clips of the interview prior to further analysis and more clips to be played on their own GCN radio show later tonight at 7pm CST, further described how the individual had witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them.

This is vital information be cause it is in direct conflict with the official claim that no one was killed inside building 7. The 9/11 Commission report did not even mention building, yet here we have a key witness who told them he saw dead people inside the building after explosions had gutted the lower level.

What makes all this information even more explosive is the fact that this individual was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their so called investigation.

The fact that the building was not even mentioned in the report in light of this information thus becomes chilling and indicates that officials have lied in stating that they have not come into contact with evidence of explosive devices within the buildings.

Avery and Burmas successfully contacted the individual after discovering a TV interview he did on 9/11 while they were trawling through news footage from the day in research for the Final Cut.

Avery says that he can and will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the individual was in building 7 on 9/11 and that what he is saying is accurate.

CNN Lets the Cat out of the Bag

by Larry Simons
June 20, 2007

Looks like CNN let America know too much information on 9/11. I'm sure this clip has never been seen again. Hmmmmm, I thought it was fire and an airplane that caused the collapse?

CNN wins top prize in Real Truth's First Annual "Truth in Mainstream Media" Awards

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files

by Larry Simons
June 18, 2007

Calum Douglas presents his investigation into the flight data recorder from Flight 77, which was supplied to him under the US Freedom of Information Act, to an audience at the Indian YMCA in Fitzroy Square, London on 8th June 2007.

This is amazing! I know, I know, you “official conspiracy” people won’t even watch this because it’s much easier attacking people and calling them “nuts” when you don’t have to look into facts. Even if you DO watch this, you will watch for 5 minutes and claim you were bored and say “what did it prove?” Yeah, that’s right…sit back and be the “true American” you CLAIM to be and spend more time watching a baseball game than someone who can practically prove our own government is covering up killing over 3,000 people on 9/11.

The part near the end where the guy calls the NTSB and the FBI and they act like they’re bored with this guys’ questions about the flight path of Flight 77….information that they KNOW about, is pretty revealing and obvious they know more than they will admit. Instead of being concerned about the callers questions and information, they seem more interested in investigating HIM by asking for his personal information! Unbelievable! It’s Nazi Germany people…..just without the swastikas.

For those of you who actually care about truth, enjoy.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

O' Reilly, a NON-factor in Mets clubhouse

The big giant head gets his big ass booted from the NY Mets clubhouse, complains. Keith Olbermann gets to stay.

Roger Rubin
NY Daily News
June 17, 2007

Bill O'Reilly's right-wing politics may rub a lot of people the wrong way in New York, but his views had nothing to do with his ejection from the Mets' clubhouse yesterday before their game against the Yankees at the Stadium.

O'Reilly, the FoxNews Channel talking head, got inside the visitors' clubhouse before Stadium security realized that he was not wearing a credential granting clubhouse access. He and his party then were escorted out of the room.

According to a reporter from The Record of Hackensack (N.J.), the Big Righty complained to the security officer, "You don't have to escort us out - we're going."

Coincidentally, If there is some irony surrounding the incident, it's that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann was in the Mets' clubhouse before Friday night's game. Olbermann hosts the left-leaning "Countdown" on MSNBC and he and O'Reilly have frequently exchanged barbs on their respective programs.

Olbermann, a regular at both New York baseball stadiums and a former ESPN anchorman, was granted clubhouse access because of his sports background and regular attendance, not because of his politics.

O'Reilly may not have gotten to chum around with the Mets but - as always - his voice got heard. After exiting the clubhouse he went to the field, where the Yankees were taking batting practice. There, he was seen chatting with Joe Torre and GM Brian Cashman.

by Larry Simons

It is also interesting to note that I received from another source that Olbermann was actually at the same game O’ Reilly was at. Olbermann was allowed to stay, but O’ Reilly had to go. It is also interesting to note that The New York Mets is the very team in which Bill O’ Reilly tried out for in the early 70’s, unsuccessfully, of course. It seems the Mets just doesn’t want this guy around whether he’s famous or not!

I’m sure this embarrassing moment for Billo won’t make it on the Factor on Monday.

