Wednesday, April 30, 2008
by Larry Simons
April 29, 2008
The true sign of a deranged lunatic isn’t just to lie alone. Anyone can lie (even if it’s repeatedly) and just be passed off as a deceiver or a misinformer. Billo doesn’t just stop at lying repeatedly. He lies over and over about the SAME incident, even when he doesn’t have to mention it.
On last Friday’s telecast of The Factor, Billo chalked up his THIRD incident in which he has lied about a comment he made roughly 2 ½ years ago on his radio show. In November of 2005, Billo was upset that voters in San Francisco were not allowing military recruiters to come visit their colleges and schools when he said this:
"Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
The first time Bill O’ LIElly lied to his faithful zombies [he calls fans] was a few days after the above November 8, 2005 comment when on his TV show he re-played the audio clip of this comment, but stopped the clip right after he said, “You want to be your own country? Go right ahead”, leaving out the al Qaeda remark.
He told his sheep right after airing the edited clip, “then I went on to do a satirical riff with a serious point”. Yes, Billo, it was so satirical that you were afraid to re-play THAT part of the clip. I find it hilarious that this is the same man who on countless occasions when others slam him for his outrageous comments, his first cry of defense is, “They took me out of context!!” But Billo edited OUT his OWN context on November 10, 2005 by excluding the al Qaeda comment on his TV show!! Hmmmmm.
The second time Billo deceived his dwindling audience was on August 2, 2007 when he had [then] Presidential Candidate Chris Dodd (D-CT) on his show to discuss Billo’s disturbing obsession with the website Daily Kos. My first story about this can be seen here.
Watch the clip
Anyone with a brain the size a marble can see that Dodd annihilates Loofah boy in this segment especially when Dodd brought up the fact that in 2005 O’ Reilly DID say the offensive comment about al Qaeda blowing up San Francisco and nothing being done for those people if O’ Reilly was President. Naturally, the self-proclaimed “No-Spin” guy did just that during the segment with Dodd. Spin!
Dodd told Loofah boy that his comment was made in 2005, but since he didn’t know that O’ Reilly said it on his RADIO show, rather than on his TV show, O’ Reilly used that fact to discredit Dodd even though Dodd had the EXACT quote and even the YEAR right. In that same clip (above), O’ Reilly first DENIES saying it at ALL, then admits, “I didn’t say it here…”
After the Dodd interview, I was driven (by pure hatred) of Loofah boy’s lies, I made a short film about the two incidents above.
Unlike the first two occasions where Billo lied and distorted/omitted the truth, Billo didn’t have to make reference to this on last Friday’s show where he brought up the 2005 comment again….and in usual O’ Reilly form, he lies about it one more time. Billo had Newt Gingrich (R-GA) on his show to discuss an ad campaign that Gingrich is doing with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called “We Can Solve It”. Billo said this to Gingrich:
“Tell me about Nancy Pelosi. She won't talk to me. In fact, she tried to get me fired because I made a joke out of San Francisco. If they didn't want the military, then the next time there was a terror attack, they're on their own. But tell me about Nancy Pelosi? Do you like her? Do you have a-----”
Watch the clip
Two lies here actually. FIRST LIE: Billo says, “I made a joke out of San Francisco..” It was NOT a joke. Since Billo loves context so much, the FULL context of his original comment is above. There was no laughing in that segment, nor even a hint of it.
Billo knew that what he said was offensive, so he knew he had two options after he made the statement: Either to say he was sorry, or to say it was a “joke”. Since Billo is incapable of saying he’s sorry for anything or to anybody, he unsurprisingly chose the latter.
SECOND LIE: Billo did NOT say of San Franciscans about his mock terror scenario “..they’re on their own” in his original comment. Again, Billo is violating the very standard he condemns everyone else for (taking him out of context) and doesn’t mention on last Friday’s show that he originally said his message to al Qaeda was to “Go right ahead!” if they wanted to blow up the Coit Tower. And he claims this was a JOKE? To wish terrorism on a city is funny?
Of course, he KNEW it wasn’t funny. This is why he OMITTED it during the re-airing of it.
Why do you REFUSE to re-air a JOKE Billo?
When others, such as Media Matters, exposes one of Billo’s many idiotic statements, he is the first to pout, “Out of context!”. When Billo’s “context” incriminates himself, he simply omits re-airing it.
BILL O’LIAR: DISGRACE AND EMBARRASSMENT TO AMERICA!!!
Monday, April 28, 2008
Rule change had given Paul supporters bigger influence but officials simply cancelled event
Paul Joseph Watson
April 28, 2008
After Ron Paul supporters managed to get a rule changed positioning them for more national convention delegate slots than expected, the Nevada GOP simply cancelled their own state convention and left, in what political observers are calling an unprecedented fiasco.
"After a super-majority of Ron Paul supporters captured control of the Republican state convention Saturday, state party officials abruptly canceled the event without electing delegates to the national convention," reports the Reno Gazette Journal.
"I’ve seen factions walk out, I’ve never seen a party walk out, I’ve never even heard of that," said Jeff Greenspan, regional coordinator for the Paul campaign.
