Friday, July 31, 2009
Chris Matthews calls enforcement of Constitutional requirements to become President “nutty” and “crazy”
Like the official story of 9-11 and global warming, according to Matthews, just questioning the received reality is “nutty”
by Larry Simons
July 31, 2009
On Thursdays telecast of Hardball with Chris Matthews, Matthews had on California Congressmen John Campbell to discuss H.R. 1503, which is a bill “To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution”. The bill’s main sponsor is Florida Representative Bill Posey.
After Matthews gets Posey’s state wrong [he said Posey is from Indiana], he immediately begins using phrases like “what is going on that so many Americans doubt the obvious that Barack Obama’s a citizen..?” and words like “crazy” to describe the bill.
Campbell responds by telling Matthews that the bill is only for future elections [2012 and beyond] and it’s main purpose is to “substantiate that you meet the Constitutional requirements”. Matthews responds, “Congressman, nice try…..what you’re doing is appeasing the nutcases” then proceeds to hold up a copy of Barack Obama’s “official” birth certificate. Matthews asks Campbell, “Do you believe it’s a reasonable question whether Barack Obama is a legitimate, native born American?”, then holds up the birth certificate and says, “Here’s the birth certificate!”
watch the clip
Campbell then asks Matthews if it’s legitimate to want to know if a Presidential candidate meets the Constitutional requirements to become President, then asks, “What’s wrong with that?”, of which Matthews does not answer.
Matthews then asks Campbell if he believes Obama is a legitimate native-born American. Campbell responds, “As far as I know, yes”, in which Matthews replies, “As far as you know? I’m showing you his birth certificate”, and holds it up again.
Matthews then proceeds to read what the birth certificate says on it. This is the copy that Matthews is showing
Widely accepted Barack Obama birth certificate
After reading off the items on the birth certificate [date of birth, time of birth, parents names, etc..] Matthews asks Campbell, “What more do you want?”
Well, Chris, although I’m not 100% sure where I stand on this whole “birther” issue, I think I would at least want an explanation as to why Obama’s birth certificate doesn’t look like this:
Copies of Hawaiian birth certificates from August 5, 1961, a day after Obama was born (click to enlarge)
The above photo shows the birth certificates of twins Susan and Gretchen Nordyke, who were both born on August 5, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, the day after Obama was allegedly born there. I would like to know why the supposed Obama birth certificate I posted above [the same one that Matthews repeatedly holds up during this segment] does not look exactly like the birth certificates of the Nordyke twins.
I would like to know why the registration number listed on the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates precedes the registration number listed on the Obama certificate, despite the fact that the Nordyke twins were born a day after Obama was born. The registration numbers of the Nordyke twins are No. 151 – 61 – 10637 [Susan Nordyke] and No. 151 – 61 – 10638 [Gretchen Nordyke]. Obama was born a day before the Nordyke twins but his registration number is No. 151-1961-010641.
So, to answer Matthews’ question, this is “what more I want”. I don’t consider myself a “birther”, but these are very good questions. Matthews also fails to mention that the copy he is holding is a “certificate of live birth” which is a condensed, shortened version of the original birth certificate, which would look exactly like the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates [above].
Am I “crazy” or “nutty” to ask why Obama’s birth certificate does not look like the Nordyke twins’ certificates? According to Matthews, yes I am. I should not even ask. I should just accept it and move on and not question anything. If I do question it, I’m a “nut”, but yet people like Matthews are considered “normal” despite the fact that the only argument they can give is in the form of ad hominem attacks, failing to answer good questions and never having to prove what they are selling. They are given a pre-arranged script that they are ordered to follow.
The most bizarre part of the segment came when Matthews asked Campbell, “Do you think barring a President from serving more than two terms put to rest whether Franklin Roosevelt should have been elected a 3rd and 4th term? You think it really put that to rest? Or was it a way of whacking the guy the way out the door?” Campbell replied, “He did serve more than two terms”. Matthews then asks, “Why did you guys on the Republican side pass a Constitutional amendment that said you couldn’t do that again? So you could say ‘let’s not have this happen again’”.
What in the hell is Matthews talking about? What does term limit enactment have to do with Constitutional requirements to be eligible to run for President? It is a requirement that a Presidential candidate be a natural born citizen of the United States, meaning they must be born within any of the 50 states in order to even be eligible for the job of President. A term limit is a condition of the position itself. They are two completely different issues, but Matthews wants us to believe they are exactly the same.
The bottom line here is, Matthews is a corporate-controlled script reader. He is told what to push by his puppeteers and if he steps outside of that box and, heaven forbid, concocts an independent thought, he’ll be run out of his job on a rail. The late George Carlin, when asked by a 9-11 truth activist in late 2007 what he thought of the 9-11 truth movement, said, “I always question the received reality”. Not Chris Matthews. He’s the complete opposite. In fact, just days ago he heavily implied that anyone who even questions the government is “psychologically insane”.
If the received reality is that Chris Matthews is a normal, patriotic, independent thinker, then count me in as being proud to be any negative term Matthews labels me.
Also posted at PrisonPlanet, here
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Toxin linked to autism and neurological disorders to be included in shots
Paul Joseph Watson
July 30, 2009
The Washington Post confirmed today that the swine flu vaccine, which is set to be rolled out nationwide this fall in what some fear could ultimately become a mandatory vaccination program, will contain mercury, a toxin linked with autism and neurological disorders.
Claims by the CDC and the Institute of Medicine, following a whitewash study that ignored previously verified evidence, that thimerosal, a mercury based preservative, has no causal relationship to skyrocketing cases of autism have been soundly rejected by top doctors and scientists ever since.
Epidemiologist Tom Verstraeten and Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado, both concluded that thimerosal was responsible for the dramatic rise in cases of autism but their findings were dismissed by the CDC.
Cases of autism in the U.S. have increased by 1,500 since 1991, which is when vaccines for children doubled, and the number of immunizations is only increasing. Just one in 2,500 children were diagnosed with autism before 1991, whereas one in 166 children now have the disease.
A peer reviewed study by Dr. Mark Geier which appeared in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons showed that the IOM research was flawed because it was largely based on a Danish study by Anders Peter Hviid, which did not account for the fact that American children have a much higher mercury burden than children in Denmark.
"At the high levels (of thimerosal exposure), it is undeniable there is a causal relationship, and we have gone to high levels. Their studies, therefore are not relevant, I am not saying they are wrong, although there are many criticisms of it. It is just not relative to the US situation," said Geier.
Geier’s study concludes that there is an increase of neurodevelopment disorders following the use of thimerosal containing vaccines.
Dr. Rashid Buttar, who has pioneered a new treatment for autistic children that removes mercury from their bodies, said the Institute of Medicine’s conclusion that mercury does not cause autism demonstrates the "complete absence of any desire to discover scientific truth at the supposed highest levels of medical academia."
