Thursday, January 31, 2008

Ron Paul Cheated Again During CNN "Debate"

Corporate media engages in mass public deception as Congressman receives just a third of the questions given to Romney and McCain

Paul Joseph Watson
January 31, 2008

Ron Paul was cheated for the umpteenth time last night, this time by CNN, as the corporate media once again engaged in mass public deception by advertising their spectacle as a "debate" when in fact it was nothing more than a staged punch and judy show.

CIA trainee Anderson Cooper directed just five questions at Congressman Paul as well as two half-questions, the answers to which he interrupted on both occasions.

In comparison, Mitt Romney fielded 17 questions and John McCain got 15, not including the time the two spent bickering with each other about their past statements.

Again, just as with the previous MSNBC debate and numerous others before it, Ron Paul was given less than a third of the questions as the other candidates.

The primary definition of a debate is, "A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints."

Since Ron Paul is the only candidate expressing opposing viewpoints, the corporate media's deliberate ploy to relegate, marginalize and restrict his opportunities to speak amounts to overt public deception. These farces should not be referred to as debates because they are merely PR stunts that are conducted with a deep-seated bias towards the establishment candidates.

As we have repeatedly emphasized, this is how frontrunners are created, this is how the establishment promotes its own candidates at the expense of others. The only solution is to continue to strike at the root of America's corporate media monopoly by creating our own forms of media and eventually eclipsing their influence which, slowly but surely, is beginning to happen with the aid of the Internet.

Here's the breakdown of Paul's participation time courtesy of the Lew Rockwell blog.

Question 1 on the economy: 1:19 minutes

Question 4 on the environment: 41 seconds, because Anderson cut him short and assured him "2 minutes, in 2 minutes we have a question for you. I promise"

Question 5 on income tax rebates and "make work" schemes: 49 seconds

Question 11 on Sandra Day O'Conner: 9 seconds, I kid you not. Cut short by Anderson
Question 15* on McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement: 1:39 minutes (only question directly asked to Dr. Paul)

Question 18* on how he (Paul) would handle the military as commander in chief: 1:50 minutes
Question 19* on a Reagan endorsement: 46 seconds

The highlight of the night came when Ron Paul slammed the punch and judy spat between McCain and Romney over Iraq, both of whom fully support endless occupation, with the Senator making it clear this week that a McCain presidency would mean more wars.

Watch it below

Here is a montage of all Dr. Paul’s responses

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

America’s biggest threat: Americans

America is on the brink of ending and it’s not because of terrorists; it’s because of the stupidity of Americans. What will it take for Americans to wake up?

by Larry Simons
January 30, 2008

What is the hell is happening in this country when just 14 months ago, this country overwhelmingly voted to elect Democrats to control the House and Senate (mostly due to the fact that 70% of this country wanted this war over), and here we are in January of 2008 in the middle of a Presidential race watching the same people vote for a man who has just recently said that he wants the United States in Iraq for 100 years?

Yes, I am speaking of John “I LOVE WAR” McCain. Tonight he won the state of Florida, and it has just been reported that he will win all of Florida’s 57 delegates. What in the hell is going on in this country when we are so against a war that we vote for one party to end it, and then just over a year we vote for the biggest pro-war candidate in this race? It’s unbelievable. I mean, I knew Americans were stupid, but this blatantly stupid? Wow!

Haven’t we had ENOUGH of this bullshit for the past 7 years? Americans want another George Bush in the White House? This is what they will get with John McCain. More wars. He ADMITS it. This is what he said in Florida 2 days ago, "There's going to be other wars. ... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

Watch the video

Pat Buchanan had this to say on Morning Joe yesterday, “That's one of the things that makes me very nervous about him," Buchanan went on. "There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. ... His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're going to be in Iraq a hundred years."

People who support McCain's crazy talk say that “McCain didn’t say we’d START the wars”. OK, you’re right, he didn’t, but he sure as hell is for attacking Iran and staying in Iraq. He’s not made this a secret.

Others say that the media is giving McCain and his crazy pro-war speeches exposure so that the American people will come out in support of Hillary Clinton, who has said (NOW) she is against the war—even though she was very for it in 2002 when she voted on it. How can you trust someone who once said “yes” and is now saying “no” (to war)? The answer is, you can’t. This is what John Kerry was vilified for in 2004---flip-flopping, yet Clinton and Edwards seem to get a free pass for flip-flopping.

Make no mistake...Hillary Clinton WILL continue this war. She will NOT end it. When she says she will end it, she is LYING. She will continue this war. If you believe she will stop this war, then you probably believe gas prices will go down if she's elected President. You probably believe all the damage that Bush has done will be undone if she's elected. If you believe she will do anything good for America, then any ridicule I could possibly give you would just be punishing you more because your own mind is already punishing you enough.

Regardless of who is our next President (with the exception of Ron Paul), nothing will change, nothing will get better and there will be no hope of living in the America we’ve always dreamed of living in. There are powerful people in powerful places working hard to make sure this will never happen. They are also very patient people. If it takes them 50, 100 or 150 years, so be it, as long as the end result meets their goal. This is exactly why Ron Paul scores astronomical numbers in areas that are not controlled: the internet, text-messaging polls, etc.. but does not do that well in the “so-called” national polls, and it’s exactly why he is definitely silenced by the controlled media.

Personally, I don’t believe the numbers coming out of Florida, or in any state really. There’s just no way these numbers can be accurate when the majority of Americans do not want this war. It’s all about consistency---not conspiracy theories. Ron Paul has won every single televised poll after debates. He has won the majority of the straw polls and has the most meet-up groups and YouTube hits, yet we are to believe he only received 3% of the vote in Florida?

Once again, this is not about bitterness because Ron Paul did not score higher. This is about the blatant inconsistency of the facts. There are already early reports coming out of Florida that voting machines have been switched and tampered with. Did 646,000 really vote for pro-war McCain? I seriously doubt it. But, if more than 5 Americans voted for the warmongering Neocon slug then it’s way too many, and this issue all goes back to just how stupid Americans really are.

What will it take for Americans to wake up? Being completely censored on the internet and having to pay for sending emails? $10.00 a gallon gas prices? Another terrorist attack that will (not MIGHT---WILL) initiate complete martial law (which will mean the establishment of curfews and the complete loss of civil liberties)? An economy that will never EVER get better because of endless wars? The reality of the joining together of Canada, United States and Mexico (commonly referred to as the North American Union)? Being carted off to internment camps?

What will it take America?

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that will completely follow the Constitution and prevent any of the above from happening. With other candidates, it will range from more of the same to bits and pieces of the above mentioned to all of the above mentioned.

