Sunday, May 31, 2009

The Life and Times of "ObamaBush": Continued refusal to prosecute Bush war crimes

A new United Nations report: United States “deplorable”

by Larry Simons
May 31, 2009

Australian law professor and United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions Philip Alston, stated just days ago in a U.N. report that, “There have been chronic and deplorable accountability failures with respect to policies, practices and conduct that resulted in alleged unlawful killings -- including possible war crimes -- in the United States' international operations.”

Attorney General and Obama appointee, Eric Holder, continues to block investigations into abuses and war crimes committed by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been some abuses investigated and prosecuted so far, but cases resulting in the deaths of at least five that was caused by torture are not being touched. The report reads, “U.S. prosecutors have failed to use the laws on the books to investigate and prosecute (contractors) and civilian agents for wrongful deaths, including, in some cases, deaths credibly alleged to have resulted from torture and abuse.”

Continually promising throughout his campaign to bring about “change” and claiming to be at odds with Bush on the war and foreign policy, it appears that not only does Obama support the war (by sending 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and funding the war by 83 billion dollars) but that he has no interest in seeking prosecution of Bush officials for war crimes.

Not only do we have Gen. David Petraeus now admitting that the Bush administration violated the Geneva Conventions, but we now know the real reason why the photographs of the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison were not released: because they show torture, rape and sodomy of female prisoners and children committed by American soldiers. This has been confirmed by Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has also stated that the United States has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison. Hersh stated, “Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay?….Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib … The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”

The findings involving the rape and sodomy of women and children prove that Obama was lying when he said, “I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.”

The ACLU has said that, “(Obama) has essentially become complicit with the torture that was rampant during the Bush years by being complicit in its cover-up.”

Obama also continually states in public that he believes waterboarding is torture, yet at every turn shields CIA operatives who inflicted waterboarding from prosecution.

Can anyone please tell me the difference between those who commit crimes and those who protect them?

Has Bush really left office?

Friday, May 29, 2009

Craig T. Nelson on taxes: I’m Not Gonna Pay Any More Money

Nelson on the income tax: 'I’m sick of it!’

by Larry Simons
May 29, 2009

On yesterday’s Glenn Beck Program on FOX News, actor Craig T. Nelson expressed disgust and contempt for the fiscal irresponsibility of the government. From the decisions that they make with our tax money that none of us approve of like cuts in education, police and firemen to the complete lack of owning up to responsibility of their actions, Nelson said he is sick of it.

Nelson: Nobody’s taking responsibility for what they said or what they did. And those people are responsible to us, they were elected. This is a democracy. It’s a republic—my god. We are a republic and that means we need to be represented. And we’re not being…we’re not being listened to. I’m not gonna pay…I’m not gonna pay any more money.

Now, we just need about 100 million plus more people to get this disgusted with our government. This is coming from an actor. Someone who can still afford to live very comfortably after paying taxes. Imagine what could happen if everyone in America stopped surrendering their money to criminals and learned the truth, that there is no law in existence that requires us to pay taxes.

Craig T. Nelson is a true patriot

watch the clip

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

And yet another moron who thinks the founding fathers were Christians and America was founded on Christianity

Another moronic politician who believes our founding documents were based on the Bible. Fails to mention America may not have been a country if the founders were truly Christian! What part of ‘separation of church and state’ do these imbeciles not grasp?

by Larry Simons
May 27, 2009

On Fox and Friends yesterday, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), was on to talk about the bill that is being worked on to designate the year 2010 as “The Year of the Bible”.

When asked “why are you doing this?”, this was his response:

“Well, it’s all about freedom actually. The Bible was the basis for our laws. It was the basis of the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence. The Bible was the founding source. In fact, our founding fathers quoted the Bible more than any other resource when they established this country. We’ve forgotten that. We need to go back to those principles that the Bible teaches, of things such as personal responsibility and accountability and freedom.”

The Bible was the basis of our nation. And as we look to the future, and as we deal with our economic problems, as we're stealing our grandchildren's future, we need to look at the principles that were taught Biblically. When our Founding Fathers established this country, they established it on freedom. That's what the Bible teaches. Every single one of our laws are based on the Biblical precepts. And we need to turn back to those precepts if our country's going to be strong and great again.

It's absolutely critical for us to understand what freedom's all about, what our own responsibility is all about, and what government's function within our society is supposed to be. And we have forgotten that in Washington. We are heading down a road that's going to destroy our nation. We are headed toward a total government control of everybody's lives -- a loss of freedom, a loss of our money, a loss of our private property -- and it's extremely critical now for us to go back to those foundational principles that this country was founded upon.

That's the reason a proclamation of "The Year of the Bible" will help people understand what the importance of those, um, principles are all about as we go forward to make our nation secure, free, and great again.”

watch the clip

Most of the third paragraph (above) was absolutely correct. The rest of it was total bullshit and just plain lies. If I see one more person on TV say that any of our founding documents were based on the Bible or founding fathers were Christians, I think my head will explode like Louis Del Grande’s did in Scanners.

Everytime I see someone on TV say the founding fathers were Christians and the founding documents were based on the Bible, I will post this same post (below) as kind of a shout out from the grave of our founders to the complete morons in our society and worse, in Washington.

Our founders relied mostly on human reason, not spirituality or religion. Thomas Jefferson said that the power of the government is derived from the governed….us, the people (“We the people..”). Most of our founders were deists. They believed in a creator, but not a creator that interacted personally with humans. They acknowledged Jesus, but not as divinity. Most did not believe the most fundamental teachings of the Bible (miracles, communion, resurrection, holy spirit, trinity, divinity of Christ). Most of them were profoundly opposed to the Bible.

Thomas Jefferson even wrote his own Bible. A new version of the New Testament, titled, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” where he omitted references to angels, prophecy, genealogy, miracles, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection and anything supernatural. Does that sound “Christian”???

What is astounding is the utter irony of saying that our nation was founded on Christian principles, yet when we look at passages from the Bible, we see that if the founders had been Christian men, there most likely would not have been a Revolutionary War at all and we would still be under the rule of England. In fact, many still believe that we really are still under England’s rule and that the Revolutionary War changed nothing.

If the following passages from scripture would have been heeded by our founders, our country would not have rebelled against the tyranny of England, and thus, no America. Ironic how America is seen by the majority of Americans as God's country, but yet had God's word been followed, there would have been no place for God to lay his hat.

"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23

1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Here are the religious affiliations and beliefs of our founding fathers (and the yes/no’s of their beliefs)

George Washington
Affiliation: Deist
Communion: No
Confirmation: No
Resurrection: Unknown
Christ’s divinity: Unknown
Trinity: Unknown
Miracles: Unknown

Thomas Jefferson
Affiliation: Deist/Unitarian
Communion: No
Confirmation: No
Resurrection: No
Christ’s divinity: No
Trinity: No
Miracles: No

John Adams
Affilaition: Unitarian/Deist/Calvinist
Communion: Unknown
Confirmation: Unknown
Resurrection: Yes
Christ’s divinity: Yes
Trinity: No
Miracles: Yes

Benjamin Franklin
Affiliation: Deist
Communion: No
Confirmation: No
Resurrection: No
Christ’s divinity: No
Trinity: No
Miracles: Unknown

James Madison
Affiliation: Episcopal/Deist
Communion: No
Confirmation: No
Resurrection: Unknown
Christ’s divinity: Unknown
Trinity: No
Miracles: Unknown

James Monroe
Affiliation: Unitarian/Deist
Communion: No
Confirmation: No
Resurrection: Unknown
Christ’s divinity: Unknown
Trinity: Unknown
Miracles: Unknown

Thomas Paine
Affiliation: Deist
Communion: No
Confirmation: No
Resurrection: No
Christ’s divinity: No
Trinity: No
Miracles: No

Samuel Adams
Affiliation: Orthodox
Communion: Unknown
Confirmation: N/A
Resurrection: Yes
Christ’s divinity: Yes
Trinity: Yes
Miracles: Yes

Samuel Adams may be the only legitimate Christian among our founders. If every founder was a replica of Sam Adams, then maybe morons like Paul Broun would be correct.

Terrorist sympathizer Billo wants to aid and comfort terrorists, but also wants to waterboard them!