"When 31 children recover from a devastating disease by a simple transdermal treatment that detoxifies metals, then common sense dictates that perhaps metals are involved," states Dr. Bob Nash the chairman of the American Board of Clinical Metal Toxicology (ABCMT) in regard to Dr. Buttar’s treatment.
"In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal, suffered brain damage years later. Studies on thimerosal poisoning also describe tubular necrosis and nervous system injury, including obtundation, coma and death. As a result of these findings, Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines in 1980. Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have also banned the preservative," writes Dawn Prate.
Mercury is classified by The Department of Defense as a hazardous material that could cause death if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin, and the EPA is now limiting mercury emissions from factories because the toxin "can damage the brain and nervous system and is especially dangerous to fetuses and small children," but according to the CDC it’s perfectly safe to inject into your child’s bloodstream.
Despite concerns about thimerosal and mercury, which have led to the preservative being reduced or removed from a large portion of vaccines over the last five years, thimerosal will be an ingredient of the swine flu vaccine which is set to arrive in the U.S. this September.
"Some of the vaccine will be stored in multi-dose vials containing thimerosal, an antibacterial additive that contains mercury," reports the Washington Post today in an article about which groups will receive the swine flu vaccine first.
"There will also be single-dose syringes without thimerosal, a substance that some assert is harmful to children," adds the article, without mentioning whether or not people who take the vaccine will get a choice or even be informed if it contains mercury.
Around 12,000 U.S. children will be used as guinea pigs for the experimental swine flu vaccine also known to contain the dangerous ingredient squalene, which has been directly linked with cases of Gulf War Syndrome and a host of other debilitating diseases.
Squalene "contributed to the cascade of reactions called "Gulf War syndrome. (GIs developed) arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhea, night sweats and low-grade fever," according to Micropaleontologist Dr. Viera Scheibner.
Pharmaceutical companies can be assured that they won’t face reprisals for the many thousands of injuries and deaths that will inevitably occur as a result of exposing millions to mercury and squalene during a mass vaccination program, because the government has already acted to provide them with blanket immunity from lawsuits.
"Vaccine makers and federal officials will be immune from lawsuits that result from any new swine flu vaccine, under a document signed by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius," reported the Associated Press earlier this month.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Liberal fraud Ostroy says Obama’s “stupidly” comment to Cambridge police in Gates arrest was a compliment
by Larry Simons
July 26, 2009
On July 16, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was arrested by the Cambridge, Massachusetts police and charged with disorderly conduct. A passer-by, who thought Gates was burglarizing a home [when in reality, it was his own home], called the police. When the police arrived, Gates and Officer James Crowley engaged in a verbal confrontation, resulting in the arrest of Gates.
Days later, on July 22, during a White House press conference, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times asked President Obama what this incident said for race relations in America. Obama replied, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting someone when there was already proof that they were in their own home…”
In an article written yesterday by liberal disinformationist and Obama-loving hack, Andy Ostroy, titled, “Did Obama Mean "Stupid-ly" or "Stoopid-ly"?", Ostroy [in what might very well be the dumbest and most unbelievable article I have seen by any political writer in my five years of political writing myself] actually suggests that Barack Obama’s use of the word “stupidly” [in referring to the police] was meant as urban slang.
Ostroy said that those who are criticizing Obama’s use of the word “stupidly” “clearly are not familiar with urban slang. It's quite possible the nation's first African American president was in fact paying the arresting officer a compliment.”
A compliment? Ostroy then says that according to UrbanDictionary.com, “…"stoopid" is…used to describe something or someone cool, fresh and dope. Confusing for sure, but hey, I didn't make this stuff up.”
What Ostroy conveniently omits from his article is that according to UrbanDictionary.com, there are a total of 21 definitions to the word “stoopid”. Of the 21 definitions listed, only 6 of them are positive or partially positive. Guess how many of the 6 are used in the way Ostroy said it was used? That’s right.....zero.
Only 3 of these 6 definitions are even remotely in the ballpark of Ostroy’s aforementioned definition.
Definition # 5 states, “Stoopid is a word which can define the good quality of something. In a way like sick or ill,but mainly used for something more amazing or cool.” This definition is only referring to “things” or “objects” being cool, not people.
Definition # 8 states, “Ridiculously fresh, dope, sweet. Used in contexts of new music and fashions. Rarely used nowadays.” New music and fashions are not synonymous with “people”.
Definition # 11 states, “meaning to be really cool or awesome”. Although this definition appears to be close to the one Ostroy gave, it received no votes on UrbanDictionary.com as being acceptable. It got 3 total votes. All 3 were thumbs down. See for yourself.
So, it’s not even acknowledged on the UrbanDictionary website as being an acceptable definition, yet Andy Ostroy wants us all to believe that all the reporters in the White House press room, as well as the rest of America, are supposed to know “stupidly” really means “really cool or awesome”.
Who knows where Ostroy saw the definition [above], “used to describe something or someone cool, fresh and dope”? This exact definition was not listed under any of the 21 definitions on the UrbanDictionary site. It was just made up.
One has to wonder, even if Obama really was using urban slang, why would he describe the police as “really cool or awesome?” Obama admitted in the same press conference that he was friends with Gates. Why would Obama think the cops were “really cool or awesome” for arresting his friend?
Of course, it matters not to Ostroy that even during Obama’s apology for using the word [after he was criticized by several policemen and many commentators across the country] he never said he was using urban slang. Why would Ostroy let 'insignificant' facts like that get in the way of his factless reporting?
Let’s not forget to point out the profound irony of Ostroy turning this into a racial issue [by suggesting that Obama used urban slang, which, by its very nature, is race related]. UrbanDictionary’s own definition of “Urban Dictionary” reads: “A place formerly used to find out about slang, and now a place that teens use as a "burn book" to talk about celebrities, their friends, let out their sexual frustrations, show off their racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-(insert religion here) opinions, troll, and babble about things they know nothing about, etc.”
Their own words, “….show off their racist/sexist/homophobic/anti (insert religion here) opinions…”, and yet Ostroy is telling us that Obama was using the type of language that can be found on a website where people come to express their racist opinions. Unbelievable.
It is also worthy to point out that for years now, Ostroy has been criticizing Bush [and rightly so] for his idiotic phrases and made up words [Bush-isms] and Ostroy turns right around and defends Obama for using the same types of phrases that can only be found on race driven websites.
Also, why would anyone want their President to use urban slang at all? The President of the United States is Barack Obama, not Spike Lee or Snoop Dogg. And if he were using urban slang, why would he use it during a press conference that was filmed while addressing a question about race? Is this how Obama will talk to Prime Ministers, Heads of State and Kings?
To make matters even worse, this ridiculous article was published on the left-leaning site The Huffington Post. But here’s the bright side. Some comments under Ostroy’s article on HuffPost haven’t been pretty.
“Really? This is a real article? If this is important and supposedly relative, the Post is going way down hill.
Yes, I'm sure the President meant "stoopidly." God in Heaven...”