More Americans than ever are waking up, but sadly, it’s not enough. Giving up is not the answer, but unless multitudes more wake up and see what is happening, we will lose this country, plain and simple. The corrupt and controlled media mixed in with the catastrophic apathy of Americans will end America as we know it------and it all will end without the help from a single terrorist.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

It’s official: John McCain is insane

From flip-flopping more than a fish out of water to bold-faced lies, it can no longer be dismissed as ignorance or just mild hypocrisy…..John McCain has lost his freaking mind….REALLY

by Larry Simons
January 26, 2008

Thursdays GOP debate in Boca Raton, FL wasn’t too exciting to watch because of the pact all 5 GOP candidates made beforehand to not attack each other like the Democrats are currently doing, but hell, it sure was a lie-fest of gargantuan proportions. The biggest one, no doubt, was John McCain, first lying about the fact that he had never heard of any military leader that said our military effort could not be sustained in Iraq”. Of course, Tim Russert just sat there like the idiotic buffoon he is and did not call him on this monstrous lie.

McCain then said later that going into Iraq was not a mistake. In agreement with him were the other warmongering Neo-cons: Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee. Ron Paul naturally is consistent with his REAL Republican stance that it was a big mistake and we went there based on lies. The key word there is: CONSISTENT. I will address this in a bit, but first let me tackle McCain’s lie that no other military leader has stated that our military effort could not be sustained in Iraq.

During the debate, McCain said this in response to this question: “You have stated that you would leave troops in Iraq for an indefinite period. How will you do this? Both militarily and economically. Please, no generalities”

McCain: “I know of no military leader, including General Petraeus, who says we can’t sustain our effort in Iraq, so you’re wrong”

Oh, really McInsane?

Gordon Lubold of the Christian Science Monitor reported last month that General George Casey made it very clear that the efforts in Iraq “can’t be sustained”.

Casey: "We're deploying at unsustainable rates," General Casey said three weeks ago during remarks to an audience at the Brookings Institution in Washington. The Army agreed to a buildup of troops a year ago with the understanding that it was temporary, he said. "We can't sustain that. We have to come off of that, and we're working that very hard."

Here is the Christian Science Monitor column:

Keith Olbermann does a great segment on this story as well:

Of course, we all know that Casey is no longer in command in Iraq for telling the truth about troops levels not being able to be sustained and for his opposition to Bush for the surge. Enter asskisser Patraeus who took over command in Iraq last February. Now the GOP candidates (except Ron Paul) would have us believe that since casualty levels of U.S. troops have gone down below 40 per month in the last 4 months (38, 37, 23, 28 respectively), that the surge is “working” despite the fact that at certain points in the war we have had less or nearly the same number of casualties than listed above when there was no surge.

May 2003---37
June 2003---30
August 2003---35
September 2003---31
February 2004---20
March 2005---35
March 2006---31

Where were the surges during these low casualty months? We didn’t hear anything was “working” then, did we? We heard the President’s fantasies that things were “working”, but did we hear anything was working by sane people? NO. We didn’t. All of a sudden, we get 4 months in a row where the casualties have dropped and we hear “the surge is working”.

Those who are opposed to the war (which is 70% of this country) get accused of not being happy that the casualties are dropping. Of course, the fact that we want the war OVER—PERIOD means absolutely nothing to these warmongering chickenhawk cowards. No, we aren’t happy about the numbers, because we want the number at ZERO. 37, 30, 20, 31……these numbers are way too high for those of us who want the number at 0. Those numbers (above) make the pro-war people very happy. What these warmongering assholes don’t give a fuck about is that these numbers are just that to them….numbers. To us, they are brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, friends, uncles and aunts. To the ones who gladly chant the bloody cry of war but yet won’t enlist to fight the war themselves, these people are just pawns to be used for foreign policy (as Henry Kissinger would agree).

They scream that the surge is working but yet fail to ever mention that 2007 was the deadliest year of the war. No, this is unimportant to them. We had 4 straight months of fewer than 40 casualties. Yippee! Are the troops coming home? Of course not. They remain there. Would this drastic decrease in casualties make any of our GOP candidates sound the trumpet for immediate withdrawal of troops? Except Ron Paul, no it wouldn’t. They not only want our presence to REMAIN in Iraq, but they want us to attack Iran too!

Let us look at the numbers of casualties (per year) in this war:

2003---486 (not a full year)
2007---901 (good thing that surge was started!!)

Another excellent story by Keith on how many times Bush has declared there was “progress” in the war and that the “mission” of the war is to make Iraq “democratic”, even AFTER Bush already ADMITTED it already was “democratic” after he had returned from Iraq in June of 2006.

Every reason we have been given to us why this war is necessary has either been accomplished by us or has been proven it was never a reason to begin with: WMD’s, to make Iraq democratic, removal of Saddam…the list goes on and on. One by one, we either accomplish an objective or find out the objective was never the real reason. All the while Bush keeps adding things to that list. Then, we are told by Bush that we will be in Iraq until it respects the rights of its people and provides them security and that we will be an ally to THEM in the “war on terror” when our government has told us repeatedly that al Qaeda has been in Iraq before 9-11 and are there now. This, of course, is a big lie. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded Iraq, but they are there now (because of us), and this is used by the warmongering Neo-cons as the reason we shall remain there.

Of course, some people don’t understand the whole Iraq fiasco, so I will explain it to them. This is the “Iraq War for idiots” version:

We are the bully on another kids’ playground. We go pick a fight with a boy who was doing nothing to us. We kick the boy’s ass. The boy’s friends get pissed and begin to attack. We kick the attackers’ asses, and then they begin to recruit more people to attack us. These attackers weren’t even around before we started the fight. Some of the attackers didn’t even exist before the fight, they were recruited. Now, as a result of our initial bullying, we have to stay there incase more attackers come, when in reality, if we would just leave altogether, no more attackers would come or be recruited. They would have no reason to attack or recruit---we’d be gone.

It’s one thing to be for or against a war. But when you have hypocritical, Neo-con slugs like John McCain flat out lying and flip-flopping, it just makes one amazed that anyone could be this blatant with this level of hypocrisy.

McCain addressed Congress twice (in 1993 and 1994) to end two wars we were involved in when Clinton was President. Watch the videos below and be amazed at the words McCain uses: phrases like “nation building”, “bring them (troops) home as soon as possible”, “Americans did not support..nation building”, “let’s not lose any more American lives”, “The Haitians were to police themselves” (in other words: WE aren’t to police the world).

Is this John McCain talking or RON PAUL? It sure LOOKS like John McCain! What the holy hell happened to him? When did he sell out his REPUBLICAN ideals? WHY did he sell out? Was it because a DEMOCRAT was President then? Was it because he was SANE then? Was it because he was not bought and paid for then?

Keep in mind these statistics as you watch these videos:

Casualties in Somalia (43) McCain wanted troops home IMMEDIATELY
Casualties in Haiti (4) McCain wanted troops home IMMEDIATELY
Casualties in Iraq (so far) (3,926) McCain wants to STAY in Iraq for 100 years!