Earlier in the day, state delegates supporting the Texas Congressman's pursuit of the nomination "voted through a rules change that forced the state party to abandon its pre-set ballot of potential national convention delegates and open up the race to the rest of the state delegates," according to the Gazette Journal.
As the convention neared its end, chairman Bob Beers claimed that the party’s contract for the hall at the Peppermill Resort Casino had expired and the event would be rescheduled, and delegates who had traveled from several hundreds of miles away in some cases were barred from voting, prompting loud boos and catcalls from the audience.
"As Beers was escorted out of the building, a short-lived effort to rescue the convention was launched by party activist Mike Weber. Although several hundred Paul supporters stayed, they weren’t strong enough to make a quorum to continue the convention," according to reports.
Officials claimed that the rule change overwhelmed the party's capacity to process the votes, but Paul supporters were left furious by the decision.
"This was an organized effort to promote the agenda of a few people, the party leaders, over we the people," said Chloie Leavitt.
Paul's rousing speech had earlier been met with raucous cheers by supporters who drowned out the small number of McCain supporters attempting to heckle.
"Our campaign has continued, is doing well and improving, even though we know exactly what the numbers are," Paul said. "But the message is worthwhile. Your vote can really count if you vote for limitation of government power and spending," stated the Congressman.
The following You Tube clips illustrate what happened in Reno this weekend, a situation described by the poster as "total anarchy".
Sunday, April 27, 2008
We Are Change UK Question former BBC Report Phil Hayton-- who is 'amazed' that such a 'significant' event has no official explanation
April 25, 2008
Members of We Are Change UK questioned ex-BBC reporter Phil Hayton about the early reporting of WTC 7's collapse during a speaking appearance.
Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11-- at first-- but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background.
"A lot of eyebrows were raised," We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers.
Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. "This sounds so significant-- I'm just amazed I didn't know about this... This is completely news to me."
"So, is there no official explanation?" Hayton further probed.
We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were "lost" in a 'cock-up.'
"I sense that you think there's a conspiracy here-- but you might be right," Hayton concluded.
On a previous occasion, We Are Change UK reporters contacted Jane Standley by phone about the telling incident. Standley, unlike Hayton, was not surprised by the revelation, but became uncomfortable and hurriedly ended the conversation, only commenting that she had been "harassed" about the situation already.
Surely, it is clear that neither Standley nor Hayton were 'in on a conspiracy'-- rather they were used and fed information. However, Hayton seems willing to admit it while Standley has thus far been unable to answer for the suspicious incident ahead of the unexplained collapse.
The suspicion surrounding early media reporting of WTC7's collapse-- which Aaron Brown of CNN also announced-- only exacerbates the demolition apparent that many police, fire fighters and other emergency workers were told about in advance and which many other news anchors described as being like a 'deliberately destroyed' building.
Further, WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein said that the building was "pulled" and rescue worker Kevin McPadden has reported hearing a countdown to Building 7's demolition.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Billo adds the title “PERVERT” to his resume by wanting to hold a conference to discuss “teasy, peek-a-boo” pictures of 15-year old singer Miley Cyrus
by Larry Simons
April 25, 2008
Just when I think I have exhausted every title I could possibly attribute to loofah-boy Bill O’ Reilly, he goes out of his way to warn me that he is not finished providing me with even more titles to describe his sycophant behavior. Racist, liar, propagandist, corporate shill, stalker, bully, sex predator and Neo-con stooge weren’t enough for Billo. Now add “pervert”to that well-deserved list.
On Wednesday’s telecast of the White House channels’….eh, I mean FOX News’ ‘The O’ Reilly Factor’, Billo felt the need to replace important issues like the Iraq war, the collapsing dollar or people losing their homes on a massive scale with more relevant, human interest stories like someone taking pictures of 15-year old singer Miley Cyrus and her boyfriend and posting them on the net. How can American troops being killed in Iraq compete with this?
Billo tells his guest, Mary Katharine Ham (his “Internet police woman”) that [Cyrus] is a “clean-cut teen queen..um..but then these pictures show up on the internet..now they’re not, obviously, as bad as some other pictures, but she’s 14 in these pictures and that’s the problem….how did these pictures surface?”
Here are some better questions Billo: Why do you feel the desire to plaster the pictures on the screen as you’re discussing this? Why do you care about this? Why is this even a story? Are you the world’s biggest pervert or just the biggest pervert on TV? Notice how Billo says in almost a disappointed tone, “…they’re not, obviously as bad as some other pictures..”. How Billo probably wishes they were!
After Ham mentions that Cyrus is a clean-cut kid, says, “I hope she sees that that’s the way to go”. Then perv-boy Billo says this, “I hope so too. I mean, I hope…eh….there should be a conference, and because, you know, look…we have so few role models particularly for little girls in this country…she is one…..I hate to see this kind of stuff”.
First of all Perv-Bill, you LOVE seeing this kind of stuff! You’re disappointed you couldn’t see more. Second, a CONFERENCE Billo? Will you hold this conference yourself Billo? If so, why? Will you call Billy Ray and get this conference going? Will this conference be in any of the offices at FOX News where you told Andrea Mackris that you’d rub her tits with a loofah? Or as you once called it, that “falafel thing”?