“phntsticpPeg” reminds Ostroy that not only is his article “stupid and insulting”, but also racist. She writes:
“This article is stupid and insulting, primarily that the writer would be foolish enough to insinuate that the POTUS would interchange between slang and proper English at a press conference of this important topic.
I understand trying to defend the president but he just sounds silly.
Seems that white people just don't understand..no matter how much we explain it, not everyone whose black talks slang.”
The answer is crystal clear. Obama was not using urban slang and simply fucked up, and political hacks like Andy Ostroy refuse to see that simple, obvious truth. Instead of heeding the very advice he gave to Bush and his supporters for the last five years to fess up and just admit screw-ups, Ostroy dodges that responsibility by writing one of the worst examples of partisan defense I have ever laid eyes on.
I may just toss out the last five months of the year and declare Andy Ostroy as winner of 2009’s Fraud of the Year award right now.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Bright House Networks employees will watch for "suspicious behavior," which according to law enforcement and DHS guidelines includes being politically active, displaying bumper stickers, or disagreeing with the government
Paul Joseph Watson
July 23, 2009
One of the largest cable TV companies in the United States is training its employees to look for suspicious behavior and report it to police under the guise of a neighborhood watch initiative.
Since according to law enforcement and Homeland Security guidelines, suspicious behavior includes owning guns, being politically active, and having bumper stickers on your car, the cable guy’s next visit to your house may turn out to have more interesting consequences than you originally anticipated.
"Operation Bright Eyes is designed to maximize the eyes and ears of Bright House Networks field service representatives and other employees to easily identify suspicious behavior and to quickly report criminal activities to police," according to a Fox 35 report.
All current and new Bright House employees will receive training to help them use the ‘resources at their disposal’ to "become familiar with residents and activities in neighborhoods" and report anything they deem unusual to the authorities in order to "keep our neighborhoods safe".
Since when was it the job of the cable guy to run around pretending to be an undercover cop? This program is ripe for abuse and another advancement in the tattle-tale stasi society being created in order to make the sheeple self-police their behavior, constantly aware that they are being watched by secret police and living in fear that big brother will catch any minor indiscretion.
The legacy of training Americans to spy on each other in the name of "safety" has its origins in Operation TIPS, which was supposedly nixed by Congress, a DOJ, FBI, DHS and FEMA coordinated program that would have recruited one in twenty-four Americans as domestic informants, a higher percentage than was used by the Stasi in Communist East Germany.
Government funding was cut after an outcry but private funding continues and the same program was introduced under a number of sub-divisions including AmeriCorps, SecureCorps and the Highway Watch program.
More recently, ABC News reported that "The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort…..to aid with criminal investigations."
In July last year we reported on how hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and utility workers have been trained and recently dispatched as "Terrorism Liaison Officers" in Colorado, Arizona and California to watch for "suspicious activity" which is later fed into a secret government database.
Also last year, a New York Times feature article heartily celebrated the fact that an increasing number of Americans are becoming informants and turning in their neighbors and family members to the authorities in return for cash rewards. In a piece about a new program run by Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers, citing gas prices, foreclosure rates and runaway food price inflation, The Times lauds the fact that citizens are reporting on each other, ensuring "a substantial increase in Crime Stopper-related arrests and recovered property, as callers turn in neighbors, grandchildren or former boyfriends in exchange for a little cash."
Forget Orwell’s 1984, this purebred tyranny is about as sophisticated as the wacky dictatorship portrayed in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1987 movie The Running Man, where citizens are reminded by huge TV screens placed on street corners that they can "earn a double bonus for reporting on a family member!"
Bright House Networks has 2.4 million customers and covers "several large cities including Tampa Bay and Orlando, Florida; Bakersfield, California; Indianapolis, Indiana; Detroit, Michigan; and Birmingham, Alabama; along with several other smaller regions in Alabama and the Florida Panhandle."
Perhaps that 2.4 million figure will begin to dwindle once customers find out that the cable guy is eyeing them up for suspicious activity.
What constitutes suspicious activity isn’t listed, but if it’s in line with law enforcement and Homeland Security guidelines – watch out.
As we have previously documented, people displaying suspicious behavior as defined by law enforcement authorities in documents such as the MAIC report, along with Homeland Security lexicon files, include Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag.
Homeland Security even equates people who express disagreement with the government with domestic extremists and terrorists. So if the cable guy sees an Alex Jones DVD in your TV cabinet, will that mandate a call to the cops?
There seems little need for President Obama to even create his promised "domestic security force," and such a move would merely represent a centralization of what is already underway, since a plethora od programs that train Americans to report on each other are already firmly in place across the country.
Commentary: My conversation with Bright House
by Larry Simons
I wanted to see how widespread this was, so I called the Bakersfield, CA office and spoke with a supervisor. After I asked her if Bright House’s employees were being trained to spy on its employees, the woman said, “No, that’s not true, what article was this?” Here are portions of the rest of our chat:
ME: So you’ve never heard of Operation Bright Eyes?
SUPERVISOR: Operation Bright Eyes, yes, but that’s not to spy on people
ME: Well, it sounds like it’s a program where the employees that go into homes are going to do the work of cops
SUPERVISOR: No, we wouldn’t do that because we wouldn’t put our employees in jeopardy as far as safety. It’s more for them to be aware of their surroundings and you know, basically, what is going on, not to put themselves in jeopardy or danger
ME: Well, the article that I’m reading right in front of me says….
SUPERVISOR: How old is this article?
ME: Hold on, it’s from….
SUPERVISOR: Well, see, we don’t have that program here in Bakersfield. Are you calling from Bakersfield?
ME: No, I’m calling from Maryland. I’m reading an article from an Orlando FOX affiliate website
SUPERVISOR: Yeah, we’re a smaller system out in Bakersfield, CA. The Orlando system is a huge system
ME: You’ve heard of Operation Bright Eyes, so you’re…familiar with it
SUPERVISOR: I’ve heard of it, yes, I’ve heard of it. In fact, if you go to, um, if you go on the Internet you can Google Operation Bright Eyes and there’s all kinds of articles that come up from Bright House that will tell you about it
ME: But what you said about it is not what’s in this article. It doesn’t talk about ‘for their safety’, it says “to easily identify suspicious behavior and to quickly report criminal activities to police.” It sounds like spying to me
SUPERVISOR: Well, if you’d like to speak to someone at the Orlando division, that’s your interpretation of spying. It’s not spying. And I really don’t feel at liberty to comment on it since we don’t have that program here in Bakersfield……it’s more that they’re lending a hand in law enforcement
ME: I didn’t know that was the job of cable TV people
SUPERVISOR: Well, it’s like I said, if you’d like to speak to someone at the Orlando division, you’re more than welcome to but I don’t have any comment
And that concluded our chat. What struck me as odd was that she knew about Operation Bright Eyes, but then gave the incorrect information on what it is. Also, why would she have heard of it if their office doesn’t participate in that program?