Here is McCain from 1993 (wanting troops home from Somalia)

Mr. President, there is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Somalia. The American people want them home, I believe that the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date of March 31 or even February 1st, in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible. An evolution, which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks. Mr. President, our continued military presence in Somalia allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing, or capture of the of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that. Date certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What's the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we don't do that, and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured, because we stayed too long, longer than necessary, then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home as quickly and safely as possible. But the mission which the American people supported and this Congress supported, in an overwhelming resolution, has been accomplished. The American people did not support the goals of nation-building, peacemaking, law and order and certainly not warlord funding. For us to get into nation-building, law and order, etc, I think is a tragic and terrible mistake. But the argument that somehow the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige and our viability, as far as the No. 1 superpower in the world, I think, is baloney. The fact is, what can hurt our prestige, Mr. President, I'll tell you what can hurt our viability, as the world's superpower, and that is, if we inmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation, which entails the loss of American lives, more debacles like the one we saw with the failed mission to capture Aidid's lieutenants, using American forces, and that then will be what hurts our prestige. Look at the tragedy in Beirut, Mr. President, 240 young Marines lost their lives, but we got out. Now is the time for us to get out of Somalia, as rapidly and as promptly and as safely as possible.

Here is McCain from 1994 (wanting troops home from Haiti)

One of the reasons why people are convinced, why many of these experts are convinced, that this situation is one which is increasingly difficult to solve, is because of the fact that we were there once before. The right course of action is to make preparations as quickly as possible to bring our people home. It does not mean as soon as order is restored to Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as Democracy is flourishing in Haiti, it doesn't mean as soon as we've established a viable nation in Haiti, as soon as possible means as soon as we can get out of Haiti without losing any American lives. Now there may be different interpretations of this Resolution on the other side but it is my view and I want to make it clear and I think the majority of the American people's view that as soon as possible means as soon as possible. Exactly what those words state. The Haitians were to police themselves but the cooperation that was to prevent mission creep has not materialized and U.S. troops have assumed a greater and greater responsibility for policing Haiti. We all see on CNN what they are doing. Day by day their mission expands. American military personnel have been tasked with preventing looting, stopping Haitian on Haitian violence, protecting private property and arresting attaches.

I seem to recall John McCain accusing Ron Paul of being an isolationist back in November during one of the debates. McCain told Paul, "That kind of isolationism is what caused WW II...we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of isolationism and appeasement, and I want to tell you something sir..I just finished having Thanskgiving with the troops and their message to you is...let us win".

Well, Johnny boy, then why didn't you spend Thanksgiving with the troops in Somalia and Haiti? Were you afraid they was going to say, "let us win" when you wanted them home? Wasn't it very isolationist of you to want those troops home from Somalia and Haiti 14 and 15 years ago? Don't you realize it was that kind of isolationism that put Hitler in power? We all know that 9-11 has turned you into Rambo, but for the love of God, instead of looking for Bin Laden or WMD's, have the troops search for the 1993/1994 John McCain!

Lewis Black: Red, White and Screwed

January 26, 2008

Side-splitting funny stuff here! Go from left to right each row for sequence.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Ron Paul Shunned In Blatantly Unfair MSNBC Debate

Congressman given less than a third of the time afforded to Romney, half the questions

Paul Joseph Watson
January 25, 2008

According to those that recorded the time afforded to each Republican candidate during last night's MSNBC debate in Florida, Congressman Ron Paul was again given the least coverage, being allowed to talk for less than a third of the time and receiving less than half the questions compared with Mitt Romney.

Here are the final speaking times as compiled by The ConnieTalk blog.

Romney: 21 minutes, 11 seconds (12 answers and asked 1 question)
McCain: 16 minutes even (12 answers and asked 1 question)
Giuliani: 13 minutes and 50 seconds (10 answers and asked 1 question)
Huckabee: 12 minutes and 11 seconds (8 answers and asked 1 question)
Paul: 6 minutes and 31 seconds (5 answers and asked 1 question)

Establishment candidates were lavished with time and allowed to ask each other more questions uninterrupted while Paul was shunned and marginalized, despite the fact that he has clocked up back to back silver medals in both the Nevada and Louisiana caucuses.

It was symptomatic of the way the establishment media has treated Paul since his presidential campaign began, terrified of the momentum he would rapidly build if he was given the equal face time that establishment candidates have enjoyed all along.

Viewers also noted how Romney, Giuliani and McCain were allowed to crack jokes and enjoy pops and cheers from the audience, but when the audience responded to Ron Paul they were politefully told to shut up.

"The first time it happened, MSNBC reminded the audience no "outbursts...or applause." The second time Paul got the studio audience cheering - when he said we never should have invaded Iraq - the audience was reminded to hold back "pent up energy." Nothing was said when any of the other candidates told jokes or inspired audience interaction," according to ConnieTalk.

Several viewers also reported that the pre-debate promo ads featured photos of all the Republican candidates bar one - Congressman Ron Paul.

Bloggers are encouraging Paul supporters to sign a petition in protest of MSNBC's skewed and unfair coverage, which ranks alongside Fox News' style of bias and crony fixed debates.

In another bizarre moment, following a question from Tim Russert directed at Mitt Romney in which he asked, "Will you do for social security what Ronald Reagan did in 1983?" a hushed voice is heard to whisper "raise taxes" before Romney responds, "I'm not gonna raise taxes".

Is Romney wired? Is he debating with the aide of the infamous Bush bulge? Who was the voice in his ear helping him clarify the question? A fellow establishment candidate or some kind of remote audio hook up? Whatever the explanation, it was an odd occurance to say the least.

"Some have speculated that the whisper is a prompt for Russert to add on the rest of the question, "raised taxes," to what Russert said about Reagan, but listen to how incredibly fast the whisper comes after Russert finishes his sentence. Seems mighty fast to have been someone trying to get Russert to finish the question - how does the whisperer know that Russert is done? It sounds much more like a prompt for Mitt," writes blogger E. Stewart Rhodes.

Watch the clip

For what it was worth, here are Ron Paul's answers (within the paltry time MSNBC graciously afforded him) at last night's debate

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Olbermann finally says two words I didn't think he knew.... "Ron Paul"

"Countdown" host praises Ron Paul’s fundraising efforts

by Larry Simons
January 24, 2008

On last night’s "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", Keith discussed the financial situations of the GOP candidates with Congressional Quarterly’s Craig Crawford. Both men discussed the dwindling bank accounts of McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani but when they mentioned Ron Paul, they praised his campaign for raising huge amounts of money in single days.

Crawford said, “If this were private business, Ron Paul would be the only profit making company of the lot”, then finished with, “there’s something about the Paul campaign, they just pull it in…they don’t even ask for it”. Yes, I'm guessing that the "something" Crawford refers to is the message of freedom, ending the war, following the Constitution, strengthening the economy and getting the government out of our lives.

It’s no secret that I love Keith’s show, but I have been very angry at him for being silent on Ron Paul. Especially when Keith has been such a big advocate of saving the Constitution, restoring Habeas Corpus and pointing out the Bush administrations’ scandals and history of fake terror stories, things that would make you think he would easily support Ron Paul. Yet, Keith hardly ever mentions him. I’m sure this has to do with it being mainstream media and that even Keith gets the “censor Ron Paul” message from his superiors.

Everyone is bought and paid for in the media, but not everyone has sold their soul. Glad to finally see that Keith knows who Ron Paul is.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Ex-UN Weapons Inspector Ritter Asks If Bush, Cheney Planned Implosion Of WTC

Jason Charles
January 23, 2008

In his usual form, former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter told a packed crowd at the Oriental Theater in Denver to stop whining about corporate media and become their own intelligence operatives. We the people have the same resources and tools that intelligence networks rely heavily on; it’s called “Google” he said.