I’m quite sure wherever Billy Ray is, he is thanking God that of all the people in the entire world who could be so concerned about the welfare of his daughter, it’s BILL O’ REILLY! The SAME man who sexually harassed one of his staffers 4 years ago and settled out of court by paying her millions to shut up about it! The SAME man who never misses an opportunity to show clips of “Girls Gone Wild” on his idiotic show. The SAME man who defends child molesters by suggesting that their victims had MORE FUN with the molester than in their own parents' home!
Yes Billo, Billy Ray is a proud father tonight! He has the worlds biggest PERVERT looking out for his daughter!
Watch PERV-Bill…if you must
Here’s Keith exposing PERV-Bill and giving him the gold in Worst Persons! It was well deserved Billo!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
by Larry Simons/ Google Video
April 23, 2008
With gas prices now near $4.00 nationally, author and former chaplain on the Alaskan pipeline, Lindsey Williams, tells how he sat in meetings with the most powerful oilmen and was told nearly 25 years ago that the amount of oil in Alaska could be the biggest oil pool in the entire world, yet the United States does not use this oil.
Because we have made deals with other countries such as Saudi Arabia to buy their oil and in return they will buy our national debt. Countries such as Iraq had agreed to sign on the dotted line but renenged. Iraq reneged in 1990, and we went to war with them. Iran now refuses too, and now look....we want to attack them.
Yes, people...it's ALL about oil. Oil controls the world.
Willaims also says that while the oil companies are making record profits, there is one group that is making even more. The IMF and the World Bank. We are paying the loans that the World Bank has given to third world countries when we pay $3.60 a gallon at the gas pump. This is the truth...period. We are told it is supply and demand, yet there is no restrictions of what we can buy is there? There is no rationing of gas, is there? No. Of course not. Because it's not a supply issue at all.
We are told it is OPEC who sets the prices, but of course, this is based on supply and demand.
This has nothing to do with supply and demand---it never has. We are being controlled and sucked dry of our way of life, and the people in Washington know this, and refuse to do anything about it.
Watch the video
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Prominent 9/11 Truth organization being harassed, physically attacked by "no-planers" who tried to link group with Times Square bombing
Paul Joseph Watson
April 22, 2008
After months of tolerating verbal and physical abuse from a fringe group of emotionally unstable "no-planers" at ground zero, Luke Rudkowski and We Are Change have had enough, and are set to release video showing the assaults and attempts to smear We Are Change as being complicit in the Times Square recruitment center bombing.
While We Are Change were busy confronting people intimately involved in the 9/11 cover-up like Rudy Giuliani and raising money for the first responders, police, firemen and other heroes of that fateful day, fringe nutcases who advocate discredited and divisive non-issues did little other than harass and abuse Luke Rudkowski and his fellow We Are Change members in New York.
The harassment came to a head when the ringleader of the fringe gang, Nico Haupt, gatecrashed a We Are Change ground zero vigil with a huge sign that read "We Did The Time Square Bombing," in a crass attempt to smear the activist group as terrorists. For weeks, the police completely ignored Haupt despite his brazen attempt to incite hostility.
The attempt to link We Are Change with the Times Square incident came just days after Neo-Con talking heads like Geraldo Rivera, who was bullhorned by Alex Jones and We Are Change last September in New York, had raised that same talking point on Fox News.
"Nico verbally sexually harassed our female members, bit one of our members nose, choked and punched one our members and committed other horrendous acts all while the police always let him walk away without checking his I.D. There is video of all his actions, and it will be published in the coming days. It will show what we have to go through, and if there is another altercation, the public will know the truth behind this matter," writes Luke Rudkowski on the We Are Change website.
"This past Saturday Nico came down wearing a fake Hitler mustache on his face, verbally harassing our members. He then walked up to Sabrina Rivera and myself, charging at our faces trying to put the Hitler mustache on us. There was a scuffle, and when the police where called, Nico was seen trying to walk away. The police came and because it was not witnessed by them, Sabrina and Nico were issued summons and will have a day in court," Rudkowski adds.
We too have witnessed the "no-plane" fringe group transform from an idle nuisance into a hostile danger. The group's self-proclaimed "research" is so lacking in credibility that it has been seized upon by debunkers and used as a tar baby to smear the truth movement as a whole. The refusal to allow such kookery a foothold in the mainstream truth movement has resulted in threats and hatred being hurled towards prominent 9/11 truth researchers such as Steven Jones.
The fact that advocates of "TV Fakery" are forced to commit acts of violence against legitimate peaceful activists in an attempt to gain attention only underscores their desperation.
Many have fingered the more prominent "no-planers" as agent provocateurs or COINTELPRO, whose goal is to divide and destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement, and their actions perfectly fit this billing.
"WeAreCHANGE is a peaceful and nonviolent group which is founded on the principles Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King’s nonviolence movement. Nothing can stop the WeAreCHANGE movement in making history and standing up for the people, these recent incidents just show how much of an impact we are making and how far certain interests will go to stop us. Nothing will stop WeAreCHANGE and with every attack on us we will grow and push harder in the name of justice," concludes Rudkowski.