Then, when I told her that the OBE program was for the purpose of reporting suspicious behavior and criminal activity to the police, she said it wasn’t spying and it was “my interpretation?” What is spying if that isn’t it?
According to thefreedictionary.com, the definitions of spying is “One who secretly keeps watch on another or others”, “To discover by close observation”, “To seek or observe something secretly and closely” and “To make a careful investigation”. That is exactly the objective of Operation Bright Eyes, the one she even admitted to me when she said, “it’s more that they’re lending a hand in law enforcement”.
Besides, if her definition [of OBE] is true, that it's for their employees to "be aware of their surroundings and you know, basically, what is going on", wouldn't they do that anyway?
The most glaring contradiction on her part was her first telling me, “No, we wouldn’t do that [have their employees do the work of cops] because we wouldn’t put our employees in jeopardy as far as safety”, and then telling me, “…it’s more that they’re lending a hand in law enforcement”. Well, which is it? Are they not doing the dangerous work of the police or are they lending a hand to the police?
They can’t both be true.
Thanks to PrisonPlanet for posting my commentary, here.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Grayson grills Fed chairman on destination of credit swaps
Paul Joseph Watson
July 22, 2009
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke was confronted yesterday by Congressman Alan Grayson about which foreign banks were the recipients of Federal Reserve credit swaps, but he was unable to provide an answer as to where over half a trillion dollars had gone.
Asked which European financial institutions received the money, which was handed out by The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a component of the Federal Reserve System, Bernanke responded, "I don’t know."
"Half a trillion dollars and you don’t know who got the money?" asked Grayson.
As we have previously reported, the destination of trillions in bailout funds remains hidden after the Fed refused to disclose where it had gone despite a lawsuit filed by Bloomberg.
Bernanke said the Fed had a "long standing legal authority" to hand money to foreign banks under section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act, a claim contradicted by Bernanke’s own report, as Grayson soon highlighted.
Grayson said that he had investigated one of the arrangements, a $9 billion dollar package to New Zealand, which works out at $3000 dollars for every citizen of New Zealand.
"Seriously, wouldn’t it have been better to extend that kind of credit to Americans rather than New Zealanders," said Grayson.
The Congressman then implied that handing money to foreign institutions was unconstitutional, reading from Article I, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."
"Do you think it’s in the spirit of the Constitution for a group like the FOMC to hand out a half a trillion dollars to foreigners without any action by this Congress?" asked Grayson, to which Bernanke responded that Congress had approved it with the Federal Reserve act of 1913.
Grayson responded that in 1913, the entire GDP of the U.S. was well under half a trillion dollars.
"Is it safe to say that nobody in 1913 contemplated that a small little group of people would decide to hand out half a trillion dollars to foreigners?," asked Grayson, to which Bernanke again claimed that the authority had been used numerous times before.
Grayson debunked this claim by pointing to Bernanke’s own report, which stated that the entire amount had been handed out starting from the last quarter of 2007, and the amount given out before that to foreign banks was zero.
Watch the clip below
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
by Larry Simons
July 21, 2009
Last night on FOX News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Billo criticized the FOX show The Family Guy during his Reality Check segment. Billo said this:
“As you may know, the FOX program Family Guy loves mocking conservatives and religious people”.
O’ Reilly then played a clip of one episode that featured Jesus sitting at the dinner table with the Griffins. Brian (the dog) says to Jesus, “Alright, I’ll be the one to say it. How do we know you’re really Jesus? Can you perform miracles?” Jesus says, “Sure, how about this?” and instantly makes sundaes appear from nowhere for each person at the table. Then Peter (the father) says, “Hey Jesus, can you do something for me?”, in which Jesus responds, “Sure Peter, what is it?”. Peter whispers in Jesus’ ear and seconds later, Lois' (the wife) breasts grow to such an enormous size, they pop out of her shirt.
watch the clip
After the clip plays, Billo says this:
“Well, that controversial Jesus show has been nominated for an Emmy, reminding me of a compassionate old saying, ‘They know not what they do.’”
I can honestly see how that episode might offend religious people, but for Bill O’Reilly to be the spokesman for religion or sexually offensive images on TV? You’ve got to be kidding me!
First of all, is Bill O’Reilly even religious? I can’t judge his soul, but I sure as hell can judge his words and behavior. Let’s take a look at this fine display of ‘christian’ behavior, shall we?
Yeah, Jesus yelled, “We’ll do it live! FUCK IT!” all the time from what I’m told. Didn’t Jesus say that while flipping over the tables of the money changers?
Secondly, why is Billo even offended by seeing an image a woman’s breasts enlarge, even if it’s only a cartoon? He didn’t seem too offended 5 years ago when he said these words to FOX producer Andrea Mackris:
“You would basically be in the shower and then I would come in and I’d join you and you would have your back to me and I would take that little loofah thing and kinda’ soap up your back…rub it all over you, get you to relax, hot water…and um…you know, you’d feel the tension drain out of you and uh you still would be with your back to me then I would kinda’ put my arm – it’s one of those mitts, those loofah mitts you know, so I got my hands in it…and I would put it around front, kinda’ rub your tummy a little bit with it, and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard…’cuz I like that and you have really spectacular boobs…
So anyway, I’d be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda’ kissing your neck from behind…and then I would take the other hand with the falafel (sic) thing and I’d put it on your pussy but you’d have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business…..
Here is the actual complaint filed by Mackris from thesmokinggun.com.
Billo appears to be obsessed with sexual images and continually being in the presence of attractive women on his show. He constantly shows images of scantily clad and even nude images (blurred so you can’t see nudity) on his program under the guise of legitimate human interest stories.
In fact, during the exact same show last night he did a segment about the Make-A-Wish foundation refusing charity money that was raised by girls in bikinis washing cars. Naturally a person who is offended at a mere cartoon wouldn’t show images of girls in bikinis washing cars, would he? Billo can tell the story without the images right? Apparently not.
Billo could talk about this topic with people who were not hot blonde babes right? Apparently not.
So you see, Billo is infatuated with young, gorgeous blondes and graphic sexual images, but at the same time wants us to believe he is a real conservative, or even religious. Hell, I bet he even enjoyed watching Lois Griffins cartoon boobs on the clip he showed!
It is quite obvious that O’ Reilly is not religious and that he’s a phony conservative. What has me baffled, is why O’Reilly even showed this clip and criticized it since the network that airs it is owned by O’Reilly’s own boss, Rupert Murdoch.
People may argue that the FOX Broadcasting Company is in no way affiliated with the FOX News channel, and they would be wrong. The FOX Broadcasting Company is owned by FOX Entertainment Group, and the FOX Entertainment Group is a subsidiary of News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Of course, this isn’t the first time a FOX News personality condemned programming from a News Corporation subsidiary. In February of this year, Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld called 9/11 truthers “mentally ill” when he was on FOX and Friends discussing that several episodes of the FX hit Rescue Me were going to deal with the 9/11 conspiracies. FX, of course, is owned by News Corporation.