In his hilarious analogy, the American people like baby birds wait each night in front of their television sets for the corporate news bird to land in their living room and lovingly puke down our necks with that day’s regurgitated news. Suggesting that as our own intelligence operatives we can’t allow CNN, FOX, NBC, and ABC to edit and cherry pick information, but ask questions and find the answers ourselves.

In that vein Editor Jason Charles had a few questions for Mr. Ritter which he graciously allowed us to film. We explored 3 topics, if the Bush admin got its way in the mid-east what would it look like, how can these dis-separate yet justice driven revolutions in America unite, and his amazing thoughts on a new, fully empowered investigation into the cause of 9-11.

He asked, “Did Bush and Cheney Plan the demise of the building? Was this a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda? Or was it something in between? Well frankly we don’t know.” How important is this to establishing justice? Mr. Ritter seems to think it is an “absolute requirement to know what happened on 9-11”

Friday, January 18, 2008

The ultimate of troop hating…now Loofah boy denies there’s homeless vets!!!

Where’s groups like "We Are Change" when you need them? O’ Liar needs to be given a dose of his own medicine, to be ambushed on the street by a mob of homeless vets demanding their cash

by Larry Simons
January 18, 2008

On the January 4, 2008 telecast of the #1 FOX comedy show, The O’Reilly Factor, Billo stooped to a new low (even for him)….denying the undeniable, that there are as many as 200,000 homeless vets in America.

During a concession speech in Iowa on January 3, John Edwards said this, "And tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore our uniform proudly and served this country courageously as veterans will go to sleep under bridges and on grates. We're better than this."

Of course, the natural reaction from Billo is to immediately deny that anything bad happens in America, despite the fact that Edwards’ facts come directly from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The actual figure is roughly 195,000, but I’m quite sure Edwards was just rounding off. Billo’s problem isn’t the rounding off. This asshole is even denying there’s that many at all. Of course, Billo doesn’t care to share with his sheep the actual number of homeless vets he personally believes there are, but I’m quite sure that even if Bill "America does no wrong" O’Reilly would shoot off a number (say 1,000) he would blame THEM for not getting a job, being lazy or that it's THEIR fault they have no legs or arms.

Never to let FACTS be a "factor" on his stupid show, Loofah boy wouldn’t stoop so low as to actually research and get the facts. Why would he? He doesn’t have to. He knows that his sheep will tune in faithfully every night so they can be injected with the day’s propaganda, spin, lies and unresearched opinions. He knows his sheep will never research themselves. They will never fact-check. They will never question and never doubt. His sheep will listen, obey and worship at the altar of O’Reilly.

His sheep will not only NOT research out of their blind adoration of Mr. Falafel, but when someone gives them PROOF that O’Liar is dead wrong, they will deny it. Why? Simply because O’ Liar said it. BUT, contrary to the delusions of Loofah boy, here are the FACTS, straight from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs website:

About one-third of the adult homeless population have served their country in the Armed Services. Current population estimates suggest that about 195,000 veterans (male and female) are homeless on any given night and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing.

click to enlarge

So, John Edwards was absolutely CORRECT. Of course, when the faithful O’ Reilly sheep see this they will say one of two things: Either the Department of Veterans Affairs numbers are wrong or that Billo was taken out of context. They will say ANYTHING but "he was wrong". Or, if by some miraculous turn of events they actually admit their Lord and savior was (heaven forbid…..WRONG) they will say "who cares anyway, it doesn’t matter".

One has to wonder why the Department of Veterans Affairs would even lie about this. It is something they must be embarrassed to admit. The shocking thing here is not the number of homeless vets, but the fact that the DVA admits it! But these pesky little facts don’t matter to the Lord of Liars O’ Reilly. If he said his shit didn’t stink, his faithful would accept it as truth. If he put a picture of his shit on a bumper sticker, his sheep would buy it.

Here’s Billo getting the gold on Worst Person on January 8

Then, on January 15, O’Reilly was at it AGAIN. This time with radio host Ed Shultz, O’ Liar said, "We're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. So if you find anybody, let us know. Because that's all the guy said for the last.." When Schultz told O'Reilly, "Well, they're out there, Bill, don't kid yourself," O'Reilly replied, "They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK? So if you know where one is, Ed ... if you know where there's a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it, is not there." Shultz concluded with, "I will do that. I will do that. You have my word on that."

Here’s the clip:

Homelessness of veterans of this magnitude has been an issue for decades and has never been denied, until FOX News came along. Now black is white, right is wrong and lies is truth.

Here is a link to the facts:

There is also a new documentary out called "When I Came Home" detailing the hard truth about homeless vets. From those who served in Vietnam to those returning from the current war in Iraq. The film looks at the challenges faced by returning combat veterans and the battle many must fight to receive their benefits from the Veterans Administration.

Watch the trailer:

Click to watch the latest story on Olbermann about the O’ Reilly denial of homeless vets

O’ Reilly then said if any vets are found, he would make sure they are taken care of. Well, Billo, there’s roughly 200,000 of them, and if you give them each $15,000 to live on per year, that would be 3 BILLION dollars! Someone needs to get about 15-20 homeless vets together on the street and confront O’ Reilly and ask this prick to fork over some money. Somebody get the group "We Are Change" to confront this prick!


On the January 17 telecast of the O' Reilly Factor, Billo contradicted himself (shocking) when he was speaking to National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse president Joseph Califano. Billo said, "Certainly there are homeless veterans, but it's not because of the economy. It's mostly because of addiction and mental illness, something politicians can do little about." First of all, when did John Edwards ever mention it was because of the economy? Califano then said, "the real tragedy here is most of those veterans have had combat experience that are suffering from drug and alcohol problems and mental health problems. And we are not taking care of them," in which Billo replied, "And that is something that should be addressed."

Addressed by WHO Billo? Hmmmmm. Addressed by POLITICIANS? The very people you just said can do "nothing about" this issue? OK, Billo, if you didn't mean politicians, who DID you mean? Who would be the ones addressing this? Notice how after Califano says, "We have 200,000 homeless vets..", Billo says, "Right" (in agreement, when previously he DENIED it was this many). Later in the interview Califano says, "There is enormous denial about this", in which Billo says, "Who's denying it? I'm not denying it". Billo, I bet 10 minutes after you left the studio that night, you denied you had an interview with Joe Califano!!

See, the issue here is that Billo knew he dug himself a huge hole by denying there was a vast number of homeless vets. So, in order to save face, he knew he would have to "fix" this. Since Billo will never ever say "I'm wrong" (at least about things that matter), his way of addressing it is to say, "Yeah, there's vets, of course.....but NOT because of this reason or that reason". This is Billo's way of diverting the issue of him denying the existence of homeless vets to now make it appear as if he was denying because of a particular reason for it (when a reason was not given previously). And this is the "NO-Spin Zone"? Are you fucking kidding me? Billo should teach classes on how to spin!