Billo’s love/hate policy on suspected terrorists: He is against detainees moved to prisons within the U.S. because they would be on lock-down, alone and killed by inmates, but he would also waterboard them

by Larry Simons
May 27, 2009

Does Billo care about the humane treatment of suspected terrorists or not? During the talking points memo portion of Tuesday’s The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo delivers one of the most nonsensical, contradictory, spin-infested TPM’s I have ever seen when he runs down his personal take on the Obama-Cheney debates on national security.

watch the clip

As you can lie by omission, Billo spins by omission and fails to even address the reasons why Cheney is making so many speaking appearances to begin with. Why doesn’t he just go the fuck away? The reason why this issue is not addressed by Billo is because deep down he knows the real reason Cheney has been in the public eye more times in the past 2 months than during his entire 8 years as Vice President: because Cheney is scared shitless of being prosecuted for war crimes, thus his damage control tour.

Billo began his “analysis” of the Cheney/Obama debates by saying this, “Here’s some no spin perspective”. Why would anyone even have to say they are not about to use spin unless you are known for doing it and you have a guilty conscience? That would be like if I was about to give a speech and I began by saying, “I’m not going to use profanity during this”. That would prompt people to wonder, “Does he usually cuss?”

After talking about the differences between Cheney and Obama’s national security policies, Billo then gets into the torture issue by playing clips of Obama stating his anti-waterboarding stance. Billo then says, “Ahhhh, but that is a bit of verbal slight of hand. By all accounts enhanced interrogation methods like waterboarding were rarely used. It’s the President’s opinion, not fact, they were not necessary.” It is also Cheney’s opinion, not fact, that it was necessary. It is Cheney’s opinion, not fact, that the use of waterboarding helped stop terror attacks. I also love Billo’s use of the made up Cheney term “enhanced interrogation”. Why can’t you say “waterboarding” or “torture” Billo? Did he say “no spin perspective?”

Then Billo said these ridiculous words, “You don’t fight a war fearing the enemy will get angrier, you fight a war to win.” I agree that you should not fear the enemies’ anger, but when the anger is triggered by barbaric and illegal acts like torture? This makes us no different than soldiers or terrorists from other countries who act like barbarians when they capture and torture American prisoners. “Win?” What’s “win” mean Billo? After 6 years, you have yet to give anyone the definition to that word.

Billo then shows a clip of Obama stating that some detainees from Gitmo will be transported to maximum-security prisons within the United States if Gitmo closes. Billo says this, “Well, here’s a bulletin for the world, the detainees are far better off inside Gitmo then they will be in a super max American prison. I’ve been to Gitmo twice. Cooperative detainees have amenities, good food and all the fresh air they want. At a super max, they’ll be locked down solo, alone, because other inmates would kill them. So liberal Americans including the President should wise up about that. If I’m a terrorist, I want Gitmo all day long.”

Billo then plays several clips of Cheney incriminating himself by defending the practices of illegal wiretapping and waterboarding, also stating opinions, not facts, like the use of these practices “prevented the violent deaths of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people”. Billo then confesses that he would be guilty of war crimes by saying, “Americans must make their own judgement. I’ve made mine. I would have waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”

Not only does Bill confess that he’d be guilty of war crimes, but he uses the same tiresome tactic of attempting to make the waterboarding issue a matter of personal opinion and not established law by saying “Americans must make their own judgement”. This is the equivalent to discussing rape and saying “Americans must make their own judgement (to whether it’s wrong)”.

So, let me get this straight. Billo wants the detainees to be taken care of, have good food and pleasant accommodations. Ya know, treated like actual human beings, with respect and dignity and in the comfort of a nice atmosphere. He doesn’t want them all alone with no one to talk to and protected from other inmates so they wouldn’t be harmed and killed……but he would waterboard them???

If Billo doesn’t care that these people already have no rights (no right to representation and trials), are being detained indefinitely and being tortured, why would he give a two-cent shit that they would have a better place to stay and not be killed by other inmates? Does he believe in humane treatment or not? On one hand he says, “I’m concerned about their well-being” and on the other, he says, “Fuck them, they’re terrorists! Who gives a shit what they want?”

If the terrorists want to stay at Gitmo, Billo would give them what they want and keep them there? Talk about terrorist sympathizing! Is Billo on the terror watch list?

The bottom line is this: Billo has no fucking clue even what he believes because he’s a corporate-controlled puppet and shill, and he only parrots what he reads off of his White House teleprompter. In fact, he was probably reading from cue cards held up by Dick Cheney.

So much for the “no spin perspective!”

Here’s the latest Real Truth Film. A clip of Billo finally telling the truth

Monday, May 25, 2009

Day of the Dead: Mourning the Victims of Empire

Cindy Sheehan
May 25, 2009

I was on an airplane flying to Orange County from Sacramento to attend the al-Awda Conference; which is a Palestinian Right’s Conference. Al-Awda translates to “The Returning, ” when the Pilot’s voice filled the cabin to make an announcement that I think went unnoticed by most of my fellow passengers, but I heard it.

As the plane was on the approach to John Wayne airport, the Captain came on the intercom to remind us all to “remember our brave troops who have died for our freedom.” Even in this post 9-11 paranoid paradigm, if I wasn’t belted in for landing, I would have popped out of my seat at 13D and charged up to the cockpit to let the pilot know that my son was killed in Iraq and not one person anywhere in this world is one iota more free because he is dead.

As a matter of fact, the people of Iraq, the foreign country thousands of miles away where my oldest child’s brains, blood, and life seeped into the soil, are not freer, unless one counts being liberated from life, liberty and property being free. If you consider torture and indefinite detention freedom, then the Pilot may have been right, but then again, even if you do consider those crimes freedom, it does not make it so.

Here in America we are definitely not freer because my son died, as a matter of fact, our nation can spy on us and our communications without a warrant or just cause and we can’t even bring a 3.6 ounce bottle of hand cream into an airport or walk through a METAL detector with our shoes on. Even if we do want to exercise our Bill of Rights, we are shoved into pre-designated “free speech” (NewSpeak for; STFU, unless you are well out of the way of what you want to protest and shoved into pens like cattle being led to slaughter) zones and oftentimes brutally treated if you decide you are entitled to “free speech” on every inch of American soil.

If you watch any one of the cable news networks this weekend between doing holiday weekend things, you will be subjected to images of row upon row of white headstones of dead US military lined up in perfect formation in the afterlife as they were in life. Patriotic music will swell and we will be reminded in script font to “Remember our heroes,” or some such BS as that.

Before Casey was killed, a message like that would barely register in my consciousness as I rushed around preparing for Casey’s birthday bar-be-que that became a family tradition since he was born on Memorial Day in 1979. If I had a vision of how Memorial Day and Casey’s birthday would change for my family, I would have fled these violent shores to protect what was mine, not this murderous country’s. Be my guest, look at those headstones with pride or indifference. I look at them, now with horror, regret, pain and a longing for justice.

I can guarantee what you won’t see this holiday weekend are images of the over one million Iraqi dead. Say we assign, in an arbitrary way for purely illustrative purposes, an average height of 5 feet for every person killed in Iraq and then lined those people up from head to toe. That gruesome line would stretch from Los Angeles to Portland, Oregon…950 driving miles up Interstate 5. If we count the Iraqis who have been forced to flee, we would have to go back and forth between L.A. and Portland another four times.

There are obscene amounts of people who have been slaughtered for the US Profit Driven Military Empire who do not count here in America on any day. People in Vietnam are still dying from the toxins dumped on their country by the US, not to mention the millions who died during that war. Let the carnage escalate in Afghanistan while we protect our personal images by turning a blind eye to Obama’s war crimes. Are you going to feel a lump of pride in your bosom when the coffins start to be photographed at Dover for this imperial crime of aggression? Will you look at those flag-draped boxes of the lifeless body of some mother’s child and think: “Now, I am free.” Is it better to be dead when Obama is president?

A tough, but real, aspect of this all to consider is, how many of the soldiers buried in coffins in military cemeteries killed or tortured innocent people as paid goons for Empire? To me, it is deeply and profoundly sad on so many levels. If I have any consolation through all of this, I learned that my son bravely refused to go on the mission that killed him, but he was literally dragged onto the vehicle and was dead minutes later before he was forced to do something that was against his nature and nurture.

Casey will always be my hero but he was a victim of US Imperialism and his death should bring shame, not pride, as it did not bring freedom to anyone. I will, of course, mourn his senseless death on Memorial Day as I do everyday.

