Monday, November 17, 2008

Crooks and Liars smears Ron Paul; bans me from site for expressing my dissent!

I’m now discovering that “Crooks and Liars” couldn’t be a more appropriate name for them!

by Larry Simons
November 18, 2008

David Neiwert of Crooks and Liars is at it again, doing what he does best, smearing people in whom he disagrees without debunking one thing his victims say. Neiwert, once again, has smeared Ron Paul and, as usual, provides no counter argument or debunks anything the Texas Congressman claims. Niewert is a regular Ron Paul basher at Crooks and Liars and on his own site here.

Ron Paul joined Alex Jones’ talk show a day after the election and gave this interview on how Obama could be the shift for the New World Order. David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars simply didn't like hearing this about his newly elected Savior, so he resorted to doing the only thing he CAN do, call Ron Paul a "nut" and "kook" without researching a single word that came from Ron Paul's mouth. Here’s the interview.

Of course, these facts about Obama didn’t sit too well with the zombies at the liberal site Crooks and Liars. Writer David Neiwert said this today in one of his usual “smear without refutation” stories.

Ron Paul already has a considerable track record of actively promoting Patriot-movement "New World Order" conspiracy theories. In recent years, he's even been joined by mainstream right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck.

And while you didn't hear Paul spouting much of this nonsense during his presidential campaign, now that the election is over, he's back to business as usual -- and predictably, he's casting Barack Obama as the new embodiment of the conspiracy.

Paul recently gave an interview to a conspiracy-theory radio program in which he warned against "a cataclysmic shift toward a new world order":

It has been clear for awhile now that the far right would see an Obama presidency as a pretext for reviving its 1990s-style conspiracy-mongering and scapegoating on a broad scale, and so far that's clearly the case. We saw signs of this before the election with the resurrection of zombie 1990s-style black-helicopter smears of Obama.

And now Ron Paul, who successfully presented himself as a mainstream "libertarian" throughout the campaign -- when the reality is that he is a classic Bircherite -- is advancing "New World Order v.2" for mass consumption.

Boy, we can hardly wait to see what this produces. If the 1990s -- when last we endured a wave of paranoid fearmongering like this -- were anything to judge by, it won't be pretty. The next four years or more are as fraught with rightist peril as they are with promise for progressives.

Notice how Neiwert says, "In recent years, he's even been joined by mainstream right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck", but the link he provided in that sentence, here, takes you to a story that only references Glenn Beck without mentioning Ron Paul at all.

Neiwert says that Ron Paul has a track record of actively promoting Patriot-movement "New World Order" conspiracy theories without mentioning one word about what is wrong with being involved in Patriot movements. Then he conveniently adds the words "New World Order" and "conspiracy theories" to it to make it appear to his readers that this is some fringe movement or a part of some club that only "nutballs" are in, without explaining what New World Order even refers to and does not refute one thing Ron Paul says in the Alex Jones interview.

He calls Ron Paul "far right" despite the fact that Ron Paul has openly rejected what the far right peddles. Ron Paul has not endorsed President Bush on just about everything he has done and did not support hardly any of the views of the other Republican candidates for president. Ron Paul has had interviews with far-right people like Bill O’ Reilly and Glenn Beck and has rejected their views, but Neiwert conveniently leaves this out.

Nearly every link Neiwert provides in his story to "attempt" to prove his points about Ron Paul take you to his own site here, a site that continually makes the claim that just because some of Ron Paul's supporters just happen to be "conspiracy theorists" and even some Klansmen, then Ron Paul must be a conspiracy theorist and racist too. Yet, this is EXACTLY what Obama supporters were very angry at the McCain camp for during the presidential campaign...that just because Obama was friends with terrorist William Ayres didn't make Obama a terrorist. Can you say 'hypocrite'? Say it loudly, please.

If there's one group of people that should refrain from saying that just because supporters of a presidential candidate have certain views doesn't mean the candidate himself endorses those views, it should be the Obama people!

In fact, the Obama/Ayres comparison could be viewed as worse than Ron Paul's associations, since Neiwert has not said, nor can he, that Ron Paul is friends with the 'conspiracy' people or the Klansmen, as Obama is with Ayres. Obama is also friends with Rahm Emanuel, whose father was a Zionist terrorist as a member of the militant group Irgun in the late 40's. When will Neiwert do a story on Obama being friends with his newly appointed Chief of Staff whose father was a terrorist? We're anxiously awaiting, Neiwert.

I’m sick and tired of Neiwert’s attack columns when he offers ZERO refutes of what he complains about. According to Neiwert, if he thinks were kooks and nuts, well, ‘nuff said! No proof needed. No facts needed. No research has to be done. Neiwert said Ron Paul is a kook----so, he must be!

Also, I noticed that Neiwert posted an old video clip of Ron Paul from last year talking about Obama, yet in his article he said this, “And while you didn't hear Paul spouting much of this nonsense during his presidential campaign, now that the election is over, he's back to business as usual -- and predictably, he's casting Barack Obama as the new embodiment of the conspiracy.” What's funny is, Neiwert says, "...while you didn't hear Paul spouting much of this nonsense during his presidential campaign...", and he posts a clip of Ron Paul speaking during his presidential campaign! This guy has Bill O 'Reilly-itis! Also, why did he post an old clip when the story is about a recent Ron Paul interview he gave November 5 in which he just posted a link for?

