Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Former Governor to reveal details of new project on the Alex Jones show this week
September 30, 2008
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura is to host a new investigative series for television channel TruTV which promises to look into different "conspiracy theories" and weigh up their validity.
Ventura will reveal details of the upcoming series in an exclusive appearance on the Alex Jones show tomorrow (Wednesday 1st October).
A press release posted via PRNewswire states:
Jesse Ventura, a man who has lived a dangerous life, is about to explore mysteries behind the most compelling modern day conspiracy theories for truTV. Production of a pilot featuring Ventura begins in October. The project comes to truTV from A. Smith & Co. Productions.
[...] Ventura will hunt down answers, plunging viewers into a world of secret meetings, midnight surveillance, shifty characters and dark forces.
Ventura first appeared on the Alex Jones show earlier in the year to reveal his questions and concerns over the official government version of events surrounding the 9/11 attacks
Since that time the former Navy Seal has been extremely vocal in his support for the 9/11 Truth Movement. Ventura spoke passionately on the subject in front of 10,000 strong and millions watching on C-Span during an appearance at Ron Paul’s Rally For The Republic last month.
During his last appearance on the Alex Jones show this July, Ventura hit out at a now entrenched culture that "cannot handle the truth" when it comes to the events of 9/11, the war in Iraq, the devastation that has been wrought on the economy and the "failed political leadership" of the last eight years.
TruTv currently reaches 91 million U.S. households, meaning Ventura will potentially reach millions of viewers who are not already aware of his views and the movements he has associated himself with.
Alex Jones was recently pitched a similar series tentatively titled "American Conspiracy", by the same production company behind the Ventura fronted show.
Watch the video-promo-trailer for the series:
Sunday, September 28, 2008
From the “More truth in comedy than in Washington” file, Jon Stewart gives us the truth about Bush’s repeated use of fear
Commenting on Bush’s bailout speech this week, Stewart points out that Bush gave the same speech about Iraq 5 years ago
by Larry Simons
September 28, 2008
On Thursday’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Stewart gives a hilarious but frightening reminder of the eerie similarities between George Bush’s speech on Iraq in 2003 and his speech just this week on the bailout bill.
It’s a must watch
Unfortunately, how true the use of fear is in this disastrous, treasonous administration. What’s even sadder than Bush's use of fear is the millions of brain dead Americans who sat and watched this Hitlerian manifesto and bought it hook, line and sinker.
Of course, those of us whose heads are still outside of our asses know that the 2003 Iraq speech was a giant cavalcade of lies (which was based on a re-written version of the original N.I.E. report from the CIA that said Saddam Hussein was NO imminent threat to the United States); in which Bush can legally be charged with murder for.
The question with the current speech on the bailout is not “did Bush lie?”, but rather, “how many lies was this caked with?”
As I watched this speech (with my usual look of combined hatred, disgust and unbelief that people could vote for a man this stupid), I had the following visions in my head…..
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Congressman says civil unrest after meltdown could lead to martial law
Paul Joseph Watson
September 26, 2008
Congressman Ron Paul says that the bailout bill is likely to pass, heralding a 10-year plus economic depression for America and the potential for martial law should civil unrest arise as the financial meltdown worsens.
Speaking on The Alex Jones Show, Paul said of the bailout, "They want dictatorship, they want to pass all the penalties and suffering on to the average person on Main Street," adding, "We will have a depression or recession, it’s locked in place due to previous Federal Reserve actions."
"When they say that if we don’t do exactly as they say and turn over more of our money and more of our liberties and exempt themselves from any court in the whole nation, they’re trying to intimidate us and lead us into doing the wrong thing," said Paul.
The Congressman added that serious problems would arise if nothing was done to address the problem, but that more serious consequences would follow should the bailout be passed.
Paul warned that the only question was whether the meltdown would last one year or ten years and how much liberty would be lost in that time frame.
"It looks like from I see in Congress, that they’re opting for a decade plus of depression rather than saying let’s correct our ways, let’s balance the budget, let’s bring our troops home," said Paul, adding that the same course of printing money would continue - prolonging the agony and preventing a necessary correction.
Asked if civil unrest was a possibility in the midst of an economic depression, referencing a recent Army Times report concerning the use of active duty military being brought back from Iraq for "Homeland patrols" and "crowd control," Paul questioned, "Are we going to have martial law or are we going to have more freedoms? The more problems that we have, the more likely it is that we’re going to have martial law, so I do think they anticipate and they plan for these things."
Asked if criminal investigations and prosecutions of individuals on Wall Street should commence, Paul agreed but said that the main target of criminal inquiry should be the Federal Reserve board itself because, "That’s where the fraud is."
"They want to be lawless, they don’t want to be held accountable," he added.
Paul said that grand juries should be convened to take on prosecutions rather than the FBI becoming involved, stating, "We have proper authority with that and experience with it and the Enron case is a good example."
The Congressman said that Greenspan and Bernanke should be criminally charged but that such an effort would be largely symbolic. "Morally speaking, they’re the culprits," said Paul.
Asked what his solution to the crisis would be, Paul said, "I think the most important thing to do is to send the message that we’re going to quit living beyond our means and the president can set the standard for that and he has the most control under the Constitution on foreign policy - he can say no more wars, we’re done with the wars, we’re not going to take on the Russians, we’re not going to take on people in Venezuela, we’re going to start talking to the Cubans and bring our troops home and save hundreds of billions of dollars - that would send a powerful message that the dollar would respond to and oil prices would come down."
Paul said that Americans had to accept a new idea of government that harked back to what the founders envisaged and that the welfare state would have to unravel along with aspirations of building a geopolitical empire.
"In the meantime the policy ought to be - shrink the size of government, decrease regulation, work towards sound money, remove the authority of the Fed to create money out of thin air and get tax reduction," stated the Congressman. Paul added that eliminating the income tax would mean everybody becoming a lot richer and more money would be ploughed into the economy.
"It will not solve the problem, it just delays the inevitable," said Paul of the bailout, adding that he expects the bill to pass in a move that would, "Defy the American people."
"I think they get to the point where they think they’re like God and can control everything and they don’t realize that the market really is more powerful than all the bankers and all the politicians….Ultimately the underground economy is the real economy and I think they could over step themselves and hopefully we could come out with a better world afterwards," concluded the Congressman.
Listen to the Alex Jones interview with Ron Paul
Friday, September 26, 2008
Alex Jones joins George Noory to discuss the economic crisis, the police state and false flag terror
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Ferocious fear-mongering rhetoric, possible cancellation of presidential election as financial terrorists threaten Americans with chaos unless power-grabbing bailout bill is passed
Paul Joseph Watson
September 25, 2008
From shying away from even mentioning such terms as "recession," "unemployment" or "bank failures," Bush, Bernanke and Paulson are now vigorously invoking the fear of financial meltdown as part of a campaign of economic terror to blackmail the American people into accepting the power-grabbing "bailout," while John McCain, who last week said the fundamentals of the economy are strong, is now all but threatening to cancel the election should the proposal not receive swift passage.