We Are Change have not only faced dirty tricks and smear attacks by no planers, they were also subject of an attempted frame-up on behalf of Larry Silverstein's security guards when they accused Luke of having a bomb and called in a fake bomb threat to the police.
The no-planers' childish antics allied with their dangerous and intimidating behavior will only serve to discredit their baseless disinfo even more.
When it comes to a point whereby peaceful activists who have done so much good for 9/11 truth and the heroes of 9/11 are being physically attacked it's time to stand up in unison and denounce this cancer upon our movement.
Watch Alex Jones' cutting and hilarious take on no-planers below.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Iranian President does not represent the truth movement, obsession with his idiocy only proves debunkers are frightened to take on real experts
Paul Joseph Watson
April 17, 2008
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bumbling comments about 9/11, in which he crudely questioned the official story by referring to the death toll, play right into the establishment media and the Neo-Cons' hands and give them an ample opportunity to debunk the entire truth movement - don't think for a minute they won't seize the chance.
"Four or five years ago a suspect event took place in New York," President Ahmadinejad said.
"A building collapsed and they said 3,000 people had been killed but never published their names," he said in a speech in the holy city of Qom.
People like BBC reporter Greg Palast have long suspected that Ahmadinejad is actually a stooge who is in bed with the Neo-Cons, and his latest buffoonery only lends credence to that summation.
First of all, Ahmadinejad sets the scene by displaying his ignorance of when 9/11 even happened, it was nearly seven years ago, not "four or five".
Since Ahmadinejad has also repeatedly questioned the scale of the Holocaust, this gives debunkers a perfect opportunity to link 9/11 truth with Holocaust denial, a pathetic smear that they have always longed to anchor to some actual evidence, since none whatsoever exists.
Naturally, when a French actress says something about 9/11 or the fool Ahmadinejad opens his mouth, the establishment media afford it lavish attention for days on end, but when hundreds of scholars, professors, architects and scientists go public, the silence is deafening.
That's because the media chooses its targets - they only give attention to someone who they can easily debunk.
The U.S. government wasted no time in posturing feigned incredulity yesterday when they reacted to the comments.
"I am not sure what you say about a statement like that. It leaves one speechless," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.
"It is just misguided, misinformed rhetoric," McCormack said.
Ahmadinejad's bizarre doubting of the official death toll, something which is not shared by the 9/11 truth movement as a whole, is a perfect straw man argument that the establishment can use to shoot down and then tar the rest of the truth movement with the same brush.
So to all the debunkers out there - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not represent the 9/11 truth movement - and your obsession with prevaricating on his comments only proves that you are frightened to go head to head with credible figures who are asking real questions about the official story - people like Japanese MP Yukihisa Fujita and former Italian President Francesco Cossiga.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
A "malcontent's" response to Philip Bobbitt's call to end America
Paul Joseph Watson
April 16, 2008
A recent Austin-American Statesman review of Neo-Con Philip Bobbitt's new book Terror and Consent features an image of a shredded Constitution under the words "Everything must go," which acts as a suitable entrée to a disgusting diatribe which praises Bobbitt's call for the end of America and its replacement with a de facto world government in the name of fighting terror.
The words, "How to Fight Terrorism" are in place of a torn piece of the Bill of Rights.
Reviewer James E. McWilliams describes Bobbitt as "a distinguished lecturer and senior fellow at the University of Texas and a law professor at Columbia University," but anyone with a basic grasp of what America's founders envisioned and what Ronald Reagan later termed the "shining city on a hill" would be more apt to describe Bobbitt - nephew of Lyndon Baines Johnson and former State Department counselor - as an enemy of the Republic.
McWilliams' fawning review of the book is intended to sucker in millionaire pseudo-intellectuals who think they are part of the elite by using mental gymnastics and brazenly contradictory statements in order to justifying the revolting underlying premise of the book.
As soon as we learn that the facade of Bobbitt's argument is to provide a solution "for fighting the wars that are bound to plague the 21st century," we're already safe in the knowledge that Bobbitt represents another chicken-necked warhawk who has already claimed ownership of the next 10 decades for his Neo-Con ideological fetish of imperial bloodletting and brutal domination.
So what exactly is Bobbitt's solution?
The complete obliteration of sovereignty and the nation state and its replacement with a new "order that takes its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations" that will have the power to pursue "more aggressive tactics of preclusionary warfare," meaning more pre-emptive invasions of broken-backed third world countries to expand the creaking pax-Americana empire.
Despite terse and contradictory promises that we will still have some semblance of freedom in Bobbitt's technocracy, he admits that there will be "no obvious answer to many of the human rights issues that are bound to arise," as a result of his plan to completely eviscerate God-given freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The reviewer cites Bobbitt's justification to impose world government as a means of combating,"The accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital and the "universalization of culture" have eroded the conventional borders that once legitimated national security," all problems that were created by globalists' drive to impose centralized systems of control in the first place by creating crises and then posing as the saviors.
This is another classic example of problem-reaction-solution. Use the pretext of the problems you have created to then offer a solution that befits your ultimate agenda - global government.
"Bobbitt believes that the UN Charter should be amended to allow the preemptive use of force without a Security Council authorization," and "In cases in which the use of non-lethal chemical weapons could be used to prevent terror, be able to redefine such methods as "counterforce measures," writes McWilliams.