So, I posted this comment (click to enlarge)

Roughly 8 minutes after I posted my comment, there was a message from the site monitor attached to my post. It reads this:

[You stay on topic, refrain from abusing other posters and simply follow the commenting policy and you won't be deleted. Site Monitor]

Yet, when I read the site monitor’s comment, I was going to post another comment in response to that, but noticed the words “POST COMMENT” were gone at the very bottom of the page. I was logged in and normally when you are logged into Crooks and Liars you see the words “POST COMMENT” at the very bottom of the page where the comment thread is on. 8 minutes after I posted my comment, those words were gone. I had already been BANNED from Crooks and Liars despite the site monitors’ comment “…and you will not be deleted”. No, they didn’t DELETE my comment, they banned me from posting further comments!

I also noticed where other comments were the words “Reply” were gone as well. This is where you can click the word “reply” and respond to a particular post. Gone too. I was officially banned 8 minutes after my comment condemning their smear story.

What I find very interesting is, even funny, is the fact that it’s this very behavior that we “conspiracy theorists” talk about when we say there are cover-ups or censorship of our views. We are called “kooks” and “nuts” when we tell others how we have been censored or when there are efforts made to silence us, and here we are with another example of the very people claiming we are “nutty” when they are the very ones silencing us.

Here are screenshots of posts on C & L of what it normally looks like when you are logged in to the site and you are free to post a comment. Notice the words “Reply” and “flag as inappropriate” beside each post. (Also notice the negative policy-breaking comments by other posters who were NOT banned) (click to enlarge)

Here is a screenshot AFTER I was banned from the site. I am still logged in but notice the words “Reply” and “flag as appropriate” are gone. (click to enalrge)

Here’s the kicker. Roughly 30 minutes later, I logged out of the Crooks and Liars site. I went back into the site around 10:40pm (my time) and what I discovered was unbelievable. I was banned from the entire website! Can you believe this? I posted the above comment on their site and it got me banned for good! Is the first amendment dead and Crooks and Liars? Apparently so. Here’s the screen shot of what I see when I type in and hit “enter”. “Access denied”. They blocked my freaking IP address!

I will email site founder John Amato and ask WHY I was banned for simply expressing my opinion and not violating the post policy---even while others were violating it! I’m learning very fast now if you speak in dissent of Obama, you are the anti-Christ and will be banned, maybe even arrested or jailed. You can’t speak out against their new Messiah!

I will keep you posted on what John Amato’s response is….if there’s one.

I'm sorry I couldn't provide a link to the story, I was banned, so I couldn't copy the link. (I now have the link. It's posted above in the very first sentence of this story)

Thanks to for posting my story and joining my fight to expose these hypocritical frauds


Anonymous said...

well larry it seems being gerbels himmler and the gestapo censoring the truth by desroying the 1st amendment is popular today. youve put in check 2 blog spots and now crooks and liars. you own them you should run those sites too. to much truth on your side. keep up the great work.

Anonymous said...

It has come time to declare war on sysadmins who wish to silence the truth either through their own ignorance, stupidity, or invested agenda.

I encourage many to register blocks of e-mail addresses and equal sized blocks of C&L accounts and start posting the truth. One account gets axed, log into the next and continue on!

A ban's success is inversely proportional to the knowledge/determination of the banned person to evade AND how easy it is to evade. Sysadmins like that don't deserve the respect and acknowledgement of 'respecting their bans'.

This is infowarfare, and it's time the enemy [and those who side with the enemy knowingly and unknowingly] be treated and regarded for what the enemy really is: the enemy. It's not like you're tar and feathering them, that's what our forefathers did!

bible thumper said...

all this censorship is out of control. way to expose the frauds larry. another site you own.

a relative said...

Actually you got banned from the site for threatening other people and it wasn't just the one post they are concerned about. Looks like you're going to have one less site to cut and paste articles from Larry lol lol lol.

Real Truth Online said...

any proof I threatened them? of course not. you dont need proof do you? If you simply just SAY it, then it's true, right? and I never copied and pasted any story from them.

Anonymous said...

theres something new larry some asshole blameing you. it just shows you own them.

iggy6 said...

You can add the supposed anti-zionist blog to the list. I had been a reader off and on over a few years and had noticed last year the writing had gotten really bad. In fact, it almost seemed as if the elusive "Xymphora" had changed into a completely different person. I was not the only one to have noticed this too. But I didn't say anything and was simply satisfied that others had commented on it. That is until last week. I went to the site and noticed a smear campaign against Climategate and insults at anyone that did not believe in Al Gore style global warming. I had to comment and did so. I noticed a couple others also had the same type of problem that I had. Unfortunately, there were a couple of bullies insulting skeptics in the comments section and I called one of them on the carpet and was immediately banned despite the fact I was only defending myself against someone insulting me and others. So you can add them to the list.

Lesson learned is just because a site is on the right side or one issue that may seem legit because of its un-PC nature, it doesn't mean this isn't a red herring to get you to trust the site so they can disinform you about other topics.