Bush’s speech last night was a throwback to his March 2003 stump before the invasion of Iraq - replace words like "weapons of mass destruction" with "financial panic" and the tone of the two is not dissimilar.
Bush rammed home the fear by appealing to people’s personal anxieties.
"More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically," barked the President.
"And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs."
Bernanke and Paulson spewed similar rhetoric during Tuesday’s Senate Banking Committee meeting. Compare their dire proclamations with their outright refusal to even entertain the notion of a recession as little as seven months ago.
Now Paulson tells us that people "should be scared" and that the only solution is for taxpayers to foot the bill to the tune of $700 billion dollars - a number we now learn was simply pulled out of thin air by the Treasury - while the Federal Reserve swallows up all manner of new regulation powers.
It seems that almost overnight these three stooges have gone from behaving like sedated zombies to end-times doomsayers.
Furthermore, John McCain, the man who as recently as last week proclaimed that "the fundamentals of the economy are sound," is now canceling presidential debates, and some fear greasing the skids for the postponement of the presidential election itself, by insisting he and Obama "return to Washington" in order to put their weight behind the bailout.
As the George Washington Blog notes, McCain is basically implying, "Vote for the bailout or I’ll pull out of the election".
The financial terrorism being perpetrated by Bush, McCain, Bernanke, Paulson and the rest of these criminals in threatening Americans with unbridled chaos unless they acquiesce to political demands, and the coordinated ferocity with which it is being delivered, is necessary for the crooks because they are desperate to get the bailout passed before Congress really has a chance to digest exactly what it stands for.
This is what’s called the "shock doctrine," the accelerated passage of what is essentially dictatorial legislation without proper scrutiny by means of exploiting a temporary state of fear.
This is not just about $700 billion of taxpayers’ money and the continued sacking of the dollar, it’s about the imposition of a giant new infrastructure of control and regulation on behalf of the private, run for profit, Federal Reserve.
Bush even alluded to it last night, stating that Paulson’s bailout would mean the "Federal Reserve would be authorized to take a closer look at the operations of companies across the financial spectrum."
But this is merely scratching the surface. As Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., said, "This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it’s un-American." In fact properly defined, one could label it "national socialism," otherwise known as fascism.
As professor of economics at New York University Nouriel Roubini framed it, welcome to the United Socialist States of America and "the most radical regime change in global economic and financial affairs in decades".
The plan was drawn up months ago, lying in wait for the right crisis to see it enacted, just as the Patriot Act was prepared well in advance of 9/11.
The Treasury’s fact sheet about the bailout states, "The Secretary will have the discretion, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to purchase other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets."
This gives the government and the Federal Reserve carte blanche to do whatever they want to long as it is done in the name of stabilizing financial markets, they can nationalize any company or industry and use taxpayer money, above and beyond the initial $700 billion, for whatever purpose is deemed necessary, without any oversight. Paulson’s bailout plan is also unreviewable by any court, it will remain in perpetuity.
Paulson’s draft bailout plans says: "The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time."
As Chris Martenson writes, "This means that $700 billion is NOT the cost of this dangerous legislation, it is only the amount that can be outstanding at any one time. After, say, $100 billion of bad mortgages are disposed of, another $100 billion can be bought. In short, these four little words assure that there is NO LIMIT to the potential size of this bailout. This means that $700 billion is a rolling amount, not a ceiling."
“The bill would bar courts from reviewing actions taken under its authority,” reports Bloomberg.
The Bush administration seeks "dictatorial power unreviewable by the third branch of government, the courts, to try to resolve the crisis," said Frank Razzano, a former assistant chief trial attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission now at Pepper Hamilton LLP in Washington. "We are taking a huge leap of faith."
"It sounds like Paulson is asking to be a financial dictator, for a limited period of time," said historian John Steele Gordon.
Reporter Larisa Alexandrovna calls it "the final stages of the coup," noting, "This manufactured crisis is now to be remedied, if the fiscal fascists get their way, with the total transfer of Congressional powers (the few that still remain) to the Executive Branch and the total transfer of public funds into corporate (via government as intermediary) hands."
The legislation would provide billions to foreign central banks in addition to private foreign banks.
The proposed move represents a total shift of U.S. taxpayers’ funds into the hands of powerful private interests, some of which do not even represent American companies.
The bailout bill represents the most fascist centralization of power in America since 9/11 and the Patriot Act - and many would argue that it even trumps that. The fiscal terrorists hope to ram through their agenda by appealing to people’s fears about the economy, their jobs, their houses and their pensions. But the temporary pain brought on by a Wall Street crash and a severe recession would be nothing compared to the long term death knell that the bailout bill would mean to the free market and economic liberty in America.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Huffington Post writer threatened by neo-con bloggers after urging readers to remember Prescott Bush’s Fascist "Business Plot"
September 22, 2008
A reporter for the left leaning alternative news website The Huffington Post has been attacked by neo-con bloggers and phony right-wing patriots after pointing out that the current financial crisis is part of an intentional coup to transfer unprecedented power to the Executive Branch and place public funds in the hands of the global corporate elite.
Writer Larisa Alexandrovna, makes a number of salient points in an article entitled "Welcome to the final stages of the coup…".
Referring to the Bush administration’s "Wall Street bailout bill", Alexandrovna warns that a fascist coup is in it’s closing stages, describing the proposed legislation as "treachery being conducted in the light of day."
"Now, if you do not yet understand that the Wall Street crisis is a man-made disaster done through intentional deregulation and corruption, I have a bridge in Alaska to sell to you (or Sara Palin does anyway). This manufactured crisis is now to be remedied, if the fiscal fascists get their way, with the total transfer of Congressional powers (the few that still remain) to the Executive Branch and the total transfer of public funds into corporate (via government as intermediary) hands.
[...] we already now have in writing, formally as presented to Congress, the intentions of this administration to nullify Congressional powers permanently, to alter Judicial powers permanently, and to openly steal public funds using as blackmail the total collapse of the US economy if these powers are not handed over. You do see how this is blackmail, do you not? You do see how this is a manufactured crisis precisely designed to be used as blackmail, do you not?"
Alexandrovna points out that the Treasury’s bailout proposal to Congress would provide the Treasury Secretary the power to buy up any assets he sees fit, hire anyone he wants to do it, appoint private companies as financial deputies and write whatever regulations he thinks are needed.