Another thing that baffles me about O’Reilly’s condemnation of Family Guy is why would he expect a show whose creator is an atheist and openly liberal to advocate or embrace conservatism or religion? Creator Seth MacFarlane admitted he was an atheist in early May on Real Time with Bill Maher.
here’s the clip
Does Bill O’Reilly advocate positions of others that he does not embrace himself? Of course he doesn’t. I would not expect anyone to. But, naturally, here’s Billo believing because he is a (so-called) conservative and a (so-called) religious person, then everyone must hold the exact views he does. And if they don't, they’re a plague on society, despite the fact that Billo’s conduct, behind the scenes and even in some cases openly, is the complete opposite of what he professes to be.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The debunked smear on Alex Jones that the Pittsburgh cop killer, Richard Poplawski, was an Alex Jones follower continues in a Newsweek column
by Larry Simons
July 16, 2009
On Tuesday night’s The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo did a segment on his show where he attacked liberal journalist Rick Perlstein, who wrote an article published in Newsweek on July 10 titled, “Beyond the Palin”. The article is about why conservative elites are nervous about middle and working class white conservatives. Billo was angry with Perlstein for including his name in a list of extremist right wing commentators who influence these working class conservatives…even to the point of violence.
I didn’t think much of the segment. I thought, “just O’ Reilly infuriated again with someone who tells the truth about his constant lies and spin”. Then last night, I browsed the left wing site Crooks and Liars and saw the O’ Reilly story posted by the left wing’s O’ Reilly counterpart, Dave Neiwert. Because of Neiwert’s article, I read the entire Perlstein column and I came to the conclusion that, for reasons different from O’ Reilly’s, Perlstein is a liar.
Perlstein said this:
“Now the violence is back. But this time, the line between the violent fringe and the on-air harvesters of righteous rage has been harder to find. This spring the alleged white-supremacist cop killer in Pittsburgh, Richard Poplawski, professed allegiance to conspiracist Alex Jones, whose theories Fox TV host Glenn Beck had recently been promoting.”
Here is a screenshot of Perlstein's column for verification incase he edits it later
(click to enlarge)
For those who are unaware, this past April 4, after three Pittsburgh cops were killed by Richard Poplawski, liberal sites like The Daily Kos, Media Matters and Raw Story immediately began smearing Alex Jones, saying that Poplawski frequented conspiracy websites and was a follower of Alex Jones, thus attempting to portray Jones as 'violent' and 'dangerous'. After a huge outcry of protest and demand that the sites issue retractions, several complied, including The Daily Kos and Raw Story.
I immediately sent this email to Rick Perlstein:
In your article, "Beyond the Palin" you stated an outrageous lie.
Poplawski did not devote allegiance to Alex Jones. In fact, he opposed Jones' views. Several blogs had written the same lie you did and have issued retractions because they found no proof of it. Care to issue your retraction? Also, you make it appear as if Glenn Beck had directly received his views from Alex Jones and then promoted them on the air. You can claim you didn't say that, but that is how you wanted it to come across to your readers.
Alex Jones is a 9-11 truth activist and has never once called for violence. On many, many occasions Glenn Beck has called 9-11 truth activists "terrorists" or "dangerous anarchists", so how can you claim that Glenn Beck "promoted" Jones' views? Just two weeks ago Beck nodded in agreement when ex-CIA veteran Michael Scheuer said the only thing that could save America is Bin Laden detonating a major device inside the United States. PrisonPlanet posted my article slamming Scheuer and Beck, so how can you claim Jones and Beck are ideologically joined at the hip?
I am not defending Glenn Beck. I happen to think Beck is a corporate controlled media shill and Jones' own websites like PrisonPlanet and Infowars have done dozens upon dozens of articles slamming Beck for his outrageous comments. I should know, I have written several of them. Just because someone like Alex Jones professes a belief or stance on something and another person professes the same view, does not mean they are a part of the same crowd.
Parts of your article were very dishonest. Let me illustrate what you did in your article with an analogy. You basically said that if there are two different anti-war people, and one of them blows up a building in protest and the other marches peacefully in protest, they are both in the same crowd and of the same mind. There's absolutely zero proof Jones and Beck are connected, but you chose to spin and be dishonest---and even lie. You have just parroted an already debunked smear. Here are links of the retractions issued by the sites that lied about Jones, as you did.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pittsburgh_shooter_was_fan_of_rightwing_0405.html (notice the apology at the bottom--they had mentioned Jones' name in the original)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/6/717115/-Poplawski-Linked-to-Stormfront-and-Glenn-Beck (notice the retraction by the highlighted word "UPDATE")
I strongly urge you to issue a retraction to save your journalistic integrity.
Another area where Perlstein’s credibility is shot to hell is when he strongly attempts to make it a clear-cut case that lone wolf shooters only come of out hiding during Democratic administrations. He says:
“Another thing that makes some elite conservatives nervous in this recession is the sheer level of unhinged, even violent irrationality at the grassroots. In postwar America, a panicky, violence-prone underbrush has always been revealed in moments of liberal ascendancy.”
He mentions minutemen militia preparing for a Russian takeover in the Kennedy years, the Posse Comitatus in the Carter years and 6 anti-abortion murders and Oklahoma City during Clinton. Yeah, Perlstein is right. It only happens during the reign of Democrats. John Hinckley trying to assassinate President Reagan and permanently disabling James Brady in 1981, John Lee Malvo and John Allan Muhammad killing 10 people in the Beltway sniper attacks in 2002 and Naveed Afzal Haq killing one and wounding 5 at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle building in 2006 officially do not count since they happened during Republican administrations.
Of course, me saying ‘they don’t count’ was just as absurd as Perlstein’s above quote. My point (buried in thick sarcasm), quite clearly, is that there is always a lone nutball out there, and they are so nutty that they don’t even care what political party resides in the White House.
Perlstein then says:
“And when Kansas doctor George Tiller was murdered in church, Fox star Bill O'Reilly was forced to devote airtime to defending himself against a charge many observers found self-evident: that O'Reilly's claim that "Tiller the baby killer" was getting away with "Nazi stuff" helped contribute to an atmosphere in which Tiller's alleged assassin believed he was doing something heroic.”
But Perlstein would have you believe that Tiller’s assassin, Scott Roeder, was waiting for Barack Obama to be elected President so he could “reveal himself in a moment of liberal ascendancy”, despite the fact that O' Reilly had been vilifying Tiller on radio and TV for FIVE years prior to the murder. I know. Absurd. As absurd as the false left/right paradigm to begin with. This phony paradigm was further exposed by yours truly after the holocaust museum shooting in June when the left (the ones who label themselves "left") called the shooter, James Von Brunn, a "right wing extremist" when in fact he hated Bush, Sr., Bush, Jr., John McCain and FOX News.
