Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Andy "Obama has restored America’s confidence" Ostroy is a delusional fraud

Andy’s latest love letter to Obama focuses only on the economy (even lying about that), while purposely omitting one tiny, insignificant thing…..Obama’s actions and policies are a continuation of Bush!

by Larry Simons
April 28, 2009

Andy "the flip-flopping fraud (FFF)" Ostroy has written another misleading, spin-ridden, lie-packed tribute to his Lord and Savior, Barack Hussein Obama. In his latest article titled, "What Obama’s Done for America’s Confidence", Ostroy does not mention one thing Obama has done that has boosted the confidence of Americans. It’s nothing but a 371-word unsourced financial report with a few poll results inserted.

The entire article can be summed up in one sentence: Americans are spending more money because Barack Obama is the President. Huh? Not once in the entire article does Ostroy make the connection between consumers spending more money and Obama having anything to do with it.

Ostroy writes:

"What is a recession? What constitutes a bear stock market? In both cases, it's nothing more than perception. It's the collective belief by consumers and businesses alike that things are bad and getting worse." Then he says, "We therefore create the very things we fear most. When that happens, nothing can turn it around except a very different perception. The shifting sentiment that things are looking better."

In other words, the recession is in our heads. We're just imagining it. A recession is based on human emotions, not a lack of business profiteering, massive unemployment or low investment spending. This is what Ostroy is asking you to believe. But now that his Messiah Obama is in office, people "feel" better and their confidence has been boosted. All of a sudden, with Obama in office, they are being hired for jobs that aren’t available, they are spending money that they don’t have. It’s truly a miracle! Forget walking on water. Obama has fixed a great depression in just 100 days!

Naturally Ostroy fails to mention that he used to believe the financial crisis was equaled to that of the Great Depression. In his article titled, "Debate #1: The Knockout that Wasn't. What Obama Needs to Do Next Time" from September 28, 2008 about the first Obama/McCain debate, Ostroy said this:

"Neither candidate came even close to capitalizing on the Wall Street crisis, but no one expected McCain to. This was supposed to be Obama's strength. He could've and should've hit a grand slam on this one. The nation is struggling with a financial disaster which billionaire investor Warren Buffett calls an "economic Pearl Harbor." Americans are fearing for their jobs, their homes and their savings, and where it mattered, Obama was impotent. Worse, on the economy, it was McCain who surprisingly held his own. It's astounding to me how, in the middle of the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression, the focus was on earmarks and wasteful spending."

In Ostroy’s article titled, "Mushroom Clouds" Part II: Grandma Sarah Warns "It's the WMD's Again, Stupid!" from September 19, 2008, he said this:

"…it's still abundantly clear that the economy is in a state of absolute crisis. Financial experts are calling the banking and mortgage disaster the most grave situation since the Great Depression."

In Ostroy’s article titled, "President Barack Hussein Obama. America's Shining Moment", from November 5, 2008, he said this:

"To be sure, the real work must now start. President Obama (man, that sounds soooo good) has a new mountain to climb, with two wars, terrorism, and the worst economic maelstrom since the Great Depression."

So, you see, Ostroy had no problem with likening the current financial crisis to the Great Depression, but a recession (which isn’t as bad as a "depression")? That's in our heads. It’s all "perception".

In fact, many financial experts reported that we are in a depression, not a recession here, here and here. But, it’s all in our heads according to Ostroy.

Flip-flopping is nothing new for Ostroy. After all, he now supports the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now that Obama has increased troop levels and funding, but strongly opposed the wars under Bush, constantly calling them disasters and likening them to Vietnam.

Ostroy then babbles:

"Which brings us to a new ABC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday indicating that 50% of Americans now believe the country is headed in the right direction, versus just 8% in October, before the presidential election and three months before Barack Obama took office. Additionally, the Consumer Confidence Index released Tuesday showed a significant increase to 39.2% in March vs. 26.9% in February. Throw in Obama's approval rating, which hovers around 65%, and it's a pretty safe bet that Americans are starting to feel much better about the nation's leadership and the overall direction of the economy and the country."

Ostroy includes no links, no listing of researched facts or no evidence that there is any connection between the above poll results and Obama making people "confident" to spend money. Also not included in Ostroy’s article is any evidence that people are spending money. In fact, I laughed out loud when I read Ostroy’s next paragraph in which he states:

"When consumers start feeling better about things, they spend. It starts with little things like clothes, toys, books, etc. They take extra trips to the mall. Then they slowly return to big-ticket items. They buy electronics, cars, houses, take vacations. And when they spend, it fattens corporate earnings. And that leads to job growth, reinvestment and spending on capital improvements. Pretty soon, recession turns to prosperity. Of course, I'm over simplifying, and an economic recovery can take a long while to achieve any appreciable measure of growth."

Any evidence that people are "feeling better about things"? Unemployment is at the highest its been in 30 years. People are losing their homes and their jobs. Panic about Obama's anti-gun record is climbing, not to mention new fears now about the swine flu. It's the complete opposite of people "feeling better about things", but Ostroy wants us to believe that the absence of Bush and the presence of Obama automatically puts fears to rest and restores hope, despite the fact that Obama has continued every single Bush policy.

Where's the evidence that people are buying cars and houses? I guess the auto industry and housing crises are figments of our imaginations too! Even if Ostroy had evidence that the economy is booming, where’s the connection between economic growth and Obama?

This is what made my sides split. Ostroy concludes:

"…the simple truth is that his 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."

"Major progress?" Where’s the proof of this? "Restoring customer confidence?" Where are the cited sources for this statement? Since Ostroy believes that just Obama’s presence magically transforms all disasters and tragedies into utopias, why isn’t Obama’s presence transforming another tragedy, that of the mind of Andy Ostroy, into a normal, sane one?

Deep down, Andy has to know that Obama has not done jack shit for America in these first 100 days. I’m assuming this is why he did not mention anything but the economy (even offering no evidence of an Obama/booming economy connection). He "conveniently" left out the following glaring facts about Obama’s first 100 days:

(Excerpt from Paul Joseph Watson’s article, "Obama’s First 100 Days: Worse Than Even We Predicted" from April 20, 2009)

Watson lists questions for the Obama presidency before he took office and supplies the answers.

- Will Obama support Dennis Kucinich’s efforts to bring war crimes charges against Bush, Cheney and others for deceiving the country into a war or will he protect them against such charges like Nancy Pelosi has done?

In April 2008, Obama promised that as President he would ask his Attorney General to "immediately review" potential war crimes that occurred under the Bush White House. Obama or his Attorney General have done no such thing, and every noise they have made suggests that top Neo-Cons will be protected from deceiving America into a war.

Similarly we asked:

- Will Obama bring war crimes charges against Bush, Cheney and others for authorizing torture and will the torture of suspects under U.S. detention, a complete violation of both the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, cease under an Obama administration?

As we found out last week, the answer was a resounding NO. Upon the release of the torture memos, Obama’s right-hand man, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel,
told ABC News that top Bush administration officials "should not be prosecuted either and that’s not the place that we go." In addition, Obama’s statement that accompanied the release of the torture memos stated, "In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."

So no retribution for the people who ordered the torture, and no retribution to the people who carried it out, thus setting the precedent that future administrations are free to order torture - safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences whatsoever.

- Will Obama withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan without sending them away again to bomb another broken-backed third world country?