The AMAZING thing about all of this is, Billo continually says that John Edwards is demogoging this issue and exploiting homeless vets by using them in his lectures about how bad the economy is. The FACT is, is that BILLO himself is the one exploiting the vets by using them to attack John Edwards. When is the last time you heard Billo talk about homeless vets and wanting to help them when the issue was focused primarily on that? I'll tell you when.....NEVER! Billo first attacks Edwards about the NUMBER of homeless vets. Then, when Billo is proven wrong about the number, he attacks Edwards about the REASON for veterans being homeless. This is all about attacking Edwards...nothing else.

This is what assholes like Bill O' Reilly do. They get on the air every night and shoot off their opinions based on NOTHING. They don't know facts. When the facts come back to bite them in the ass, they attempt to worm out of it by doing exactly what I just mentioned above. When you lie as often as Bill O' Reilly does, you can't keep track of the lies. You have to lie to cover up the previous lie. O' Reilly doesn't even know what he believes. He's a parrot and is controlled by the people writing his checks. Since you make 10 million a year Billo, why don't you help these vets instead of waiting on the issue to be addressed? YOU address it asshole! Take care of them!


Thursday, January 17, 2008

Journalist: Pentagon Fabricated "Non Event" Iranian "Provocation"

Echoes of faked Gulf of Tonkin incident as Pentagon distortions exposed

Steve Watson
January 16, 2008

A respected American Journalist has accused a Pentagon spokesman of falsifying events surrounding the recent encounter between Iranian patrol boats and a US navy vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, which was eventually labeled a "provocation" by the White House.

Gareth Porter, a journalist who previously broke a story regarding a secret Iranian peace overture to the Bush Administration in 2006, writing for the Asia Times states that the event was hyped up into a major incident after the original press release described the event as somewhat routine and did not refer to any threat to "explode" US ships or any similar confrontation.

The release reported that the Iranian "small boats" had "maneuvered aggressively in close proximity of [sic] the Hopper [the lead ship of the three-ship convoy]. But it did not suggest that the Iranian boats had threatened the boats or that it had nearly resulted in firing on the Iranian boats.

On the contrary, the release made the US warships handling of the incident sound almost routine," Porter adds. "'Following standard procedures,' the release said, "Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats and conducted evasive maneuvering.'

The release did not refer to a US ship being close to firing on the Iranian boats, or to a call threatening that US ships would "explode in a few minutes", as later stories would report, or to the dropping of objects into the path of a US ship as a potential danger.

That press release was ignored by the news media, however, because later that Monday morning, the Pentagon provided correspondents with a very different account of the episode.

The fact that several mainstream reports then emerged at the same time all carrying almost identical accounts of the incident, including the details of threats to explode vessels and dropping white boxes, can be traced back to a press briefing by a top Pentagon official in charge of media relations, Porter divulges.

He identifies Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman's off the record comments to journalists as the catalyst for the ensuing pandemonium. Porter states that Whitman hadn't wished to be identified as the source:

In an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that US ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away - a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official.

Three days later, at the height of the hype, the Pentagon released a video of the incident into which had been inserted audio of a strange voice threatening to "explode" the US vessel.

Porter reveals that according to Lieutenant Colonel Mark Ballesteros of the Pentagon's Public Affairs Office the decision on what to include in the video was "a collaborative effort of leadership here, the Central Command and navy leadership in the field". Porter also reveals that according to an official in the US Navy Office of Information in Washington, who asked not to be identified, the decision was made in the office of the Secretary of Defense.

Shortly after Iranian officials had denounced the video as a fake and had released alternative footage of their boats in contact with the US warship, it became apparent that the audio spliced into the video had not originated from the boats themselves but must have instead come from hecklers, often referred to as the "Filipino Monkey", who cut in on VHF ship-to-ship radios and make rude comments or threats.

The Pentagon then backed away from claims that it knew the source of the audio or had ever known the source.

By January 11, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was already disavowing the story that Whitman had been instrumental in creating only four days earlier. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats," said Morrell.

No one said it but that doesn't excuse the fact that they spliced the audio into the video of an unrelated incident!

The story then essentially fell apart altogether and dropped off the radar as Navy officials began to discredit the rest of the distortions perpetuated by the Pentagon.

Porter also spoke to a Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified who told him that many officers have experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are "just not a major threat to the US Navy by any stretch of the imagination".

These revelations show just how easy it is for a non event to be hyped to serve an agenda and how the mainstream media is eager to swallow whole whatever the government feeds them.

The event mirrors that of the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where an attack on US warships by North Vietnamese PT Boats, was cited by President Johnson as a legitimate provocation mandating U.S. escalation in Vietnam. However Tonkin was revealed as a staged charade that never took place. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes featured discussions on how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes. In addition, the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost. This information was again reiterated in a report released last week.

On Monday’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Keith also acknowledged that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fake

Watch the clip:

Saturday, January 12, 2008

New recruits for Iraq should ONLY come from New Hampshire

Warmongering, Neo-con asshole John McCain says we should stay in Iraq for 100 years. Since the people of New Hampshire love this prick so much, the new recruits for this 100 year occupation should only come from that state alone

by Larry Simons
January 12, 2008

Just incase there’ s actually some stupid ass out there that thinks I am only saying this in jest, let me make this very clear: I mean my headline to be taken LITERALLY. For those FOX News zombies who have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about because I’m sure their God [FOX News] has most likely never aired this clip, let me just show the following clip of warmongering, asshole John McCain saying that we should be Iraq for 100 years.

McCain recently won the New Hampshire primary after telling a crowd of over 200 people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire that we should be in Iraq for 100 years….maybe even a THOUSAND, or a MILLION years! Obviously, the residents of New Hampshire LOVE the Iraq war, love our troops dying because of lies and love candidates who support staying in a country that we pre-emptively attacked who did nothing at all to us.

So, my message to the people of New Hampshire is simply this: Enlist right now for deployment to Iraq…all of you. If your children are at least 18, make them enlist too. In fact, I will go a step farther. Since you voted for a man who supports United States occupancy in Iraq from anywhere between 100-1,000,000 years, write your senators and congressmen and ask them to propose a bill that says New Hampshire and ONLY the state of New Hampshire will supply the troops for this 100-1,000,000 year occupancy of Iraq.

I think it’s only fair. It’s very simple. You voted for a man who wants to occupy Iraq for at least 100 years and as many as 1,000,000. You want him to be President….YOU fight your goddamned war in Iraq New Hampshire! Leave the rest of us sane, peaceful citizens of this country alone.

I’m not just picking on YOU New Hampshire. Whatever other states McCain wins (God forbid) I will gladly add those states to the list as well.

I used to respect McCain because of his military service and that he was a POW… longer. I can honestly say that I no longer give a rats if he served or was tortured. He has become one of THEM----a warmongering Neo-con bought and paid for elitist.

I was extra proud of my hero, and TRUE American, Ron Paul for calling McCain on this during the debate Thursday night. Everytime McCain gives that stupid fucking smirk and laughs when Ron Paul talks about bringing our troops home, I just want to reach through my screen and yank him from behind the podium and throw him back to the year 1967. “Oh, my, how could you say that about someone who is considered an American hero?” you say. John McCain hates our Constitution. Anyone who hates our Constitution, whether they call themselves American or not, is an enemy of mine.