Furthermore, she points out that the bill states:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Alexandrovna is echoing the comments of historian John Steele Gordon who told reporters "It sounds like Paulson is asking to be a financial dictator, for a limited period of time." She is also repeating a stark warning provided by Frank Razzano, a former assistant chief trial attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission now at Pepper Hamilton LLP in Washington, who stated that the Bush administration is seeking "dictatorial power unreviewable by the third branch of government, the courts, to try to resolve the crisis."
The proposed move represents a total shift of U.S. taxpayers’ funds into the hands of powerful private interests, some of which do not even represent American companies.
Alexandrovna compares the current manufactured crisis to the now infamous "Business Plot" of 1933, a previous attempt at an outright coup in order to install fascism in America. This treasonous plot was so called because the high-level plotters, including Prescott Bush, the current president’s grandfather, were Wall Street men who openly supported fascism.
The coup attempt came to light one year later in 1934, when General Smedley Butler informed the Congress that a group of wealthy industrialists had attempted to get on side high ranking military figures in order to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"It seems this time around, the Bush family is trying the more subtle approach to open bloodshed: first create a crisis, then under the guise of addressing that crisis, overthrow democracy. Yes, it does sound terribly conspiracy-theory-esque when explained just this way. But what else does one call a criminal conspiracy to destroy Congressional powers permanently, alter Judicial powers permanently, and steal public funds?" Alexandrovna writes.
In a passionate conclusion the writer demands that Impeachment be brought against those members of the government involved in the "New Business Plot". She then voices fears that failing this, people will have to take to the streets to prevent the usurpation of their freedoms and the total dissolution of America:
"You are no longer Republicans, Democrats, or any shade of voter. You do not live in a swing state or a solid colored state. You are simply this: an American. That is the only side that matters. So call your members of Congress and demand, no, declare that unless they do their duty to the Constitution and to us, we will move to the streets - not because we want to, but because our founding fathers demanded this duty of each and every citizen in the face of such a domestic enemy. Demand - as is your right - that this bill be voted against and demand - as is your right - that the people plotting this treachery be held to account. We are either a nation of laws or we are no longer a democracy. Pick a side, because there won’t be another time, another moment, another chance to be a patriot."
Despite pointing out concrete facts, urging readers to see through the false left/right paradigm and come together to do something about such an unprecedented power grab, a number of phony patriots and neo-con bloggers have poured scorn on Alexandrovna, accusing the writer of calling for an armed insurrection, expressing hope that the government is "monitoring such enticements" and threatening to report her to the "lawful authorities" in order that she be locked in a "nice, well-lit and cheery cell".
In a remarkable example of the Orwellian society that has continued to grow around us like a cancer, none of Alexandrovna’s detractors care to focus on the fascist treachery she describes but instead accuse her of being the traitor and the one that should be locked away.
Today finance ministers from the G7 countries roundly applauded the bailout proposal as Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary called for other countries to follow America’s example.
"I’m going to be pressing our colleagues around the world to design similar programmes for their banks and institutions. Our system is a global one." Paulson stated.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Colin Powell admits that Georgia provoked Russia. McCain said “we are all Georgians”. Translation: We are provokers
by Larry Simons
September 22, 2008
Last month in York, PA, John McCain addressed a crowd of supporters and told them he had spoken with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and told him that “the thoughts and the prayers and support of the American people are with that brave little nation as they struggle today for their freedom and independence”. Then McCain said that he told Saakashvili, “Today, we are all Georgians”.
Saturday on CNN’s “The Next President: A World of Challenges”, former Secretary of State Colin Powell had this dialogue with the correspondents Christiane Amanpour and Frank Sesno:
POWELL: And I think it was foolhardy on the part of President Saakashvili and the Georgian government to kick over this can, to light a match in a roomful of gas fumes.
SESNO: So you’re saying the Georgians provoked this?
POWELL: They did. I mean, there was a lot of reasons to have provocations in the area, but the match that started the conflagration was from the Georgian side.
AMANPOUR: And yet…
POWELL: And that’s a given.
AMANPOUR: And some debate in the presidential elections has basically been, “We are all Georgians now.” What does that mean? It’s the same as was said after 9/11.
POWELL: One candidate said that, and I’ll let the candidate explain it for himself. […] You have to be very careful in a situation like this not just to leap to one side or the other until you’ve taken a good analysis of the whole situation.
Watch the clip
Here’s McCain’s “today, we are all Georgians” crap
Saturday, September 20, 2008
by John Curran
Lots of political candidates make campaign promises. But not like Charlotte Dennett's.
Dennett, 61, the Progressive Party's candidate for Vermont Attorney General, said Thursday she will prosecute President Bush for murder if she's elected Nov. 4.
Dennett, an attorney and investigative journalist, says Bush must be held accountable for the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq — U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. She believes the Vermont attorney general would have jurisdiction to do so.
She also said she would appoint a special prosecutor and already knows who that should be: former Los Angeles prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, the author of "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," a new book.
"Someone has to step forward," said Dennett, flanked by Bugliosi at a news conference announcing her plan. "Someone has to say we cannot put up with this lack of accountability any more."
Dennett and two others are challenging incumbent Attorney General William Sorrell, a Democrat, in the Nov. 4 election.
Bugliosi, 74, who gained fame as the prosecutor of killer Charles Manson, said any state attorney general would have jurisdiction since Bush committed "overt acts" including the military's recruitment of soldiers in Vermont and allegedly lying about the threat posed by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in speeches that were aired in Vermont and elsewhere.
"No man, even the president of the United States, is above the law," said Bugliosi.
The White House press office didn't respond to a request for comment Thursday. But Republican National Committee spokesman Blair Latoff denounced Dennett. "It's extremely disappointing that a candidate for state attorney general is more concerned with radical left-wing provocation than upholding the law of Vermont," Latoff said. "These incendiary suggestions may score points among the most fringe elements of American society, but can't be settling for anyone looking for an attorney general."
Anti-Bush sentiment runs deep in Vermont. It's the only state Bush hasn't visited as president, and one whose liberal tendencies make it unlikely he will.
In 2007, the state Senate adopted a resolution calling for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Last March, the towns of Brattleboro and Marlboro voted to seek indictments against Bush and Cheney over the war, and dozens of other towns voted at town meetings to call for his impeachment.
Sorrell, who is seeking a sixth term, said he doesn't believe a Vermont attorney general would have the authority to charge Bush.
"The reality is, in my view, that unless the crime takes place in Vermont, then I as the attorney general have no authority under Vermont law to be prosecuting the president," Sorrell said.
Here is Vincent Bugliosi in a recent interview with Media Channel’s Danny Schechter about Bugliosi’s new book and the case concerning Charlotte Dennett
Bugliosi: "This man [Bush] has got to be punished for what he did!"