Could it be grounds for Billo to call up these guys???? LOL

Thursday, June 14, 2007

O'Reilly: CNN, MSNBC "delight in showing Iraqi violence" and "are actually helping the terrorists"

O' Liar: "I'm not gonna cover every bomb that goes off in Tikrit, because it's meaningless". Maybe not to the families that lost their kids in the bombing ASSHOLE!!

Media Matters
June 13, 2007

During the "Talking Points Memo" segment on the June 12 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly responded to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found that Fox News spent less time covering the Iraq war than CNN and MSNBC in the first three months of 2007. O'Reilly asserted: "In my opinion, CNN and especially MSNBC delight in showing Iraqi violence because they want Americans to think badly of President Bush. And that strategy has succeeded." O'Reilly also stated that he "can't speak for Fox News" but that his program does not "highlight every terrorist attack because we learn nothing from that. And that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do. I mean, come on, does another bombing in Tikrit mean anything other than 'War is hell'? No, it does not."

Discussing the study during the June 12 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, O'Reilly claimed: "The terrorists are going to set off a bomb every day, because they know CNN and MSNBC are gonna put it on the air. That's a strategy for the other side, the terrorist side. So I'm taking an argument that CNN and MSNBC are actually helping the terrorists by reporting useless explosions." O'Reilly later stated: "I'm not gonna cover every bomb that goes off in Tikrit, because it's meaningless."

Watch clip:

Additionally, O'Reilly asserted that "CNN and MSNBC put [coverage of the Iraq war] on because they want to give the impression that the war is a loser and Bush is an idiot," adding: "Now, that may be true. The war is a loser, and Bush may be an idiot. OK, I'm not -- that's for you to decide. But that's why they're doing it." O'Reilly claimed that the reason he doesn't "do a lot of Iraq reporting" is "because we don't know what's happening. We can't find out."

O'Reilly has fueled an ongoing feud between Fox News and NBC/MSNBC, as Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, here, and here). Media Matters has also documented O'Reilly's previous expressions of indifference to the situation in Iraq. During the September 25, 2006, broadcast of his radio program, O'Reilly declared: "I don't care what Iraq was, I don't care what it will be," and added that he "[c]ouldn't care less" about the country.

The weblog Think Progress also documented O'Reilly's comments during his June 12 radio show. From the June 12 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

Fox News criticized for its Iraq war coverage. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." A group called the Project for Excellence in Journalism says that during the first three months of this year, Fox News had less coverage of Iraq than CNN and MSNBC.

That led CNN chief Jonathan Klein to say, quote, "Fox News were obviously cheerleaders for the war. When the war went badly, they had to dial back coverage because it didn't fit their preconceived story lines."

Wow, that sounds bad, doesn't it? Now, I can't speak for Fox News, only for "The Factor," and here's the deal. In the beginning, I supported the war based upon best available intelligence. I was on the same page as [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] and [former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC] and just about everybody else.

When it became clear that many Iraqis would rather kill each other than fight for their freedom, I told you that, all the while rooting for the U.S. military to win the conflict, despite the Iraqi madness.

That's right, as a commentator, I am rooting for the Americans and British to win because a victory is better for the USA and the world.

Now, we've done hundreds of Iraq reports on this program, as you know. But we don't do the carnage du jour. We don't highlight every terrorist attack because we learn nothing from that. And that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do. I mean, come on, does another bombing in Tikrit mean anything other than "War is hell"? No, it does not.

In my opinion, CNN and especially MSNBC delight in showing Iraqi violence because they want Americans to think badly of President Bush. And that strategy has succeeded.

So their Iraqi coverage is more political than informational, again, in my opinion. Could be wrong about CNN. I'm not wrong about the committed left-wing crew over at NBC.

Finally, just who are these Project for Excellence in Journalism people? Well, their spokesman is a guy named Mark Jurkowitz, a former TV writer for the far-left Boston Globe and the off-the-chart-left Boston Phoenix.

Now, I've known Mr. Jurkowitz for many years. He hates Fox News and is a committed leftist. So much for journalistic excellence.

Now, when the Associated Press picked up the study, it didn't identify Jurkowitz as a Fox hater, and it should have.