In Dave Neiwert’s article at Crooks and Liars, after posting a huge chunk of Perlstein’s column within his story (which included the lie about Alex Jones), Neiwert said this:
“The difference between "propaganda" and "journalism" is that (ideally, at least) the latter is built on a robust consideration of the facts at hand -- and Perlstein's piece clearly is that. Indeed, his piece brings up a lot of inconvenient facts that O' Reilly conveniently omits.”
Clearly is fact, huh? Only O’ Reilly omits facts? This is clearly a case of the blind and the more blind leading the blind!
Posted on PrisonPlanet here
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Billo says “No” to Cap and Trade (and rightfully so), but ordains the reasoning behind it
by Larry Simons
July 15, 2009
On last night’s The O’ Reilly Factor, disinformation slugs O’ Reilly and Glenn Beck were discussing the Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Cap and Trade). Brace yourself. This may be the first and last time you ever see these two right about the same issue again.
Billo correctly called it a ‘con’ while Glenn Beck correctly stated that no matter what you believed about global warming, the Cap and Trade legislation will not do anything to solve the problem. A part of me just knew that one of these two goons couldn't make it to the end of the segment without saying something idiotic or false. My intuition is still batting 1.000.
As Billo was telling Beck that he believed in global warming and acknowledging that Beck did not, Billo said, “I am gonna give you a thermometer for Christmas”. Beck correctly responded by telling Billo, “Temperature peaked 11 years ago. I was with you on global warming. I’ve said this over and over again…you have to be a dummy if you don’t look at the thermometer. The thermometer was showing that it was going up, k? Peaked 11 years ago”, to which O’ Reilly replied:
“Yeah, but the last, in the last 8 years, have been 7 of the warmest years on record”. Beck replies, “Don’t believe that’s true”, to which O’ Reilly says, “Yeah, it is, check it out, check it out, we did.”
watch the video
Only O’ Reilly can make Glenn Beck look like an educated researcher. Of course, as is the case 99% of the time, O’ Reilly is incorrect. Since global temperatures reached its peak in 1998, temperatures dropped significantly in 1999 and 2000 and have risen some since, but leveled off steadily between 2003-2007 but dropped significantly again in 2008.
The chart below, which shows global temperatures since 1893, shows clearly that from right around 1910 until 1960 were our “warmest years on record”. Global temperatures rose again in the early 1970’s as well. Where were the global warming alarmists between 1910 and 1960, and again in the early 70’s? Nowhere. Why? Because temperatures fluctuate, that’s why. In fact, the temperatures have been taking a rapid decline recently.
Last year it was reported that North America had received it’s highest snowfall in over 50 years. Wisconsin was hit by it’s highest snowfall in recorded history. Other states like Florida, Minnesota and Texas also recorded sub-freezing temperatures. It was so bad in Texas early last year that the Dept. of State and Health Services had to issue this warning.
Early last year, China was hit with its coldest winter in 100 years and ironically, even FOX News reported Baghdad’s first snowfall ever. It appears that Billo needs the thermometer for Christmas!
The irony of O’ Reilly making the claim that “7 of the last 8 years” were “the warmest on record” and his anger over the Obama administration agenda to launch the biggest tax hike in the history of the United States is staggering. O’ Reilly is basically saying that he is angry that these criminals in Washington want to do this to the American people, but he agrees as to their reasoning behind it!
Goodness, even Glenn Beck didn’t stoop that low!
Also posted at PrisonPlanet here
Friday, July 10, 2009
by Larry Simons
July 10, 2009
A youth worker at the New Beverly Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee has been taken into custody after it was discovered by deputies that among 45-year-old Randall Thomas Hollifield’s favorite hobbies was to keep photos of children engaged in sexual activities. He has also been charged with two counts of rape of a child.
It seems another favorite hobby of Hollifield’s (outside of his Bible reading and praying) was performing oral sex on a child under 13 and forcing the child to perform oral sex on him. Deputies also found over 3,000 images on his computer and digital camera, in which over 100 of those pictures showed a minor engaged in sexual acts.
I realize this is a very serious story and if it was my child this scumbag raped, I’d shred this guy’s dick with a Slap Chop and shoot the rest of his body out of a cannon (aimed at a lake full of crocodiles). But, tell me this: Why is this even a story? It’s a natural course of events, like when it rains and thunders, things get wet, it clears up and becomes sunny again. A minister, who is a nutball to begin with because, well, he’s a minister… works around kids and he fondles one of them. That’s what religious nutballs do. I'm not intending to insinuate that all religious people molest kids, but most of them do things equally as vile and they all believe nutty things, hence triggering the nutball behavior.
The headline might has well have been, “Sun comes up in the morning; provides mass daylight”, or “Surgeon goes to work; performs surgeries.”
This has been Lifestyles of the Religious Nutball
U.S. government puts states on notice, WHO prepares announcement on jabs
Paul Joseph Watson
July 10, 2009
Swine flu fearmongering is increasing in its intensity the closer we get to fall, which is the timeframe earmarked for the production and potential mandatory distribution of vaccines which may not even properly fight the virus.
Despite the fact that swine flu has killed far fewer people globally than the common flu virus since it was first discovered in April, media scare stories about H1N1 "epidemics" are becoming more and more frequent.
A death toll in Britain of 14, every one of whom had underlying health problems to begin with, has prompted fearmongering headlines despite the fact that the 1999-2000 seasonal flu outbreak affected more people. Add to this the fact that doctors are treating swathes of ordinary flu sufferers as swine flu cases and the exaggerated paranoia is plain to see.
Reuters reports today that the World Health Organization will "issue guidance about the need for a H1N1 influenza jab" during a press conference later today or on Monday. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has put states on notice that swine flu vaccinations will begin in October.
"Swine flu may have faded from the headlines but it’s still sickening people here and abroad and is certain to worsen when influenza-friendly fall temperatures arrive. The federal government called together health and education officials from every state to check their preparations for the likely prospect of vaccinations and determine how they’ll handle flu-riddled schools," reports USA Today.
Preparations are clearly being geared towards a mass rollout of the swine flu vaccine, in other words, a mandatory distribution. Time Magazine has been dutifully preparing Americans to accept this premise, reporting on April 28th that a mass vaccination program is being readied to combat swine flu while also urging Americans to "trust that the government is working for the greater good" and to not resist draconian measures.
The question is, what will happen to the millions of people around the world who will reject the notion that the government can order someone to stick a needle in your arm by force?
A concerned citizen called the the Arkansas State Health Department for advice on what he could do to opt out of the vaccine only to be told that mandatory vaccines were constitutional and could be enforced at gunpoint by the government if necessary.
One of his main concerns centered around the fact that the company chosen to mass produce the swine flu vaccine, Baxter International, were recently caught in a scandal after it emerged they had sent out vaccines contaminated with the H5N1 avian flu virus to 18 countries from their Austrian branch. It was only by providence that the contamination was found after the batch was first tested on ferrets in the Czech Republic, before being shipped out for injection into humans. The ferrets all died and the shocking discovery was made.
