Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Prison Planet runs story that includes a video narration from bonesman David McCullough

Despite past stories on Prison Planet where they acknowledge McCullough being a bonesman, they run this recent story anyway

by Larry Simons
December 30, 2009

Prison Planet creator Alex Jones has consistently condemned secret societies on his websites and in his movies like “The Order of Death” and “Martial Law: Rise of the Police State”. Jones never makes it a secret that he abhors secret societies like the Bohemian Grove, the Bilderberg Group and Skull & Bones [at Yale University], so why did his website’s moderators post a story today about George Washington that included a video narrated by author and historian David McCullough?

Oh, by the way, McCullough [pictured above] just happens to be a Bonesman. He graduated from Yale University in 1955 and the mention of him as a bonesman is on both his personal wikipedia page and the list of bonesmen wikipedia page.

McCullough's wikipedia page mentions him in Skull and Bones

McCullough is listed in the List of Bonesmen wikipedia page

[click above images to enlarge]

Prison Planet has even acknowledged that McCullough is a bonesman in at least two past stories [from 2004]. One posted from Vanity Fare and one from the Palm Beach Post.

I’m in no way suggesting that McCullough does not write good books or that his research and information is inaccuarte. I wouldn’t know, since I have not read his books or even listened to the narration on the video. I am not even suggesting that Alex Jones is wrong when he talks about the evils of these secret societies. I happen to agree that, at the very least, secret societies accomplish nothing beneficial because I hold the personal belief that nothing good is done in secret.

My only point here is the blatant hypocrisy of Jones making movies and YouTube videos preaching the evils of secret societies, while posting stories on his website that include Bonesmen shown in a favorable light, as if it is an endorsement of Skull and Bones itself.

While it is true that although McCullough is a Bonesman, it does not necessarily invalidate his work; it is also true that if Alex Jones really considered Skull and Bones a “ritualistic cult”, he should make every attempt to distance himself from any association with it. In posting a story that includes a McCullough-narrated video, it clearly indicates that Jones has not distanced himself from the very ritualistic cults he despises.

My question is.......why?

Here’s Alex Jones in 2004 talking about the Skull & Bones secret society, calling it a “ritual generational cult”

Incase Prison Planet deletes this later, here is the screenshot
[click to enlarge]

Other famous Bonesmen include:

George H.W. Bush [41st President]
John Kerry [Massachusetts Senator]
George W. Bush [43rd President]
William F. Buckley, Jr [founder of "National Review"]
Dana Milbank [political reporter, The Washington Post]
Austan Goolsbee [Obama's current Chief Economist]
Prescott Bush [Connecticut Senator, father of Bush-41 and Grandfather of Bush-43]

Speaking of secret societies, tune into "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" tonight at 10pm on TruTv for his Secret Societies episode

Monday, December 28, 2009

Lifestyles of the Religious Nutball: Pastor Kerney Thomas wants you to trust in “GOOOOOOOOOOOD!”

…and trust in him right NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!

by Larry Simons
December 28, 2009

Apparently Pastor Kerney Thomas has adopted a new method of evangelism: scaring the shit out of his viewers. This guy takes the term “nutball” to a whole new level. James Brown would be proud!

WARNING: Before watching this video, please be equipped with a good pair of soundproof headphones.


Sunday, December 27, 2009

Bomber Had No Passport, Helped To Board Plane By Sharp-Dressed Man

Travelers harassed by intense airport security after Nigerian on terror list was allowed to attempt attack on Flight 253

Paul Joseph Watson
Sunday, December 27, 2009

A passenger who boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 in Amsterdam with attempted plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab says the would-be terrorist had no passport and was aided by a sharp-dressed man who claimed Mutallab was a Sudanese refugee, just one of a plethora of startling inconsistencies surrounding an incident that has led to ramped up security and increased levels of harassment in airports.

Every single fact that has come to light since the attempted bombing on Christmas Day directly indicates that the bomber was deliberately allowed to board the plane and that his attack would have succeeded if not for the alert and brave reactions of the passengers and flight crew.

According to Kurt Haskell, an attorney with the Haskell Law Firm in Taylor, Michigan, “He and his wife were sitting on the ground near their boarding gate in Amsterdam, which is when they saw Mutallab approach the gate with an unidentified man.”

Mutallab was a poorly dressed, young looking individual, but he was accompanied by a man in an expensive suit, Haskell told

“He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time.’”

Although Mutallab is Nigerian, Haskell said the well-dressed man portrayed him as a desperate Sudanese refugee in an attempt to elicit sympathy and as a way of bypassing his lack of documents.

“The ticket agent referred Mutallab and his companion to her manager down the hall, and Haskell didn’t see Mutallab again until after he allegedly tried to detonate an explosive on the plane,” states the report.

Crucially, Haskell said that after the plane landed he saw another man being taken into custody by the FBI along with Mutallab. However, the FBI later said that Mutallab was the only individual taken into custody.

Were the feds retrieving their own agent, the sharp dressed man who ensured that Mutallab boarded the plane despite his overwhelmingly suspicious circumstances?

Mutallab was a known security threat who was on the terror watch list. He is barred from entering Britain after being refused a new visa due to applying for a fake university course. Separate reports said that he did hold a valid visa, which begs the question, how can someone on a terror watch list be allowed to fly?

“On the one hand, it seems he’s been on the terror watch list but not on the no-fly list,” he said. “That doesn’t square because the American Department for Homeland Security has pretty stringent data-mining capability. I don’t understand how he had a valid visa if he was known on the terror watch list,” Dr Magnus Ranstorp of the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies told the London Independent.

It has also been revealed that Mutallab’s father contacted U.S. intelligence officials a month ago and warned them that his son was a threat, but nothing was done.

The bomber’s father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, was a a former minister and chairman of First Bank in Nigeria. The bomber does not fit the image of a disgruntled, rag-tag terrorist. His considerable wealth allowed him to live in luxury at an imposing London mansion.

As a result of the failed attack, new security directives have been introduced for anyone traveling into America. Intense body and hand-luggage searches and sniffer dogs have been beefed up at departure gates and passengers have been ordered not to stand during the final hour of the flight and are not allowed access to any of their hand luggage during the final hour.

However, if you’re a suspicious looking man on a terror watch list with no passport carrying explosives, you should breeze through security with no questions asked, just be sure to have a sharp-dressed man with you at all times.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Real Truth Online’s 2009 Fraud of the Year: Andy Ostroy

The first of many Fraudies for the Obama-worshipping, liberal hack?
by Larry Simons
December 23, 2009

Let me clear something up to some of you who may be wondering how I deem someone a fraud. A fraud, to me, is not just an imposter or someone who sets out to deceive. A fraud is also someone who intentionally omits glaring incriminating facts in order to advance one’s agenda. A fraud is a blatant hypocrite. A fraud is someone who enables comment moderation on their blog in order to prevent incriminating comments from being seen by other posters, in which the moderator would be forced to address, or otherwise appear for certain to be the big fraud that they are already being. Under just these three definitions, the title of fraud fits liberal blogger Andy Ostroy like a glove.

For his consistent hypocrisy and fraudiness throughout this entire year [that I have proven time and time again], it is only befitting that I bestow the honor of 2009’s RTO Fraud of the Year honors to Andy Ostroy.

The ironic thing about Ostroy being the new Fraudie winner is the fact that his articles used to be a cherished treasure here at Real Truth Online, until the night he shed his integrity and his soul. That night was November 4, 2008, when Barack Obama was elected the 44th President.