Watch the video:

In the clip above, McCain mentions that it’s not the “length of time that we are in Iraq that matters, it’s the American casualties that matter”. What kind of fucking INSANITY is this?


Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Why wasn’t Bill O’Reilly TASERED for using profanity and assaulting an Obama staffer?

Some people get tased for SPEAKING at political events, but Billo SHOVES and shouts profanities at a political event and gets away with it?

by Larry Simons
January 8, 2008

Where were the police in New Hampshire on Saturday? Where were the tasers? How is it even possible that a big fat bully like Bill O’Reilly can waltz into a political forum and shove and shout profanities at one of the staff members of a Presidential nominee and nothing happens?

Of course, the Sultan of Spin in his spinning ways lies about the incident. Here is the video clip of O’ Liar LYING about the incident after it happened this past Saturday. Billo says, “so I asked him (the Obama staffer) fairly nicely, you’re blocking our shot sir, you need to move a little bit…so I had to gently remove him from that position”.

Then Brian Wilson asked, “there are reports that there was a scuffle, was there a scuffle?” O’ Liar says, “No, there was no scuffle at all, I just removed him from uh, in front of the camera”. Then Wilson asked, “there are reports there may have been profanities uttered, were there profanities uttered?” Billo says, “Uh, I might have called him an SOB…possible (laughs), but nothing more than that”. Then Loofah boy concluded, “No one is going to block a shot on the O’ Reilly factor… is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN”.

Oooooooo. Tough guy.

How do I KNOW the account in the above clip is a lie? An attack by the Daily Kos? Media Matters? Olbermann? Any other “smear merchants”?? NOPE, but from BILLO HIMSELF, as evidenced in THIS CLIP:

Gotta give Mr. Falafel credit for airing the clip that contradicts his OWN account given to Brian Wilson just two days prior. So, we see here that Billo did not “GENTLY remove him from that position”, as we see Billo shoving the staffer yelling, “Don’t block the shot! Don’t block the shot…got it??” The staffer said, “I’m working here”, in which Billo said, “No you’re not! You’re blocking the shot! Get him out of here!” Then Billo points at him and says, “That’s really low class sir!”

So, we clearly see that Billo told the truth on just about….nothing. He can’t even get the facts right when he reports stories about HIMSELF! How do you expect him to get it right on ANY other story?

What I found really interesting is what he said about the guy who was tasered by the police at a John Kerry speech back in September:

BILLO: “He wanted to disrupt the forum, and to me, I think he should be prosecuted.” Later adding, “What about disrupting the peace? You know, this is what…look, the guy goes in there, he’s totally inappropriate in every way…there isn’t one appropriate thing the man did. He wants to disrupt the forum. Security has an obligation not to allow the forum to be disrupted."

Watch the video:

OK, Billo. YOU disrupted a political forum! Do YOU think you should be prosecuted and tasered??? Hmmm? All the guy did at the John Kerry speech was stand up and speak. YOU, on the other hand, SHOVED a staff member of a Presidential candidate and shouted profanities at him. So, YOU resorted to VIOLENCE, whereas the man tasered did NOT. Why didn’t any cops taser YOU Billo? Hmmmm? Why aren’t YOU arrested? Hmmm? Why aren’t YOU being prosecuted? Hmmm???

Once again, Billo, you do something MUCH worse than someone else, in whom you advocated harsh punishment administered, and you don’t apply the SAME (or greater) punishment to yourself! You’re a hypocritical, lying scumbag!

Well, Billo, although you were able to escape the taser, the arrest and the prosecution, you was not able to escape the ridicule of Olbermann in the latest installment of puppet theater:

Sunday, January 6, 2008

John Gibson: The biggest DICKHEAD on planet Earth

The Neo-con idiot equates ALL Ron Paul supporters as 9/11 truthers. Resorts to the only tactics that official story defenders have: Name-calling, ad hominem attacks, assuming, censorship and refusing to debate

by Larry Simons
January 5, 2008

FOX News’ John Gibson is just about the biggest dickhead on Earth. As much as I condemn Bill O' Reilly or Sean Hannity, they don’t come anywhere close to being as childish and just plain STUPID as John Gibson, as evidenced in this latest segment of his radio show.

Listen to the audio on this YouTube clip:

I don’t even know where to begin! There’s so many different angles in which I could approach how much of an ASSHOLE John Gibson is. First, let me clarify one thing that some may see as a contradiction on my part. Above, I say that one method the official story defenders use is name-calling, and here I have called John Gibson a dickhead and an asshole. Naturally, people reading this might say I'm being hypocritical. Here is why it’s not a contradiction.

Above, I say, “John Gibson resorts to “tactics”… name-calling”. I didn’t say name-calling was necessarily wrong. I’m condemning the practice as a tactic that people use to defend themselves. If I said that Jesus is the Son of God and another disagreed, I would expect a debate. If the person who disagreed said, “You believe that? You’re a dickhead!” then what’s happening here is that the person is not defending their stance of rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, so they simply respond with calling names.

When I call someone as asshole or whatever the name, I tell you why they are an asshole by providing video clips or simply posting their quotes. I am not saying that John Gibson is a dickhead because he doesn’t believe that 9-11 was an inside job. I condemn him for his lack of debating skills and his refusal to address the issue rather than just being in attack mode 24/7.

Again, keep in mind, I’m not even against name-calling per se. I’m against people using it as a debating technique. If you’re going to call someone a name, back it up and provide evidence. People like John Gibson defend their stance on 9-11 by saying we are “kooks” and “nuts” and we should be “rejected”. Of course, he’s not interested in providing the reason for saying this, because if he provided reasons he would have to begin a debate and it would require him to know facts and details about 9-11…which of course, he does not.

First of all, Gibson begins this clip by playing protesters chanting, “9-11 was an inside job”. He then says, “Those are people at a Ron Paul event, standing behind him (Ron Paul) chanting ‘9-11 was an inside job’”. First of all, I have never heard of ANY Ron Paul event, especially one where Ron Paul was directly in front of a group of people, where people have chanted “9-11 was an inside job”. This is a total LIE by John Gibson to attempt to paint all Ron Paul supporters as “kooky people who believe in this conspiracy crap”. Did he ever play this clip on his TV show? Wouldn’t this video have been all over FOX News to crush Ron Paul? If someone has a video of it, I’d love to see it. If I see a clip like this, I'll apologize for saying John Gibson lied about this and I will condemn the video.

There have been people in this country who have held up signs with Ron Paul’s name on it with the phrase “9/11 was an inside job” on it as well. I am totally against this. This harms Ron Paul’s campaign. Why? Because I don’t believe it? No, because it is the wrong forum, time and place to announce to the world your personal stance on issues that you may hold to be true. I am equally against people using religion to endorse a candidate. I would be just as against someone holding up a Mike Huckabee sign with something about Jesus on it.