Part 2 of the interview
Bugliosi’s book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” reached #9 on the New York Times best-seller list in late July, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
by Larry Simons
September 19, 2008
OK. I can’t take the writing/research credit for this one, and quite frankly, I’m happy. Happy that I’m not the only one out there who monitors the mountain of lies that spew forth out of the mouth of The Sultan of Spin, Bill O’ Reilly.
It seems that Billo is (once again) lying about how often he has used the phrase “Shut up” during his shows’ run, and my hero, Jack Shafer, from Slate.com brilliantly points out the facts (ironically, with no spin included!).
In an article Billo did last week for the Sept. 22, 2008 edition of TIME magazine, Billo wrote a story called “10 Questions for Bill O’ Reilly” one of the questions put to him was this one:
“Do you think it's O.K. to say "shut up" to someone you are interviewing?” (Daniel Cruz, WATERBURY, CONN)
Billo’s response?: “I've said "shut up" six times in 12 years, and they all deserved it. They were either bloviating, filibustering or lying.”
Reeeeeeheeee-eeaaaalllyyyy? (To be said like Ace Ventura) Seems Billo is a tad confused on the exact number of times he has said “Shut up”.
As Shafer points out, here is a recap of how many times Billo has addressed the issue of how many times he has said “Shut up”:
Well, the "shut up" line has happened only once in six years. ...
—The O'Reilly Factor, Nov. 15, 2002
Do you know how many times I told people to shut up? Six. Three times in anger and three times just, ah, you need to shut up about things.
—60 Minutes, Sept. 26, 2004
I said, "Look, do you know how many times I said 'shut up' in six years on The Factor? Six."
—The O'Reilly Factor, Sept. 27, 2004
Well, enjoy your Kool-Aid, sir, and [in] more than nine years on the air, you can count the shut-ups on this program on one hand.
—The O'Reilly Factor, Dec. 6, 2005
In the past 10 years The Factor has been on the air, I've commanded someone to shut up five times. And they all deserved it. That's once every two years. It's not real hard to count that high.
—The O'Reilly Factor, June 29, 2006
Also, our pals in the L.A. Times continue to print that I tell guests to shut up. That has happened in a serious way exactly four times in 10 and a half years.
—The O'Reilly Factor, Feb. 12, 2007
Let’s put this in perspective and from the time frames listed above, let’s map out Billo’s own words:
Number of times Billo claims to have said “Shut Up”
1996-2005: 1-5 (he said he can count them on ONE hand)
As you can see, the number (from Billo’s own lying lips) went down from 2004-2005, and went down again from 2006-2007. No spin, huh?
According to Shafer, here is his list of Billo’s “shut ups”:
To actor Alec Baldwin:
He has dodged this program, Alec Baldwin has, for years. Bottom line: If you're going to sling it, Alec, then stand up to some fire. If not, shut up and don't be ridiculous.
—The O'Reilly Factor, Jan. 2, 1999
That Means You, Sid Blumenthal
"There is no victory for any American in the impeachment trial. The president should be ashamed of himself, and his partisans should shut up."
—Feb. 4, 1999
Where O'Reilly Learned To Say "Shut Up"
"My father didn't tell me anything. My father just said: Shut up. Eat your food. There are people starving in Korea,' but he didn't—he didn't offer a lot of career counseling, but he never discouraged me."
—Sept. 17, 1999
"If I were Rosie O'Donnell and I didn't want to get married, I'd shut up. The same thing with Madonna. Have the kids if you—you know, obviously, they have money. They can support the kids. But I'd shut up."
—The O’Reilly Factor, Dec. 14, 1999
To Dick Morris, Fox News colleague:
I'm going to give you a plug, so shut up for a minute, Dick [Morris]. Here we go. You've got the State of the Union address coming up.
—The O'Reilly Factor, Jan. 27, 2000
"Why didn't you just—why—why didn't you just not say anything? This—I never can get this for you guys, and I—and I don't mean to be arrogant or anything like—I just don't get it. Just shut up about it. Who cares what you do? That's what the Air Force is asking you to do. Shut up."
—The O’Reilly Factor, June 8, 2000
"I don't want the Scout master to tell my boys if he's gay, if he's straight, if he's a bigamist, if he's anything. I don't think that has any place in Scouting, so therefore I don't think the Scouts are wrong in saying shut up. We just don't want to hear about this."
—The O’Reilly Factor, Aug. 29, 2000
"You can do whatever you want. Just shut up about it. Little kids don't need to know whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, a cross-dresser, whatever. Don't discuss it. That's reasonable."
—The O’Reilly Factor, Sept. 28, 2000
"All of these spin-meisters on both sides should just shut up until all the [Florida] votes are counted."
—The O'Reilly Factor, Nov. 9, 2000
"I am in favor of having equal treatment for everyone. But I'm also in favor of having everybody in the military shut up about their sexuality. All right. Not discuss it, it's not germane. It's irrelevant."
—The O’Reilly Factor, Dec. 20, 2000
Welcome to My Show To Talk About Sex. Now, Please Put a Cork in It
"My thesis, you may know, is that nobody should ever talk about their sexuality in any—in any regard ever. You should not define yourself that way. It just makes life a lot rougher. So, therefore, I would probably say, if you're a gay celebrity, shut up."
—The O’Reilly Factor, March 21, 2001
O'Reilly: "I don't go running around telling everybody about my sex life, and I don't think you do either, do you?"
Hugh Downs: "No, you don't have to—"
O'Reilly: "So just shut up about it."
—The O’Reilly Factor, July 2, 2001
To Tom Daschle:
Believe me when I tell you The Factor goes out of its way to get Democrats on this broadcast. But Daschle has been and remains too frightened to appear. So with all due respect, senator, shut up.
—The O'Reilly Factor, May 17, 2002
"I'm asking you to shut up about sex."
—The O’Reilly Factor, Sept. 23, 2002
[To an atheist Eagle Scout, Darrell Lambert]: "I want to quote this—'On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and to my country and obey Scout law,' on and on and on and on. I mean, God's in the first 10 words. So why did you have to tell them you were an atheist if you didn't have any trouble reading the oath? Why didn't you just shut up?"
—The O’Reilly Factor, Oct. 30, 2002
To Mike McGough of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial page:
Hey, Mike, shut up.
—The O'Reilly Factor, Nov. 13, 2002
"Well, the 'shut up' line has happened only once in six years, Ms. Evans, and that's because the editor from Pittsburgh was filibustering, after accusing me of exploiting the families of the murder victims. The no-spin zone is a tough place, and lies and unreasonable discourse will be stopped in their tracks."
—The O’Reilly Factor, Nov. 15, 2002 (Actually I counted 17 times [up until this point], and that’s NOT counting the “shut up” to Mike McGough)
Diplomatic Gag Order
"But if the Bush administration wants to attack al-Qaida in Yemen, the Swedes should shut up, because basically it's our people who are dead, they killed our people, and we have to run them down."