The answer again is a resounding NO. Upon taking office, Obama announced that he would be sending another 17,000, and eventually perhaps as many as 30,000, extra troops to Afghanistan.

Regarding Iraq, after the "withdrawal" of U.S. troops in 19 months, a timescale that has since been put back again, "Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a "residual force" of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions,"
reported the New York Times.

In terms of bombing another broken-backed third world country, Obama has beefed the U.S. military role in Pakistan beyond that pursued by the Bush administration and "expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency inside Pakistan,"
according to the New York TImes, with an increase in missile attacks by drone aircraft.

Obama’s war chest demands came to a total of around $800 billion in war funds and subsidiary costs just to cover the rest of 2009.

Does any of this sound like a move towards bringing the troops home and rolling back the American empire, as Obama promised before he was elected?

- Will Obama end the warrantless secret surveillance and phone-taps of American citizens?

You’ll be shocked the learn that the answer was a resounding NO. Earlier this month, "The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration’s position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) warrantless wiretapping program,"
reported the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration’s cover-up of the National Security Agency’s dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a ’secret’ that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

- Will Obama cease his support for the Bush-administration backed banker bailouts, hated by the majority of Americans, and target the real cause of the problem - the Federal Reserve - or will he continue to give taxpayers’ money to banks who are merely hoarding it all for themselves?

Obama’s zealous push for more bailouts, along with increased power for the Federal Reserve and the implementation of global regulations that will effectively end any notion of a free market was perhaps the defining issue of his first 100 days as President. Obama has vigorously promoted the same financial policies that were introduced by the Bush administration in its final few months.

- Will Obama repeal Patriot Acts I and II as well as reversing Bush’s signing statement and acknowledging the repeal of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act? Will Obama seek to continue the militarization of America and preparations for martial law through Northcom and the secret government or will he dismantle the police state that has been constructed over the last eight years by the Bush administration?

Despite initial rhetoric about reversing Bush’s infamous signing statements, Obama himself stated that he will
continue to use signing statements. The Patriot Act and its additions as well as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, both core planks of the Bush police state, remain firmly in place, with no sign of any reversal.

Regarding militarization through Northcom, weeks after Obama’s election victory
it was announced that, "The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials." Militarization of law enforcement and troops being used domestically in preparation for martial law is continuing apace under the Obama administration.

- Will Obama follow through on his rhetorical support for the second amendment or will he seek to ban guns as he did in Illinois?

Despite Obama promising that he was not interested in going after the second amendment before his election, one of his first actions was to appoint the
rabidly anti-gun Eric Holder as his Attorney General. Obama has also falsely blamed the drug war crisis in Mexico on American gun shops. The leaked Obama gun ban list would make millions of Americans criminals for owning weapons such certain types of rifles or pistols. Anti-gun legislation has found its way into stimulus and other unrelated bills as pork barrel. The first steps of the Obama administration with regard to gun control have resulted in record firearm and ammunition purchases across the country.

Upon Obama’s election we made a cynical but unfortunately accurate prediction of how the much vaunted promise of "change" would actually manifest itself. The fact is that the "change" began and ended on the day Obama won the election.

- Illegal warrantless surveillance and wiretapping of American citizens will continue under Obama.

- Top Bush administration officials who ordered torture and those that carried it out will be protected from prosecution under Obama.

- Top Bush administration officials who deceived America into a war will be protected from prosecution under Obama.

- The expansion of the military empire through continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and further military incursions into Pakistan will continue and expand under Obama.

- Banker bailouts, reckless spending, inflation of currency through overprinting and global regulations stifling the free market, all of which were initiated under Bush, will continue under Obama.

- The militarization of the United States and the architecture of the police state that was set up under Bush will be preserved and expanded under Obama.

- The attack on the second amendment right to bear arms will continue under Obama.

----End of Watson excerpt----

Naturally, Ostroy "left out" anything that even resembled a similarity between Obama and Bush. Not an accident. This is why Ostroy mentioned the economy alone. He knew that if he mentioned anything else, it would have "Bush’s 3rd term" written all over it….so he simply avoided it. And that makes him the super, flaming FRAUD he is.

I sent Ostroy a post on his blog reminding him that maybe he’s now finding out that neocons are not just old, white men.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Alex Jones TV: Swine Flu Special Report

April 26, 2009

Alex makes an emergency broadcast on the latest developments with the spread of swine flu

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Insane Cop Arrests ABC News Reporter For Filming Traffic Accident

Some speculate authorities didn’t want involvement of troops in car wreck caught on camera
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
April 22, 2009

It’s becoming a disturbingly familiar scene in America - aggressive, overbearing and mentally unstable cops who think that it is an arrestable offense not to obey their every order - harassing citizens who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

The latest example comes from El Paso, Texas, where a local ABC news reporter and his cameraman were arrested simply for something they routinely do every day as part of their job - filming traffic incidents.

The reporters, Darren Hunt and photojournalist Ric DuPont, were standing behind a barrier well away from the car wreck but were quickly approached by the cop - Sgt. Ramirez - who immediately shouted that they had to leave.

As the video shows, despite the fact that the reporters start to back away towards their truck, the cop runs after them after one of them dares to speak - reminding the officer that America is supposed to be a free country with freedom of the press and that the cameraman "can shoot if he wants to".

The cop then grabs Hunt by his pants and threatens to arrest him, shouting, "I gave you an order," with the reporter protesting, "I didn’t do anything."

Presumably, the cop thinks that it is illegal and therefore an arrestable offense not to follow any order given by a police officer - or even worse - because the reporters were actually following his order - the cop thinks its an arrestable offense merely to verbally disagree with a police officer.

Despite the reporter not resisting or attempting to return to the scene of the wreck, the cop tries to slap the cuffs on anyway. "I’m not doing anything, I’m just trying to leave sir," states Hunt as the cop wildly shrieks behind him and pulls his arms behind his back.

The officer then pushes Hunt up against the fence and turns to grab DuPont’s camera, before he too is arrested. With the two reporters now out of view, more insane shrieking can be heard from the cop.

Upon arrival at the police station, the reporters were released within minutes - proving that they had done absolutely nothing worthy of being arrested in the first place. Sgt. Ramirez has been placed on leave pending an investigation.

Some have speculated that the presence of military soldiers at the scene of the car wreck, which is captured on film near the end of the clip, was something that the authorities did not want to be documented on camera.

As we have previously warned, thousands of active duty military personnel are being brought back from Iraq and Afghanistan to conduct "homeland patrols" under Northcom. The Army Times reported that their duties would include training to "use jaws of life to extract a person from a mangled vehicle," as well as " civil unrest and crowd control."

We have been ringing the alarm bell for years about the integration of the military into law enforcement and have consistently warned that the idea of troops on the streets as a matter of routine will be incrementally introduced to Americans by means of soldiers being used in traffic accidents. This would engender the idea that the troops are here to "help" in times of need.

However, the troops may have just been traveling to or from their army base and happened to come across the accident and offer assistance, which is perfectly plausible.

The major thing to take away from watching this video is the insane behavior of the cop and his belief that citizens must comply with his every order or face arrest, despite them having done nothing wrong whatsoever.

These scenes are becoming commonplace in America. Something has gone seriously wrong somewhere along the line with police training, a fact highlighted by the recent MIAC and Homeland Security reports, which revealed that police are being trained that American citizens who are merely knowledgeable about their rights under the U.S. constitution are considered a threat and potential terrorists.