His articles used to be posted here when he wrote about the tragedy that was the Bush administration. Because I agreed with him, per se? No. Because they were truthful and impossible to refute. Since January 2009 [when I posted my very first anti-Ostroy article], Ostroy has been repeatedly caught red-handed in committing an act so many of his fellow liberals are guilty of as well: Holding one man and his party in higher esteem than this country and its founding documents.

This is the very thing that supporters of Bush were accused of: Holding Bush and their party [Republican] in higher regards than the Constitution. Along came people like Ostroy, doing the exact same thing, only standing on the opposite side of the political fence.

I wrote my first article in January rebuking Ostroy for writing an article titled, “I Want to be Black”. It was a near 500-word article that, if I summed up its message in one sentence, would be titled, “Who cares if Obama is qualified to be President, or if he even has character? He’s black, and that’s all that matters.”

Ostroy also mentioned Martin Luther King, Jr. in the same article, completely omitting that King once said, "Let us not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character", thus contradicting himself by making the entire article the very type of stereotypical mindset that King condemned.

In March, I wrote a story exposing Ostroy for censoring my comments posted on his blog, only to later deny he was censoring them and continued to censor despite the denials. He responded to one of my comments by saying, “I have no problem posting your comments--whether I agree with them or not--so long as they are not filled with nastiness and ad hominen attacks.”

The funny thing was, he would delete my comment and then respond saying my comments were “nasty” and “filled with ad hominem attacks”, so that his faithful readers would only see HIS comment saying my comments were nasty. Then, he would delete my comment so that his readers wouldn’t see that my comments were not nasty. That is a true fraud.

Also in March, Ostroy continued to delete my comments after I continued to inform him about the fact that Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel’s father Benjamin Emanuel, was a terrorist in the late 1940’s as a member of the militant terrorist group Irgun. Despite the fact that Ostroy’s website boasts “we're not afraid to criticize our own when warranted”, he not only continually ignored my comments about Ben Emanuel, but he said this to me:

“Larry, if you are going to insist on clogging the message board with rambling, antagonistic, inflammatory off-topic postings you are going to be banned/rejected every time you post.”

Ostroy’s tactic of saying my comments were “nasty” wasn’t enough for him. He then thought he could scare me away from posting comments by issuing a warning to me. Ostroy said:

“Larry, last warning: if you leave one more disruptive, harassing post on this board I am going to report you to, and they will ban you from their site…and you will lose your own blog. Be smart.”

What Ostroy was really telling me was, “Please stop posting those incriminating facts about the people I support on my blog, because I have no defense and no way to refute you.” What Ostroy didn’t count on was the fact that I actually knew’s policies better than he did. The only violations that get people removed from are: Impersonation, pornography and obscenity, hateful content, copyright, private/personal info, unlawful use of services and spam/viruses. I was violating none of them.

On the other hand, many of Ostroy’s readers had violated’s policies in the past by saying things like:

“I will not miss Sarah Palin's dumb husband and her stupid kids: Blog, Flap, Bristol-Myers, Dune, Rug, and Blitzen.”


“i prayed to god that you get ass cancer and your brains fall out--you are an evil shit.”

Ostroy allowed them.

In my April story, I exposed 'Ostroy the hypocrite' for pro-Iraq war comments, despite continually opposing the war under Bush. Ostroy said:

“Five American soldiers were killed in Iraq Friday in a suicide-bomb attack in the northern city of Mosul, the deadliest attack against U.S. troops in over a year. The increase in deadly violence threatens the June deadline for withdrawal of American combat troops from cities, part of a U.S-Iraqi agreement which took effect this year. The top U.S. commander, Gen. Raymond Odierno, warned this week that we could instead see an increase in U.S. troops in Mosul and Baqubah, and expressed concerns about the escalation in Sunni-militant-led violence among Arabs and Kurds in the north. He also cited the "very dangerous" threat from Iranian-funded militants. Given that we can't fully pull out our troops for at least another 16 months and the odds are, as the good General says, we'll have to increase our troop strength shortly in some major northern cities, it's unbelievable how the Republicans and Bush apologists still get away with their claims of success for the surge and for the war itself. Any idiot can see how fragile Iraq's Democracy is, and that without our troops, the country will likely fall like a house of cards.”

Andy had previously [pre-November 4, 2008, when he was AGAINST the Iraq war] said:

“That our soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are the sons and daughters of the poor and middle classes, not those of the wealthy, or those of the Republican war-mongers who sent them there. The true contempt for our soldiers comes from you and your neo-con pals who sent them off to fight and die in a totally bogus, elective war where America faced no threat whatsoever.” [June 23, 2008]

“Let's face it, Iraqi soldiers throwing in the towel is definitely not a good sign, no matter how you spin it. It shows the fear and frustration they have in waging this mess of a war that's now in its sixth year. It also shows a lack of desire and commitment. And it raises the possibility that these people just don't want what we want. Five years later, the government is not a functioning Democracy in any sense of the word. The Iraqi military is not able to stand up and defend the country. Simply put, on the political front, there is little or no progress. And militarily, as we are constantly reminded by the Busheviks and McCain, without our soldiers there the country would fall into 'anarchy and genocide' (which some rational folks think is exactly what's been there for years now).

Bush and Cheney have us on a death spiral that's not getting any better. Five years, 4000 dead soldiers and $500 billion spent and what do we have to show for it? Fleeing Iraqi soldiers. We are constantly told there's tremendous success being made, but we're still mired in sectarian violence and Iraqi troop failures. The Bushevik contradictions are astounding. They have no clear mission, and no clear end in sight. They say we can leave when we've achieved success and finished the mission, yet every time they point to this great progress and success they declare that troops can't come home and may in fact need to be there longer than expected. It's a smoke and mirrors show worthy of the best American carnival.

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential hopefuls, need to start ratcheting up their rhetoric about this disaster of a war. They need to pound the Busheviks hard for getting us into this mess. They need to shine a light on McCain's incessant war-mongering and supreme delusion that we're actually accomplishing something over there. The only thing we're accomplishing is a reprise of Vietnam, where we're gonna kill tens of thousands of our soldiers, and then, when we're finally fed up, we'll throw in the towel. And just like Vietnam, the Iraq war will go down in history as an utter failure; a vanity project of delusional U.S. presidents. The key question here is, how much are Obama and Clinton willing to do, and how quickly, to stanch the bloodshed and put an end to this debacle?

[April 16, 2008]

Not only did I expose Ostroy for the big flaming FRAUD he is on his complete 180 on the Iraq war, Ostroy said this to me on April 11, 2009 in response to the three paragraph excerpt of Ostroy’s OWN words [above, that I sent to him in one of my posts on his site, that he later deleted] from his April 16, 2008 article:

“Larry, the reason your posts are consistently deleted is because you never offer anything constructive. Your posts are nothing but anger-filled attacks designed to antagonize and be combative. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with what you have to say. The problem is, you have nothing to say and you make no points. So as long as you choose to be a rabble-rouser rather than someone who offers either complimentary points or constructive opposing views, you will continue to be censored. Your idea and my idea of Free Speech is quite different.”

I make no points? Yes, his idea of free speech and mine are different. His idea of free speech: You can post any comment you want, even if it's something I don't agree with, as long as I can offer an explanation or argument. If you make an EXCELLENT point [even using my OWN words] and I cannot refute it, I will threaten you, call your comments "nasty", "combative" and "antagonistic" and delete you. My idea of free speech: Simply pointing out where someone has been hypocritical by comparing a person's past comments to their present ones. Ostroy was admitting his OWN words are his worst enemy; that’s why he deleted them.