However, we do not need another day here in America to glorify war which enables the Military Industrial Complex to commit its crimes under the black cloak of “Patriotism.”

From Palestine to Africa to South America, our quest for global economic domination kills, sickens, maims or oppresses people on a daily basis and about 25,000 children per day die of starvation. I am not okay with these facts and I am not proud of my country.

I will spend my reflective time on MD to mourn not only the deaths of so many people all over the world due to war, but mourn the fact that they are the unseen and uncared for victims of US Empire.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Media Ignores Real Controversy Behind Torture Photos; They Show Prison Guards Raping Children

Former Governor Jesse Ventura: Let Me Judge Torture Photos On Behalf Of The American People
Paul Joseph Watson
May 21, 2009

The real reason behind Obama’s reversal of a decision to release the torture photos has been almost completely ignored by the corporate media - the fact that the photos show both US and Iraqi soldiers raping teenage boys in front of their mothers.

The Obama administration originally intended to release photos depicting torture and abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq by the end of May, following a court order arising out of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit first filed by the ACLU in 2004.

However, a reversal of Obama’s decision was announced this week, after he "changed his mind after viewing some of the images and hearing warnings from his generals in Iraq and in Afghanistan that such a move would endanger US troops deployed there," according to a Washington Post report.

In response, the ACLU charged that Obama "has essentially become complicit with the torture that was rampant during the Bush years by being complicit in its coverup." The Obama administration has also sought to protect intelligence officials involved in torture from prosecution at every turn.

The primary reason why Obama is now blocking the release of the photos is that some of the pictures, as well as video recordings, show prison guards sodomizing young boys in front of their mothers, both with objects as well as physical rape.

This horrific detail has been almost completely ignored by the establishment media in their coverage of the story this week, despite the fact that it’s been in the public domain for nearly five years, after it was first revealed by investigative Seymour Hersh during an ACLU conference in July 2004.

"Some of the worst things that happened you don’t know about, okay?" said Hersh. "Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib … The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out."

Hersh’s contention that minors were raped by prison guards while others filmed the vulgar spectacle is backed up by a leaked Abu Ghraib memorandum highlighted in a 2004 London Guardian report, in which detainees Kasim Hilas describes "the rape of an Iraqi boy by a man in uniform". The testimony was also part of the military’s official Taguba Report into the torture at Abu Ghraib.

"I saw [name blacked out] fucking a kid, his age would be about 15-18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [blacked out], who was wearing the military uniform putting his dick in the little kid’s ass," Mr Hilas told military investigators. "I couldn’t see the face of the kid because his face wasn’t in front of the door. And the female soldier was taking pictures."

Another inmate, Thaar Dawod, described more abuse of teenage boys.

"They came with two boys naked and they were cuffed together face to face and Grainer [Corporal Charles Graner, one of the military policemen facing court martial] was beating them and a group of guards were watching and taking pictures from top and bottom and there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners," he said.

A 2004 London Telegraph report also described photos which showed "US soldiers beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death and having sex with a female PoW," as well as a videotape, apparently made by US personnel, which shows "Iraqi guards raping young boys".

Former Governor Jesse Ventura today offered a solution to the controversy surrounding President Obama’s decision to reverse an earlier promise to release the torture photos - let Ventura see the photos on behalf of the American people and then decide if they should be released.

Ventura told the Alex Jones Show today, "How about if I step forward on behalf of the taxpayers and the citizens of the great United States of America - and I wanna go public with this - I will represent us, let me go where these photos are, let me go inside and see them and let me come out and report back as to what these photos are."

"I think I have the right to do that, I think they have no right to keep me from doing that, you know why? I pay their salaries and I’m a governor, I’m a mayor, I’m a former Navy SEAL, I had a top secret security clearance - I think I’m fully qualified to walk in and view these photos," said Ventura, adding, "I’ll report to the public, what it is why we shouldn’t be able to see them because I understand it could infuriate the enemy, but I’m not the enemy and therefore I think I have every right to see these photos in private."

Here is Jesse Ventura on the Alex Jones show today (May 21, 2009)

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Jesse Ventura on waterboarding: “I would prosecute the people who did it (and) ordered it, and they would ALL go to jail!”

Jesse Ventura destroys The View’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck and FOX and Friend’s Brian Kilmeade on torture. Hasselbeck only focuses on Pelosi, “forgetting” who ordered and carried out the torture while pussy boy Kilmeade walks off the set…..again

by Larry Simons
May 20, 2009

On Monday’s The View, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura was on to discuss some of the latest hot topics. The subject immediately went to waterboarding. I knew immediately that Bush/Cheney apologist and neocon Elisabeth Hasselbeck would make a complete fool out of herself, as she always does, by simply opening her mouth. That did not take long, and as I watched, I knew Ventura would annihilate her on the subject. Not to minimize Ventura’s performance, but winning a debate with Hasselbeck is not exactly a difficult task.

Hasselbeck immediately began the discussion with a deceptive statement. She says (to Ventura), “I know your mind is pretty made up about waterboarding, correct?” Hasselbeck is attempting to set the stage for the discussion on waterboarding under the premise that the waterboarding issue is subject to one’s opinion. Whether Ventura realized her tactic or not, he immediately put that issue to rest when he told Hasselbeck that he was waterboarded himself at the SERE school (prior to his Navy Seal training) and exclaimed, “..Yes, we were all waterboarded there and yes, it is torture.”

Hasselbeck, seemingly forgetting that Bush and Cheney were the ones running the country for the past 8 years and the fact that Cheney himself has admitted to ordering torture, sticks to the latest GOP talking points by asking Ventura about the one person who Hasselbeck obviously believes had power over Bush and Cheney: Nancy Pelosi.

Ventura responds brilliantly by simply telling Hasselbeck that if we had followed the rule of law to begin with and not tortured anyone, “none of this would be a controversy, would it?” Then Ventura says, “If you’re going to be a country that follows the rule of law, which we are, torture is illegal.”

watch the clip

Hasselbeck then continued to condone torture by claiming that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind 9/11, was waterboarded and then began to talk. Ventura and the other women on the panel disagreed and said KSM cooperated before waterboarding was used. The point that Hasselbeck does not seem to grasp is, whether waterboarding works or whether it does not, it’s illegal.

Recently I saw Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley on one of the political news programs give a brilliant analogy for torture apologists who suggest that ‘if waterboarding works, it’s OK’. Turley said, “If you rob a bank and you do good things with the money like feed the poor, etc.., you STILL broke the law by robbing the bank.” Hasselbeck refuses to grasp this concept.

Ventura brings up a very interesting point when he asks Hasselbeck, “If waterboarding is OK, why didn’t we waterboard McVeigh and Nichols, the Oklahoma City bombers, to find out if there were more people involved?” Ventura then says, “We only seem to waterboard Muslims”.

Hasselbeck then says to Ventura, “That’s an extreme statement (inaudible)..” Ventura responds by saying, “Have we waterboarded anyone else? Name me someone else we’ve waterboarded.”

Then, Hasselbeck, in her panic (because she is being destroyed by Ventura), reverts back to Pelosi, “I’m concerned right now about Nancy Pelosi, who was supposedly briefed..(inaudible)”. The rest of the panel is shouting out, “she lied”. Ventura says, “They want her out now because she lied. Why didn’t they ask for Bush and Cheney to go out when they lied about why we went into Iraq?” This was followed by thunderous applause from the audience.

Then Ventura makes a statement that I have been saying for years now; “Nothing’s going to happen because they’re all involved. The Dems and Repubs are both involved, that’s why President Obama is backing off from it, and they’re not going to do it now.” Ventura then makes a very powerful statement by exclaiming, “It’s a good thing I’m not the President. I’m an Independent. Because I would prosecute the people who did it. I would prosecute the people who ordered it, and they would all go to jail!”

Hasselbeck then makes the most ridiculous statement of the segment when she says, “Torture is wrong, but enhanced interrogation techniques are different.” Ventura says, “Enhanced interrogation is Dick Cheney changing a word. Dick Cheney comes up with a new word to cover his ass!” Here is Jonathan Turley plainly saying that Cheney is guilty of a war crime on Countdown.