Watch the clip of the incident below  

Ostroy resorts to a new low (even for him); posing as his own “screener”

Left wing flip-flopper Andy Ostroy is caught red-handed posing as his “screener” on his blog

by Larry Simons
April 22, 2009

It’s just another day in Fraudville for left wing stooge, Andy Ostroy. It’s bad enough that I have caught him flip-flopping over the war in Iraq and exposed his Rush Limbaugh-esque fraudulent rants, but now he has sunk to a new low. Now he is posing as his own “screener” on his blog. I have come to the conclusion that there is only one reason he is doing this. So he can address my posts while at the same time claim that Andy (who is really the “screener”) “never sees” my posts.

Before I get to the proof , let me first address how ridiculous it is for Ostroy to even need a screener, even if he is telling the truth (which he is not). Have you seen his blog? It looks easier to maintain than a myspace page. It is merely the most basic of blogs and he averages posting a story once every two weeks, if that. A 5-year-old could run his blog, and he needs a screener?

A few days ago, I posted a message on his blog. I forget exactly what I said, but it had something to do with the fact that I was the one who forced him to enable his comment moderation again and that I owned his blog. My post wasn’t important, but what is important is that the next day I received a response from “Loren”, Ostroy’s “screener” (hold on, I have to laugh….OK, I’m done).

“Loren” said to me:

This is a message to the individual who repeatedly sends in comments under the name "Larry." I am the screener working with Andy. He only sees the ones that make it past me, and given the unacceptible nature of your posts, he never sees them, as they are immediately rejected. You're welcome to keep writing, but it just seems like it is an awful waste of time for you. If you can try to get your points across without all the combativeness I'm sure they'd make it through, just like everyone else's. I'm sure you have it in you to be nicer!”----Loren 9:19PM

That post from “Loren” was posted on April 20 (at 9:19PM) on the thread of a story titled, “Twitter Dumb and Twitter Dee”. I posted my comment earlier that day (April 20). What I found very, very interesting is that Andy wrote another story that same night (April 20) titled “Obama and Chavez: What's Wrong with this Picture?” and I noticed what time Andy posted the story…….9:20PM a minute after “Loren the screener" posted the above comment!

Are we to believe that his “screener”, “Loren” posted their comment at 9:19PM and then logged off, and that Andy logged on at 9:20PM and posted his new story in under a minutes’ time? Even if Andy had not written his story straight to his blog and used an outside program like Microsoft Word (which is what I do as well) to write his story and then post it to his blog, he really expects us to believe his “screener” was on his site at almost the exact same time he was? I guess it’s possible, but hardly probable.

What I find interesting about this stunt by Ostroy is that he has continually accused me of saying “hateful”, “racist” and “anti-Semitic” things on his blog (which is a big lie [and even if I had said those things, Ostroy was compassionate enough to remove the evidence of my crime by deleting my comments]), but Ostroy himself has violated one of the Blogger.com rules: Impersonation. Blogger.com rules state: “We do not allow impersonation of others through our services in a manner that is intended to or does mislead or confuse others.”

I just proved Ostroy is posing as his “screener”, a violation of Blogger’s policy.

To stoop this low requires some sort of mental instability. It requires the lack of integrity and the lack of a conscience to be able to lie to yourself with ease. Congrats Andy, you now have the credentials to be a politician.


"Loren" a.k.a. Andy has posted this comment in response to another blogger who wondered why Andy doesn't include all comments posted:

"I can assure you, 99% of all comments are being posted. The only ones that do not make here onto Andy's blog are those that are combative, involve name-calling and or are off topic. And in all honestly, the only posts being rejected have come from one person in particular. So, nothing's changed except for that person. I hope this helps." ---Loren

I posted this in response (although I am quite sure it will be rejected, despite the fact that it is not combative, includes name-calling or off topic):

"You forgot comments that expose Andy's blatant flip-flopping on now supporting the war. Andy, the gig is up pal, I know YOU are "Loren". I wrote a story about it on my blog.
Case in point---why wouldn't you post THIS post of mine? Its simply a reply to yours. Im not allowed to reply to your posts? Tell me what part of this very post is combative, involves name-calling or is off topic? But yet, you wont post it---I wonder why Andy?"

I'm anxiously awaiting "Loren's/Andy's" reply. It should take her(?) a few hours to respond since she has such a high volume of posts to moderate, lol.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Congressman Ron Paul Defends Concept Of Secession

Defines principle as an American tradition

Steve Watson
April 21, 2009

Texas Congressman Ron Paul appeared on CNN’s Morning America today to defend the right of secession as an American tradition amid a growing media misrepresentation of the concept as unpatriotic.

"I think the biggest surprise to me was the outrage expressed toward an individual who even thinks along these lines," The Congressman commented.

"I heard people say this was treasonous and this was un-American, but don’t they remember how we came into being? We used secession, we seceded from England." Paul said.

The Congressman explained that just because people are talking about the principle of secession, that doesn’t mean that they are calling for it.

"It’s a very good principle, it’s a principle of a free society and it’s a shame we don’t have it anymore," Paul said.

"I argue that if we had the principle of secession our Federal government wouldn’t be as intrusive into State affairs, and to me that would be very good."

The subject hit headlines last week when Texas Governor Rick Perry raised the prospect of Texas seceding from the union.

Critics have charged that Perry is exploiting the burgeoning States rights’ movement for his own political ends.

Turning to the economy, the Congressman was also asked whether select banks turning over record profits was an indication of the success of the bailout policy, to which he replied:

"If a gangster steals money and he’s successful you don’t celebrate! This is just going to make the people angrier."

Watch the video:

Related: Ron Paul On Seccession

Monday, April 20, 2009

This Week in Dave the Fraud

This week: Dave's disgust with American citizens running for office in the United States of America

by Larry Simons
April 20, 2009

On Dave "I'm all about the truth" Willis' recent post here, titled....actually there is no title to it, Dave Willis expresses his disgust about Al Franken winning the Senate race in Minnesota. Dave the Fraud writes, "If this guy is Minnesota's new Senator then you can add that state to my growing list of places where I will never live! Governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura was bad enough, but this proves his election was no anomaly. First a "professional" wrestler and now a comedian! I'm all for anyone having a shot at political office, but Minnesota could do better."

Naturally, "all about the truth" Willis fails to mention one thing that made Jesse Ventura a bad governor, nor does he mention anything that makes Franken bad outside of the fact that Ventura was a wrestler/actor and Franken is a comedian.

In fact, on several occasions I have seen Dave say on his blog that he dismisses the neoconservatives and clings to those who are more Independent. So why does he dislike Ventura, who is currently with the Independence party of Minnesota? Ventura is a strong constitutionalist and believes strongly in personal liberty and has even supported Ron Paul (as Willis has claimed he has as well), including being a guest speaker at Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic on September 2, 2008.

Dave must be a diehard Republican and not a third party advocate after all. Maybe Dave is just a big Norm Coleman fan, after all the only two times Coleman has ever lost elections, he lost to.....Ventura and Franken. Hardly a coincidence.

This all boils down to the fact that religious people are complete morons when it comes to knowing what is best for the country. This is the very reason why the founding fathers wanted religion to be completely separate from political issues. Willis is just one of the masses of duped people that whenever they see the word "Republican" next to a politicians name, it must mean they have been ordained by the hand of God.