Here is an example of people who are hurting Ron Paul’s campaign:

This video is from someone on YouTube that clarifies what I’m saying perfectly:

Endorse your candidate for what he (or she) will do for this country first and foremost. Don't put your personal views in the mouths of the candidates you support. Although the truth of 9-11 is a very political and important issue, it is also an issue that many do not accept as a cover-up. Remember, there ARE people who support Ron Paul who do NOT believe 9-11 was an inside job. Be respectful of these people. You not only hurt Ron Paul by equating him with conspiracy "nuts" but you equate fellow supporters with it too. Let's not be accused of exploiting 9-11 like Giuliani does. Let's be better than that.

There are many uninformed people out there that just don't understand how we could possibly love our country and at the same time say our government knew about 9-11, or worse yet..caused it. They don't understand what Black Ops are capable of, and those who DO understand it have to deny it and call us "nuts" in order to say it doesn't exist. They don't understand that we are trying to expose criminal activity in order to prevent it. For these people, it's easier to deny there is corruption within our own government because most likely, the ones who deny it are the ones involved in it. It reminds me of the ending of "L.A. Confidential" where the police department didn't know how they were going to cover-up their own corruption to the media. They eventually found the solution: Made heroes of them by announcing that the bad cop who was killed by the good cops was actually killed in the line of duty.

We believe that government corruption would be eliminated if we had a President who followed the Constitution. 9-11 is just one symptom of the overflowing corruption of our own government. Even if you ruled out that the government was involved in 9-11, then your only option is to accept that we were very incompetent and outsmarted that day. So, one has a big choice to make: Either we were involved in it or we were very weak and stupid. Regardless of the choice one picks---America still loses. Yet, only the "conspiracy" people are ridiculed and called "America-haters", while the ones who have accepted that our country was weak and incompetent that day are the REAL patriots. It's simply unbelievable.

It's quite scary either way. Either we have a government that kills its own people to gain support for pre-emptive wars, or we have a government that can't protect us from a man in a cave destroying our most cherished structures. Either way, how does America win? We have decided that the ONLY way we can win is to follow the CONSTITUTION. THIS is why we NEED Ron Paul.

I’m quite sure that John Gibson knows deep down that all Ron Paul supporters aren’t 9-11 truthers. This is a clear attack on Ron Paul. He’s not attacking truthers as much as he’s attacking Ron Paul.

Gibson then says, “Ron Paul cozies up with people like Alex Jones” as a way to imply that Ron Paul is in agreement with 9-11 truthers. I have never known Ron Paul to say "no" to anyone that asks him for an interview. He may have scheduling conflicts at times, but I have never known him to flat out refuse an interview. So, Gibson wants his sheep to believe that since Ron Paul doesn’t refuse interviews with Alex Jones, then he feels 9-11 is an inside job. Ron Paul has done interviews with Bill O’ Reilly and Glenn Beck too. Does this make Ron Paul a Neo-con warmongerer?

Then Gibson says FOX excluded Ron Paul from their forum because there was only so much room in the bus they are having it in. LIE. FOX News is scared of Ron Paul because of his non-intervention foreign policies and his stances on tackling big government by dismantling unconstitutional agencies such as the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Then Gibson attempts to defend FOX by saying, “They left Duncan Hunter out too”. They left him out because he really has no chance. Total spin once again.

If I'm wrong and FOX has no fear of Ron Paul, why would they miss the chance of allowing this "nut" that has 'no chance' in the forum so he can embarrass himself and be an easy laughing stock to the other candidates? The answer is simple: Ron Paul will make the other candidates look like the complete morons, flip-floppers and warmongering Constitution-haters they are---------THAT'S why!

Gibson calls Ron Paul a “fringe” candidate and a "crank". I can’t tell you how it fills my heart with joy hearing a Neo-con being AGAINST the person I support. It tells me I’m on the right side. But, just for fun, let me show you how Ron Paul is NOT “fringe”. He raises more money than any other candidate (at least in the last 2 quarters, if not total). He has received the most donations from active military personnel. He wins in nearly every online poll and TV poll after any televised debate. He is the most viewed candidate on YouTube and is the most popular candidate among college voters. He has the most meet-up groups in the nation and has won the most straw polls. Fringe?

Gibson then asks a caller if he believed Osama bin Laden when he took credit for 9-11. This is hilarious to me since on several occasions bin Laden DENIED involvement in 9-11, and the most startling evidence that bin Laden was most likely NOT involved in 9-11 doesn’t even come from HIM, but from the FBI’s own website! On Osama bin Laden’s FBI profile, it does not even mention 9-11 among his crimes. Why? Because the FBI has even admitted they don’t have any evidence linking bin Laden to 9-11. So, when Gibson tries to nail a caller for not thinking bin Laden was involved in 9-11, he can also nail the FBI for not believing it!

Gibson then asks another caller, “…are you saying that no other candidate except Ron Paul supports the Constitution?” The caller says, “Ron Paul addresses ALL the issues”, which is correct, he does. Other candidates support SOME things in the Constitution, but Ron Paul tackles every issue. If other candidates addressed all the issues, they would all want our troops home, as Ron Paul does. Ron Paul consistently votes “no” on any bill or policy that violates the Constitution; something ALL other candidates cannot claim.

Then Gibson goes completely in left field by saying to the caller, “Would you characterize the troops as 9-11 truthers?” First of all, what the hell does that have to do with anything? Where did this question come from? How would the caller know this even if the answer was ‘yes’?

One issue that John Gibson doesn’t care to address is the fact that there are very outspoken people that are against Bush’s foreign policies and reject that 9-11 was an inside job that support Ron Paul. Bill Maher is one of them. How does John Gibson explain people like Bill Maher? Maher threw 9-11 truthers out of his studio audience a few months ago, and he has even said “Ron Paul is my hero”. Explain that John! Of course, you can’t. Ron Paul himself has even said he doesn’t believe 9-11 was an inside job, but of course, Gibson leaves out this insignificant fact.

When that same caller hangs up, Gibson and his co-host start mentioning that they have the caller’s email address, last name, phone number and that he is a 9-11 truther. How do they know all this personal information? I saw a comment on YouTube from a person who said they tried to call into John Gibson’s radio show and the very first question they asked him was , “Are you a 9-11 truther?” He lied and said “no”, and they patched him through. So, when Gibson says that the caller lied about being a 9-11 truther, what he doesn’t tell you is that he HAD to, or the screener wouldn’t have let him on the show! Fair and balanced huh?

Gibson says to another caller, “If you’re a 9-11 truther, you love Ron Paul; if you’re not, you shouldn’t get near him”. What in the hell is this supposed to mean? People involved in the 9-11 truth movement are, for the most part, good people. Some are more passionate about it than others. Some, I admit, don’t use common sense and don’t know when the time and place is to announce that they are involved in it. But, this lack of common sense doesn’t have to do with their beliefs, it has to do with their individual personalities. The truth is the truth no matter who speaks it or how unpopular it is.

I know people who are 9-11 truthers who support Edwards and Kucinich and not Ron Paul. I know Ron Paul supporters who are not 9-11 truthers. For John Gibson to make a statement like that just shows he is either completely stupid, unprofessional, uneducated or bought-off. My money goes on all of the above.