Hasselbeck is a FOX News, right wing, neocon hack. Apparently, she sits in front of TV set and watches FOX News most of her day and simply parrots what she hears without forming one independent thought, without investigating this country’s laws or reading one word of our own Constitution. She’s a pea-brained, shit stain who gives a brand new meaning to the term “dumb blonde”.

Tuesday morning on FOX and Friends, Ventura’s nemesis this time was neocon sissy boy Brian Kilmeade. Much of the point by point chatter was similar to the Hasselbeck feud, but Kilmeade brought up different, yet old, tiresome talking points in defending torture, like “Do you want to stop the next attack?” Ventura responds the exact same way I would have, “Don’t come after me with that nonsense.” Kilmeade asks what’s nonsense about it and Ventura responds, “If you torture someone, what you get is bologna.”

watch the clip

Kilmeade says, “It turns out the C.I.A. feels differently than you do.” Again, Kilmeade is using the Hasselbeck tactic, trying to establish that the issue of torture is subject to ones opinion, and not established laws. Who gives a flying fuck what the C.I.A. thinks? If they approved of torture, they’re wrong. Period. It is not subject to opinion. It does not matter what you feel. It is against the law, period.

The shit really hits the fan when Ventura asks if Kilmeade has been waterboarded. Kilmeade says, “Do you want me to?” Ventura says, “Yeah, get waterboarded, then we’ll ask you.” Then Kilmeade, like Hasselbeck, in his panic, resorts to the “they are evil, we are good” tactic when he says, “These are the people that cut off Danny Pearl’s head and you’re worried about their welfare?” Ventura says, “No, I’m not worried about their welfare. I’m worried about what our country stands for.” Then, amid the heated exchanges and crosstalk, Ventura asks why Kilmeade has not enlisted. Kilmeade says, “You want me to enlist? You don’t like our armed forces?”

Yeah, Brain, he doesn’t like our military. That’s why he served and you sit on your skinny pussy boy ass everyday from a nice cushy air conditioned studio and “pull” for our troops. If you was truly cheering America on, you would want this illegal, immoral war (based on lies, which has been proven repeatedly) to end!

After a commercial break, Kilmeade begins to personally attack Ventura by bringing up the fact that Ventura has previously questioned the government’s official story of 9/11. This was obviously done to attempt to discredit Ventura’s credibility on the other issues that Kilmeade was being schooled on.

Ventura has never actually came out and professed to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. He has simply asked questions about why he believes the official story is complete bullshit (and it is).

Ventura responds to Kilmeade’s attacks by mentioning that the Vietnam war was started over a now admitted false flag incident at the Gulf of Tonkin, and incident which, in fact, never actually did happen. Ventura was making the point that the United States has a long history of lying in order to get us involved in war.

After running out of steam, Kilmeade claims “I gotta go to radio”, and walks off the set. Seems pussy boy Kilmeade has a habit of walking off sets when his wittle feelwings have been huwrt. Awwww, poor baby. Ventura continues to talk to Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson about 9/11 and about how when you simply mention 9/11 and discuss it or question the official story, you are demonized, attacked (as Kilmeade just demonstrated) and called un-American.

Two corporate-controlled neocon shills defeated within a 30-hour period. I want a Jesse Ventura talk show! To watch this every day would be music to my ears.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Pentagon Intelligence briefing cover sheets reveal that Bush’s wars were viewed as a religious crusade

Gee, you mean to tell me the Iraq war isn't about terror, but religion? No, you're shitting me, right?

by Larry Simons
May 19, 2009

Recently obtained cover sheets that had adorned Pentagon Intelligence Update documents prepared by the Rumsfeld Pentagon reveal that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may have never been about terror at all (which is what I have been saying for years now). It appears that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are holy wars, crusades, a religious cleansing, whatever religiously motivated term you would like to use.

It appears that one of the favorite hobbies of Major General Glen Shaffer, an intelligence director who served Rumsfeld, was to prepare intelligence briefings with cover sheets that mixed scripture from the Bible with war imagery. Freelance writer for GQ, Robert Draper, who is also the man who obtained the cover sheets, reported that when colleagues of Shaffer complained about the religious messages attached to intelligence briefings, they were told by Shaffer that "the practice would continue, because "my seniors"—JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself—appreciated the cover pages."

Here is Robert Draper’s column from GQ

"On the morning of Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing’s cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days’ war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death."

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: "It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."

Continue reading
Here are the cover sheets of the Pentagon Intelligence Update documents (click to enlarge)

Some may not see the significance of these cover sheets. Some may say they are just inappropriate and leave it at that. Let me just say that this may just be the biggest story about the Iraq/Afghanistan wars since the announcement of there being no WMD’s found. These cover sheets reveal what is possibly the entire reason for the war to begin with. Not WMD’s. Not liberation for the Iraqi people (after all, how can you say you’re liberating people when you’ve killed over a million of them?). Not for democracy in Iraq. Not for any reason we have ever heard.

The real reason? A religious crusade.

4,300 troops are DEAD because of something that was only in the head of George W. Bush. Over 1 million Iraqi citizens are DEAD because of a delusional mass-murdering religious nutball who, despite claiming to be religious, admitted last year in an interview he did about religion that he does not take the Bible literally (in my story here). In that interview with ABC’s Cynthia McFadden, Bush said this:

"….Anybody who murders innocent people to achieve their objectives is not a religious person. They may think they’re religious, and may play like they’re religious, but I don’t think they are religious"

Bush was talking about the leader of the Taliban in that statement (above). I pointed out in that story that Bush was actually describing himself in that answer, because the Iraq war is about HIS personal objectives, not about terror, Iraqi democracy or WMD’s….nothing but Bush’s own religious objectives. So, in light of the recently obtained Pentagon Intelligence briefing cover sheets, we can now conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bush is not religious, but he still "plays like he’s religious". So, in essence, Bush, according to his statement (above), is admitting he is exactly like the leader of the Taliban.

In fact, he’s worse. Has the Taliban leader killed over 1 million Iraqis?

The stunning thing is, that even now, in light of these cover sheets and everything else we now know about Iraq (based on lies, no WMD’s, no 9-11/Saddam connection, etc…), there are still people (most of them religious), who protect and admire Bush and who still believe in this war.

The liberals love exposing Bush as the lying, war criminal that he is, yet they don't spend much time talking about the fact that Obama is continuing Bush's holy crusade by sending tens of thousands of additional troops overseas and continuing to fund it with tens of billions of additional dollars.

Nearly everything the American people was told about the reasons for going to war in Iraq has ended up either false or has not existed. Everything was essentially and literally made up by Bush and his administration so he could enter this war. Lies, false claims, invented information, ignored intelligence and fearmongering were all tactics used by the Bush administration to enter this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional war.

In other words, every reason we went to war was imaginary. Only real in the head of George W. Bush.

It’s not shocking to me that religious people still admire and respect Bush. They are used to believing that imaginary things actually exist.

Keith Olbermann discusses this brilliantly on Countdown

Visit for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Thursday, May 14, 2009

New Feature: The Life and Times of “ObamaBush”

In light of the growing list of Bush-like policy continuances and actions of Barack “Change you can believe in” Obama, this new feature cannot be delayed any longer

By Larry Simons
May 14, 2009

My list is at 13 now, and I’m sure I’ve missed some. Here is a look at the first 100 days of Obama’s first term (or Bush’s 3rd term). With every new Bush-like action and policy continuance of the Obama administration, I will post it here. I hope this makes Obama supporters proud that they voted for their new puppet-in-chief.

Click each link for the story

May 14, 2009
Obama seeking to contine Bush policy of detaining terror suspects indefinately

May 13, 2009
Obama reverses decision to release prison abuse photos

April 10, 2009
Obama Follows Bush Policy on Detainee Access to Courts

April 9, 2009
Obama requests 83.4 billion to continue Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

April 6, 2009
Obama follows Bush policy of secrecy in wiretapping program

March 11, 2009
Obama continues Bush-like signing statements

February 23, 2009
Obama continues Bush policy on blocking prisoners’ access to DNA evidence

February 22, 2009
Obama denies terror suspects right to trials

February 22, 2009
Obama seeks to kill litigation to find millions of missing emails in the Bush administration

February 17, 2009
Obama continues Bush wars by sending 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan

February 11, 2009
Obama administration continues Bush policy of "enemy combatants" being held without trial

February 10, 2009
Obama including Bush-like spending increases and tax cuts in stimulus and using Bush-like fear to rush to pass it

January 11, 2009
Obama not interested in pursuing prosecution of Bush crimes

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Three Legal Truths: The Case For Prosecuting War Crimes by the Bush Administration

Turley: It [waterboarding] was the chosen form of torture of the Gestapo, Pol Pot, and the Bush administration

by Jonathan Turley
May 9, 2009

For many people around the world, it is a sign of the decline of American moral leadership that we continue to debate whether the government should prosecute those involved the Bush torture program. Their confusion is understandable. Under our existing treaty obligations, we agreed to prosecute such crimes and we have prosecuted others for precisely the same acts for decades. The real question should be: Should the United States violate international law to shield individuals accused of war crimes? Our answer to that question will define or redefine this country for generations.