The bottom line is this. We've reported time and again that the war in Iraq is indeed a mess. There's little news value in broadcasting daily bombings. By the way, Fox News continues to crush CNN and MSNBC in the ratings, as the folks know news when they see it. And that's the "Memo."

From the June 12 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: All right. Now, they came up with a study of how Iraq is covered by the three cables, and Fox News covers it less than CNN and MSNBC. All right, the Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN's daytime newshole, 18 percent of MSNBC, 6 percent of Fox. OK. So, pretty big, pretty big. Now, OK, I'm not gonna dispute that. I can't talk for Fox News and what they do during the day. [Fox News Live anchor] E.D. Hill might be able to, but I can't. But on my program, I don't do a lot of Iraq reporting because we don't know what's happening. We can't find out.

Now, the reason that CNN and MSNBC do so much Iraq reporting is because they want to embarrass the Bush administration. Both do, and all their reporting consists of is, "Here's another explosion. Bang! Here's more people dead. Bang!" All right, we know that. We don't have to report -- it's like Vietnam. Did you report every firefight? No. We know that. The reason that CNN and MSNBC put it on is because they want to give the impression that the war is a loser and Bush is an idiot.

Now, that may be true. The war is a loser, and Bush may be an idiot. OK, I'm not -- that's for you to decide. But that's why they're doing it. They're not doing it to inform anybody about anything. What do you care if another bomb goes off in Tikrit? And the other thing is that the terrorists know this. The terrorists are going to set off a bomb every day because they know CNN and MSNBC are gonna put it on the air. That's a strategy for the other side, the terrorist side. So I'm taking an argument that CNN and MSNBC are actually helping the terrorists by reporting useless explosions.

Do you care if another bomb went off in Tikrit? Does it mean anything? No. It doesn't mean anything. You can't put it in any perspective. We don't know if the surge is working, if security's better. We can't find out. Why? Because our correspondents can't give you that kind of breadth. No correspondents could. Now, we don't believe -- we being "The Factor" -- that the war in Iraq is going well. And I've said that over and over. Am I gonna bring you every explosion? No.

Kicker on this -- Fox News creams CNN and MSNBC in the ratings, all day, every day. At 8 o'clock, "The Factor" beats every single -- not only MSNBC and CNN, but CNBC and Headline News combined. Because we bring you stuff that is new, that is relevant to your life, and I'm not gonna cover every bomb that goes off in Tikrit, because it's meaningless.

Now, the Associated Press writes this article, kicks it out there, like Fox is in the tank and doesn't want to give you bad news. That's a lie. And it comes off a -- you know, guys that hate Fox. Project for Excellence in Journalism -- come on! This guy, Jurkowitz, I mean -- all right, I'm not gonna get into the personal realm, but it's just ridiculous.

Listen here:

by Larry Simons

Yeah, I know, I posted another story from that far-left website Media Matters. How dare them bastards at Media Matters for doing another story on Billo and quoting him WORD FOR WORD and accurately! They post his VERY words verbatim and even post clips of him saying these EXACT words. How dare those anti-American far-left loons! They just love to assassinate a person's character. Hey Billo, I have an idea that might change the way Media Matters conducts how they do their stories. You might want to STOP SAYING RIDICULOUS SHIT! THAT WAY YOUR WORDS WON'T BE POSTED WORD-FOR-WORD AND MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE THE TOTAL ASS YOU ARE! Ok, now I feel better.

Scarborough Country did a great piece on this topic, and Dan Abrams did a GREAT job at being as angry as one SHOULD be about O' Reilly's ridiculous comments. I LOVE how Bob Kohn started off by saying, "I'm not here to defend Bill O 'Reilly". HA!!!! That's ALL he did was DEFEND him! Where in the entire interview did Bob Kohn deliver anything BUT a defense of Bill O' Reilly?

Here's the clip:

Tuesday, June 12, 2007


Great, great movie. I’m not too sure yet what to conclude from Part I, although it is VERY interesting. Parts II and III, dead-on truth. Enjoy.

Part I: Christianity…..derived from Astrology?

Part II: The Truth of 9/11

Part III: The Central Banks – who REALLY controls America

Friday, June 8, 2007

Billo's latest "I care about the troops" campaign...the most shameful one yet!