Who cares if Coleman is a Freemason? That means nothing to Willis. Who cares if Coleman supported the Iraq war, the REAL ID Act, the Military Commissions Act? Who cares if Coleman co-sponsored the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007? Who cares if Coleman voted to grant legal immunity to telecom corporations that cooperated with the NSA warrantless surveillance program? Who cares if Coleman (although agreeing that waterboarding is torture) opposed a measure that would have outlawed its use by the CIA? Who cares if 90% of everything Coleman voted on was in complete agreement with the Bush administration? Who cares? Willis voted for Ron Paul because he said he hated neocons? What's Coleman but a younger George W. Bush with a prettier wife?

I guess Willis just doesn't like Ventura because Ventura is a free thinker and has spoken out against religion and Dave Willis just doesn't like it. In his 1999 memoir titled, "I Ain't Got Time To Bleed", Ventura said:

"I don’t have any problem with the vast majority of religious folks. I count myself among them, more or less. But I believe because it makes sense to me, not because I think it can be proven. There are lots of people out there who think they know the truth about God and religion, but does anybody really know for sure? That’s why the founding fathers built freedom of religious belief into the structure of this nation, so that everybody could make up their minds for themselves. But I do have a problem with the people who think they have some right to try to impose their beliefs on others. I hate what the fundamentalist fanatics are doing to our country. It seems as though, if everybody doesn’t accept their version of reality, that somehow invalidates it for them. Everybody must believe the same things they do. That’s what I find weak and destructive."

My goodness, does Ventura know Dave Willis?

Yeah....Dave doesn't like it when people are HONEST and ADMIT that they don't really know if God is there or not. Despite the fact that Willis is among the people who deep down do not really KNOW that God is there (how do I know this? because he's a HUMAN BEING), he goes on pretending he does know for sure because if he admits that he's not sure, he will be run out of his job and lose his home. What a complete sell-out and fraud.

So, Dave is left with no choice but to create a phony blog that he visits every few days to post to his sheeple audience that he still believes in talking donkeys, talking snakes and 500 year old men who build Titanic-sized boats by themselves with wood that was magically cut with the bandsaw of God and without nails. Dave doesn't need evidence. If he's against it, it's wrong. If he supports it, it's right, regardless of research, evidence or proof.

I'd respect Dave more if he actually gave REASONS for not liking Ventura or Franken (even if I disagreed), but no, Dave "all about the truth" Willis won't even stoop so low as to list even ONE reason (outside of the fact that Ventura and Franken were in the entertainment business). I didn't realize that if you were a comedian or a wrestler that you couldn't run in a Senate or Gubernatorial race. I thought all you had to be was an American citizen. Even that makes John McCain unqualified.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

The final goodbye to our Angel

by Larry Simons
April 18, 2009

I was sick but I was not going to miss attending the public service held for Los Angeles Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart on Friday at Williamsport High School, where Nick graduated in 2004. Adenhart was killed in a hit-and-run car accident on April 9, 2009 just hours after pitching the best game of his career against the Oakland Athletics.

Pictures were not allowed to be taken inside the gymnasium where family, friends and the community gathered to pay their last respects to the 22-year-old major league pitcher. I did not stay long, but I saw many people wearing baseball attire (which the family encouraged people to do), many wearing shirts (myself included) with Adenhart’s picture, his name or his # 34.

In the front of the gymnasium was a memorial set up with personal family photos of Nick’s life with his family and friends and some of his personal belongings, including a Washington Redskins jersey that was the size of what a teenager would wear. I only had to guess this was a jersey Nick wore when he was 14 or 15, which wasn’t too long ago.

There was also a slideshow, which showed pictures of Nick with his family and friends throughout his life. One very interesting picture in the slideshow showed Nick with Cal Ripken, Jr., which looked like it may have been taken 4 or 5 years ago.

The only picture I was able to capture was outside the gymnasium, where above the doors was displayed Nick’s # 34 that he wore with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

Outside of the Williamsport High School gymnasium where Adenhart's public memorial service was held on April 17, 2009

Nick was a real hometown hero. A Hagerstown kid who made it to the big leagues. Whether he would have achieved greatness is something we will never know.

I haven't felt like this since University of Maryland basketball star Len Bias died in June of 1986 shortly after he was drafted by the Boston Celtics. It really hit close to home. Adenhart's death hit even closer. He lived in the same town I live in and went to the same high school my daughter attends.....that's close.

We will never know if Buddy Holly would have been the next Elvis. We will never know if Len Bias would have been the next Michael Jordan, and we will never know if Adenhart would have been the next Nolan Ryan. Adenhart was our Buddy Holly. He was our Len Bias. Small town boys who made it to the big time and taken from us before we ever had a chance to see what true greatness may have been waiting for us.

Ironically, Holly, Bias and Adenhart were all taken at age 22.

Here are clips of Nick Adenhart in action

Memorial donations may be made to:

"34 Angel Forever"; send donations payable to The Nick Adenhart Memorial Fund, Geier Financial Group, 2205 Warwick Way, Suite 200, Marriottsville, MD 21104.

Online condolences may be made to the family

Friday, April 17, 2009

DHS "Rightwing Extremism" Document Created During Bush Administration

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
April 17, 2009

After the Department of Homeland Security’s report on "rightwing extremism" was leaked and posted on Infowars and other alternative news sites, so-called conservatives wasted little time blaming the Obama administration for the report.

However, recent evidence reveals the report has nothing to with the supposed "Marxist" (as Michael Savage and others would have it) persuasion of the Obama administration. It is a product created by a government not interested in the artificial divides of the right-left paradigm and concentrates on one primary objective – to demonize and criminalize all effective opposition.

The "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" document was produced during the Bush administration, as a quick check of the PDF document’s properties reveals. It was created on January 23, 2007.

In other words, the document is not a reflection of the supposed sinister political coloration of the Obama administration, said by many "conservatives" to be socialist or Marxist. It is a document produced specifically as part of a larger effort to demonize and eliminate all opposition regardless of political persuasion.

An earlier report produced by the Strategic Analysis Group, Homeland Environment and Threat Analysis Division of the DHS concentrated on "leftwing extremism" ( Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade), again demonstrating the government does not hold an ideological bias when it comes demonizing groups and individuals opposed to the government.

The latest DHS report is designed to portray anti-government groups as dangerous and potentially violent terrorists and thus scare off and balkanize supporters. It also provides the corporate media with an excuse to polarize important issues and dismiss supporters as either misled or as deluded and violent conspiracy theorists.

In particular, some observers claim the report was released and hyped by the corporate media in order to deligitimize Tea Party demonstrations against government spending and taxes held around the country. For instance, the Huffington Post reports: "If you think the conservative ‘Tea Party’ movement is daunting, take a look at a new report issued by the Department of Homeland Security that says right-wing extremism is on the rise throughout the country."

As another example of this dismissal of the Tea Party movement by the corporate media, consider the rather disgusting and juvenile effort by CNN’s Anderson Cooper (the Yalie of Vanderbilt lineage who interned for the CIA and may thus be considered a Mockingbird asset).

Appearing with David Gergen, a member of the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group (who has romped at Bohemian Grove), Cooper said it is difficult for Republicans to find their voice when they are "teabagging." The Urban Dictionary defines a "teabagger" as "a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient." It is also used to define a pornographic act.

Around the same time the Bush administration’s DHS produced the "rightwing extremism" document, the FBI received a request to work on a similar report. "Fox News’s Catherine Herridge revealed that the report, along with an earlier report on radicalized left-wing groups, was actually ‘requested by the Bush administration’ but not completed until recently," Think Progress reported on April 15.