—The O' Reilly Factor, Nov. 20, 2002
To anti-war protester Jeremy Glick (whose father died on 9/11): (twice!)
O'Reilly: "Shut up. Shut up."
Jeremy Glick: "Oh, please don't tell me to shut up."
O'Reilly: "As respect—as respect—in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians—"
Glick: "By radical extremists who were trained by this government—"
O'Reilly: "Out of respect for him—"
Glick: "—not the people of America."
O'Reilly: "—I'm not going to—"
Glick: "—the people of the ruling class, the small minority."
O'Reilly: "Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of The Factor."
Glick: "That means we're done?"
O'Reilly: "We're done."
—The O'Reilly Factor, Feb. 4, 2003
To Jimmy Carter:
What Jimmy Carter should do is privately give Mr. Bush his opinion and shut up publicly.
—The O'Reilly Factor, Feb. 18, 2003
Shut Up for Freedom
"And it is our duty as loyal Americans to shut up once the fighting begins, unless—unless facts prove the operation wrong, as was the case in Vietnam."
—The O'Reilly Factor, Feb. 27, 2003
To Tom Daschle again, via Sen. Evan Bayh:
If you see [Sen. Tom Daschle] for me, senator, tell him to shut up. For me. You can be nice.
—The O'Reilly Factor, March 17, 2003
To Our Brothers and Sisters in the Great White North
"Canada shouldn't have any say [about the Guantanamo prisoners] at all. I mean, just shut up about it."
—The O'Reilly Factor, April 16, 2003
Bill's Amen Corner
"Anyway, Kelsey Grammar and Robert Duvall were at this dinner, and [they] both said, hey, Dixie Chicks and all—these people should just shut up."
—The O'Reilly Factor, April 28, 2003
On Location at the Los Angeles Book Fair
[To Al Franken]: "Hey, shut up! You had your 35 minutes! Shut up!" (by the way, Franken only spoke for 20 minutes)
—June 1, 2003
Two-for-One Bank Shot
"Already the two parties are blaming each other [about the power blackout]. And I have two words for them—shut up."
—Aug. 15, 2003
To the Holy See:
And I think that the Vatican needs to wise up or shut up.
---The O’Reilly Factor, November 14, 2006
To Rocky Mountain News columnist Dave Kopel:
All right, so, Mr. Kopel, shut up for a minute, OK?
—The O'Reilly Factor, June 4, 2007
To "body language expert" Tonya Reiman:
OK. It's my turn; you shut up.
—The O'Reilly Factor, June 16, 2008
I counted 32, and keep in mind, this is not even a complete list.
Here are some classic Billo “shut ups”
Billo, you make this so easy, I do it for free. The next time somebody asks you an important fact about your behavior on your show, you should just…..shut up!
Billo wins only the bronze in Worst Person for this----but still hilarious!
Sept 18, 2008
Congressman Ron Paul has issued a stinging address concerning the financial crisis in which he outlines how the current economic problems, created via malinvestment and shift to a debt based economy, are now being mismanaged by private interests in secret.
What’s more he says he is not sure the Federal Reserve has any idea what to do next and that the Congress is totally oblivious to the whole sorry state of affairs - a cocktail of elements he warns puts the middle class of America in serious jeopardy.
"Today we had a lot of financial fireworks in the markets, a lot of things are going on, and I think we are in the middle of something very big." the Congressman stated.
Speaking on the recent collapse and government bailout of several big financial institutions he warned:
"We’re talking about big bucks, we’re not talking about hundreds of millions or even hundreds of billions, we’re talking about trillions of dollars, the obligation is immeasurable."
"The interesting thing is that they (the financial institutions) don’t come to the Congress, I mean the Federal Reserve buys them out, they own it. We as tax payers now own Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and know one knows how much that will cost. They don’t come to the Congress, we don’t have appropriations, it’s done by secret government, private individuals behind the scenes maneuvering and manipulating and trying to patch things up. While in the meantime, I’m sure there’s a few people making a couple of bucks out of this whole thing."
The Congressman highlighted how an economy structured on debt and credit and a financial system based on interventionism and self serving moral hazard has led to gross devaluation of the dollar and ultimately lies at the root of the current financial meltdown.
"Our problems come first of all from the Federal Reserve. It is a monopoly and it controls interest rates artificially low, causes people to make mistakes, that’s the basic source. But then on top of that in the Housing market we had the community reinvestment act which told investors that they had to loan to risky borrowers, and that was a risky complication. HUD contributes to this, FDIC contributes, it’s called moral hazard, everything that we have done over here creates moral hazard, that is we assure people or assume that we will take care of everybody, just go out and create the risk, it is the opposite of the market place." Paul stated.
"You can’t create money like we’re doing in order to support the dollar, because ultimately it hurts the dollar and everything we do in Washington today whether its on the appropriations side, whether it’s what the Fed is doing, buying up America, it’s all putting pressure on the dollar. One of these days we’re just going to have to wake up and say that we need to liquidate debt. This is malinvestment." he urged.
The Congressman then slammed those who have blamed the crisis on failures of the free market:
"And then they have people come along and say ’see, this is the failure of capitalism’, this has nothing to do with capitalism, this is something that started off as interventionism and us being too involved in the economy for the benefit of special interests. But now it is being socialized out in the open."
"When you see the movement in the markets that we have today, you know that there are serious problems out there and Congress basically are oblivious, they have no idea what’s going on." Paul continued.
"As a matter of fact I’m not even sure the Federal Reserve has any idea what to do about this. They’ve been manipulating and maneuvering for their own benefit over the years but eventually the market wins out."
The Congressman’s comments were echoed today by reports indicating that the Congress cannot agree on any form of action and is likely to simply adjourn and "get out of the way".
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that "no one knows what to do".
In a stark warning, Ron Paul stressed that the longer the value of the dollar is allowed to depreciate, the greater the risk becomes for the majority of Americans:
"The reason this is so important is that if you care about people in a humanitarian sense, what you want to do is protect the value of the money. Just think of the third world nations when they have total run away inflation, the middle class gets wiped out. And what we are seeing today is the middle class being jeopardized by this type of system that we have, unlimited spending, unlimited debt, unlimited creation of new credit."
"So it’s time that we wake up… The answers are in the free market, sound money and our Constitution." Paul concluded.
Watch the full address by the Congressman:
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
September 17, 2008
A film by Jason Bermas
"Seven years after 9/11, the supposed mastermind behind the attacks is still at large, and the nation is entrenched in multiple wars in the Middle East.
Is Bin Laden the evil behind the attack or a mere front man in a larger picture, a Bogeyman?
We are told we are fighting a War on Terror, and that the Terrorists hate us for our freedom. If that is the case, why do our leaders take more and more of those freedoms away every day?"