In late April, I exposed Ostroy for resorting to his next tactic [after saying my comments were “angry” and threatening to report me to didn’t work]: Posing as his own screener on his blog. Obviously, this was Ostroy’s attempt to convince me that it was a waste of my time to even comment on his blog [after I forced him to moderate comments again] by telling me he doesn’t even see the comments I write because they don’t make it past his “screener” [which I proved, was Ostroy himself].

Here is a run-down of the remaining reasons why Ostroy is top fraud of 2009 here at Real Truth Online. Read these articles sometime. They are shocking, revealing and quite funny [in the “I can’t believe this guy writes for The Huffington Post and has been on Hardball with Chris Matthews” sense].

For blaming the internet for “destroying the economy” when he wrote his story on a free website and doesn’t send a dime to Google CEO Eric E. Schmidt anyway

For saying that Obama is a “transcendent leader” even though Obama has continued or adopted over 15 Bush policies

For saying the Holocaust museum shooter was a right-wing nut just because he was a white supremacist even though he hated McCain, both Bush’s and FOX News

For vilifying and convicting Michael Jackson of his child molestation charges (despite being acquitted of them) a day after his death

For saying that when Obama said “…the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting someone when there was already proof that they were in their own home” [when referring to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates in July] that he was using urban slang!

For doing a complete 180 in his terminology usage about Obama in two articles just 79 days apart

For saying that Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize

For saying that America is in a better economic and sociological situation than we were a year ago

For continually defending Obama, calling him a vehicle for change and a "transcendent” leader, then calling him a failure and saying he has not changed anything

Unless Andy Ostroy makes a drastic move and shape-shifts back into the human being he was before November 4, 2008, this is going to be a looooooooooong remaining 3 years for Ostroy here at RTO. He now has one Fraudie on his mantle. Move your Obama bobbleheads out of the way and make room for more, buddy!

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Thank God for Global Warming.....uhh, I mean......uhhh

I really needed global warming today, and the bastard was a no-show

by Larry Simons
December 19, 2009

I'm really pissed off. Not only could I not go anywhere today because my area was belly-button deep in snow, but I had to go outside and shovel this shit off my car.

As you can see above, my car was buried in it....literally. After a few hours of praying for global warming to melt the snow, and being disappointed that none of that warming came, I had to go out in it.

But then I wondered, if there was global warming, would it have even snowed at all? Hmmmm. Thanks alot global warming. Just when I needed you most, you abandon me and leave me to go outside and break my back for 90 minutes to shovel the snow that YOU should have melted, or prevented to come in the first place!

Damn you, global warming...damn you!

My Top 10 Favorite Songs of the Decade: 2000-2009

by Larry Simons
December 19, 2009

[click selected titles to hear song]

1. “This Is The Last Time” [2005]
from “Hopes and Fears"

2. “Between the Lines” [2008]
Sara Bareilles
from “Little Voice”

3. “Forget It” [2007]
Breaking Benjamin

from “We Are Not Alone”

4. “The Frog Prince” [2006]
from “Under The Iron Sea"

5. “I Can Breathe” [2003]
from “Red 13”

6. “Walking Away From the Edge” [2003]
from “Red 13”

7. “I’m Gonna Getcha Good” [2002]
Shania Twain
from “Up!”

8. “Resurrection” [2004]
John Debney
from “Soundtrack: The Passion of the Christ”

9. “100 Years” [2004]
Five for Fighting
from “The Battle for Everything”

10. “Burn” [2000]
Jo Dee Messina
from “Burn”

Friday, December 18, 2009

Andy Ostroy is either the biggest fraud on Earth, or he has profound mental illness [yes, you can choose BOTH]

Just days before Ostroy captures RTO’s second Fraudie award, he proves one last time why he sooooooo deserves it

by Larry Simons
December 18, 2009

It has reached the point now where liberal blogger Andy Ostroy’s readers should not just be concerned that his feelings about Obama change more often than the price of gas, but also for his mental health. Really.

It would be OK for someone to change their mind a few times here and there about someone they support, but Ostroy goes far beyond that, making it appear as if several different people are writing his stories for him. Obviously, Ostroy is writing his own stories, that is what makes his Jekyll and Hyde critiques of Obama so frighteningly disturbing.

In Ostroy’s latest article titled, “Why Is My Party So Spineless?" [Dec 17], he is pissed off now that the Democrats control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, they are still being bossed around by Republicans.

Ostroy then says this:

“A look at the new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Wednesday shows that I'm not the only Democrat who's extremely frustrated and disappointed with the overall performance of President Barack Obama and the Democrats who seem to control government in name only.”

He’s not the ONLY one who frustrated with Obama’s performance? Since when did this sudden change of heart for his Lord and Savior take place? In an article titled, "The Sad Tale of Greg the Republican" [Nov 6], Ostroy stated:

“To be sure, these folks [Republicans]are so consumed by partisan vitriol that, for the opportunity to bash President Obama and Democrats, and with an insatiable desire for power, they literally root for the economy to fail.”

In his article titled, “A “Republican Renaissance?” Yeah, and I Hear the Mullet’s Coming Back Too” [Nov 5], Ostroy stated:

“But the real picture is anything but rosy for the GOP. The truly bigger race, in Upstate New York, handed them a humiliating defeat in the solidly red 23rd Congressional District, where a Democrat hasn't won the House seat in over 100 years. This was a national election based on national issues, and therefore a clear affirmation, not a repudiation, of Obama's performance...something which Steele, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all the other propagandists are conveniently ignoring but are shaking in their Uggs over.”

So, it appears that just over a month ago, Andy [or one of his several personalities], was gloating to his mindless readers about Obama’s “impeccable” performance thus far in his presidency. Anyone who dared to say anything negative about Obama was “angry” and “resentful” according to Ostroy. Now, fast-forward to mid-December and Ostroy himself is using phrases like “extremely frustrated” in his personal critique of Obama.

Ostroy continues in his latest article:

“Have Democrats so thoroughly and so quickly blown their unprecedented seat at the controls? Has Obama failed so miserably to deliver on his promise of change? Have Republicans demonstrated once again that in the political equivalent of a street fight they know how to kick the crap out of liberals? Yes, yes, and yes.”

Ostroy now gives the answer “yes” to the question, “Has Obama failed so miserably to deliver on his promise of change?” Hmmmm, funny how that changed so quickly from Ostroy telling his readers this in his November 1 article, “One Year After Election Day; the Verdict on Obama”:

“On the economy, it's pretty safe to say that Obama and his policies have been highly effective.”


“Nine months after taking the oath of office, while it's still way too early to label his presidency a success or failure, it is fair to conclude that he's definitely on the right track, and as far as the economy is concerned, he's brought America back from the dead.”

In his October 23, article titled, “Cheney Says Obama’s “Dithering” Puts Our Troops In Danger”, Ostroy writes:

“I guess when you're a couple of draft-dodging uber-chickenhawks [speaking of Bush and Cheney], you loathe a U.S. president who actually thinks before he speaks, analyzes before he acts, takes war seriously and is firmly committed to using it as a last resort rather than as a masturbatory weapon-of-whimsy in the war against failed masculinity.”