The report, entitled "White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11," begins with an "intelligence assessment" claiming "white supremacist extremist groups have attempted to increase their recruitment of current and former US military personnel." According to the FBI, these "[p]ost-9/11 activities by current or former military personnel involved in the extremist movement span the range of activities engaged in by their extremist compatriots who lack military experience, and include weapons violations, physical violence, paramilitary training, intelligence collection, drug violations, fraud, threats, and arson," that is to say all manner of evil and criminal activity.

It is no mistake this "disgruntled military veteran" appears in the DHS document. It is also no mistake the report claims "white supremacist and violent antigrovernment groups" present an ominous threat to Obama, primarily due to his race. The lines separating racist nationalism (a marginal threat at best) and opposition to the government are blurred in the document.

The Council on Foreign Relations reiterated the parameters of the DHS and FBI documents on April 21, 2008. A CFR "bakckgrounder" entitled "Militant Extremists in the United States" touches on both "rightwing" and "leftwing" extremism covered in the DHS and FBI reports. The CFR report states:

The September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington were the most destructive ever on U.S. soil. But law-enforcement officials have also long struggled with a range of U.S.-based terrorist groups. Domestic extremists include hate groups motivated by ultra-conservative ideals that are often anti-Semitic and racially motivated; ecoterrorists who use violence to campaign for greater environmental responsibility; and socialist groups who oppose the World Trade Organization. While homegrown Muslim extremists have proven more lethal in Europe than in the United States, U.S. authorities continue to worry about the prospect of attacks by militant Muslims who are American citizens.

The SPLC and the ADL work closely with the DHS, FBI, and apparently the CFR. The CFR cites materials provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center in its report.

Prior to the CFR "backgrounder," the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project issued a report claiming in "the 10 years since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, roughly 60 right-wing terrorist plots have been uncovered in the United States," according to U.S.News & World Report. "The plots demonstrate that the Department of Homeland Security still needs to closely monitor right-wing groups, says Heidi Beirich, with the Intelligence Project."

On March 26, after Alex Jones exposed the MIAC document, the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) issued a national advisory to all local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and officers, along with all DHS Fusion Centers, warning against "any reliance upon faulty and politicized research issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Anti Defamation League (ADL)."

ALIPAC would like to advise all media sources, law enforcement officers and agencies, that the ADL and SPLC are political organizations, with stated political goals and agendas which are contrary to the candidates, political parties, and millions of Americans besmirched by the MIAC documents.

While both the ADL and SPLC actively market themselves and seek roles as advisers to law enforcement and the media, both groups regularly engage in political tactics like those observed in the now withdrawn Missouri Documents. Materials from one or both organizations contributed to this scandal.

The ADL and SPLC are notorious for targeting "rightwing" groups and individuals while the FBI has a long track record of going after "leftwing" groups, as evinced by COINTELPRO (the CIA also participated in this effort under its Operation CHAOS). The FBI also sponsored so-called "right-wing vigilantes," who were given "funds and information, so long as they confined their attacks to COINTELPRO targets," consisting mostly of anti-war and Black, American Indian, and Chicano "liberation" groups. (see Brian Glick, COINTELPRO Revisited: Spying & Disruption)

The FBI considered the putative "Militia movement" so threatening (primarily due to its constitutional underpinnings) it orchestrated the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 in order to demonize and criminalize the movement (and scare off support).

A declaration from alleged Timothy McVeigh co-conspirator Terry Nichols, filed in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City in 2007, reveals McVeigh was taking orders from Larry Potts, a top FBI official. "Potts was no stranger to anti-government confrontations, having been the lead FBI agent at Ruby Ridge in 1992, which led to the shooting death of Vicki Weaver, the wife of separatist Randy Weaver. Potts also was reportedly involved in the 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993, which resulted in a fire that killed 81 Branch Davidian followers," the Desert Morning News reported on February 22, 2007.

The DHS, FBI, and we can assume military intelligence and the CIA (along with other intelligence agencies), are intimately involved in a highly orchestrated effort to demonize and criminalize activists opposed to the government, in particular the patriot movement.

In the corporate media realm – a corporate media long in the orbit of intelligence agencies – this process is limited to propaganda designed to make constitutionalists and patriots look either absurd or dangerous. The fact the latest document was leaked a few days before the Tea Party demonstrations held around the country is probably not coincidental.

Demonizing and criminalizing the patriot movement – characterizing them as "rightwing extremists" and white supremacists with the help of SPLC and ADL propaganda – is a last ditch effort on the part of the globalists and international bankers in control of the government. Our rulers realize the threat posed by a large grassroots movement – especially one including veterans – demanding less government intrusion in our lives and a return to a constitutionally limited Republic.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Why does religion get a free pass at being influential in murders and other heinous crimes?

While other fringe groups like white supremacists, Neo-Nazi’s and militia members get blamed for influencing the Pittsburgh gunman, why does no one blame religion for the recent murder of the 8-year-old girl by a Sunday school teacher?

by Larry Simons
April 12, 2009

Over the weekend it was revealed that the alleged killer of 8-year-old Sandra Cantu, who had been missing since March 27, was none other than friend of the family and Sunday school teacher, Melissa Huckaby (pictured).

Last weekend, 22-year-old Richard Poplawski opened fire on three Pittsburgh police officers, killing them and injuring a fourth on April 4.

The two stories are very similar but the media’s reaction to them were quite different.

In the Pittsburgh police shooting, the media portrayed Poplawski as a crazed ticking time bomb, ready to go off at any given moment and immediately began digging into his past to see what they could find to somehow grasp how he could do such a horrible thing.

This ‘digging’ eventually led to false reports by liberals bloggers and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that Poplawski was a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist who followed people like Alex Jones and this alone led to his shooting rampage. Dennis Roddy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote:

“Believing most media were covering up important events, Mr. Poplawski turned to a far-right conspiracy Web site run by Alex Jones, a self-described documentarian with roots going back to the extremist militia movement of the early 1990s.”

The article says nothing about how Roddy came to the conclusion that just because Poplawski frequented the site, how that led to shooting cops. This same article by Roddy also mentions that Poplawski was a big fan of the Pittsburgh Penguins and considered Mario Lemieux his hero.

His hero was Mario Lemieux? Why isn’t Lemieux being blamed for the shootings? After all, hockey is a violent sport, isn’t it? Mario Lemieux---hockey---violence---shooting cops…see how it all connects? Now, obviously what I just said is ridiculous, and therein lies my point. It is just as ridiculous to make the Alex Jones connection, especially since Alex Jones has endorsed and encouraged violence as often as Mario Lemieux has----never.

Eric Boehlert of the left-wing site Media Matters even attempted to connect the Alex Jones’ film “The Obama Deception” to the Pittsburgh shootings when he said:

“We learned that Poplawski hosted his own (failed) Internet radio show and that he visited the website of 9-11 conspiracy backer Alex Jones, who has been hyping the threat of a totalitarian world government for years. More recently, Jones has been warning listeners like Poplawski about The Obama Deception (that’s the name of Jones’ new documentary DVD) and how President Obama is bound to destroy America.”

Boehlert even made the claim that FOX News has embraced Alex Jones because of appearances Jones has made on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s FOX News.com’s show “Freedom Watch”. In the aforementioned article, Boehlert lumps Alex Jones in with FOX News shill Glenn Beck, despite the fact that Alex Jones' sites Prison Planet and Infowars have repeatedly condemned Beck for his zany antics and ridiculous comments.