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
From the ‘black is white, up is down, short is long’ file: McCain on the economy: I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong
What planet’s economy is McCain referring to?
by Larry Simons
September 16, 2008
John McCain’s words say it all when referring to the worst economic meltdown since 9/11 and the 6th worst economic crash in U.S. history (the 2nd under Bush). But vote for McCain because he’ll save the very economy that he knows NOTHING about! He’ll also find Bin Laden, personally invent the cure for cancer, conquer world hunger, create peace and harmony throughout the world so that every terrorist sings “Tiptoe Through the Tulips” in their “I Love America” t-shirts, align all the planets so that we will never have another earthquake, tornado or hurricane and personally save your eternal soul from the bowels of Hell!
McCain: You know, that there’s been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street and it is — people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times.
Who were these people in the audience? Oil company CEO's and war profiteers?
If you MUST watch this crap, here it is
Saturday, September 13, 2008
by Larry Simons
September 13, 2008
Just 11 months ago in October 2007 John McCain admitted that his future choice for VP would not have the national security experience to be President when he said this during one of the Presidential primary debates:
“I have had a strong and a long relationship on national security, I’ve been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut, I understand the issues, I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism. “I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn’t a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn’t a governor for a short period of time.”
Let me see….who was a mayor and a governor for a short period of time? Hmmmmmmm....
Governor for 21 months
Watch the clip
Friday, September 12, 2008
Sarah Palin already resembling Bush. She has no clue what the Bush Doctrine is. Are you shitting me?
Palin is clueless on the very document that gives this country the right to preemptively strike other countries even if we just think they are a threat!
by Larry Simons
September 12, 2008
It has only been two weeks since Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate for the Presidency and already she’s having a Bush “da—duhhhhh” moment.
Yesterday, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. Palin visibly looked confused and it was quickly clear that she had no clue what the Bush Doctrine is…and this is frightening. Two things make her ignorance worse (than Bush’s). 1) As much as I cannot stand to hear Bush speak, I am becoming almost equally annoyed by the sound of Palin’s voice because she talks exactly like Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand’s character in the 1996 film “Fargo”). BUT, I like looking at Palin so that almost balances out. 2) Bush wouldn’t even be clueless on this since it is his policy!
Here is the dialogue:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view?
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
Watch the clip (and be frightened)
One of the most striking things about the Bush Doctrine is that it was re-written by the very same man who was appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission....Philip Zelikow. Anyone who doesn’t see a major problem with this huge conflict of interest is simply living their day to day life with their head completely up their ass. If no one can see the huge problem there is with the very same man who had major influence in our foreign policy (by re-writing the very policy that gives the United States the green light to preemptively attack any country, not by knowing they are a threat, but even just thinking they are), that also spearheaded the 9/11 Commission, then I’m afraid you can’t be saved. In fact, you probably don’t know what the Bush Doctrine is either, so if you vote for McCain and the woman who doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is, then you’re getting what you deserve.
In lock-step with the alumni of Neocon university (Bush, McCain, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, etc..), Palin also equates the Iraq war with 9/11 by saying, "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation." What does being in Iraq have to do with "ridding the world of the.... terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation?"
I also find it unbelievable that Palin says this, “Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”
In October of 2002, the CIA released it’s National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) which represented all 16 intelligence agencies in our government and they ALL concluded that Saddam Hussein was NOT an imminent threat to the United States. So, yes, while I agree with Palin that if there is “legitimate and enough intelligence” that tells us a strike is imminent against America, that we have every right to defend our country. But, this was NOT the case with Iraq.
As former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi points out in his book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”:
“So Bush and his gang of criminals were constantly telling Americans that Hussein constituted an imminent threat to the security of this country, but they kept the truth from the American people that their CIA was telling them the exact opposite, that Hussein and Iraq were not an imminent threat to this country. Indeed, that Iraq would only attack us if they, Iraq, were in fear of an imminent attack on them by us. How evil, how perverse, how sick, how criminal can Bush and his people be? Yet unbelievably, they got away with all of this.”
So, Governor, you see, we did NOT have “legitimate or enough” intelligence that a strike on us was imminent, we had NO intelligence telling us that.
How can anyone claim this woman has foreign policy experience and not know the name of Bush’s “war on terrorism” foreign policy? As unconstitutional and illegal as it is, a VP candidate should at least know it!
September 12, 2008
This is hilarious!
Co-starring Rudy "Oh, thank heaven for 9/11" 9iu11iani as “9/11”!!!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Paul Joseph Watson
September 11, 2008
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann perhaps went further than ever before last night in his special comment about the 9/11 anniversary, slamming the Bush administration for their "criminal neglect" in allowing the attacks to occur and identifying the continued exploitation of 9/11 "sociological pornography" as the only reason that Bush hasn’t been impeached.
Olbermann said that the anniversary of the September 11 attacks had been turned into a brand name - "9/11™" and that such propaganda has "sustained a President that long ago should have been dismissed or impeached."
Olbermann continued, identifying 9/11 has the only thing that has kept "(Bush) and his gang of financial and constitutional crooks in office," while they escaped blame for the "malfeasance and criminal neglect that allowed the attacks to occur."
Olbermann then scorned Rudy Giuliani, keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention, for taking no counter-terror measures in-between the first and second attacks on the World Trade Center and indeed moving his counter-terror bunker, which was housed inside WTC 7, into the World Trade Center complex.
The anchor of Countdown then returned to the disgrace of the Republicans airing graphic video of people jumping from the towers and planes slamming into the building during the second night of the convention as a "tribute" to 9/11 victims.
"The television networks were told that the convention would pause early in the evening, when children could still be watching, for a 9/11 tribute and they were encouraged to broadcast that tribute. What we got was not a tribute for the dead of 9/11 or even a tribute to the responders….the Republicans instead gave us sociological pornography,a virtual snuff film."
Noting that TV networks had agreed to stop showing the most graphic images of 9/11 years ago, Olbermann said, "Yet the Republicans, at their convention, having virtually seized control of the cable news operations, showed the worst of it…the actual collapse of the smoking towers, a fleeting image of what might have been a victim leaping to his death from a thousand feet up, and something new….ground level perfectly framed images of the fireball created when the second plane hit the second tower, it was terrifying, after all the object was to terrify - not to commemorate," said Olbermann.
The host then poured scorn on attempts to conflate 9/11 with the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis "to stoke the flames of paranoia about another middle eastern nation."
Olbermann concluded by slamming John McCain for advertising the fact that he knew how to capture Bin Laden, but only offering to share his plan if he won the election.
"By holding out on your secret plan to catch Bin Laden, by searing those images into our collective wounded American psyche at your nomination last week, terrorists are not what you John McCain fight - terrorists are what you John McCain use," stated Olbermann.