In his October 9 article titled, “Why Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Is Deserved” , Ostroy wrote:

“It's been eight years since America's been led by such an intelligent, inspirational figure as Obama. A president who thinks before he speaks. One who weighs options before he acts. A president with depth and intellectual curiosity. A president secure enough in his manhood to be able to talk with his enemies, rather than simply talk tough. A peacenik rather than a warmonger. Obama's restored dignity and diplomacy to the most important office in the world, while setting an example for everyone else in the quest for peace on Earth. That's why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.”

My oh my how things can change so quickly in the mind of Ostroy. The hilarious thing about Ostroy’s constant flip-flopping on Obama is the fact that Ostroy quite frequently revels in the fact that right-wingers/Republicans bash Obama at every opportunity they get. Whenever this happens, Ostroy fires back, calling them every name in the book: angry, resentful, jealous, bitter, frustrated, racist, furious…the list goes on and on.

Whenever Ostroy is frustrated and upset at Obama and uses the exact same words the Republicans use to describe Obama, then Ostroy is justified. In other words, when Republicans say Obama is not bringing change, they are bitter and resentful. When Ostroy says Obama is failing miserably to bring the promise of change, then Ostroy is 100% correct.

Keep in mind, this is not the first time Ostroy has showed his Jekyll and Hyde behavior concerning Obama’s job performance. I wrote an article back in August showcasing that Ostroy had written an article in late August and said, “The president needs to grow some balls and start acting a little Bush-like”. Just 79 days prior to that he wrote an article called “I Love Obama”, that included mentioning just about everything shy of wanting to do a porn movie with Obama.

One could argue that Ostroy is just being fair and calling Obama out when he or his administration fails and warrants criticism. I would disagree with that, because the reality is Obama is almost 100% Bush-like in his actions and policies. If Ostroy was being fair and calling Obama out, Ostroy would be constantly angry with Obama and asking why he is so much like Bush. Ostroy hated Bush and rightfully condemned him in every single article he wrote, but with Obama, Ostroy is up and down more often than a Manhattan hooker.

Ostroy continues in the recent article:

“From gay marriage to Iraq to Afghanistan to Wall Street reform to a public option for health-care, the president has waivered and/or flip-flopped on some of the most important issues on which he campaigned. He's so quickly morphed from politics' Boy Wonder, the Messiah, the once-in-a-lifetime-candidate, to the standard-model broken-down tired old politician with no fight left in him.”

Normally I would read a sentence like that and say, “Wow, he’s waking up and seeing the truth finally”. But, when I know I will go to his site next week and see his new article titled, “Why I Want Obama’s Black Dick Inside My Ass”, that enlightening revelation from the previous paragraph will lose its meaning.

Ostroy concludes:

“To many, Obama seems to care more about his own personal legacy than putting Americans back to work. No small wonder then that voters see his goals and theirs on totally opposite ends.”

Gee, who’s that sound like? I’ll give you a hint. It rhymes with “Tush”. Don’t worry all you faithful Ostroy followers out there [both of you], one of his 12 different personalities will write a new article next week telling his readers how much he admires Obama for raising the dead, healing the blind and forgiving the very people who nailed him to a cross.

Lifestyles of the Religious Nutball: Pastor wants money back that was paid in a child abuse case; says Satan took his money

Christian lunatic Rod Parsley calls money that his church had to pay to parents whose child was abused at his church's daycare a “demonically-inspired financial attack
by Larry Simons
December 18, 2009

Just when you think these fucking loonball, scumbag televangelists couldn’t possibly sink any deeper into the pit of unconscionable inhumanity; they manage to find another deeper layer hidden underneath. This time it’s Christian dirtball and John McCain-endorsed-and-inspired Rod Parsley trying to win 2009’s Piece of Shit Award. I think he wins it hands down.

It seems Parsley’s World Harvest Church is in financial dire straits. Parsley, in a recent video posted on his website says his church has come under assault and he is asking his congregation to help him defeat Satan.

Parsley says:

“It’s certainly not surprising that the adversary would release this demonically-inspired assault against us”

I agree. It’s not surprising at all. That’s what the devil does. He does evil things. He hates God; therefore it’s only natural that he’d hate the church and God’s people. So, naturally, the devil wants to hit people where it hurts the most, their bank accounts. Satan is not into that "sell your soul" shit anymore. He wants you to suffer financially. You can still worship Jesus...he just wants you to do it with less money.

Parsley continues:

“Absolutely nothing he’s [Satan] done thus far compares to the diabolically, demonically-inspired financial attack that I faced in recent months. Has absolutely blindsided me and still threatens to overwhelm this entire ministry.”

What Parsley completely omits from his “it’s the devil’s fault” speech is the fact that the reason why his church is under a “diabolically, demonically inspired financial attack” is because it appears that the devil in this particular case is in the form of Michael and Lacey Faieta.

They are the parents who sued World Harvest Church [specifically the Cuddle Care day care center, owned by WHC] in January 2006 after their [then] 2-year-old son was beaten so badly [by what their son said was a “knife”, although the parents believe it was a sharp ruler] by a church day care teacher, that the toddler was covered with welts and abrasions.

From Parsley’s website. A banner that reads “As I write this, our ministry is under the greatest financial attack in 30 years. As believers, we must do all we can to fight the devil’s schemes. Will you help me take back what the devil stole?"

The couple also said the church caused them emotional distress over the incident. Gee, I might be wrong, but that emotional distress might have been caused when, after the Faietas discovered their sons injuries and brought it to the attention of the church, instead of doing what Jesus would do [saying 'oh my, an abused child, let's find out who did this right away and call the authorities!!'] the church banned the couple and told them to never step on church property again and if they did, they would face criminal trespassing charges.

The teacher accused of the beating, Richard Vaughan, was never charged and the day care center closed soon afterward. Originally, the Faietas sued for $6 million, but the award was reduced to 2.8 million because of Ohio State’s laws on the maximum amount that can be awarded in civil cases.

This is the “demonically-inspired assault” Parsley refers to; money that his church was ordered to pay in a child abuse case where they were found guilty and liable! Now he wants the money BACK from his congregation!

Then Parsley adds:

“This attack…you need to hear this, has nothing to do with me personally. But, I had to sit down and write out an extremely large check from this ministry…3 million dollars. Right in the middle of a recession. Right in the middle of the greatest economic downturn since the great depression. When I added that final zero, and I knew that I had to have that in place by December 31, little did I know how damaging the impact would be upon this worldwide ministry.”

Had nothing to do with you personally? Are you kidding? Are you not in charge of everyone who works at your church? It was YOUR responsibility to make sure Vaughan was properly supervised and trained! That is exactly why the jury decided in the Faieta family’s favor and against you! But, you won’t tell your babbling zombies [you call your congregation] this, will you?

Right in the middle of a recession? Who fucking cares if you had to pay $3 million in the middle of a gall bladder operation, let alone a recession? Your church was GUILTY of abusing a child, asshole! You’re the victim here??

Who gives a holy shit what impact this has on your ministry?? You’re lucky as hell to have ONE person still attending! The only people in this entire incident who can be crazier and bigger pieces of shit than Parsley are the ones who give him one dime during his loony crusade to collect $3 million. In fact, I will go as far as to say that anyone who gives Parsley one damned cent is an active participant in the abuse of that child.

Giving any amount of money to this piece of shit is the equivalent to buying a ticket to watch Vaughan beat that child. Since Parsley openly endorses political candidates [which should cause his church to lose tax-exempt status], the state should have the right and the authority to step in and block Parsley from collecting revenue for an indefinite period of time at their discretion.