Campaigns by the FOX News war-loving hypocrite designed to empathize with troops, with deeper digging, show how uncaring and disgraceful O' Reilly really is

by Larry Simons
June 8, 2007

The hypocrite is at it again. This time a campaign to collect as many 20 minute phone cards to the troops as possible so that they are able to call their loved ones from overseas. But, in typical O' Reilly form, not without a stupid gimmick. A few months ago O' Liar started a campaign to send copies of his book, "Culture Warrior" to the troops. Free of charge? Without gimmicks? Of course not. That is not Billo's way. There has to be something in it for him.

In the book campaign, the stupid gimmick was that in order for the lucky troop (just dying to read his book amidst the hell of war) to receive the book, someone had to first buy a copy of the book, but only from HIS website. In other words, you had to buy it from Billo's site, meaning you're paying Billo nearly DOUBLE the amount of money than you'd buy it from Wal-Mart, Amazon, Target, etc.. If you sent Billo $26, you got a copy of his stupid book, and he would send a "free" copy to a troop. It didn't take a rocket scientist to quickly discover that if you bought a book from Wal-Mart or Amazon, you'd be paying nearly HALF the price that Billo charged. Meaning, you could buy TWO books from Wal-Mart or Amazon for LESS than $26 and give books to TWO troops.

But then, one must ask himself, why would anyone want to further punish troops by sending them Bill O' Reilly? I mean, they're already at war, that's bad enough. Why send them a book penned by a person who wants them to stay in Iraq and supports the President 100% in this ridiculous war? Now, Billo has a new campaign. If you go to his stupid website, take a stupid quiz and click "submit", a 20-minute phone card goes to a troop. To the average, stupified American this seems like a pretty easy way to show support for the troops. Pretty harmless, right? I mean, at least Billo's not asking for money this time, right?

Yeah, yeah, no money involved....harmless....quick and easy quiz, and poof, a troop gets to talk for 20 minutes to a loved one. I have two MAJOR problems with this. First, why only 20 minutes? We are talking about people giving their lives for their country and Billo can't afford at least a 120 minute card? Billo makes $10 million a year. Seems to me he can pull this one off. Second, why does Billo need a stupid gimmick like people taking quizzes to get troops something they need? Why doesn't Billo just send the fucking cards ANYWAY????? I know why. Because it is not enough that Billo just does something for anyone. He needs attention. There's got to be the "HEY! LOOK WHAT I'M DOING FOR THE TROOPS BECAUSE I CARE" factor. Billo needs to trumpet what he does to the whole world, and even then, his deeds are minimal and shameful.

The campaign is called, "Operation Call Home" and on his website it says "the promotion is now over". Why does it ever have to end? Hmmmm? Why Billo? Your good deeds have timelines? They have limits? Why can't you send the troops things they need on a regular basis without REQUIRING a stupid ass gimmick from your sheep?


Thursday, June 7, 2007

Ron Paul kicking ass once again in nearly every poll

Establishment neo-con candidates only lead where they have bought and paid for to lead---in the mainstream media

by Larry Simons
June 7, 2007

Ron Paul leads the way after the third GOP Presidential debate last night. Here are screenshots from MSNBC, World Net Daily, Free Republic, CNN and I’m sure the controlled mainstream media will keep telling us that the voters are favoring their favorite establishment, warmongering neo-cons like Giuliani, McCain and Romney. Here is where you get the TRUTH.

Here is a montage of Ron Paul kicking ass in the 3rd Republican debate

Here are some facts about Ron Paul for the ill-informed, warmongering sheeple

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Fake Terror’s Greatest Hits and more Billo LIES!

JFK airport plot added to the long list of fake terror by Keith Olbermann

Countdown with Keith Olbermann
June 4, 2007

Olbermann updates his Nexus of Politics and Terror segment

Excellent! (in 2 parts)

well, while I’m at it, I thought I’d throw in Keith’s latest worst person segment, in which Billo takes home the silver and gold once again!

by Larry Simons

On a related issue: O ‘REILLY LIE ALERT!!!!!