The "use of chemical weapons," where have we heard that one before?
It was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that formed the Project For a New American Century - the ideological framework of the Bush administration, who proposed the use of "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes (which) may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
A leaked British Ministry of Defence report last year also envisioned a nightmare future society in which the population are forced to accept brain chips, immigration and urbanization ravages communities, class warfare ensues, and biological and neutron weapons are used to combat overpopulation.
Since Bobbitt cites "non-lethal chemical weapons" as a means of "preventing terror" what exactly does he mean? Mass-medicating Americans' drinking water with sodium fluoride to keep the population docile and subservient to the new international order, absent of traditional constitutional rights, that Bobbitt seeks to impose? The vagueness of the reference suggests Bobbitt and in turn the simpering reviewer McWilliams are attempting to carefully dance around the true scale of the horror that they are advocating.
Mandating a false choice between the acceptance of terrorism as a routine cancer upon society or the imposition of a brutal warmongering world government and the obliteration of sovereignty and the constitution, the book advises us to progress, "not by choosing good over bad, but — as is usually the case in war and politics — the lesser of evils."
And the lesser of evils in this case is to allow Bobbitt and his salivating Neo-Con cronies to have their way with the 21st century while they posture and insist their global government is our savior against a terrorist threat that they created in the first place.
As Bobbitt would no doubt agree with the CFR's Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the globalists are "not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money," and as H.G. Wells proclaimed, "Countless people... will hate the new world order... and will die protesting against it... When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents..."
We are those "malcontents" that the globalists fear so much, we are the representation of everything that is good about the human spirit - love, hope, the yearning for freedom and a kindred bond with our fellow man, along with the shared promise of a peaceful and prosperous future for our children.
Bobbitt and the rest of the Neo-Con turds who have already decided to condemn us to a century of warfare, tyranny, and centralized control may be surprised to learn that the resistance to their agenda is accelerating and that the true essence of humanity, the "malcontents," will rise up and condemn them to the only place they belong - on the scrapheap of history.
Watch Alex Jones' rant on this issue.
Phone: (512) 232-1376Fax: (512) 471-6988E-mail: PBOBBITT@LAW.UTEXAS.EDU
If you contact Bobbitt, please be polite in your disagreement.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Army veteran fights for his VA benefits
by Mike Hall
April 11, 2008
Walking up and down the sidewalk near the Colmery-O'Neil VA Medical Center, Tim Sanders looks like a model for the "Army Strong" ad campaign.
Except, that is, for the placard he is holding high proclaiming, "Vets are losing their benefits."
Sanders, an imposing 6-foot-3 inches tall, isn't the picture of health he appears to be. After tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, he is considered 50 percent disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs. He suffers physical, emotional and now bureaucratic problems.
For starters, he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. He also has back and knee problems from paratrooper duty.
"The transition from combat veteran to civilian was very difficult for me," he said.
Now 32, he is entitled to care at the VA medical center and normally receives a VA check for $730 each month. This month his check was reduced to $196. He can't pay his rent or other bills.
The VA asserted he owed money for medical expenses he incurred in 2006. The VA began retrieving the money from his monthly allotment. But Sanders insists he doesn't owe the money and believes the error is being corrected, thanks to the efforts of a Veterans of Foreign Wars representative who went to bat for him.
Sanders still hasn't seen the missing money, but even if it arrives soon, he is on a mission to bring public attention to what he considers the VA's insensitivity to the needs of veterans like himself.
So, he continues picketing at S.W. 21st and Gage as a matter of principle. "I believe our government is being a tyrant. I'm proud of my country. I'm not proud of my government," he said.
Because of his arthritis and back and knee problems, he often is limited to picketing two hours a day, waving to friendly motorists who wave and honk.
"I've had it," he said. "I've been passive. I'm not going to be passive anymore." He said the medical expense he was being dunned for was supposed to be covered by the VA because he was eligible for VA medical care for two years following his leaving the Army in 2005.
He had high praise for Scott Ferguson, the VFW representative in Topeka who worked long and hard to correct the error.
When he went to the VFW office at the medical center, he found 10 other veterans waiting to see a representative with similar problems.
Two district representatives in U.S. Rep. Nancy Boyda's Topeka office, Jefferson Lawson and Adam Stolte, said they hadn't heard about Sanders' case, but weren't surprised.
When Lawson was asked if the office received a lot of complaints from veterans about similar problems, he replied, "extremely."
He and Stolte can tell lots of horror stories, but they also try to put the complaints in perspective.
"People don't call us with good information," Stolte said. So there is no way of knowing how many veterans receive good service, he said. And, he said, almost every VA employee they deal with is well-intentioned. The problem is the system.
Lawson explained there are two divisions of the VA — The Veterans Health Administration that provides the health care and the Veterans' Benefit Administration that sends out the checks to qualifying veterans.
"I can tell you from experience those two agencies do not talk to each other," Lawson said. Barry Inman in the VBA office in Wichita, which serves Kansas, was asked earlier this week if he could confirm Sanders' situation had been corrected. Inman did a records search and reported back that he had no information on Sanders because he was "a Missouri veteran, not a Kansas veteran."