Know what the reality is? The reality is this: Parsley will get his money by December 31 because his lunatic followers will think it’s an act of God to keep this fucktard behind the pulpit in order to continue to spew his hate-based faith to his androids.

Parsley will celebrate because he never needed $3 million dollars to begin with because his ministry probably rakes in 4 times that every year. He will pocket the $3 million and tell his mindless peasants that it was their "great faith" [not to mention their cash] that “saved the ministry”. He will live until he’s 95 and die on his $100,000 bed inside his $20 million dollar home. That’s the sad truth.

The devil stole your money? You’re the fucking devil Parsley!

watch the devil himself

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Ventura’s Global Warming episode of “Conspiracy Theory” gets immediate recognition on Prison Planet when the 9/11 episode wasn’t mentioned at all

At least not by any Alex Jones-funded Prison Planet writer. It was mentioned 4 days later on the site; a copy-and-paste, matter-of-fact story from another site. Ventura’s global warming episode…..instant mention on Prison Planet by their own writers and showcased for all to see

by Larry Simons
December 17, 2009

Seems I’m not the only one who smells something fishy with the fact that Alex Jones’ websites Prison Planet and Infowars have immediately mentioned the global warming episode of Jesse Ventura’s TruTv hit show “Conspiracy Theory” when they took roughly 4 days to mention the 9/11 episode. Even though they did mention the 9/11 episode on December 13 [the show aired Dec 9], it was not a spotlight feature article written by any of the regular Prison Planet writers [Paul and Steve Watson, Kurt Nimmo].

Instead, the story, “Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’ show probes 9/11 mysteries”, was a copy-and-paste story from the website Raw Story, whose writer, Stephen C. Webster, generically described the episode in matter-of-fact, overview form, rather than in partisan, critique form we usually get from Kurt Nimmo and the Watson brothers at PP.

Why didn’t Prison Planet writers run a story on the 9/11 episode? True, just because Ventura does a show about conspiracy theories, doesn’t necessarily mean that Prison Planet has to do a story on every episode Ventura makes. But, then again, Prison Planet has never failed to deliver a story the very next day of any program or mention of 9/11 by anyone, whether it was supporting the alternate view or a hit piece. But, they failed [or should I say "were instructed not to"] this time. Why?

In my story of Ventura’s 9/11 episode last week, I mentioned the possible reasons why PP may not have ran an article about it:

“Maybe it was because Alex Jones was not mentioned or even interviewed for that episode.

Alex Jones considers himself the father of the 9/11 truth movement and is even friends with Ventura, yet Jones is not in the episode at all. Maybe since Jones was excluded from the episode, he is retaliating by not mentioning the episode on Prison Planet. I have no proof of this, but I do know that whenever 9/11 is mentioned on any TV program, it hits Prison Planet the very next day. Ventura’s hour-long episode exposing the truth of 9/11 is officially the most airtime any prime time show has given the alternate views of 9/11 to date, and Prison Planet ignores this?? That’s hardly a coincidence.

Perhaps another reason why the episode was not mentioned could be that Prison Planet had many criticisms of the show as well. Since Alex Jones and Ventura are chumsy pals, Jones may have issued the decree from on high to the Watson boys [Steve and Paul, the main Prison Planet writers] to not be openly critical of the episode.”

I hardly think it’s a coincidence that for at least the past month or so now, Prison Planet has bombarded their site with stories about climategate and the global warming fraud. Every once in a while a non-global warming story manages to squeeze its way onto Prison Planet and Infowars. Even at the peak of the 9/11 stories, it never got anywhere close to the number of stories PP is running on global warming.

Am I saying that I’m a defender of the global warming fraud? Of course not. I know it’s a big hoax like most people do. Am I saying that Alex Jones should not cover climategate and not treat these stories as important? No. That’s not what I am saying at all. But, should Prison Planet permeate 99% of their site with global warming stories as if it held more importance than if nuclear bombs were detonated in every major city in the United States simultaneously?

I thought I was the only one who felt this way until I read comments under a story Prison Planet posted today titled, “Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura: Global Warming”.

Here are just a few of those comments:

give me a break Says:
December 17th, 2009 at 5:51 am
So Alex, you saw fit to put THIS episode of Venturas show on the top front page but you almost completely ignored his 9/11 episode? WTF? You are OBSESSED with climategate and obsessed with siphoning off Beck/Lmbuagh and other MSM hacks audiences. This site is REALLY going downhill. You should be ashamed of yourself AJ, this is really getting pathetic. Though I guess your internet hits have gone through the roof since you starting ignoring 9/11 truth(basically) and the wars(basically) in favor of obsessing over climategate and trying to hijack partisan winger MSM viewers.

Gary S Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 7:04 am
I’m not sure my point of view is quite as strong as your’s, but it does seem to be getting a bit redundant. Jesse’s show was good, but the part that irratated me was how he repeatedly said Al Gore was his friend, yet didn’t interview him? Would not this have been the key person to interview? Maurice Strong is important, but the damn sock puppet selling his own book is what the public needs to see answering tought questions.
I was also surprised Ventura believed in “climate change” at the beginning of the show. I guess it just shows that the propaganda is heavy. Hopefully he has changed his mind and will quit refering to Gore as his friend. With friends like that, who needs enemies.

Responder. Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 9:00 am
The Ventura 911 Conspiracy Theory show WAS posted on the front page here last week. I know because that was where I was able to watch the program from. Which was rather good btw despite Ventura’s strong promotion of the fellow who alleged the recovery of the black boxes. I think the black boxes are a honey pot trap rather like the missile hit the Pentagon theory because the feds could produce the boxes & videotape at any time if it could be used to bolster their version.

give me a break Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Again, it was posted near the bottom, it was not given the featured story status. That is an important distinction. I agree about the black box thing, it could be very well be a honey pot, but I somehow doubt this is why AJ did not cover it much and gave it such small play.

Dave Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 9:20 am
The 9/11 show was pretty much ignored here, I was suprised about it myself. I tuned in the next day to hear what Alex thought of it and he didn’t even mention it, all climategate/copenhagen stuff.

give me a break Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Thank you. It is suspect to me, almost like hes afraid 9/11 truth will upset his newfound Beck/Limbaugh listening audience. And it would. So maybe hes afraid of losing them? I don’t know but its bullshit either way.

What I find interesting is that the comments left under the story [above] were flooded with negative comments [like the ones posted], but the story Watson wrote today hides the fact that the story is about the Ventura episode by not mentioning his name or that it was even about global warming in the title, “Exclusive: Lead Author Admits Deleting Inconvenient Opinions From IPCC Report” The article has not-a-one negative comment on it and has far fewer comments [as of this writing, 22], then the aforementioned story “Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura: Global Warming” [which, as of this writing, has 104].

Now, I do realize that the latter story was posted six hours before the Watson story, but keep in mind, the Watson story is also showcased as a headline story, whereas the earlier story was inserted into the multimedia section, where fewer people frequent.

What does this all mean really?

That’s the mystery. Who knows why Prison Planet wants to keep Ventura’s 9/11 episode hush-hush, but broadcasts the global warming show from the highest mountains? I’m sticking with the reasons I mentioned above [from my story last week].

I will admit. I thought Ventura’s episode on global warming was much better than the 9/11 episode, but not for the reasons that I believe Jones is being silent about Ventura’s 9/11 episode. I still had issues with Ventura’s global warming episode, like why Ventura still praised Al Gore at the end of the episode when he said, Al Gore, you’ve been a real inspiration, but a lot of other people who preach the global warming gospel, are not out to save the world. They’re out to run it”, when he had just finished talking to several people who told him that Gore was a huge profiteer from global warming.