Watch Olbermann’s special comment below.
Paul Joseph Watson
September 10, 2008
A new global poll conducted across 17 countries has found that less than half of those surveyed believe Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks, with a full 15 per cent believing that the terrorist outrage was directly perpetrated by the U.S. government.
On the eve of the 7th anniversary of 9/11, the poll underscores how a majority of people still do not buy the official story, despite numerous attempts to reinforce the explanation that 19 hijackers at the behest of Osama bin Laden were the culprits behind the plot.
"The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001," reports Reuters.
Overall, 46 per cent of those surveyed believed the attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda, 25 per cent do not know who carried out the attacks, 15 per cent state the U.S. government was behind the attacks, 7 per cent blame Israel and a further 7 per cent blame other perpetrators.
The poll, conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, reveals that people in Mexico lay the blame on the U.S. government (30 per cent) in numbers just 3 per cent less than Al-Qaeda (33 per cent).
The figures represent a blow to debunkers who have attempted to argue that skepticism towards the official 9/11 story is a radical fringe belief. In reality, the majority of people believe an explanation other than the official story or at least have doubts about the official version.
"In Europe, al Qaeda was cited by 56 percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans. The U.S. government was to blame, according to 23 percent of Germans and 15 percent of Italians," according to the report.
"Israel was behind the attacks, said 43 percent of people in Egypt, 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories. The U.S. government was blamed by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians."
Skepticism towards the official 9/11 story is even more intense in the United States.
An October 2006 CBS/New York Times poll found that a mere 16% of Americans thought the U.S. government was telling the truth about 9/11. A further 53% thought the White House was "hiding something" and 28% said they were "mostly lying".
That’s 81% who do not trust the official version of events and 16% who do - with a further 3% in the "don’t know" category.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Billo sends stalker producer to ambush journalist who tells the truth…..that he’s a big, fat, loofah-loving hypocrite!
by Larry Simons
September 9, 2008
On yesterday’s telecast of FOX News’ #1 comedy, The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo sends out his favorite stalker/producer Jessie Waters to ambush the Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, Cynthia Tucker, at her home. What has Billo seething in his chair? The simple fact that Tucker wrote a column criticizing Loofah boy for his double standard in his reporting of the Jamie Lynn Spears/Bristol Palin pregnancies.
In short, Billo criticized the Spears family for Jamie Lynn’s pregnancy at age 16, saying there was no supervision. When it comes to Bristol Palin’s pregnancy at age 17, Billo seems to be completely nonjudgmental and impartial, stating there is “no proof” Bristol was not supervised.
Here is a portion of the dialogue between stalker Jessie Waters and Cynthia Tucker:
Jessie the Stalker: It seems like you’re comparing the Spears family to the Palin family. Is that true?
Tucker: I believe that I was criticizing Bill O’ Reilly. That’s what I was doing..and I stand by that criticism.
Jessie the Stalker: So, you’re comparing the Spears family to the Palin family?
Tucker: I believe that I was criticizing Bill O’ Reilly…and I stand by that.
Jessie the Stalker: You know there’s a difference here. You know Britney Spears and her sister were running wild with no parental supervision, and what evidence do you have that this was the case with Bristol Palin?
Tucker: I said nothing about Bristol Palin running wild…… what I inferred is that Bill O’ Reilly is a hypocrite.
Jessie the Stalker: Why? Why is he a hypocrite?
Tucker: I am going now in the house to finish my Saturday chores. Thank you gentlemen.
Watch the clip
Let me just point out the one part of this dialogue that hit me like a truck. Waters says, “You know Britney Spears and her sister were running wild with no parental supervision.” Hey Einstein, isn’t that usually how a teenage girl gets pregnant? Lack of supervision? Once again, the FOX News right-wing buffoons expect the people that are NOT religious (nor claim to be) to practice the higher standard.
Then Waters says, “what evidence do you have that his was the case with Bristol Palin?” Hmmm, let me think about this one for a second…oh yeah, you want the evidence? Uhhh, she’s PREGNANT! Billo and his goons want it both ways. They want to blame the Spears parents for their lack of supervision AND being a wild, out-of-control bunch, because if this was only an issue of poor supervision, then the Palin family is guilty as charged too!
Billo makes the exact same comment in his talking points memo (clip above) that “of course, there is no evidence that the Governor’s children are unsupervised”. So, Billo, you’re saying that Bristol may have been supervised? Did she fuck her boyfriend in the middle of the living room floor in front of the entire family? Now that beats reality TV! Doesn’t a pregnancy at age 17 and being unmarried constitute the very definition of “unsupervised?”
Billo then moves on to show a segment of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart where Stewart exposes the blatant hypocrisy of Bill O ‘Reilly (as I pointed out in the previous post) and after the clip, all O’ Reilly says is “8 out-of-context edits Jon…way to go… unbelievable.”
No, Billo, what is unbelievable is the fact that time and time again you keep using your failed “out of context” defense and nearly 100% of time you NEVER, EVER play for your comatose viewers the FULL context so they can see just what exactly you did say! It’s your show Billo. You can do whatever you want. So, why not show us the complete context of what you DID say? Why? Someone who was really pissed off would have re-aired the entire segment to show exactly where he was taken out of context. Nope. Proving his point is just not O' Reilly's style.
I will tell you why you Billo doesn’t show the full contexts. Because in most cases (if not all) where if he would show the complete context, his viewers would see that 1) The whole context did not shed any new light on what was presented in the edits or 2) Billo’s complete context is actually worse than the edited piece. He also knows that the zombies that watch his show never investigate anything, so when O’ Reilly shows a clip of someone editing him and he cries, “Out of context! Out of Context!”, his viewers actually believe that what is being edited out is something that would actually change the overall context.
Billo has been known on several occasions to play portions of his own context, but leaving out major incriminating parts, as I pointed out here.
Turns out, I found the complete context from the clips above that Jon Stewart edited. That’s right folks, isn’t amazing that you have to visit my site to get the complete contexts of Billo’s words? This is the dialogue IN FULL from Billo’s talking points memo from September 3, 2008:
Now, for the fair-minded media, this is a tough one. Certainly the public has a right to know about Governor Palin's life, and there are legitimate questions about her family's situation, but Americans are very protective of families in general. So the questions have to be fair and balanced. So does the analysis.
But fair is a word that ideological press people will never understand. Here's an example. Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, race-baiting columnist Mary Mitchell, who along with Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post are the worst in applying race to just about everything, said this:
"When an unmarried 17-year-old comes up pregnant on the South Side of Chicago, Republicans don't make it sound like a beautiful thing. They call it tragic and a moral failure, and they often blame the teen's parents… Conservatives like Palin have been hard on young, unwed, pregnant women in urban areas. Maybe now that she is in the same boat, they'll show a little more compassion."