Told that, Sanders replied: "I'm a Kansas resident. I'm no longer a Missouri resident." In fact, he is a Kansas resident because of the VA. He was receiving some health care from the VA in Missouri, but was referred to Topeka because it was the nearest center with a post-traumatic distress disorder unit.
Even more, he called the VFW service office at Colmery-O'Neil and was told they have paperwork showing his records were transferred from Missouri to Wichita on Sept. 19, 2007.
Boyda blamed the problem on an overburdened system. She said Congress increased funding for the VA by $6.6 billion last year and by another $4.9 billion this year. More is needed, she said. "This is the real cost of war," she said. "It's easy to wear a yellow ribbon. Veterans need real help. And that takes money."
Sarah Little, spokeswoman for U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, said the senator continues to support greater funding for the VA.
Both Roberts and Sen. Sam Brownback also have representatives in their Topeka offices designated to deal with veterans' issues.
by Larry Simons
This is surprising? Bush doesn’t care if the troops DIE, and how many die, let alone the quality in which they live after they return from war! This is a fucking travesty of gargantuan proportions for a multitude of reasons.
First and foremost, these are the very people who are sacrificing everything to defend this country; the very country who has, in turn, betrayed them. Even leaving aside the fact that this war is illegal, unconstitutional, unauthorized by Congress and under the guise of being a “war on terror” (when it is really an excuse for the Bush administration to invade a country to secure its oil fields and to protect Israel), it is plain to see to even the dumbest American in the country that this war may be the biggest blunder in our nation’s history. The LEAST our corrupt government could do to safe face (even if it’s very little) would be to take care of the troops!
Second, with the combination of the war profiteering, the record-setting oil and health care profits, it is just downright criminal activity to not take care of the troops who fight to defend the very freedom we enjoy. We have the sources, the technology, the equipment and the finances to take care of these troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact that this is not happening should result in record-setting numbers of convictions. Start with George Bush.
The media is also complicit in this as well. If media outlets would cover stories like this, then more and more people would know this is happening and the outrage level would reach the heavens, and maybe, just maybe pressure would be put on the criminals at work here within our own system.
Where is Bill O’ Reilly, Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh when these stories break? Of course, they would just say it’s “far-left propaganda” being used by the Democrats to increase anger at the Bush administration.
One question: How could we get any angrier at Bush than we already are? These mother fuckers from the media never fail to turn a personal tragedy into a political agenda. To the O’ Reilly’s, the Hannity’s and the Limbaugh’s, it will not be about Tim Sanders getting $534 less for his bills and expenses, it will be about the “LIBERAL LEFT-WING FRINGE” trying to badmouth America, Bush and the war. People who politicize personal tragedies should gear up and march their fucking asses right over to Iraq and Afghanistan and fight the very war they support.
Or maybe Bill O’ Reilly will start a new campaign on his website for people like Tim Sanders. Buy a copy of Bill O’ Reilly’s book, some “no-spin zone” ties or “no bloviating” duffle bags and for every item that is purchased, people like Tim Sanders will get $1. By the time O’ Reilly sells enough so that Mr. Sanders gets $1,000, Billo gets $81,000.
One might ask, why doesn’t Billo or Hannity just give to the troops directly from their salary since they roughly each make 10 million a year? Because if they gave directly while they knew Tim Sanders was still alive, they wouldn’t be able to launch a stupid campaign to raise the money in which purpose would be two-fold: 1) To profit and 2) to hope some troops die (between the time they need the money, which is RIGHT NOW, and the time they get the money), so the number of troops on the help list decreases.
What I find amazing is that I’m the “conspiracy nut”, the one who gets accused of “hating America”, yet I want the troops to live and to be well cared for when they return home. Seems the REAL lovers of America want them dead on the field or dead on the streets of America from starvation and homelessness.
If I’m called an “America hater” for wanting troops alive and well cared for, then I’ll be an America hater. I’ll gladly accept being called names if it saves lives.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The former Governor bounces back from not mentioning 9-11 to Colbert, to silencing the two biggest propagandists on TV
by Larry Simons
April 9, 2008
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura appeared last night on Hannity & Colmes to discuss politics and his new book, “Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me”. As Sean Hannity discussed portions of the book, he said, “The one thing that I read in the book that I just totally found...just alien to me is this idea that you believe in 9-11 conspiracies.."
Ventura said, “Let me tell it to you this way. Why is it that when you ask any question about 9-11, you’re immediately attacked..?”, in which Hannity replied, “I’m not attacking you”.
Ventura mentioned the differences between kerosene and propane by stating, “First of all, jet fuel blew up at the start. Jet fuel is 4/5 kerosene, it doesn’t burn hot. So, using the analogy that it could melt the metal, then propane burns hotter, so if you turn on your camp stove for 3 hours, shouldn’t it melt the grates? But it doesn’t, does it? It doesn’t!”
Then, as Ventura was trying to make an additional point about the speed the towers fell and saying the towers turned into powder, Hannity replied, “He’s going ‘Rosie O’ Donnell’ on me here”, then said “That’s Rosie O’ Donnell”. 45 seconds after Sean Hannity told Ventura, “I’m not attacking you”, he attacked Ventura by saying, “You’re going ‘Rosie O’ Donnell’ on me”.