To John Gibson, you can’t ask questions or doubt the media. You can’t question the government. You can’t dissent wars. You can’t protest. In other words, you can’t be an AMERICAN and exercise your First Amendment rights. You have to shut the hell up and accept whatever is being spoon fed to you. If you question your leaders or dissent, you have committed treason and should be “REJECTED”, and I’m sure Gibson would gladly support people being sent off to camps and stripped of any rights.


Saturday, January 5, 2008

Ron Paul's 10% In Iowa Shocks Establishment Media

Even Fox News' own talking heads think decision to exclude from presidential forum should be reversed

Paul Joseph Watson
January 4, 2007

Ron Paul's double digit support in Iowa has shocked establishment media figures who have long derided the Congressman as an insignificant candidate with just 2 or 3 per cent of the vote. Even Fox News' own talking heads now agree that Paul should not be excluded from the upcoming presidential forum as campaign momentum builds.

Dr. Paul blew "national frontrunner" Rudy Giuliani out of the water, who got just 4% of the vote, and is handily placed behind McCain and Thompson heading into New Hampshire.

The Congressman's strong showing has led to new calls for Fox News to reverse the decision to exclude him from the January 6th presidential forum, not from Ron Paul supporters but from Fox News' own flagship hosts.

“Ten per cent is not insignificant - that's a huge number," said Fox's Greta van Susteren, appearing with host Shep Smith last night. Smith noted that Paul had more than doubled Giuliani's total.

"Should Fox News reconsider?" asked Smith, to which Susteren responded, "I'm not sure why he's out of it (the forum)."

"Here you have a candidate that 10 per cent of the people caucused in his party really want him and it's not like he's an insignificant player," she added.

"He didn't just drop in yesterday to the process, he has been running for president for a long time, and certainly many of the issues he's raised are rather provocative and certainly stimulate the debate, that's not a bad thing - and why not pull up another chair?" Susteren concluded.

Watch it

CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Larry King also noted Paul's double digit finish during a discussion last night.

"Ron Paul I think is gonna be a factor in New Hampshire on the Republican side much more than he was in Iowa given all the Independents there so let's not neglect Ron Paul when we're talking about this," remarked Blitzer.

Watch it

Friday, January 4, 2008

The Lord of Loofahs schooled by a kid….AGAIN

O’ Liar proves his ignorance of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence by being schooled by a kid who calls him on it

by Larry Simons
January 3, 2008

He’s back. The Lord of Loofahs. The Sultan of Spin. The Prince of Propaganda. Yes, O’ Liar has returned and breaks in the new year accomplishing something for the second time now that not many on this planet would let happen ONE time……being educated, historically, by a kid.

Watch the clip:

On the January 2 telecast of FOX noise’s #1 comedy, the O’ Reilly Factor, O’ Liar read this email from Courtney Yong, apparently one of the 12 kids in the country who actually owns a copy of “Kids Are Americans Too”:

"Mr. O'Reilly, I really enjoyed 'Kids Are Americans Too' but in the first sentence of Chapter Three you say the Constitution guarantees 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Isn't that from the Declaration of Independence?"

Of course, one to never, ever admit a mistake or to say “I’m wrong”, Loofah boy was not about to begin now. Instead, despite his own show’s rallying cry “The No Spin Zone”; he spins his ass off in his reply:

"Another excellent question, Courtney. The reason the Constitution was forged was to assure new American citizens the right to free life and access to pursue happiness in his or her own way. The Declaration was the statement; the Constitution, the instrument." (HUH??)

Nice try, Billo. In other words, you were WRONG and the girl was RIGHT. The big problem with your response is the mere fact that you didn’t SAY that the “pursuit of happiness” was in the Declaration of Independence. You said it was in the Constitution. We here at Real Truth already know that Billo not only does not know what the Constitution says (nor does he care), but NOW we know that Billo believes there are things in the Constitution that are not there at all.

Of course, this wasn’t the first time Billo was schooled by a kid about one of his books. Watch this 16-year-old kick Billo’s ass:

Normally, this wouldn’t be a big deal. You might say, “well, it was a simple mistake”. OK. I’ll give you that. The problem with this “mistake” is that he makes these “mistakes” quite often. In fact, he makes them so often that his “mistakes” frequently are called LIES. You say, “well, why wouldn’t Billo just ignore this email if he wasn’t trying to bring attention to his mistake?” OK. Fair question. Here’s my answer:

How many copies of this book have been printed? Probably millions. How many have been sold? No idea, but I’m sure A LOT less than millions. This mistake is printed in millions of copies of books. Unlike on his own show when Billo can chop up film footage and edit out his mistakes and lies; he cannot do this in this case. He has control with the film-editing machine. He has NO control over the fact that there are millions of copies of books out there on shelves in bookstores, with this HUGE mistake in the open for all to see.

He only read ONE email on the air. I’m convinced he has probably received hundreds of emails reminding Billo of his big fat mistake. I’m sure with the fact that there are millions of books printed combined with the hundreds of emails he has received about this, he can no longer ignore this glaring mistake. Whether he chose to address this on the air, or he was forced to address it by his producers, I’m sure a decision was made to address this mistake. Of course, along with that decision, I’m sure, was the intentional plan to make sure to not ADMIT it was a mistake.

This is O’ Reilly’s trademark: to either not admit a mistake at all, or if the mistake is addressed at all, to NEVER admit a mistake was made. His response, “The reason the Constitution was forged was to assure new American citizens the right to free life and access to pursue happiness in his or her own way. The Declaration was the statement; the Constitution, the instrument”, is classic SPIN. For Mr. Falafel to spin in the sacred “No Spin Zone”, well, is pure hypocrisy…which Billo is no stranger to.

Keep in mind, this is the man who said on at least THREE different occasions that a Polk Award was really a Peabody Award, then claimed he “misspoke”. This is the man who also said he was an Independent while he was a registered Republican and then claimed he simply “forgot” he was. This is the man who doesn’t even know where he was raised. He continually claims he was raised in working class Levittown, NY, when in FACT he was raised in Westbury, NY, much higher class than Levittown.

The biggest issue I have with this glaring error is the fact that whenever Billo has arguments with people and shouts at them on his show, he loves to point out that he was once a TEACHER…as if that is supposed to make his opponent wave the white flag or wave their arms chanting “I’m not worthy” like Wayne Campbell. Also, Billo's signature proclaimation (whenever he disagrees with someone) is that they are "UN-American" or they "hate America". How American is it for O' Liar to brag that he was once a teacher and then be CORRECTED on the air by a kid who knows more about this country's most sacred documents than HE does?

He has also boasted on several occasions during his shouting matches that he knows more about the Constitution than the target of his bullying.

Here’s Billo, thinking he knows more about the Constitution than Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson does. (Of course, EXCEPT the part where he thinks the Constitution mentions “the pursuit of happiness”!!)

It’s one thing to get completely taken to school by a kid. But, to have it done to you TWICE? BEYOND embarrassing. The worst part is the fact that even to a KID, he can’t or won’t even admit he’s wrong.

BILLO…how do you sleep at night KNOWING you’re a total FRAUD??

Here ya go BILLO, study this picture very hard...
(click to enlarge)

Posted on PrisonPlanet