Who cares about insignificant things like the fact that Poplawski actually opposed the views of Alex Jones? Who cares about the fact that Jones has consistently and repeatedly bashed FOX News and right-wing conservatives the entire time Bush was President, and even Bush himself here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here? I could go on and on and on! All this shows is that Media Matters does ZERO investigation when it comes to pushing forth their left-wing propaganda.

So you see, in the Poplawski case, according to the media and the left-wing, the motive couldn’t have been that he was just a nut. His entire background was investigated and cherry-picked to the point of creating false motives and using the guilt-by-association tactic that has become so prevalent among the left-wing, Obama supporting propagandists.

In light of Poplawski, we come to the similar case of alleged child killer Melissa Huckaby. The similarities lie in the fact that when you hear about people like Huckaby being charged with killing an 8-year-old child, the first questions that begin to emerge are: How could she kill a child? How could she kill and 8-year-old child? How could she kill a child that she even knew (and knew her family)? How could a Sunday school teacher murder anyone? Typical, reasonable questions. Many asked the same about Poplawski. How could he do it?

Another similarity in the two cases is the fact that the victims (the 8-year-old girl and the three policemen) were innocent people and these are two groups of people (law enforcement and children) that are both viewed as people you should never murder, even if murder was ever justified. It’s true that you should never kill anyone, but law enforcement and children are two groups at the top of that list.

Here’s the major difference in the two cases: Poplawski’s motives for his rampage were put under a microscope, even to the point of making up information and posting false stories. In the Poplawski story, retractions were written by a few outlets that reported false info, here and here.

But here we have Huckaby, not being put under the microscope and being blown off as a nut who snapped and murdered a child. In other words, her religion is safe and faces no scrutiny. Her religion is completely divorced from her actions. You can't question religion, you know. It's widely accepted, therefore if you dare insist that some element of religion influences people to snap and commit crimes, then you're the nut. It shocked people that not only was she a Sunday school teacher, but she is also the granddaughter of a pastor, Clifford Lawless. Why would this shock anyone?

I don’t know about anyone else, but this begs the question: Why is her religion given a free pass at being investigated? Those of you who make the case that this is not a fair question, please tell me why. After all, murders and other heinous crimes by church members, pastors, church workers, youth ministers have been rampant and a pattern for some time now. How many murders and crimes have been reported by people who frequent ‘far-right conspiracy websites’? Including Poplawski…none.

Here are just a few stories of murders/crimes committed by religious people in the past 5 years:

Mary Winkler: minister’s wife who murdered her husband in March 2006

Joshua Rosa: a 19-year-old youth minister who strangled a 13-year-old boy in 2005

Kevin Ogle: a 42-year-old pastor at Northgate Colonial Baptist Church in Camden, S.C. who sent pornographic photos of himself to what he thought was a 14-year-old girl from 2006--2007

Jeffrey Alan Wasley: a 37-year-old Youth minister who was accused of molesting a 7-year-old boy in the men's restroom of the Target store in Atlanta in 2008

David A. Merritt: a 44-year-old minister from Claymont, Delaware who was arrested and charged with rape of a 12-year-old girl in March of 2009

Tim Byars: a 44-year-old track coach and popular youth minister who raped a 14-year-old Tennessee girl in late 2006

Sergio Alvarizares: a 39-year-old co-pastor of the nondenominational Spanish-speaking church Casa del Padre in Portland, OR was convicted of sexually assaulting 5 women in 2007

That’s only a few in the last 5 years. I could have researched more cases in that 5-year time frame and went back earlier than 2005. In fact, three big cases that stand out are the murders committed by Sunday school teacher Lizzie Borden in 1892, Sunday school teacher John List in 1971 and Jim Jones in 1978.

Everyone knows Jim Jones murdered 909 people (including 276 children) with cyanide poisoning on November 18, 1978.

Everyone knows Lizzie Borden (although aquitted because of incompetent investigators) murdered her father and stepmother on August 4, 1892 by hacking them to death with an axe.

For those who have never heard of John List, here’s what he did on November 9, 1971:

On November 9, seemingly out of the blue, List shot his mother Alma (above her left eye), his wife Helen (in the side of the head), and two older children in the back of their heads; he shot his youngest child, a son, several times in the chest and face. He then left the murder weapon alongside their carefully laid-out corpses. List had methodically devised a plan so that the bodies would not be discovered for quite a while, cancelling newspaper, milk, and mail delivery to his home in the days leading up to the murder. He then called the children's schools to say that the family was going to visit a sick relative out of town. By the time authorities discovered the bodies, List had vanished without a trace.

So you see, religious people do not just kill and do bad things. They commit the most horrible, unimaginable and gruesome acts you ever heard of. My point? Since religious people (not just people who are 'religious' but church employees and church workers) shoot their children, wives and mothers at point blank range, impale their parents’ faces with axes, sexually assault and rape women, young girls and young boys, strangle young children, shoot their husbands in the face and molest children, why, since these horrible acts are in the news at an alarming and rampant rate, isn’t religion viewed as a destructive influence?

Religion has induced more death and destruction than any single cause. Do I have to mention the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition? 9/11 (if you believe the official story)? It is dangerous, barbaric and corrupt. It has divided more people than any political view, race or nationality. It allows people to do and say things “in the name of religion” without ever being questioned as to whether it is right or not. It’s “always right” if God says it is.

It is widely accepted as “the norm”. If you go against the grain and question religion, you are a “sinner”, you’re “not saved”, or my personal favorite, you’re “of the devil”. I like that one, since it is the religious people who commit acts of murder and violence that is so brutal, it would make Henry Lee Lucas proud. Hell, I don't think even Satan worshippers commit more violent acts. One thing that makes me chuckle is when religious advocates say, “Religion isn’t the cause of the most deaths”. Should it be the cause of a single one?

I have noticed that when religious people have sex with a small child, go on a shooting rampage or rape six women, nobody ever questions the religion itself, despite the fact that more death and killing have been attributed to it than most wars…hell, religious people start wars! Even ones based on lies (right, George W. Bush?).

It’s amazing how people can fraudulently play the guilt by association game when it comes to a political motivation for a murder. But when the person is religious, no church or religious doctrine is ever vilified, despite the enormous pattern of heinous crimes by religious people and the non-existence of patterns (or even single incidents) by people who visit alternative news websites.

Perhaps Bill Maher puts it best about religion in his film “Religulous” when he says:

The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists. By those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn’t learn a lot about it.

Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it, are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.

Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it’s wonderful when someone says, “I’m willing Lord. I’ll do whatever you want me to do.” Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Andy “Jekyll and Hyde” Ostroy is a hypocritical fraud. He now supports the Iraq war despite strongly opposing it under Bush

There’s no debate that Ostroy is a hypocritical, flip-flopping sell-out. I have the proof

by Larry Simons
April 11, 2009

In my 4 years of political writing, I have never seen more blatant hypocrisy on one particular issue than Andy Ostroy’s complete 180 he’s done on the Iraq war. This transcends political party, race, religion, media affiliation---it transcends it all. What you are about to witness is blatant hypocrisy. The kind you’d get from the most corrupt politicians or the most ordinary religious leaders.