Watch the clip
Of course, we know that Sean Hannity despises Rosie O’ Donnell. So, in essence, the comparison of Ventura to Rosie O’ Donnell can’t be taken any other way than an attack on Ventura’s credibility. Hannity acted as if he has never attacked anyone for their alternative 9-11 views. As you will see, all Hannity has done in the past is attack 9-11 activists!
In the following clip, Hannity calls Charlie Sheen, who went public in early 2006 about his 9-11 views, a dimwit, a lunatic, crazy, a blowhard and an idiot. Yeah, that’s right Hannity, you NEVER EVER attack anyone!
In the next clip, Hannity calls Rosie O’ Donnell’s 9-11 views “ignorant rantings and ravings” and then deceives his audience by suggesting that Rosie’s views hurt many family members of 9-11 victims when in reality, many family members agree that 9-11 was an inside job. No, Sean, these aren’t attacks either, huh?
Here’s Sean Hannity attacking 9-11 truth activist Kevin Barrett in 2006, calling him a “nut” and an “extremist”.
It was interesting to see that both times in the segment when 9-11 was brought up (by Hannity at the beginning and Colmes near the end), both of the hosts clearly wanted to move on to the next topic and end the discussion on 9-11 when Ventura was making too much sense and making excellent points.
I have never before seen a 9-11 truth activist silence both Hannity & Colmes before on the subject of “conspiracies”. Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett and others I have seen have made great points and stood their ground, but Ventura was the first one I have ever seen silence the two propagandists and force them to “move on” in the discussion.
It was a sight to see.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
by Larry Simons
April 8, 2008
Former Minnesota Governor and wrestling star Jesse Ventura made an appearance on the Colbert Report last night and deserves tremendous credit for being very candid about what our Constitution says about what we, as Americans, are to do when we are in the midst of a tyrannical government.
Ventura told Stephen Colbert, “Remember the second amendment with the right to bear arms….that's not done for hunting or fishing, our forefathers put that right in there so we have the ability to rise up if our country becomes oppressive.”
Watch the clip
During the segment, the often sarcastic Colbert asked Ventura, “You think the government lies to us all the time, ok?” Ventura responded, “Well, I think that they….not all the time, but they certainly do lie to us”. Colbert replies, “Name one lie, one lie”. Ventura responds, “"the Gulf of Tonkin…weapons of mass destruction….ties to Al-Qaeda."
What I found interesting is that Ventura did an interview last Wednesday on the Alex Jones show and said the twin towers came down by controlled demolition, thus admitting 9-11 was an inside job.
Ventura said this to Alex Jones, “Jet fuel is four fifths kerosene - which is not a hot burning fuel - and they wanted us to believe it melted these steel structured girders and caused these buildings to pancake collapse to the ground?" he stated. “I was on the site within two weeks after it happened and I saw none of these pancakes - wouldn't they all be piled up in a huge mass on the ground and yet everything was blown into dust - when you look at it from that aspect none of it makes any sense”.
Openly admitting that 9-11 is an inside job is not something you would easily forget; especially in 6 days. Why would Ventura not mention this major government lie when he is specifically asked “When has the government lied to us?” on national television?
I am not crucifying Ventura for this, even though, in my opinion, it was a major omission. Ventura deserves a lot of credit for calling Cheney a “chickenhawk”, mentioning the Gulf of Tonkin, defending the second amendment and blasting George Bush’s so-called military service in front of Colbert last night.
It makes one wonder why Ventura chose not to mention 9-11 though, being that it was so recent that he did the Alex Jones interview and for the fact that the story of Ventura going public actually reached some national media outlets. Was he embarrassed that he admitted it? Or did he omit it on purpose because he knew if he had listed it as a lie, Colbert would have asked more questions?
Of course, my reaction to that is, “Isn’t that what we want? A popular show like the Colbert Report asking questions?” This was a golden opportunity for this message to reach a huge audience, similar to when Rosie ‘O Donnell reached a huge audience by her 9-11 confessions on “The View”. But, Ventura chose not to capitalize on the exposure this would have created for the 9-11 truth movement.
We can only wonder why.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Navy veteran and movie star savages official story, says media covering up truth about attacks
Paul Joseph Watson
April 2, 2008
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura vehemently savaged the official 9/11 story on a syndicated national radio show today, saying the WTC collapsed like a controlled demolition and was pulverized to dust as he also highlighted the impossible 10 second free fall speed of the towers.
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show, Ventura said that his initial reaction to 9/11 was much like most people at the time, and he accepted the official story outright, a response he now regrets because he was in a position of power and could have used it to raise a lot of pointed questions.
"I kicked myself when it initially happened that the light didn't go off but I was so shocked that this thing had even taken place that I apologize for not being more aware," said Ventura, adding that watching Loose Change at the insistence of his son was part of the catalyst for his wake up call.
Host Alex Jones is executive producer of Loose Change (get it here), the most watched Internet movie of all time. Ventura said he ran through a rollercoaster of emotions when he saw the film.
"When I finally did watch it I went through every emotion you could imagine, from laughing, crying, getting sick to my stomach, to the whole emotional thing," said the former Governor.