Well that of course is brutally unfair. Critics of teen pregnancies have a perfect right to put forth that if children give birth to children, many bad things can happen, like society having to support both mother and child, like children being unsupervised because there's no father in the home, like mothers and fathers being emotionally unequipped to raise their children responsibly. Those are legitimate concerns, even if Ms. Mitchell spins it as a race situation, which it is not.
Millions of American families are dealing with teenage pregnancy. And as long as society doesn't have to support the mother, father or baby, it is a personal matter. Once the taxpayers do have to support the young family, it becomes a public policy matter.
It is true that some Americans will judge Governor Palin and her family. There's nothing anyone can do about it. And it's also true that Governor Palin will have a hard time running for vice president if there is much more family chaos.
So the governor is approaching the chaos zone, and John McCain can't be very happy about that. For the sake of her and her family, we hope things calm down. This country needs a vibrant policy debate, not a soap opera.
After reading this I quickly discovered why Billo didn’t re-air it. Because once again, his own context was worse than the edited piece done by Stewart.
These are the portions not found in Stewart’s edited piece that Billo did not want his zombies to see (with my analysis in purple):
“…Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post are the worst in applying race to just about everything, said this:
"When an unmarried 17-year-old comes up pregnant on the South Side of Chicago, Republicans don't make it sound like a beautiful thing. They call it tragic and a moral failure, and they often blame the teen's parents.”
(Yes they do blame the teen’s parents. You’re CORRECT Eugene. This is EXACTLY what Billo did to the Spears family….blamed the parents. This is why he didn’t re-air his own context)
“Critics of teen pregnancies have a perfect right to put forth that if children give birth to children, many bad things can happen, like society having to support both mother and child, like children being unsupervised because there's no father in the home, like mothers and fathers being emotionally unequipped to raise their children responsibly.”
(Or the grandmother of the child having to raise it because the mother is overwhelmed. If McCain is elected, how much time will Sarah Palin have for this? Not much. But you didn’t want to mention that, did you Billo?)
One of the biggest issues in this entire story (that I've not heard any pundits or political humorists talk about) is actually in favor of the Spears family. If the Spears family has a meltdown and begin to resemble guests on the Jerry Springer Show, who cares? None of the people in that household have anything to do with running this country. If McCain is elected, Palin will hold the 2nd highest office in the country and if her family begins to resemble the Lohans or the Osbournes, it will affect Americans in some way. If the Spears family all join the Satanic church and turn into Nazis, it affects none of us.
So, why do the right wing buffoons care about the well being of the Spears family? They don’t. The job of the O’ Reilly’s, Hannity’s, Coulters and Limbaugh’s of the world is to sit back and pose as these Christian conservative God-fearing people, when in reality they are the biggest hypocritical and Godless people on the Earth….and they actually hate our own Constitution.
Nothing makes them feel giddier than to attack others for not obeying standards that they are not bound to because they don’t profess to be religious. On the other hand, the very ones who claim to be walking in Jesus’ footsteps are racist (O’ Reilly and Limbaugh, and really ALL Neo-cons), take Oxycontin (Limbaugh), openly threaten to kill people on National TV (Coulter and O’ Reilly), sexually harass female staffers (O’ Reilly) and go nuts and shout profanities when he can’t read Teleprompters (O’ Reilly). Of course, I could name many, many more.
The ironic thing is, the above-mentioned people actually make Jamie Lynn Spears look……religious!
More proof of the hilarious, blatant hypocrisy of Loofah boy and Mr. Oxy(Neo)contin
by Larry Simons
September 9, 2008
There is plenty of hypocrisy on all sides of the table, whether it is right or left wing media or political figures. With the recent news that Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin’s 17 year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, my oh my how the right wing hypocrisy has reached colossal new heights!
Bill O’ Liar had this to say recently about the Bristol Palin pregnancy, “Millions of American families are dealing with teenage pregnancy and as long as society doesn’t have to support the mother, father or baby, it is a personal matter”, and “It is true that some Americans will judge Governor Palin and her family…for the sake of her and her family, we hope things calm down”.
Back in December of 2007, in his idiotic segment “Pinheads and Patriots”, Bill O’ Liar had this to say about the pregnancy of 16 year-old Jamie Lynn Spears, “On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet. Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves”.
In other words, if you are non-religious TV star who does not go around preaching to everyone that you should be moral, then you should live by the highest standards and not have premarital sex. You should live the way Jesus wants you to live and not sin. It’s your fault because of your non-religious parents who brought you up in a non-religious home. But, not because they didn’t teach you religion, but because despite the fact that you had no role models and no religious instruction, you should have practiced what the Bible teaches anyway.
But, if you are the daughter of right-wing, religious, conservative parents who are constantly in the public eye and subject to scrutiny on a national level, then it’s perfectly OK, because it’s no one’s fault. It’s just one of those things that happen to good, religious, God-fearing people. After all, we are all sinners, right? If we didn’t sin then Jesus died for nothing. The sin has to be there so it can be forgiven. It’s not your Christian, God-fearing mother’s fault. She’s a public servant elected to a high office. She doesn’t have much time to teach you not to have sex. There are Bibles laying around the house. You should have read and studied them, but despite the fact that you didn’t, it’s OK. It’s not your fault. It’s society’s fault for the sexually explicit commercials on TV and the sexual references in the music you listen to that your Christian, Jesus-loving mother, once again, did not keep from you. This is a private matter and you should be left alone.
Classic O’ Reilly
Jon Stewart does a nice segment on this
Another defender of Palin’s daughter is big, fat, pill-popping Rush “I hate the troops” Limbaugh, who just days ago, on September 2, said this in response to a question that asked if Chelsey Clinton was pregnant when Bill Clinton was in office, would the reaction from the Republicans have been the same? [as it is about Bristol Palin], “You want to talk about Chelsea Clinton and what if she had gotten pregnant while living in the White House? Well, we could say, how do we know? How do we know she didn't?” Then said, “This is an all-out effort to destroy a 17-year-old child. I'll tell you, this is just despicable. It is just despicable, what we have become in this country, to destroy a 17-year-old girl in the hopes of destroying her mother and her father.”
But, in December of 2007, after the news broke of Jamie Lynn Spears’ pregnancy, Mr. Oxycontin said this to a caller:
CALLER: Would you tend to think that a family in this position, though, wouldn't you think that there would be a more watchful eye as a parent to be watching over these kids so this doesn't happen to them?
RUSH: I would certainly hope so, but it's long past time for this to happen. The parents here are the culprits!
As with O’ Reilly, Rush Limpballs also believes that the higher standard should be practiced by the ones who don’t profess to be bound by that standard, while the religious conservatives get a free pass on the very standard they impose on others…..simply amazing
Billo wins the gold (again) in Worst Person!