Notably, in the last few months, the many law professors who once defended the torture program have largely disappeared. The shrinking number of apologists for the Bush administration are left with largely political arguments in the face of three unassailable legal truths. First, waterboarding is torture. Second, torture is a war crime. Third, the United States is obligated to prosecute war crimes.

Despite early spin, there has never been a true debate about the status of waterboarding as torture. It has been a well-recognized form of torture since before the Spanish Inquisition. Indeed, it has remained popular because it leaves no incriminating marks and requires little training or equipment. It was the chosen form of torture of the Gestapo, Pol Pot, and the Bush administration.

The status of waterboarding as torture was established by the United States. Indeed, the U.S. military used waterboarding (“the water cure”) in the Philippines in 1898. While the accused insisted (as do many today) that the torture was justified under the necessities and law of war, members of Congress rejected the argument and demanded the prosecution of Maj. Edwin F. Glenn. He was court-martialed and convicted of the crime of torture.

The United States remained a moral leader on torture for decades, including our prosecution of Japanese officers for waterboarding American and Allied soldiers. One, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for waterboarding.

In 1983, the Justice Department prosecuted and convicted Texas Sheriff James Parker and his deputies for waterboarding a prisoner. Parker was sentenced to four years in prison.

Legal experts around the world have denounced the Bush program as classic and clear torture. They have been joined by interrogators and officials from the Bush administration itself, including various Bush administration lawyers who vehemently objected to torture at the time. Susan J. Crawford, a former judge and convening authority for the Bush military tribunals, and State Department official Richard Armitage acknowledged that we tortured individuals. Republican John McCain (himself a victim of torture) has called it torture. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder declared that waterboarding is torture. Leading organizations like the International Red Cross define it as not just torture but a war crime.

That brings us to the second truth: Torture is a war crime. This one is easy, and even the dwindling number of George Bush apologists do not seriously question this point. Torture is a crime under domestic and international law. Various federal laws address torture, not the least of which is the Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2340.

There is also the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which President Reagan signed. The Convention Against Torture expressly states that “just following orders” is no defense and “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever” will be considered. This is acknowledged as a binding law, including most recently by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Finally, the United States is obligated to investigate and prosecute war crimes. Under the Convention Against Torture, we agreed to make “all acts of torture offences under [our] criminal law” and to prosecute any such cases. The failure to prosecute war crimes committed by your own government is an offense of the same order as the original war crime.

Bush was adamant on the prosecution of war crimes in other countries. In 2003, he insisted, “War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, ‘I was just following orders.’ ” On June 26, 2003, conservatives applauded as Bush told the United Nations, “[the United States] is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.”

Our failure to investigate and prosecute accused war criminals has led some United Nations officials to accuse the United States of violating treaty obligations. More importantly, our continued debate over this question puts our troops in danger. We will be hard pressed in the future to call for prosecution of leaders who torture our citizens and soldiers.

We cannot continue a war on terrorism while being violators of international law ourselves. Torture and terrorism are cut from the same legal bolt: Both are violations of human rights and international law. If we want the world to join us in fighting one crime against humanity, we cannot continue to obstruct the prosecution of another crime against humanity.

Ultimately, we all become accessories after the fact if we stand silent in the face of these war crimes. Bush ordered these war crimes because he believed that he was above the law and others like Rice have claimed that, if the president orders such actions, they are by definition legal. They were both wrong. The law is clear. The only remaining question is whether we have the national character and commitment to the rule of law to hold even our leaders to account for crimes committed in our name.

Such prosecutions do not weaken a nation. They reaffirm the difference between ourselves and those we are fighting. To abandon our principles for politics would be to hand al-Qaeda its greatest victory – not the destruction of lives or buildings but our own self-inflicted wound of hypocrisy and immorality. True victory against our enemies will only be found on the other side of prosecuting those who (like our enemies) claim the right to wage war by any means.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Andy “the FRAUD” Ostroy: The Internet is killing our economy

The left-wing blogger bashes “free” online access to certain services, but his story is written on a FREE site…on the Internet!

by Larry Simons
May 11, 2009

Our favorite left-wing fraud is back. Blogger Andy Ostroy, in his latest article, is suggesting the Internet is killing the economy and life as we know it here in the United States. Ostroy makes a few valid points about the impersonalization of online shopping. I can personally think of pros and cons of how the Internet affects our economy, but I am not 100% convinced it is the sole culprit.

First of all, Ostroy begins the article with again mentioning that we are now in a colossal economic crisis (which we are) and compares it to the Great Depression of the 1930’s (and rightfully so). Here lies the contradiction: Ostroy did a story on April 28, 2009 called, “What Obama’s Done for America’s Confidence”, in which he all but denied we were in an economic crisis at all by saying this:

“…..the simple truth is that his [Obama’s] first 100 days have achieved major progress in turning around the economy, restoring consumer confidence, and curbing the hemorrhaging in both the banking and housing crises. Not bad for 100 days”

In that article Ostroy implied that the recession that nearly every single economic expert has said we are in is just in our heads….just perception. Now, twelve days later we are back to a Great Depression again without any mention of Obama’s name in this latest article. Now the enemy is the Internet. Ostroy also completely ignores any mention of the fact that during the 1930's, there was no Internet, and still we suffered a depression far worse than the one we are in presently.

In several ways, it cannot be denied that the Internet hurts the economy. If I see a CD on sale on for $9.99 and that same CD is no lower than $16.99 at every store in my town and I choose to buy it online, I just denied my home state the 6 % sales tax and denied a local store $16.99. Of course it hurts that store if I do that. But, is the culprit the Internet?

I can’t speak for everyone, but I know when I shop for something, I search and search for the lowest price I can find for a particular item. I don’t care if it’s from a local store, online or from a homeless guy selling it from his shopping cart on the side of a road. I also know for a fact that if, in the aforementioned example, that if the Internet did not exist and my only choice was to spend $16.99 on that CD, I would not have purchased it. So, in this particular example, how did I hurt the economy by buying something that was cheap when I would not have purchased it otherwise? Ostroy fails to mention things like this.

My main criticism of Ostroy’s article is not with his point-by-point examples of whether the Internet hurts or does not hurt the economy. It is with his blatant hypocrisy on several issues.

First, Ostroy bashes the Internet because, he claims, many services are available online for “free”. He says this:

“As someone who's formed and runs a few businesses, I can tell you firsthand that free is not good. Free never shows up on a P&L or a balance sheet. Free doesn't fatten the company's coffers and allow for growth and expansion. And you can't pay bills with free…..

Yet, the Internet is all about free. We can get our newspapers and magazines for free. We can watch televisions programs free. We can download movies and music free. We can book our own travel, send free mail, make free phone calls, send free greeting cards. We can, thanks to MySpace, Facebook and Twitter to name a few, even socialize for free, never having to leave the house or spend one red-cent actually socializing the way truly sociable folks used to.”

Yet Andy admitted that he actually has a Facebook page in his March 24, 2009 article titled, “I Hate Facebook” when he said:

“…I am a citizen of the Facebook nation. I was lured there by a dear friend with promises of mega-business-networking benefits, and I must also confess to periodically using the site for shameless self-promotion to my vast empire of 165 friends.”

So, is Ostroy writing a check to Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg every month, or is he just being a colossal hypocritical FRAUD? I think the correct answer is obvious.

Ostroy also never mentions why the Internet itself is to blame for the “free” services. Why aren’t free music and movie downloading sites shut down if the economy is so hurt by this? Newspaper and magazine sites are created by the very same newspapers and magazines they represent! How is that the Internet’s fault? If they are suffering such great economic losses, why don’t they shut their OWN sites down?