Why didn’t Ventura talk to Al Gore on camera since they’re friends??

Why did Ventura talk to Noel Sheppard, a guy who thinks 9/11 truthers [whom Ventura himself is] are nuts? Better question is: why did Sheppard talk to Ventura?

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Ron Paul on Obama’s Peace Prize: “He should have turned it down

Paul: “How can you believe in…..the principle of starting wars and expanding wars and get a peace prize?”

by Larry Simons
December 12, 2009

Republican Congressman Ron Paul had some choice words for Obama recently. On the heels of Obama going to Norway to receive his Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded in October, many, in addition to Congressman Paul, feel that the Nobel committee made a huge mistake in their selection.

Not only do many, like Congressmen Paul, feel that it is a huge contradiction for a peace prize to be awarded to someone who has not done one thing to stop existing wars, but that Obama should return the award, now that he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by increasing the troop presence there by 30,000.

Congressmen Paul had this to say:

“He should have turned it down. I mean, he’s expanding the war and uh, the people should be embarrassed. I mean, how can you believe in preventive war, that is, belief in the principle of starting wars and expanding wars and get a peace prize? I mean, I don’t see any signs of peace. I see the world is more dangerous. It was more dangerous the last administration, and the danger continues to expand with this administration.”

watch the clip

Friday, December 11, 2009

My Top 10 Favorite Albums of the Decade: 2000-2009

by Larry Simons
December 11, 2009

1. Arrival [2001]

2. Phoenix [2008]

3. Little Voice [2007]
Sara Bareilles

4. Hopes and Fears [2004]

5. Long Road Out of Eden [2007]

6. Soundtrack: The Passion of the Christ [2004]
John Debney

7. Calling the World [2007]

8. Burn [2000]
Jo Dee Messina

9. American Idiot [2004]
Green Day

10. Nothing Is Sound [2005]

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Jesse Ventura tackles 9/11 on “Conspiracy Theory”. No mention of the episode on Prison Planet

Could it be because Alex Jones was not asked to be in it?

by Larry Simons
December 10, 2009

On the second episode of “Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura”, Ventura takes on the subject of 9/11. I thought it was an overall good episode and I was extremely shocked that it was aired. I had several issues with it but at the same time, I realize that Ventura only had an hour to work with [well, 43 minutes technically].

My issues with the show:

1. Ventura did not talk to David Ray Griffin, who I personally think is the #1 voice of the 9/11 truth movement [however, he did include Steven Jones, so that partially made up for it]

2. Ventura spent too much time on the black boxes. It’s a very important issue, but it gave the appearance that the black boxes were the #1 smoking gun of 9/11. I personally feel WTC 7 is the main smoking gun, but Ventura only mentioned that briefly.

3. None of his researchers even knew what a False Flag operation was. How can you call yourself a researcher and not know this? I wasn’t even bothered by the fact that people on Ventura’s team were skeptics of the 9/11 cover-up. I think that’s good that he has people who hold different views.

4. Ventura said nothing about the Pentagon and barely mentioned Shanksville.

5. Ventura didn’t ask the FBI agent about the 80+ surveillance cameras that supposedly caught on tape what really hit the Pentagon and why the American people cannot see them. The FBI supposedly confiscated these tapes.

6. This episode should have been a two-parter. There is simply too much to cover in one episode.

7. Ventura mentioned the False Flag Operation Northwoods to his research team but he never specifically told them and the viewers watching what it was [and he got the year wrong too; he said it was 1961 when it was 1962].

8. What was Ventura trying to prove by going to Hanger 17 at the John F. Kennedy International Airport? Did he think someone would let him right in and hand over to him a giant steel beam from the World Trade Center to examine?

9. Why didn't Ventura talk to Sibel Edmonds or members of the 9/11 Commission? Why didn't Ventura make an attempt to talk to Dick Cheney [who many believe was directly behind the orchestration of 9/11]?

10. Why didn't Ventura attempt to debunk the would-be 9/11 debunkers like Popular Mechanics, NIST, the History Channel and the National Geographic Channel?

I realize Ventura only had an hour, but any of my 10 issues, had they been incorporated into the episode, would have made it much better than 75% of the show that Ventura gave us.

I don’t want to make it appear as if I’m upset about the show. I commend Ventura for doing the show, but he should have taken a little more time and tackled the very top smoking guns and spoke to the very best people. Ventura did a great job in speaking to Steven Jones, but that segment should have been much longer. Evidence of explosives in the WTC dust is a huge smoking gun, but it took a back seat to supposedly unrecovered black boxes.

Yes, I had complaints, but at least on my site I give Ventura credit and mention the episode. There is not one peep about Ventura’s 9/11 episode on Prison Planet [or should I say]. I wonder why. Maybe it was because Alex Jones was not mentioned or even interviewed for that episode.

Alex Jones considers himself the father of the 9/11 truth movement and is even friends with Ventura, yet Jones is not in the episode at all. Maybe since Jones was excluded from the episode, he is retaliating by not mentioning the episode on Prison Planet. I have no proof of this, but I do know that whenever 9/11 is mentioned on any TV program, it hits Prison Planet the very next day. Ventura’s hour-long episode exposing the truth of 9/11 is officially the most airtime any prime time show has given the alternate views of 9/11 to date, and Prison Planet ignores this?? That’s hardly a coincidence.

Perhaps another reason why the episode was not mentioned could be that Prison Planet had many criticisms of the show as well. Since Alex Jones and Ventura are chumsy pals, Jones may have issued the decree from on high to the Watson boys [Steve and Paul, the main Prison Planet writers] to not be openly critical of the episode. Again, I have no proof, but it's a likely possibility.

I thought it was interesting that Flight 93 in particular was not included into all of the talk of the black boxes, primarily because Flight 93 was the flight in which we were told passengers overpowered the hijackers, causing the plane to crash in a field in Shanksville.

The black box plays a huge role with this plane, because we were told that the families of the Flight 93 victims were able to listen to the “last 30 minutes” of their loved ones lives from the flight recorder in 2002. The 9/11 commission report says no black boxes were recovered. So, what in the hell were the Flight 93 families listening to in 2002? Ventura never mentioned that either.

Also, a popular theory about Flight 93 is that the reason why it was shot down [and it was shot down] is because there were at least two passengers on that flight who knew how to fly a plane. It is believed by some that not only did passengers overpower the hijackers, but that they were also flying the plane. The government found out passengers were flying the plane and shot it down, thus not leaving it to chance that supposed hijackers would be found alive so that they might have the opportunity to be tried in court and expose a government involvement. This was not mentioned either.

Ventura did a good job and I commend him for the effort, but I would have been much happier if more thought and preparation would have gone into this episode. Ventura should finance a feature film about this in the future. What say you?

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Christian nutball website condemns retailers for using the word “holiday” instead of “Merry Christmas” in true Bill O’Reilly nutball fashion

A closer look reveals they are in on the conspiracy as well. They use the word “holiday” too!

by Larry Simons
December 9, 2009

It appears that Bill O’ Reilly isn’t the only nut out there who is absolutely certain there is a grand conspiracy to kill Christmas. A website created by an organization called Focus on the Family Action [a branch of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family] called has taken a stand against "evil" liberals in America.