Some Czech newspapers speculated at the time that Baxter was embroiled in a conspiracy to provoke a pandemic from which it would reap billions in profits from producing the vaccine to counter a bird flu outbreak.
As we have previously covered, the last time the government ordered a mass vaccination drive in response to a swine flu outbreak, the program had to be stopped short after the shots caused over 500 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a severe paralyzing nerve disease. 30 people died as a direct result of the vaccinations.
As with every flu virus, the particular strain of swine flu currently circulating the globe will inevitably mutate and change, and indeed there is evidence to suggest that this is already taking place – so how on earth could vaccines be a fix all cure unless multiple vaccines produced on an annual basis were distributed?
Ahhhh….now we’re beginning to see the full picture.
Since the corporate media is owned by the same interests that control the pharmaceutical companies, who by the way will stand to profit in the billions and even trillions if a policy of mandatory vaccination is enforced, it is no wonder why the fearmongering is intensifying as we draw closer to the timeframe that officials promised us all along would mark the return of swine flu with a vengeance – along with the mass rollout of vaccines that some people will be less enthusiastic about than others.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
by Larry Simons
July 9, 2009
You’re a non-U.S. citizen and you have been acquitted on terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission? So what. At least this is what the Obama administration's answer will be to that question soon as they seek to indefinitely detain those who have even been acquitted in our own system.
In May, Obama continued another Bush policy of being in favor of indefinitely detaining those in violation of domestic and international law. Apparently, that's not good enough. Now, even if you have been acquitted of terrorism charges, you still pose a threat.
The Defense Department’s chief lawyer, Jeh Johnson, said that not releasing prisoners who have been acquitted was a “policy decision” based on whether that individual posed a threat in the future.
On what Constitutional grounds can this happen? There is none. Seems the only “change” that is taking place is now we have a younger, black man violating the Constitution instead of an old white guy. It appears we are not too far away from a “Minority Report” scenario, in which criminals were apprehended for crimes they committed in the future. Instead, we are now detaining acquitted prisoners indefinitely for crimes we think they might commit in the future. What’s the difference?
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley says this:
“Liberals continue to be largely silent in the face of policies that they once denounced and protested. It is rare to hear any coverage or questions of the Administration’s refusal to investigate war crimes of torture, for example. Liberals seem to be quickly developing a cult of personality that has supplanted the most basic principles of human rights and international law.”
RTO sends out a huge thank you to PrisonPlanet for posting this story and for the continued and overwhelming support of RTO over the past 2 years (especially in the past week alone). I really appreciate it
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Senator Jim DeMint slams Fed’s monopoly, questions where trillions in bailout funds has gone
Paul Joseph Watson
July 7, 2009
A Senate amendment based on Congressman Ron Paul’s successful House bill to audit the Federal Reserve was blocked by the Senate yesterday evening on procedural grounds, as Jim DeMint slammed the Fed for refusing to disclose where trillions in bailout funds had gone, while a top Obama administration advisor called for a second "stimulus" package to be prepared.
Republican Senator DeMint had attempted to get a provision attached to the 2010 spending bill that would have removed restrictions on auditing the Fed’s discount window operations, funding facilities, open market operations and agreements with foreign central banks and governments.
However, the amendment was blocked by Senate authorities who claimed that it violated rules for provisions attached to spending bills.
Of course, when the elite want to get their own legislation rammed through, such as the recent climate bill in the House, it’s perfectly fine for Congressmembers to be prevented from even reading it, for it to have 300 pages added at 3am in the morning before the vote, and for all kinds of pork barrel to be attached. But God forbid should representatives actually try to pass something that would benefit the American people and not the private bankers that are beyond all scrutiny and above the law.
DeMint said that the Fed has enjoyed a monopoly over money and credit in the United States since 1913 yet has never been transparent or accountable to Congress, while during that time the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power.
"The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis," DeMint said. "Americans across the nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone," he added, referring to the Fed’s refusal to disclose where trillions in bailout funds has gone.
"Allowing the Fed to operate our nation’s monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation and a lower quality of life," said DeMint.
A Reuters article about the Senate’s move to block the bill said that the Federal Reserve was "facing growing pressure as it tries to heal the ailing economy."
In reality, the Federal Reserve has done nothing to "heal" the economy as unemployment outstrips expectations and the financial picture only looks bleaker every day. The private, run for profit Fed has taken trillions in "stimulus" funds and refused to even divulge where it has gone, even under threat of lawsuits file by Bloomberg.
Meanwhile, people like Ben Bernanke have committed financial terrorism by threatening an economic collapse if the Fed is allowed to be audited.
Any real audit of the Fed would of course create a giant roadblock for the Obama administration’s plans to launch a whole new program of looting and grand larceny in the guise of a second "stimulus" package.
"We should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus," Laura D’Andrea Tyson, a member of the panel advising President Barack Obama on tackling the economic crisis, said on Tuesday," reports CNBC.
This is precisely why Senate authorities, bought and paid for by the private bankers that now own the United States, have blocked efforts to audit the Fed, because they know that the fallout will spell disaster for their place on the power peanut gallery and in turn end the ceaseless feasting at the trough of the battered, bruised and shaken-down American taxpayer.
Watch a clip of DeMint’s comments on the Senate floor yesterday.
End of Watson story
by Larry Simons
Meanwhile, liberal websites such as Crooks and Liars paint Jim DeMint as “wacky”. Why? Because he understands how the Federal Reserve operates and the Obama-loving left-wing yo-yo’s either do not understand the Fed, or they simply don’t care about the profound impact these criminals have on the lives of the American taxpayer.
According to writer Susie Madrak at C & L, if people are being “put to work” because of the stimulus, then it matters not that the printing of money itself leads to more inflation and the continued devaluation of our dollar, hence devaluing the quality of life for Americans. Who cares, right? Move on, move on…nothing to see here.
Oh, and by the way, the so-called “jobs” she claims the stimulus creates, as she puts it (quoting Economic Collapse accomplice Barney Frank), “Among the projects supported by members of Congress that have been funded: $116 million for a federal courthouse in Austin; $35 million to $60 million for toxic waste cleanups in Massachusetts and Colorado; and $5 million for the removal of pine trees killed by bark beetles in Colorado, records show.”
In other words, temporary jobs! What happens when the courthouse is built, the toxic waste is cleaned up and the pine trees are removed? That’s right, back to the unemployment line. Meanwhile the $181 million used on the above projects has been added to the money supply and further obliterating the value of the dollar. But who gives a fuck, right? It put hundreds of people to work for a few months! Whoopdity-fucking-do!
Who cares about accountability? Who cares where 2 trillion of stimulus money has gone, and who cares if they've never told us? All unimportant to Obama-loving liberals. Just details, who cares? And because Jim DeMint wants to find out where 2 trillion has gone and wants accountability, he's a "kook" to liberals! What kind of sick and twisted mind does it require to be so in love with your political party, that you turn traitor and completely ignore the Constitution, common sense and sanity? Bush had his base of zombies, and so does Obama. When will this left/right paradigm end?