What I found hilarious is the fact that while I was reading Ostroy’s article bashing this “rapacious beast” and “economic black hole” (as he puts it) known as the Internet, is the fact that Andy was writing this story on a FREE blogspot on….the Internet! Yet, I did not see any mention in Ostroy’s article that he is writing checks to Eric E. Schmidt (Chairman and CEO of Google, who owns

So, here is Andy Ostroy, taking advantage of a FREE service....his own website, and not paying Google one red cent for it! Let’s all say it together folks…….HYPOCRITICAL FRAUD!

Then, to make matters worse, Ostroy mentions the fact that media mogul Rupert Murdoch announced this past week that his News Corporation will now be charging for content on his newspaper websites without mentioning the real reason why. Ostroy says it is because Murdoch claims that the current system is a “malfunctioning” business model and that newspapers were experiencing an “epochal” debate over charging newspapers for content.

Maybe the real reason is because people are waking up and turning to the alternative and independent media for their news and information. Maybe people have finally rejected the constant lies and deception of the corporate media and have grown sick and tired of the blatant covering up of, and lack of interest in reporting, major newsworthy events.

I also laughed out loud when Ostroy predicted, “I'll bet he'll [Murdoch] make it all work and have the last laugh. Hopefully, others will follow suit.” The only thing Murdoch will accomplish by charging for news content is increased readership of alternative media. They are actually in quite a dilemma. As writer Paul Watson puts it:

“If they continue to allow free access to their content they will go out of business because there’s not enough advertising revenue coming in, whereas if they charge for content they will lose a huge chunk of their audience and their influence in shaping the news agenda will wane completely.”

Let others follow suit Andy. The final result will be even greater masses of well informed citizens. And when more and more find out the real truth about Obama, you will have a lot more than just the right wing to worry about.

People turning away from Rupert Murdoch’s right wing spin machine should make people like Andy Ostroy rejoice since he is a far-left Obama apologist. Maybe therein lies the contradiction. Ostroy has been a guest on the online program The Strategy Room several times as a political pundit. So, there’s an incentive for Ostroy to be a spokesperson for Rupert Murdoch and be an enemy of free speech. He gets a salary from Rup-i-boy!

And therein lies yet another Andy Ostroy contradiction: The Strategy Room can only be seen ON THE INTERNET……….for FREE.

This was my response to his article on his blog (which may not be ‘approved’ on his site):

Andy, you've made a few MINOR good points but overall, you're completely misguided on this entire issue. First of all I have to address the Rupert Murdoch issue. If you think for ONE minute that the issue with him CHARGING for online newspaper access has ANYTHING to do with money, you must have a very long neck because your head is completely up your ass.

The Murdoch issue is about the fact, (FACT I say) that his newspapers and TV networks have seen record plummeting of profits of $216 million to just 7 million year-on-year.'s profits are also plummeting. This is actually a very GOOD thing--I would even say GREAT thing. This means that the people in general and his loyal readers have been rejecting the constant lies and spin of mainstream media and have since turned to blogs and alternative media for their information. How in the HELL is this bad? You CONSTANTLY put down FOX News and slam anyone who takes part in FOX News programming, but when you find out that their revenue has decreased dramatically, you dont see that as a FANTASTIC thing?

The ironic thing is, with Murdoch soon to be CHARGING for online access to his papers, he will only see an INCREASE in people switching to the alternative media and to blogs! This should make you jump for joy naked in fields of daisies! And youre BASHING it because Rupert Murdoch is not raking in MORE cash? Would you be happier if he owned New York City and they changed the city's name to Rupertville? My God Andy...I know you're a guest on the Strategy Room (on but geesh---your loyalty to Murdoch is THAT deep for one little online show that nobody watches? Hey wait a minute Andy----the Strategy Room is an ONLINE show ONLY.....people get that for FREE, right?????? Hmmmmmmm.

By the way Andy. That brings me to ANOTHER great point. How much are you paying for this blog? Did you say ZERO? I know for a FACT it's free because MY site is on Blogger too and I pay nothing. (By the way, I know for this point ALONE will make you REJECT my post) Free SUCKS huh? Shut down your site then Andy and put your money where your hypocritical mouth is (or make a check out to

You said this "Yet, the Internet is all about free. We can get our newspapers and magazines for free. We can watch televisions programs free. We can download movies and music free. We can book our own travel, send free mail, make free phone calls, send free greeting cards. We can, thanks to MySpace, Facebook and Twitter to name a few, even socialize for free, never having to leave the house or spend one red-cent actually socializing the way truly sociable folks used to."

NOWHERE in that paragraph did you mention that ANY of that was the fault of the medium of the internet alone. Newspapers and magazines are free because the VERY company gives free access to everyone! That's THEIR fault! TV programs for free? Once again, that's the VERY company's fault! Each example given in that paragraph is the particular company that is giving the access for free! Why do they even ALLOW the free access to begin with if they are experiencing a colossal loss of revenue?

You also mentioned downloading songs? Why arent the Feds shutting down the sites then? You blame all of this on the internet itself when in reality, the fault lies with everyone outside of the net! You also mentioned mailing for free. Well, if the fucking post office would stop increasing the cost of stamps every 5 months, we would probably buy more stamps! I have a deal for the post office: If they lower the cost of stamps to what the price was before there was email, I will drastically decrease my email use. But, they WONT---so emailing wins! By the way Andy---when is the last time YOU sent an email? Let me guess, an hour ago? HYPOCRITE.

You never mentioned ONCE in your story all the commerce that is conducted and BILLIONS of dollars made on the net. Every Christmas it seems that internet sales go up. Sites like Wal-Mart, Target,, iTunes---and scores of other retailers rack up ASTRONOMICAL profits. Was that mentioned in your story? Hell no.

You said this, "Think about all the businesses, all the people, who've been slammed by this economic black hole called the Internet", and then didnt mention ONE that has.

How did the INTERNET kill the movie after-markets? Are you referring to Netflix? Are you not for the free market Andy? Netflix has the rights to those movies being rented as cheap as they want to rent them. Plus, even if Netflix didnt exist, there's still the DVD kiosks like Redbox, that require NO internet service, and you can rent them for $1 a night. Once again, that's the free market, not the Internet.

You work in NYC right? Have you seen how much is charged for seeing a movie and popcorn and soda?? Maybe less people are seeing movies because they COST SO GODDAMNED MUCH! Did THAT ever occur to you? Going to a movie with my family is a goddamned EVENT that we have to save up for like Im saving to buy a boat or something! I know everyone isnt as rich as you Andy, but spending $50 bucks on ONE movie for me, my wife and my kid is a TAD out of my range. I pick waiting 2 months and renting it from Redbox anyday---and that has NOTHING to do with the Internet!

You DO make a valid point about money not spent in social establishments because of the internet---BUT, it is my understanding that America is STILL a free country, so if people choose to be online rather than in a club, that's an issue of personal FREEDOM---NOT about the Internet. You could make the same argument about cell phones, that people choose to talk on them rather than talk to a person sitting right beside them, but I didnt see you bash cell phones in your story.

You said, "hopefully others will follow suit" referring to Murdoch charging customers for online content? Really Andy? You really want that? What is it that youre REALLY afraid of Andy? Informed citizens? Like I said earlier, the mainstream media can charge all they fucking want to----that will only INCREASE readership of alternative news sites that are FREE and who report MORE truth and far less spin and lies. By the way Andy, since you're all about paying, are you willing to get your checkbook out right NOW and write checks payable to the New York Times, WSJ and The Boston Globe even BEFORE they begin charging?

The bottom line is: people are waking up to the alternative media and saying, "fuck you" to the mainstream media and the MSM is PANICKING. We already know that the Obama lovers are against the 2nd amendment----now with your story Andy, we are beginning to see that you hate the first amendment too.

I'm still laughing that you wrote a story bashing the Internet because it's "killing the economy" because of so many "free things" you can do on it--and it was posted on a FREE site on....the INTERNET.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Leaked Agenda: Bilderberg Group Plans Economic Depression

Elitists divided on whether to quickly sink economy and replace it with new world order, or set in motion long, agonizing depression
Paul Joseph Watson
May 6, 2009

On the eve of the 2009 Bilderberg Group conference, which is due to be held May 14-17 at the 5 star Nafsika Astir Palace Hotel in Vouliagmeni, Greece, investigative reporter Daniel Estulin has uncovered shocking details of what the elitists plan to do with the economy over the course of the next year.