"To me questions haven't been answered and are not being answered about 9/11," said Ventura, before highlighting the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story tall skyscraper that was not hit by a plane but collapsed in its own footprint in the late afternoon of September 11.
"Two planes struck two buildings....but how is it that a third building fell 5 hours later?" asked Ventura, "How could this building just implode into its own footprint 5 hours later - that's my first question - the 9/11 Commission didn't even devote one page to that in their big volume of investigation," added the former Governor.
Ventura then explored how it was possible that all three buildings could rapidly collapse at almost free fall speed.
"How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity - if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds - how can that be?" asked Ventura.
"If you took a billiard ball and dropped it from the height of the World Trade Center in a vacuum it would hit the ground in 9.3 seconds and if you took that same billiard ball and dropped it 10 stories at a time and merely stopped it and started it it would take 30 seconds - if you dropped it every floor of the World Trade Center to the ground, simply stopping and starting it on gravity it would take over 100 seconds to reach the ground," he surmised.
The former wrestling star then questioned how low-temperature burning jet fuel could melt steel.
"Jet fuel is four fifths kerosene - which is not a hot burning fuel - and they wanted us to believe it melted these steel structured girders and caused these buildings to pancake collapse to the ground?" he stated.
"I was on the site within two weeks after it happened and I saw none of these pancakes - wouldn't they all be piled up in a huge mass on the ground and yet everything was blown into dust - when you look at it from that aspect none of it makes any sense," said Ventura.
"Never before in the annuls of history has a fire caused a steel structure building to fall to the ground like these two did," he concluded.
Having undergone Basic Underwater Demolition Seal training, Ventura is speaking from an experienced standpoint and he unequivocally stated that he thought the buildings were deliberately imploded.
"Upon looking at the film in super-slow motion and the way the buildings fell and comparing that to the way that they do like a controlled demolition of a hotel in Las Vegas, they both fell identical."
"I did watch the film of Building 7 going down and in my opinion there's no doubt that that building was brought down with demolition," said the former Governor.
Ventura also questioned the lack of wreckage outside of the Pentagon after Flight 77 allegedly struck the building.
"When I was watching Loose Change with a friend of mine - he happens to work for a company that helps build the Boeing airplanes and they said that when the engines completely disappeared and were destroyed, his response was, excuse my French - bullshit!," said Ventura.
"I turned to him and said why and he said because they're made of titanium steel - they can't disintegrate."
Ventura said that the corporate media were going to continue to cover-up the truth about 9/11, but that the number of credible people speaking out and increasing education and knowledge about the subject would eventually reap dividends.
"We don't want to lose our country, after all it's still our country and until they put us down we have the power," Ventura concluded.
The Governor's bold comments about 9/11 come on the heels of similar views expressed by American icon Willie Nelson during an interview on the same radio show in February.
Click here to listen to the full interview.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Echelon spy network would have intercepted, catalogued all transmissions
Paul Joseph Watson
April 1, 2008
During a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on Thursday, Attorney General Michael Mukasey tacitly admitted that the U.S. government intercepted a call about 9/11 - before 9/11.
Before the 2001 terrorist attacks, he said, "we knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went," reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
Mukasey is then reported to have "grimaced, swallowed hard, and seemed to tear up as he reflected on the weaknesses in America's anti-terrorism strategy prior to the 2001 attacks. "We got three thousand. . . . We've got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn't come home to show for that," he said, struggling to maintain his composure."
Despite Mukasey using the example to justify warrantless wiretapping of Americans by claiming the government was unable to intercept the call, the fact is that no law would have prevented the government from listening in on the call. Existing FISA provisions would have covered the interception of the call.
In addition, it would be naive to consider that Echelon - the global spy network run by the NSA - did not intercept and catalogue the call. In 1999, the Australian government admitted that they were part of an NSA-led global intercept and surveillance grid in alliance with the US and Britain that could listen to "every international telephone call, fax, e-mail, or radio transmission," on the planet.
Furthermore, two days after 9/11, Germany's daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that the Echelon spy network had provided warnings of the terror attack 6 months in advance.
It is admitted that the CIA had tracked the alleged hijackers to an Al-Qaeda meeting in Malaysia in January 2000 and then let them back into the US. The U.S. government was fully aware of their movements without the need for a phone tap and allowed them safe passage around the globe.
As Newsweek reported, five of the named hijackers "received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s".
Under these circumstances, the contention that the U.S. government intercepted such a call but was unable or unwilling to listen to it due to legal restrictions is completely inconceivable.
Mukasey's admission is therefore further evidence that the U.S. government was responsible for - at the very bare minimum - "malfeasant complicity in the 9/11 attacks," as Keith Olbermann stated on his MSNBC show yesterday.
Olbermann thinks it likely Mukasey is simply embellishing in order to propagandize for warrantless wiretapping, but the fact that the hijackers were carefully tracked every step of the way before 9/11 by the U.S. government and indeed trained at their military installations, in addition to Echelon having recorded phone conversations about 9/11 six months before the attack, strongly suggests that Mukasey unintentionally told the truth - and unequivocally let slip U.S. government foreknowledge of 9/11.