On Ostroy’s latest story titled “Ann Coulter Needs to Shut the F**K Up (...and Other Random Thoughts)” on his blog, The Ostroy Report, one of his “random thoughts” was in his final paragraph where Andy states:

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

It could be that Dick Cheney stumbled upon The Ostroy Report one night and finally decided to come to Andy’s house and have him whisked off to some secret prison and replaced with a pro-war Andy Ostroy. Or, it could be that Ostroy is the biggest hypocritical fraud of the left-wing. I’m nearly 100% sure it’s the latter (only 'nearly' because I don’t put it past Cheney to cart someone off).

I immediately posted comments on Andy's blog, because when Bush was in power, Ostroy was one of the strongest Iraq war protestors I had ever read on the internet (outside of myself). I personally remembered reading many anti-Iraq war articles that he had written, and I vowed to him I would find them and expose his fraudiness. I found so many, I decided to stop at January 2008 because I had already found twelve where he either mentioned the Iraq war being a huge mistake, ending the war, Bush potentially being imprisoned because of it or my personal favorite, Andy spewing a long tirade about how the Iraqi people do not even want us there, how our military is failing and Democracy being impossible in Iraq.

Then, he writes the above statement. Hmmmm, maybe because Andy’s savior Obama is President now? Obama recently approved 83.4 billion more dollars to be spent on the war….the war that Obama vowed to end. The liberals have now been forced to become the very people they hated. That is what prompted me to post the following comments on Andy’s blog.

click to enlarge (I’m quite sure these comments will be immediately deleted and I’ll receive more Bill O' Reilly-style threats to have my blog removed)

I kept my promise. I went on a crusade to find Andy’s incriminating anti-war articles and comments. The following are my findings:

In his July 29, 2008 article titled “Can Obama Really Win This Thing?”

Andy said this:
George W. Bush's legacy is clear. Come January, when the 44th president of the United States takes office, the nation will be racked by, among other things, a record half-trillion dollar budget deficit; an economy teetering on, if not in, recession; $4+/gallon gas prices; the lowest consumer confidence in 15 years; a failing, deadly war; and a resurgent terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan

In his July 23, 2008 article titled “McCain: "It's My Surge, Dammit! I Was Right. Why Won't Anyone Show Me Some Respect!”

Andy said this:
The simple truth is, Obama was right about the war from the get-go. And based on the fact that Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his top military commanders support the Democrat's timetable for a 2010 troop withdrawal, he's still right. Obama not only understands the will of the American people when it comes to the war, but the Iraqis' as well

In his July 13, 2008 article titled “The Murder Trial of George W. Bush?”

Andy said this: (his words in burgandy)
Andy did a full story detailing Vincent Bugliosi’s book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” explaining exhaustively his agreements with Bugliosi that the war in Iraq was a big fucking lie and that Bush should be tried and go to prison for even taking our country to war and leading to the deaths of 4,000+ troops. Andy says this in the article, “Remember the timeline here. This is key. The meeting between Bush and Blair occurred four months after the CIA's report in which it stated that Iraq was not an imminent threat. Yet, not only did Bush continue sounding the alarms over Saddam's WMD, but he and his blood-thirsty neocons--VP Dick Cheney, then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--had already secretly drawn up the war plans and were angling to concoct the saleable justification.” So, Ostroy clearly acknowledges that being in Iraq in the first place was based on complete and utter lies, yet he now supports Obama’s continuance of this war. Unreal.

In his June 23, 2008 article titled “Bill Kristol is Not Stupid, So Why Does he Pretend to Be?”

Andy said this:
(in this article Andy is addressing Bill Kristol)
That our soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq are the sons and daughters of the poor and middle classes, not those of the wealthy, or those of the Republican war-mongers who sent them there. The true contempt for our soldiers comes from you and your neo-con pals who sent them off to fight and die in a totally bogus, elective war where America faced no threat whatsoever.

In his June 11, 2008 article titled “Did John McCain Just Say What I Think He Said About Iraq?”

Andy said this:
So the crusty old Senator from Arizona thinks it's "not too important" when, if ever, our troops return home, huh? That an overwhelming majority of Americans want an imminent end to the war apparently doesn't faze McCain. As he's said in the past, we could be in Iraq for another 100+ years and that would be just peachy with him.

McCain's new boneheaded remark ranks among the other colossal Bushevik blunders pertaining to Iraq such as "Mission Accomplished" and "We'll be greeted as liberators." It only serves to demonstrate just how out out of touch he is with mainstream America.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presumptive nominee, would be wise to aggressively hammer home this new example of McCain's consistently cavalier attitude towards the war and our foreign policy in general. It's just more of the same shoot first, ask questions later reckless cowboy mentality that has gotten us mired in the Iraq debacle in the first place. And we certainly don't need four more years of Bush 3 in the form of McCain.

Americans have a very clear choice this November. A vote for McCain is a vote for more war, more militarism, more death. And that's just Iraq. Imagine the surprises this war-monger has in store for us with Iran.

In his April 16, 2008 article titled “Iraqi Soldiers Bail on Baghdad. Must be More of that Bushevik "Success" We Keep Hearing About”

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

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

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

In his April 11, 2008 article titled “War-Monger-in-Chief Delivers "Lies & Delusion" Speech”

Andy said this:
So what are we gonna do about it this time? That some Democrats say they will vote for Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presumptive nominee, is monumentally distressing. The only thing McBush is gonna do is perpetuate this disastrous, meaningless, military debacle that has no clear objective and no end in sight.

Other anti-war articles by Andy:

March 30, 2008 “al-Sadr issues Wake-up Call to Bush, McCain and the GOP. So Much for the "Surge””

March 21, 2008 “Cheney's Audacity of "So"”

March 19, 2008 “McCain Doesn't Know Shia From Shinola”

February 6, 2008 “Bush's Iraq Distraction Has Allowed Al Qaeda to Strengthen. Intelligence Chief Warns of Grave New Terror Threats to U.S.”

February 1, 2008 “U.S. Death Toll in Iraqi Increases. So Much for the "Surge" Success”

That’s 12 I found just in the past 16 months of his blog and I was just skimming. I may have even missed some. I didn’t go earlier than 2008 (Andy’s blog has been around since March 2005). I thought 12 was plenty to prove my point. Andy is the reverse of John Kerry: Andy was against the war before he was for it.

This is by far the most fraudulent act of all my potential nominees for Fraud of the Year. Being so blatantly and unapologetically against a war when a Republican begins it and does not end it, then when your candidate becomes President you magically gain support for it? It’s simply unbelievable and not to mention unequivocally scary.

At this rate, the only way Andy will be beaten in this years Fraud of the Year awards is if a video tape is unearthed showing Black Ops planting the explosives inside WTC 1, 2 and 7.


Andy has deleted my comments (shocker) and left this hilarious message for me :

Larry, the reason your posts are consistently deleted is because you never offer anything constructive. Your posts are nothing but anger-filled attacks designed to antagonize and be combative. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with what you have to say. The problem is, you have nothing to say and you make no points. So as long as you choose to be a rabble-rouser rather than someone who offers either complimentary points or constructive opposing views, you will continue to be censored. Your idea and my idea of Free Speech is quite different. (Yes, he's right, my idea of free speech is making valid points to expose someone who has contradicted themselves without violating a website's policies nor the personal policies of the site monitor; his idea is: you can say anything you want even if he disagrees with it, but if it exposes his blatant hypocrisy, it will be deleted) This board does not exist for you to do or say anything you want. (Translation: "you're exposing my hypocrisy and lies and I can't allow that") That's what your blog is for.