The Bilderberg Group meeting is an annual confab of around 150 of the world’s most influential powerbrokers in government, industry, banking, media, academia and the military-industrial complex. The secretive group operates under "Chatham House rules," meaning that no details of what is discussed can ever be leaked to the media, despite editors of the world’s biggest newspapers, the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Financial Times, being present at the meeting.

According to Estulin’s sources, which have been proven highly accurate in the past, Bilderberg is divided on whether to put into motion, "Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty … or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency."

The information takes on added weight when one considers the fact that Estulin’s previous economic forecasts, which were based on leaks from the same sources, have proven deadly accurate. Estulin correctly predicted the housing crash and the 2008 financial meltdown as a result of what his sources inside Bilderberg told him the elite were planning based on what was said at their 2006 meeting in Canada and the 2007 conference in Turkey.

Details of the economic agenda were contained in a pre-meeting booklet being handed out to Bilderberg members. On a more specific note, Estulin warns that Bilderberg are fostering a false picture of economic recovery, suckering investors into ploughing their money back into the stock market again only to later unleash another massive downturn which will create "massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead," according to a Canada Free Press report.

According to Estulin, Bilderberg is assuming that U.S. unemployment figures will reach around 14% by the end of the year, almost doubling the current official figure of 8.1 per cent.

Estulin’s sources also tell him that Bilderberg will again attempt to push for the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, a key centerpiece of the agenda to fully entrench a federal EU superstate, by forcing the Irish to vote again on the document in September/October despite having rejected it already, along with other European nations, in national referendums.

"One of their concerns is addressing and neutralizing the anti-Lisbon treaty movement called "Libertas" led by Declan Ganley. One of the Bilderberger planned moves is to use a whispering campaign in the US media suggested that Ganley is being funded by arms dealers in the US linked to the US military," reports CFP.

Daniel Estulin, Jim Tucker, and other sources who have infiltrated Bilderberg meetings in the past have routinely provided information about the Bilderberg agenda that later plays out on the world stage, proving that the organization is not merely a "talking shop" as debunkers claim, but an integral planning forum for the new world order agenda.

Indeed, just last month Belgian viscount and current Bilderberg-chairman √Čtienne Davignon bragged that Bilderberg helped create the Euro by first introducing the policy agenda for a single currency in the early 1990’s. Bilderberg’s agenda for a European federal superstate and a single currency likely goes back even further. A BBC investigation uncovered documents from the early Bilderberg meetings which confirmed that the European Union was a brainchild of Bilderberg.

In spring 2002, when war hawks in the Bush administration were pushing for a summer invasion of Iraq, Bilderbergers expressed their desire for a delay and the attack was not launched until March the following year.

In 2006, Estulin predicted that the U.S. housing market would be allowed to soar before the bubble was cruelly popped, which is exactly what transpired.

In 2008, Estulin predicted that Bilderberg were creating the conditions for a financial calamity, which is exactly what began a few months later with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Bilderberg has routinely flexed its muscles in establishing its role as kingmaker. The organization routinely selects presidential candidates as well as running mates and prime ministers.

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were both groomed by the secretive organization in the early 1990’s before rising to prominence.

Barack Obama’s running mate Joe Biden was selected by Bilderberg luminary James A. Johnson, and John Kerry’s 2004 running mate John Edwards was also anointed by the group after he gave a glowing speech at the conference in 2004. Bilderberg attendees even broke house rules to applaud Edwards at the end of a speech he gave to the elitists about American politics. The choice of Edwards was shocking to media pundits who had fully expected Dick Gephardt to secure the position. The New York Post even reported that Gephardt had been chosen and "Kerry-Gephardt" stickers were being placed on campaign vehicles before being removed when Edwards was announced as Kerry’s number two.

A 2008 Portuguese newspaper report highlighted the fact that Pedro Santana Lopes and Jose Socrates attended the 2004 meeting in Stresa, Italy before both going on to become Prime Minster of Portugal.

Several key geopolitical decisions were made at last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Washington DC, again emphasizing the fact that the confab is far more than an informal get-together.

As we reported at the time, Bilderberg were concerned that the price of oil was accelerating too fast after it hit $150 a barrel and wanted to ensure that "oil prices would probably begin to decline". This is exactly what happened in the latter half of 2008 as oil again sunk below $50 a barrel. We were initially able to predict the rapid rise in oil prices in 2005 when oil was at $40, because Bilderberg had called for prices to rise during that year’s meeting in Munich. During the conference in Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened.

Also at last year’s meeting, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice formalized plans to sign a treaty on installing a U.S. radar base in the Czech Republic with Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg.

Rice was joined at the meeting by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who reportedly encouraged EU globalists to get behind an attack on Iran. Low and behold, days later the EU threatened Iran with sanctions if it did not suspend its nuclear enrichment program.

There was also widespread speculation that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s "secret meeting," which was accomplished with the aid of cloak and dagger tactics like locking journalists on an airplane to keep them from tracking the two down, took place at the Bilderberg meeting in DC.

It remains to be seen what kind of mainstream media press coverage Bilderberg 2009 will be afforded because, despite the proven track record of Bilderberg having a central role in influencing subsequent geopolitical and financial world events, and despite last year’s meeting being held in Washington DC, the U.S. corporate media oversaw an almost universal blackout of reporting on the conference, its attendees, and what was discussed.

Once again, it will be left to the alternative media to fill the vacuum and educate the people on exactly what the globalists have planned for us over the coming year.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

In defending Bush on waterboarding, Pat Buchanan inadvertently admits on several occasions it’s a war crime, then keeps defending it

Pat Buchanan’s defense that waterboarding is not torture? Half the country supports it and Condi Rice (who would be prosecuted alongside Bush) says it’s not!

by Larry Simons
May 2, 2009

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley and MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan have both appeared together on Hardball with Chris Matthews at least 2 times in the past week to discuss the waterboarding/torture issue and whether Bush and his administration should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Turley, who is a professor of Constitutional law at George Washington University, clearly understands the Constitution and never fails to explain his stance consistently and without apology. Turley says that Bush and his administration are clearly guilty of war crimes and that the debate whether waterboarding is torture has long since been over.

On the April 24, 2009 telecast of Hardball, Turley said this:

“Well, there‘s no question—there‘s no one has debated that it‘s a crime under the United States code, 18 USC code, to commit torture. Nobody‘s debating that. And more importantly, we‘re obligated in this country under article 7 of the Convention Against Torture, for example, to submit these cases for prosecution. Indeed, recently a U.N. official said that we‘re probably in violation now because we helped write that treaty, and it obligates countries to investigate and prosecute.

So we‘re not supposed to be like Serbia, where we say, Look, this just isn‘t a good time for us to investigate torture. It‘s an inconvenient thing. It‘s going to be divisive. None of that matters. Under the treaties that we helped write, a country is morally and legally obligated...”

In fact, article 7 of the UN Convention Against Torture says this, “1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.”

Turley is absolutely correct. It is not just a war crime to torture, but is also a crime to not prosecute for the committed war crimes.

Buchanan, who defends the Bush administration and the use of torture, admits crimes were committed by saying:

“I think it would be terrible for the country. And frankly, I believe if Barack Obama, if he had to do it, would—I think he‘s going to have to give a pardon, quite frankly, to the people who did it. Here‘s what‘s going to happen...”

First, Buchanan defends Bush’s use of torture. Then he admits that it had to be used to extract information from terror suspects. Then Buchanan says Obama is “going to have to pardon” Bush and his administration because it would be bad for the country? First of all, if waterboarding is not torture and there have been no war crimes committed, then what is there to pardon Bush of? Essentially, Buchanan saying that a pardon needing to be granted is and admittance of a crime being committed.

watch the clip (from April 24)

part 2

Buchanan then contradicts himself when he tells Matthews and Turley that if Bush and his administration are brought up on war crime charges and prosecuted, it will “rip the country apart” then says, “Barack Obama won. The decisions Bush had taken were rejected, basically, you can say by the administration. Barack said, No more of that, that‘s over and done with...”

Well, Pat, if the decisions made by Bush were rejected when Americans elected Barack Obama, then how would prosecuting Bush “rip America apart?” I wish Turley would have asked him that. Since Obama admits that waterboarding is torture and most of America voted for Obama, is that not a rejection of torture? How is that “terrible for the country?”