We won't have our country back until it does.
Thanks again to PrisonPlanet for posting this commentary. Two in a row now I didn't submit that made it to PP. I'm very flattered!
Amendments to H.R. 2647 empower Holder to demonize law-abiding American citizens as "extremists" under definitions already established by Homeland Security
Paul Joseph Watson
July 6, 2009
Amendments to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which has already been passed by the House, would empower the Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists in light of recent federal reports that classify millions of Americans as "extremists".
Former impeached Florida judge and now Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings has introduced amendments to H.R. 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which would give Holder dictator powers to demonize legitimate protest groups as being affiliated with violent race hate organizations.
The bill is ostensibly aimed at preventing race "extremists" and gang members from joining the Army, but since the Army already hires felons, criminals, racists and gang members, the real purpose behind the legislation is to codify the move to label gun owners, "anti-government" activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists, a process that has been ongoing since at least the start of the decade.
The bill’s definition of "people associated or affiliated with hate groups" include, "Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government," or "Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature."
The evidence required to show that such an organization is affiliated with a violent hate group includes people possessing tattoos identifying them with the group, individuals who attend conferences or rallies sponsored by a "hate group," people who engage in online discussion forums of an "extremist" nature, people who possess documents, books or photographs or simply "related materials as defined by the Attorney General" that represent "hate propaganda."
The amendments introduced by Hastings were passed by the House and the bill now moves on to the Senate for approval before it is signed by the President.
Since the definition of an "extremist" has already been established by numerous federal documents over the last few years that list law-abiding citizens as domestic terrorists, Hastings’ amendments are simply an attempt to centralize the power to demonize such groups into the hands of the Obama administration.
"This is arguably one of the worst pieces of legislation to come down the pike in a long, long time. In essence Attorney General Eric Holder — a Bill Clinton retread — will have the discretion to label Americans terrorists. Hastings is a dangerous man and should be forced to resign from congress. This amendment is part and parcel of the trend in this country to suppress dissent by patriots by calling them domestic terrorists," warns writer Mike Baker.
Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) expressed his concern about the amendment on the house floor, noting that under Homeland Security’s very definition of what constitutes an "extremist", the majority of Americans will be characterized as hate criminals.
"While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as "extremists," warned Franks.
"I take extreme offense that the federal government — through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official — would dare to categorize people who are "dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration" as "right-wing extremists" and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings’ Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged," said Rep. Franks.
As we reported in April, a recent Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment equates gun owners with violent terrorists and states that radical extremists are "stockpiling" weapons in fear of an Obama administration gun ban.
The document, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, states;
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
A similar report was also issued by the DHS at the end of March which listed the "alternative media" with other radical extremist groups and implies that people who disagree with the mass media’s version of events are potential domestic terrorists.
Both documents were just the latest in a long sordid line of training manuals in which the federal government characterizes millions of American citizens as potentially violent terrorists who are a threat to law enforcement, and designates them under the umbrella term of "extremists," in the same context cited in Hastings’ amendments.
As we have exhaustively documented with the MIAC report and a whole host of others, the federal government apparently has very little concern for any perceived terrorist threat to America coming from the MIddle East or Al-Qaeda cells within the country, and indeed if any such threat existed we are only in more danger, because the feds have been busy training law enforcement that law-abiding American citizens who exercise their legal right to purchase firearms or who exercise their first amendment right to discuss politics or run websites, are potential terrorists who want to instigate a violent revolution.
In addition, current Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course material states that the exercise of First Amendment rights in the U.S. constitutes terrorist activity.
Over the last few years we have documented countless examples of security assessment reports from the likes of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, which state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.
The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930’s and that it can only be a matter of time before the right "emergency" provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.
No one can claim now that this is merely a paranoid delusion – the government itself is training its law enforcement and military arms that protesters and people who use their First Amendment rights are domestic terrorists.
The facilities for round-ups of "extremists" who dare to exercise their First or Second Amendment rights are already being prepared, again with the help of Hastings, who sponsored (HR 645) – the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act.
The bill authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.
Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security," an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.
The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country.
The camps will double up as "command and control" centers that will also house a "24/7 operations watch center" as well as training facilities for Federal, State, and local first responders.
The bill also contains language that will authorize camps to be established within closed or already operating military bases around the country.As we have previously highlighted, in early 2006 Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.
The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used "as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency."
As far back as 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.
A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, was more recently updated and the revision details a "template for developing agreements" between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations."
Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps.
Hastings’ efforts to have millions of law-abiding American citizens lumped in with racist gangs and designated as "extremists" arrives on the back of Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize "thought crimes," that has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act).
S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in "hate speech" transmitted over television, radio, and the internet.
The House version of the bill states:
"Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)"
In other words, if a talk show host engages in "hostile" speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.
The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been "harmful" to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.
If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.
All of these coordinated moves to demonize informed, armed and pissed off Americans as extremists, terrorists and hate criminals represents the federal government’s final push to brainwash the population into accepting the notion that some Americans are dangerous, that they are enemies of the state, and that they can be targeted in the same way that victims of the "war on terror" are now being targeted across the world – through misappropriation of guilt, torture and indefinite imprisonment.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Hit TV show exposes what can happen to you (the parent) for posting your children's picture on websites that are meant for family and friends
by Larry Simons
July 3, 2009
I have told people this before, even some friends of mine (and they know who they are), but they get very defensive, blow it off and acted as if I was "judging" them. What is it, you ask? Warning people that posting pictures of their own children, even in what they may view as the most 'innocent' of circumstances, can lead to not only a pedophile getting access to their children's picture, but to the imprisonment of the parents themselves.
The hit TV show Raising the Bar, which airs Mondays at 10pm (EST) on TNT, covered this very issue this past Monday (June 29). In the episode titled, "No Child's Left Behind", defense attorney Jerry Kellerman (played by Mark-Paul Gosselaar) defends a father who took a picture of his young son getting out of a tub and posted it on his personal website.
The picture of his son then ends up on a child porn website. Do authorities go after the sick bastard who posted it on the child porn site? Nope. The father is charged, loses his job, gets ousted as his son's little league coach, gets his visitation time with his son reduced to one hour a week (supervised) and is branded a pedophile by the local community and is brought to trial.
Prosecuting attorney Nick Balco (played by Currie Graham) utters the most profound line in the episode when he says, "I want people to understand your webpage is not as private as you think. Protect your kids."
Click here to watch the episode
Why do parents do this anyway, even if nothing bad ever resulted from it? What is the purpose of showcasing your private, personal and most intimate details of your life with complete strangers and every sick son-of-a-bitch who walks the Earth? It astounds me as to why grown men and women feel the need to show the world a photo album of their lives.
Can anyone understand this?