This is the last time I will attempt to explain why your comments are deleted.

I have no points?? I don’t say anything constructive? Exposing that Andy was very anti-war when Bush was in power and now he has become very pro-war now that Obama is in power is “not constructive?” The irony about Andy’s post is that, if what he says is true, that I “never offer anything constructive”, why doesn’t he let his readers decide this? Why is he allowed to be the only one who judges what is constructive and what is not? I think it’s because he’s terrified that his readers will read his own words that I have posted and see that Andy is the big fraud that I have concluded he is. This was my response on his blog:

I have NO points ???? Are you kidding me?? You NOW support the war when you have written many many stories in the past telling your readers how youve wanted this war to end?? If I make no points--why DELETE them?? Why dont you allow your READERS to decide if I make valid points?? Know why you delete them? So your readers can come on here after my comments have been DELETED and see you make general comments like the one above and they will react by thinking I just rambled on about nothing, when in FACT, I have documented PERFECTLY how you have been extremely hypocritical by writing story after story on why the war is a big mistake and a failure, yet when Obama wants to continue it---you are magically FOR the war! And you think that is "nothing to say" and I make "no points"???

I will continue to post this on your blog until you tell your readers and me why you have flip-flopped on the war. I think your readers DESERVE to know why youve become a colossal HYPOCRITE---dont you?? Now address this or I will continually provide the link to my story about you---which points out brilliantly how big of a hypocrite you are!

Here's the link to my story exposing Andy the FRAUD:


I will also begin posting portions of comments from your past stories that are in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what you said above. THIS is why you delete comments---because they expose you! Let your readers decie if my comments should be deleted.

Another thing Andy----you said my posts werent constructive? My posts included YOUR OWN words from past articles youve written where you HIGHLY opposed the Iraq war and how you ended being opposed to it on Nov 4 2008. I make no points? But Andy, I was posting YOUR words---are you admitting your own words was bullshit?

click to enlarge

Stay tuned for the deletion!


I win. Andy has enabled comment moderation on his blog again. Apparently he didn't like the fact that I kept posting this comment:

In his April 16, 2008 article titled “Iraqi Soldiers Bail on Baghdad. Must be More of that Bushevik "Success" We Keep Hearing About”

Andy said this:

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

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

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

So, Andy is now back to "approving" his comments again. I'm not Andy's enemy, apparently Andy's enemy was...Andy, since he was deleting his OWN words.


Friday, April 10, 2009

Christopher Hitchens schools disinformationist and moron Ken Blackwell on the fact that our founding fathers were not Christians

Blackwell spews the traditional false information on our founders; Hitchens gives him a fact-beatdown

by Larry Simons
April 10, 2009

On Wednesday’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, fill-in host Mike Barnicle read a few poll questions that were conducted by Newsweek. Some of the questions were, “Is the U.S. a Christian nation?” and “Is religion increasing or losing its influence on American life?” He welcomed author and Vanity Fare columnist Christopher Hitchens and Ken Blackwell from the Family Research Council. Barnicle asks Hitchens, “What does it mean, if anything, when people refer to the United States of America as a ‘Christian nation’?”

Brilliantly, Hitchens responds, “It‘s literally a meaningless statement. I mean, the Constitution quite deliberately forbids all mention of God—well, I should say omits all mention of God—let alone of Jesus, and though the Declaration of Independence mentions the creator, it specifically doesn‘t say that this creator intervenes. Most of the people who wrote the Declaration were deists, not theists.

It‘s true to say the majority of believers in America are Christian, but that‘s a banal fact. Many of them, I know from going and debating with them on my book tour, when you go to their churches, are full themselves of doubt. In other words, people who‘ve responded saying they‘re Christian are very full of doubt and skepticism.”

Barnicle asks Blackwell, “Do you doubt at all that this is a Christian nation?”

Blackwell responds, “No, I really don‘t doubt that. The—if you look at the precepts that the—the foundation it‘s built on, it is a nation that does not have a naked public square but one that is built on a moral foundation.”

Hitchens interjects, “Doesn’t make it Christian.”

watch the clip

Exactly. A moral foundation is not synonymous with “Christian”. Even a reference to a creator is not synonymous with “Christian”, and this is what Blackwell fails miserably to comprehend (and what Hitchens understands completely and accurately) throughout the entire segment.

Blackwell then says, “…it is just flat-out nonsense to suggest that this country was built on anything other than an understanding of Judeo-Christian principles and precepts that give us the moral foundation that allows free market enterprise and the primacy of the individual in our political system, not the primacy of the state.” Hitchens adds, “You can search in vain through the First Amendment to the Constitution to find any such reference. Or you could—why don‘t you try checking out…Thomas Jefferson‘s version of the New Testament, for example, where he cuts out—cuts out all references to the divinity of Jesus?

The Bible that Hitchens is referring to is called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth or The Jefferson Bible. Jefferson’s purpose in writing this version was to extract the doctrine of Jesus by omitting the portions of the New Testament that contained anything involving supernatural events (in other words, miracles and Jesus’ deity) and what he believed to be misinterpretations of the four gospel writers.

Absent from Jefferson’s Bible are the following: Angels, genealogy, prophecy, miracles, the trinity, the divinity of Jesus and the resurrection of Christ. Many Christians will admit that the very foundation of Christianity is the resurrection and without it, the Christian faith crumbles. Yet, Jefferson’s bible excluded the resurrection and Blackwell would have us all believe that Thomas Jefferson (as well as most of the other founders) believed in Judeo-Christian principles?

Sorry to say that to this day many Americans are allowing themselves to be fooled by believing this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian foundation, when in reality, that is almost 100% false.

Many of our founders, including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Franklin and Thomas Paine did not believe or accept the most basic of Christian beliefs such as communion, Jesus’ divinity, the resurrection and miracles. How can anyone call people “Christians” who do not accept the aforementioned basic beliefs? Our founders were Deists, Unitarians (very close to Deism) or Freemasons. All of them believed in God, or a god, but to use the title “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian” is an all out attempt to lie to oneself.

Blackwell then asks Hitchens, “do you think that the founders and the Pilgrims were not Christians?” Hitchens replies, “The pilgrims were Christians.” Blackwell knows he’s losing this debate miserably when he attempts to lump in the pilgrims with the founders, but Hitchens would have no part in his spin when he says, “No, no, the Pilgrims—the Pilgrims are not the founders, my dear sir.”

Blackwell flat out lies when he says, “But I will abandon a historical--I will not historical-- abandon a historical fact, and that is that this country is built on a moral foundation that is framed by Judeo-Christian principles.” Well, Blackwell did abandon historical fact, as well as his credibility and sanity.

Hitchens brilliantly sums up the debate with this statement, “The United States of America‘s founding documents are secular. If you --if you don‘t know that, you don‘t know anything.”

Hitchens kicked Blackwell’s lying, fraudulent ass and I loved every minute of it. I’m sick and tired of morons in this country believing something just because it has been indoctrinated into their brains. When referring to the founding fathers and religion in the same breath, you can use words like “god”, “religion”, “morals”, “faith” and "creator", but you cannot use the word “Christian” unless you like telling lies to yourself.

Therein lies the problem. That’s what many people do. Not just in America, but in life, when they want to believe something. They will just ignore facts and tell themselves what they want to believe is true. It’s easier. It’s comforting. It’s safer.

For some people.