In Obama’s admitting that waterboarding is torture, it presents only one possible option for Obama, to not pardon Bush and let the prosecuting begin. If Obama pardons Bush, then Obama will be, in essence, not only letting criminals walk, but violating Article 7 of the UN Convention Against Torture by not seeking prosecution, as Turley explained.

Buchanan, after about 8 minutes of being shellacked by Turley, had no option left but to panic and begin reaching for any argument he could muster to defend torture. Hysterically, he chose this:

“The polls today show that the American people still support enhanced interrogation techniques if you‘re dealing with al Qaeda types and if you‘re trying to stop 9/11.”

So, now it comes down to polls of what Americans think? Where in the UN Convention Against Torture code does it mention that prosecutions for torture will only commence if torture is unpopular among the citizens of a particular signatory of the UN conventions? It doesn’t. Therefore, Pat Buchanan had to reach to the bottom of his already weak arsenal after just being bitch-slapped with facts from the brilliant Jonathan Turley.

Turley responds, “It doesn‘t matter whether a crime is popular.”

Buchanan, still reaching to the very bottom of the barrel says, “I‘m telling you it does matter whether you‘re going tear the country apart!”, without offering any proof whatsoever that it will “tear the country apart” and without stating where in the UN Convention Against Torture code that it mentions war crime prosecutions should not begin if it tears a country apart. It was clear that Buchanan was unequivocally pwnd by Turley.

Then, when you thought it couldn’t get any worse for Buchanan, he admits that if he was Bush, he would be guilty of war crimes as well.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe these are “enhanced interrogation” techniques or they‘re torture?

BUCHANAN: I think—I think waterboarding...

MATTHEWS: Is waterboarding torture?

BUCHANAN: ... is arguably torture.

MATTHEWS: OK. All right.

BUCHANAN: I mean, I think, quite frankly...

MATTHEWS: Well, why are you using their lingo?

BUCHANAN: But look, because I think it arguably is. I‘m not certain it is because I would have done the same thing Bush did.

The debate then took a strange turn. In order for Matthews and Buchanan to attempt to save face, they began resorting to odd analogies to make their case. Matthews says, “When we were facing 9/11 in real time and there was another plane up there, we thought, which was being used, armed, basically, as a weapon and was headed towards somewhere here, the U.S. Capitol, the CIA, the White House, there was a national recognition that the vice president, in this instance, would have had to call that plane to be shot down if we had a fighter jet available.”

Matthews is attempting to make the point that because the President has to face difficult decisions at times like shoot down planes filled with passengers in order to achieve the greater good (saving more lives on the ground), that torture of prisoners is one of those types of decisions.

Buchanan then chimed in and made his insane anaolgy by saying, “You got a right to kill people. You mean waterboarding Sheikh Khalid Mohammed (SIC) is a worse thing than dropping two atomic bombs on people and burning 120,000 people to death, sending 40,000 more to death by radiation to convince the Japanese cabinet to change its mind? What was worse? I mean, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed...”

The above two examples given by Matthews and Buchanan are decisions that the president has the power to make. Both examples above were also not illegal decisions. The torturing of prisoners in wartime is not along these same lines.

In reality, the torture of prisoners does not fall under the category of “the decision of the President”. The United Nations conventions against torture was a treaty signed by over 140 countries, including the United States in order to prevent torture around the world. We are a part of a global body of countries that have signed a treaty to not torture and to prosecute if torture is practiced. Therefore, if this treaty is violated, it is an illegal act and is also not subject to being a presidential decision.

Matthews and Buchanan are simply taking the issue of torture and attempting to remove it from its correct context (the one Turley is explaining, that it is illegal and not a presidential decision) and trying to transform it into something completely different in order to make their point, which Turley does not let them accomplish.

Matthews and Buchanan would have a valid point if the United States had signed treaties agreeing that we would not shoot down planes if they were in danger of crashing or that we would not drop atomic bombs in order to get countries to surrender to end wars. Killing during a time of war is not defined as inhumane, torture is. This is why the act of torture has been made illegal by all the signatories of the UN convention treaty. Killing during wartime happens. It’s inevitable. Torture is a conscious inhumane act. Matthews and Buchanan simply do not understand this.

Six days later (on April 30), Turley and Buchanan was back on Hardball again for Turley Smackdown 2. Matthews began the segment playing a clip of Condoleezza Rice saying this (in response to an interviewer asking if waterboarding is torture), “And I just said the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And, so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”

watch the clip (from April 30)

Matthews then asked Turley if the President could define the law in a time of war. Turley replied:

“...this is the dividing line between tyranny and a democracy. That is, if a president can become a law unto himself, that whatever he says has the fiat of authority, then you no longer have a democratic system. We rejected that a very long time ago, thank God. It defines us as a people. And Nixon learned very well that his theory of the law did not apply. And he found himself chased out of office and ultimately needing a presidential pardon.”

Turley reiterated to Buchanan that we (the United States) signed a treaty and gave our word that we would not only not torture but prosecute those who do. Then reminded Buchanan that when he worked for Nixon and Reagan that he often criticized the Soviets for not being able to be trusted with treaties, and here we are, breaking them as well.

Turley also reminded Pat (if he ever knew) that the United States has also put people to death for torturing people, and that many things the U.S. did in WWII could be very well be viewed as war crimes.

Turley also reminded Buchanan and Matthews that Condi Rice was either lying or was not aware of the Convention Against Torture when she said (in the clip), “…we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And, so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”

Turley said that in Article 2 of the C.A.T. it states that “it is not a defense to say that you received an order from a superior officer or someone in public authority.”

Article 2 of the C.A.T. states, “3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.”

Apparently Bush is very well aware of Article 2 of the Convention Against Torture. He used it to threaten the Iraqi military 6 years ago in his speech to the nation. On March 17, 2003 (just 2 days before the start of the Iraq war), Bush said this:

I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services: If war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, “I was just following orders.” Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.

here is the clip

Here is where it became hilarious. After Buchanan gets done explaining the process that would have to happen for there to be a criminal proceeding, the whole time implying that it is still a debate whether waterboarding is torture, Turley says this, “No one is disagreeing this is torture. We have case authority saying it‘s torture. Most people have given up this argument, this canard that water boarding is not torture. We prosecuted people for water boarding.”

I almost spit up my food when Buchanan said, “You just saw the secretary of state say it was not. She said it was not a violation—.” This is Buchanan’s defense of torture? Saying that Condi Rice herself says it’s not? Of course she would say it’s not! She would be one of the targets in the criminal prosecution! Which one of Rush Limbaugh’s pills has Buchanan been popping?

On the transcript page at MSNBC, Turley’s dialogue right after Buchanan says, “She said it was a violation---,” is mysteriously deleted. Turley said, “(laughing)…she’s on the target list of investigation”. Also, they attributed the dialogue (that begins with “No one is disagreeing this is torture..”) before Buchanan’s comment about Rice to Matthews when it was really Turley’s remark.

You can tell Buchanan was once an employee of Nixon in the next section of dialogue.

MATTHEWS: When does the president have a moral right to break the law? Does he ever?

BUCHANAN: Sure, sure he does.

Buchanan then puts his foot in his mouth and unknowingly takes Turley’s side when Buchanan says, “Take FDR, he put 100,000 Japanese, many of them American citizens, into literally concentration camps. And the Supreme Court, they said go ahead and do it. It‘s legitimate. Later on, we all apologized because we said that was a crime, violation of their rights.”

Turley says, “Pat just gave the exact reason why Obama has to prosecute here, because in 20 years, there will be Pat Buchanan Jr. sitting here and saying, look what George Bush did, and he wasn‘t prosecuted.”

I know why Buchanan stepped outside of himself and hung himself with that comment. Because that’s what happens when you have no fucking clue what you are talking about or what you even believe. When you have a belief system that is based on your own opinions and you base none of what you believe on documented, established law, that’s what happens…you put your foot in your mouth and you end up taking someone’s side who you have just been in direct opposition with for the previous 30 minutes.

This falls along the same principal that if you don’t ever tell lies, you don’t need a good memory.

Learn the facts Pat. Learn the law and stop being faithful to a party or one man. Learn the laws of your country and the treaties we sign, then maybe you’ll have a chance in these debates with Jonathan Turley.

Pat Buchanan, un-American FRAUD