These liberals are part of a clandestine operation to infiltrate national retail stores, posing as CEO’s, managers and even regular employees. Their plan is to eliminate Christmas once and for all by using a single word to subliminally control the minds of millions and millions of retail shoppers in order to divert their attention away from Jesus Christ.

That word? “Holiday

The purpose of the website is to provide a list of national retailers and allow visitors of the site to offer feedback as to which retailers are Christmas ‘friendly’, ‘negligent’ or ‘offensive’.

Here are some examples of the feedback left under certain stores:

The GAP [which has the highest % of ‘offensive’ comments]
Comment Date: Dec 4 2009 12:23 PM
Rating: Christmas-Offensive
Comment: ...Christmas is a Christian holiday - one where first of all we celebrate Christ's birthday and secondly we come to spend our hard earned money in gift giving. ...Rethink this blessed holiday and get on aboard with correct advertising.

Comment Date: Dec 4 2009 4:04 PM
Rating: Christmas-Negligent
Comment: I've been watching their 2009 TV ads about gift shopping and so far all I've seen or heard was "Holiday" this and "Holiday" that. No mention of Christmas or printed word of it. Remember, there would be no "Holiday" if it weren't for the birth of Christ, ergo "Christmas", therefore Christmas shopping, gifts, trees, cards, etc.

What is interesting about the above K-Mart comment is the fact that in reality, there is ZERO evidence that December 25 is the birth of Christ. In fact, December 25 is actually the pagan celebration of the unconquered sun [sol invictus] at the winter solstice. Get it? "Unconquered sun"/unconquered Son......Jesus was the unconquered Son.

According to, “The Romans held a festival on December 25 of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun." December 25 was the date after the winter solstice with the first detectable lengthening of daylight hours.” So, you see, December 25 was a pagan celebration that had nothing to do with the birth of Jesus and everything to do with astrology. also states, “The date for Christmas may also bear a relation to the sun worship. According to the scholiast on the Syriac bishop Jacob Bar-Salibi, writing in the twelfth century":

"It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day." (cited in Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, Ramsay MacMullen .Yale: 1997, p. 155)

The first recorded use of the word "Christmas" was in 1038 when a book from Saxon England used the words "Cristes Maesse" in it. So, what did Christians call Jesus’ birthday from 33 AD until 1038 AD?

The most astonishing thing about these "war on Christmas" lunatics is that they spend all of their time and energy being angry about the fact that they believe the word "Christmas" is being purged from society, but they care nothing about the facts about the origins of Christmas; that it is celebrated on December 25 because Christian leaders in the 4th century wanted to convert large numbers of pagans to Christianity and in order to do so, promised the pagans they could still celebrate their pagan ritual [Saturnalia] as Christians on December 25.

Saturnalia, according to the website is described as follows:

"Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman."

Why aren't the nutballs from Focus on the Family more outraged that the celebration of Christmas on December 25 evolved from a week-long pagan festival of lawlessness, orgies, vandalism, drunkeness and murder?

Not only are people like Bill O’ Reilly and the buffoons from embarrassing themselves for vilifying people for choosing not to say “Christmas” when there’s no proof whatsoever that Jesus was born on December 25, but and the Focus on the Family websites use the word “holiday” as well!

The following paragraphs are taken from the website:

"We soon discovered that citizens across the nation were growing dissatisfied with the tendency of corporations to omit references to "Christmas" from holiday promotions. Many said they preferred to patronize retailers that recognized the reason so many Americans exchange gifts at Christmastime."

"Millions upon millions in our nation deeply value the great truths of Christmas and the holiday's inspiring place in American life and culture. We hope you will take a moment to "Stand for Christmas" by sharing feedback about your Christmas shopping experiences."

"this time-honored holiday, Focus on the Family and Focus on the Family Action began to speak out on the issue in 2007."

The following stories are found on the Focus on the Family website:

"Celebrating the Holidays"

"Holidays and the in-laws"

"Creating Memories and Managing Holidays"

"Mandie and the Holiday Surprise"

I guess it’s perfectly OK for Christians to use the word “holiday”, but when others use the word, they are devil-worshipping, liberal heathens that are trying to destroy America’s traditions.

On the contrary, it’s religious nutballs like the people at Focus on the Family who are hell bent on destroying this country with their imaginary conspiracies and their total lack of knowledge of basic history. To top it all off, they further embarrass themselves for using the same word [“holiday”] in which they condemn others for!

Hell, Christians do not even have to pick up a book and read the history behind the date for Jesus’ birthday. They could watch “Zeitgeist” or even “Angels and Demons”. Tom Hanks’ character, Robert Langdon, mentions briefly that December 25 was the pagan celebration of the unconquered sun.

watch the clip

Or, they could even get the truth from a cartoon, The Boondocks

Oh, that’s right, I forgot, “Zeitgeist” and Dan Brown’s books are of the devil… bad. Cartoons....evil too!

Saturday, December 5, 2009

He’s baaaaaaaaack. “War on Christmas” 2009: Billo sends out the Santa and candy cane police

Billo and his stalker/needledick/producer vilify a Massachusetts elementary school for excluding meaningless Christmas symbols, and calls their behavior “crazy”

by Larry Simons
December 5, 2009

Ask yourself: What’s more crazy, eliminating two Christmas symbols [one of which it’s origin has nothing to do with Christmas, and the other is a deceptive, silly fairy tale in which it’s purpose is to deliberately mislead children into believing in something that is knowingly false] from a Christmas gift room, or to call the ones eliminating the symbols “crazy”?

I bet you will never guess which side Billo and his pussboy/stalker/producer Jesse Watters is on! On Friday’s The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo continues his asinine and imaginary “war on Christmas” bullshit for the 6th straight year.

This time Billo condemns a Massachusetts elementary school principal for [are you ready for the big sin?] banning Christmas symbols from a holiday gift room inside the school. I guess this marks the official start of “War on Christmas: 2009”.

watch the clip…if you must

Billo begins the segment by saying, “There hasn’t been as much Christmas craziness this year as in the past few years, thank God”. Translation: Instead of the two or three isolated incidents in the past few years of people refusing to say “Merry Christmas”, which they have the right to refuse in the first place, there’s only this single incident, which is pretty fucking petty and not even a story, but it’s all we could muster.

Well, Billo didn’t like the fact that principal Dr. Jane Gilmore of the Byam Elementary School in Chelmsford, Massachusetts decided to not include Christmas symbols like Santa Claus and candy canes in the schools holiday gift room, so he sent King of the Dicks to handle this crisis: Jesse “the stalker” Watters.

Watters, who most likely sat in his car outside of Chelmsford School Committee Chair Angelo Taranto’s home all night and waited for him to drive somewhere so he could get in Taranto’s face the minute he stepped from his car, approached Taranto and said this:

“Why are you trying to ruin Christmas for the children?….Angelo, you’re banning candy canes from the holiday sale. Don’t you think that’s crazy?” Actually, what’s crazy is the fact that FOX News paid to send this dickfaced dweeb to Massachusetts and stalk this man to ask him ridiculous questions about a ridiculous incident that wouldn’t even pass for a legitimate story on the fucking Cartoon Network.

It turns out that Watters also stalked Chelmsford Schools Superintendent Donald Yeoman, so Yeoman drove to the Chelmsford Police station most likely to get away from the strange car that was following him and no doubt sitting in front of his house for hours. Watters then says, “We’ve been trying to get some comment here from the superintendent about why he’s banning Santa Claus and candy canes from the annual holiday gift shop. Apparently he’s scared, doesn’t want to talk to us so he’s driven into the police station, eh…I think we’re very intimidating.”