O’ Liar said this on last night’s show “On Sunday, the NY Times put the JFK story on page 37. Every other NYC paper had the story on page 1”

Here is his lie in video form:

Here's what O' Reilly showed on TV:

Here's the ACTUAL entire paper (that Billo DIDN'T show his sheep):

Looks like PAGE ONE to ME Billo!!!! Maybe next time you should put your loofah down and UNFOLD THE PAPER!!!!

Monday, June 4, 2007

JFK Airport Plot Has All The Hallmarks Of Staged Terror

Near-retarded "ringleader", paid government provocateur mirrors legion of previous cases

Paul Joseph Watson
June 4, 2007

An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks, terminal buildings and fuel lines running beneath Kennedy International Airport has all the hallmarks of being another staged terror alert, having never advanced beyond a rudimentary planning stage while being prodded and provocateured by a paid government informant.

In every single major terror sting we have researched in the west since 9/11, not one single plot has been absent the ingredient of a government provocateur, save the cases that were outright manufactured by imaginative government propagandists in alliance with the corporate media.

In this case, the provocateur was "An informant with a criminal history including drug trafficking and racketeering agreed to work with investigators on the case, in exchange for payments and a reduced sentence," according to the New York Times.

Officials have refused to say how they became aware of the plot in the first place, but in every previous case of this nature we have found that it is the government agent provocateur who radicalizes the group and formulates the plot. The cover story is that the group is infiltrated by the informant having already planned the attack but as more details emerge, inevitably the plot always reveals itself as an artificial creation on behalf of the intelligence services.

What's the motive? The war on terror is the most politically exploited concept since the cold war. The propaganda boon from hoodwinking Americans into thinking they are constantly under threat from terrorists is unsurpassed. On the very day that this alleged plot was announced, Rudy Giuliani was already using it to inflate his presidential campaign.

In addition, the new head of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, told a reporter this past weekend that America needs to be attacked by terrorists so that people will appreciate the work that President Bush has done to protect the country.

Once again we learn that "the plot was only in a preliminary phase and the conspirators had yet to lay out detailed plans or obtain financing or explosives," and yet the event is reported by a jingoistic and frothing media as if an imminent attack on the scale of 9/11 has been averted.

But as always, the devil is in the details, because even if the group had managed to acquire the financing and explosives to enact the plot, it would have been unsuccessful, due to "safety shut-off valves would almost assuredly have prevented an exploding airport fuel tank from igniting all or even part of the network."

The sum of the group's planning for the alleged attack amounts to nothing more than visiting Google Maps and printing off photographs.

It appears that part of the agenda in hyping the alleged plot is to undermine Hugo Chavez, since the ringleader, Russell Defreitas, has links to Jamaat al-Muslimeen, a Muslim group headed up by Imam Yasin Abu Bakr, and in turn Bakr has been affiliated with Chavez.

As Kurt Nimmo writes, Neo-Con websites are already exploiting these tenuous links to demonize Hugo Chavez, who - whatever you think of his domestic policies - has been a constant thorn in the side of the Globalists and was subject to an attempted CIA coup in 2002.

Defreitas is described by one law enforcement official as “a sad sack” and “not a Grade A terrorist,” who would have been incapable of carrying out any attack. A friend described him as "not smart enough" to have carried out the attack.

In several other cases, we see a pattern where near-retarded individuals are used as patsies for terror plots orchestrated by intelligence agencies because they are easily manipulated and cannot defend themselves after the fact.

From out of nowhere, Defreitas goes from embracing American culture and enjoying jazz music to dressing in traditional Muslim garb and referring to himself as Mohammed while planning a devastating attack due to his supposed hatred of the west.

The basic tenet that the terror threat has been overhyped and magnified a thousand-fold for political propaganda is proven alone by documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that show only 0.0015 percent of the total number of cases filed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security were terrorism related, despite the fact that the Bush administration has repeatedly asserted that it is the primary focus of the DHS.

As more details leak out, there seems little doubt that the JFK airport plot will dissipate into nothing more than another hyped terror alert - coddled, molded, and directed by the government, before being unleashed on an increasingly skeptical American public in another vain attempt to prop up the flagging legitimacy of the "war on terror".