Intimidating? Watters couldn’t be less intimidating if he was walking around in a Barney the Dinosaur costume, and this dickhead actually believes people walk away from him because they are afraid? Yeah, they’re afraid all right. They’re afraid that if they don’t walk away from Watters, they might end up knocking all of his teeth out and then getting arrested for assault.

Billo then shows a clip from a school committee meeting in Chelmsford where parents attended and spoke out either for or against the schools actions. Naturally, what we will never know is just how many people actually did support the schools decision and how many was really against it.

Watters tells Billo that it was roughly 75/25 in opposition to the schools actions, but in reality, if it was 75/25 in favor of the school or even 85/15 in favor, would Billo tell his zombies this, or show most or every clip from the ones in favor? Hell no, he wouldn’t! Fair and balanced my big white asshole!

Jesse Watters, stalker and all around dick

The most astonishing thing about this entire NON-story, is the fact that the very symbols that Billo and Watters mention really are not associated with religion in and of themselves. The candy cane has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas. It had already been around in straight stick form for many years before the canes were made in hook form and used for Christmas trees.

The product existed long before it was used for religious symbolism and Christmas. To associate them with Christmas is as ridiculous as associating a pile of shit with Christmas if some guy in Michigan takes a shit near his Christmas tree one year and it suddenly catches on and becomes Christmas tradition.

Although the fictional Santa Claus character has religious origins, the whole concept of Santa [especially in modern day society] is frowned upon by the religious community for several reasons. Santa is often seen as a distraction from the real meaning of Christmas and he is often associated with the overwhelming commercialization of the holiday season.

Wikipedia says, “….the Claus tradition is a good example of how children can learn that they may be deliberately misled by their elders; this will help teach them to be cautious about accepting any other superstition or unsubstantiated belief”. “Any other superstition or unsubstantiated belief”, hmmmm….like religion itself perhaps? Interesting.

The bottom line here is there is no “war on Christmas” [except in Billo’s head]. There never has been and there’s not one now. Do people out there oppose saying “Merry Christmas?” Yes! They do, many do, but that has nothing to do with some grand conspiracy to end the Christmas holiday as we know it. That will never, ever, ever happen. Christmas is as unmovable from our society as the NFL. It’s here to stay.

Does Billo really believe that the fringe number of secularists in this country outnumber the religious people of all faiths who celebrate Christmas for its true meaning, and even the millions who consider themselves non-religious who still celebrate Christmas because of the spirit of the holiday?

Billo’s entire motivation behind creating these ridiculous and phony stories is to get his mindless clones [he calls ‘viewers’] to think that evil liberals are taking over the country. What better way to get his sheep to fall for this bullshit than to convince them that the evil, religion-hating liberals are attacking and attempting to destroy one of America’s most treasured institutions!

This ridiculous story illustrates one thing and one thing only: that the pickens are slim this Christmas season. Maybe Billo’s next story can be why the FOX News website calls their shopping guide the “HOLIDAY shopping guide”. They must hate Christmas! Are they a part of the conspiracy to end it??

(click to enlarge)

The Life and Times of ObamaBush: More War You Can Believe In

The Peace Prize Winner increases the troop presence in Afghanistan, where barely NO al Qaeda remain. Michael Moore and Russ Feingold speak out

by Larry Simons
December 4, 2009

By now, if you haven’t heard that Obama has increased the troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000, you must be living in the same imaginary cave as the deceased Osama bin Laden.

In true Bush-like fashion, the Nobel “Peace” Prize winner said this on Tuesday:

“'s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.”

Ah yes, what would a military plan be without neocon references to 9/11? If the above excerpt sounds frighteningly familiar, it is because it has been said before.

“What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps. And so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning.”
[George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002]

Naturally, Obama fails [as Bush did] to mention why we didn’t just go after those responsible like we did when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, rather than invade entire countries.

Obviously, the 19 hijackers would be hard to convict since they evaporated on 9/11, but we could be arresting and trying in court members of al Qaeda and bin Laden himself, but even to this day bin Laden has not even been indicted for 9/11, let alone blamed for it. As I speak, bin Laden’s FBI profile still does not mention 9/11 as one of his crimes.

Obama also fails to mention that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, hence nullifying the Bush-like attempts to connect Afghanistan to September 11. But what does it matter really? Just as the Bush supporters ignored things like the Constitution, common sense and logic when it came to accepting his military policies, it appears that the Obama camp is following suit just swimmingly.

Already, liberal bloggers who once basked in Obama’s “let’s end these wars” campaign speeches have now, out of utter panic, sold their souls and consciences [if they ever had either to begin with] to the devil. Their only two choices were to admit their guy is just like Bush, or to play dumb and attempt to convince people that when Obama said in his pre-election speeches that he wanted to “finish the fight in Afghanistan”, that really meant to send additional troops there, not just transfer troops from Iraq to Afghanistan since Obama was against the war in Iraq.

Liberal bloggers are going a step further. Now they are attempting to accuse those Democrats who took Obama’s pre-election words literally [as they should have] of "misquoting" Obama. Crooks and Liars writer John Perr accused Michael Moore of “rewriting history because the filmmaker wrote this in an open letter to Obama on his blog:

“Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.”

Perr argues that Obama has always stated that he wanted to focus on Afghanistan, and he’s right. But in nearly every single speech, debate or interview in which Obama said our troops should be in Afghanistan, it was within the context of him being against the troops in Iraq, implying that Obama just wanted a troop transfer [from Iraq to Afghanistan].….not 30, 000 additional troops.

It is interesting that Perr did not include this excerpt from Moore’s letter:

“It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).”

How dare Moore say that we are a civilian-run government! How dare Moore tell Obama that he should listen to the PEOPLE, not generals, Republicans, his family, his eighth cousin Dick Cheney, Jack Bauer, or whoever the hell else he deems more important that the American people.

Why would Perr leave this out? Because he wants his readers to believe that Obama HAD to listen to generals or his staff…..anyone but the majority of Americans who want both wars over.

Just the other day, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold said the additional 30,000 troop increase “makes no sense”. Talking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Feingold said this:

“Well, it just doesn't add up for me. The president says, we're doing this. We're adding 30,000, 35,000 troops to finish the job. And I ask the question, "What job?" because the president has been so eloquent in pointing out our issue is fighting al Qaeda. The argument falls apart when you realize that al Qaeda does not have its headquarters in Afghanistan anymore. It is headquartered in Pakistan. It is active in Somalia, and Yemen, North Africa, affiliates of it in Southeast Asia.”

Feingold added:

“Why does it make sense to have a huge ground presence in Afghanistan to deal with a small al Qaeda contingent, when we don't do that in so many other countries where we're actually having some success without invading the country and attacking those that are part of al Qaeda? It doesn't make sense.”

It makes perfect sense to the people who hold one man [in this case, Obama] and their party in higher esteem than they do their own country or the Constitution.

In February, Obama sent 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and now, starting in 2010, 30,000 more will go, totaling 47,000. 47,000 people to fight just a little over 100 al Qaeda….simply amazing. Why would a Nobel Peace Prize winner actually remove troops and end meaningless, endless wars?

If this troop increase does not make it crystal clear that the position of the President has become nothing more than to be a figurehead who holds no real power, then nothing really does. The bankers and corporations are the real people in power and politicians in general are just symbolic puppets who are put in place to give the appearance that the voices of the American people are actually heard.