Saturday, August 29, 2009

Liberals: Painted Obama face is “racist”, but painted faces of conservatives are “A-OK”

The hypocrisy of liberals far outweighs the hypocrisy of conservatives

by Larry Simons
August 29, 2009

Trust me. I am not a “right-wing” conservative. Nobody hated Bush and his criminal clan more than I did. One doesn’t have to be supportive of a particular ideology to see the blatant hypocrisy of liberals in dealing with the image of Barack Obama. Their clear message: If you mock or paint the faces of conservatives, that’s deserving and accepted. If you do it to Barack Obama, you’re a racist.

Here’s liberal website Crooks and Liars showing Republican Michael Steele as a clown (also above). Shown in the photo above is an image of George W. Bush as the Joker. These images are perfectly acceptable to the mainstream media and you never really heard about the Bush Joker picture, did you? But, Obama painted as the Joker? You get these stories from the Washington Post and MSNBC crying racism. It’s really unbelievable.

Also posted at Prison Planet, here.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Andy “the King of Frauds” Ostroy surpasses his usual fraudiness; an analysis

Ostroy on Obama: "The president needs to grow some balls and start acting a little Bush-like"

by Larry Simons
August 27, 2009

Thank God for liberal blogger Andy Ostroy. He’s truly the gift that keeps on giving. What would I do without him? In a column he wrote yesterday titled, “This Democrat is Disappointed with his President and his Party”, Ostroy seems to be giving us all clear indications that he is among the many who were suckered into believing that Barack Obama was the complete antithesis of George W. Bush, and that he was going to usher in the promised “change we can all believe in.”

What is hilarious is the fact that, just 79 days ago, Ostroy wrote an article titled, “I Love Obama”, a 613-word love letter that included everything just shy of wanting to walk down the aisle and exchange wedding vows with the new President. Perhaps the most glaring contrast between the two articles is Ostroy’s specific vocabulary. The fact that Ostroy feels differently about Obama now than he did 79 days ago really is not the issue (although quite funny). Everyone is entitled to change their mind (even if it is as quickly as Ostroy did). It is Ostroy’s specific vocabulary that makes it interesting.

On June 8, 2009, Ostroy said this:

“I worried that America, which had come so far since the civil rights movement began, might not be ready yet for a black president. I worried that the "Hope and Change" candidate didn't have the chops to make it to the finish line. But I was wrong. Since he took office, I get it. I understand now what I didn't then. That this man is a transcendent leader. Someone who comes around like the political equivalent of Haley's Comet.”


“Obama needs to accept that voters elected him president and gave Democrats congressional majorities to bring about change and not be a bunch of weak-kneed, spineless namby-pambys who still fantasize about bi-partisanship.”

Here’s the one I love.

June 8, 2009:

“We've also seen Obama tackle tough wedge issues--race, abortion, U.S./Muslim relations--head on with brilliance, passion, sincerity and unparalleled oratory skills. Issues that most other politicians either avoided or exploited. No one before him has simply rolled up his sleeves and said, "Hold on a second, people. What are we fighting over? This is crazy. Why can't we address these issues, our differences, like mature adults striving for a common ground, and do so with mutual respect, humility and tolerance?" The right can mock it as a typical liberal "Kumbayah" moment all they want, but isn't this how real change begins? By opening up a dialogue and bridging social gaps?”


“The president needs to grow some balls and start acting a little Bush-like in pushing through his agenda. It's time to stop singing Kumbaya.”

Obama was Haley’s Comet, now he’s a namby-pamby. “Kumbaya” was good, now it’s bad. Then Ostroy advises Obama to, “..start acting a little Bush-like?” My head is spinning.

What is interesting is the fact that Ostroy doesn’t even realize how Bush-like Obama actually has become in 7 months, or he does but refuses to acknowledge it.

Ostroy then, in his recent article, lists 6 steps Obama should take to “show some balls.” Shall we review? Let’s.

1. Ostroy instructs Obama to “get tough dammit!” on health care and “Get on the tube in a primetime address to the nation and forcefully dispel the myths being perpetrated by disingenuous Republicans.” Maybe Obama is having a tough time doing that because a majority of the issues that protesters are angry about are actually true and recited from the bill itself, like allowing Feds to snoop in Americans’ checkbooks, allowing the government to make home visits to educate our children and allow for funding of “vaccine teams” to conduct ‘interventions’ in private homes. In other words, things that have nothing to do with health care or freedom of choice.

2. Ostroy instructs Obama to prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes. Of course, Ostroy does not mention that Obama’s failure to do so, according to the Geneva Conventions, makes Obama guilty of war crimes himself. He simply just passes it off as something Obama should do. The fact that not prosecuting war crimes is considered a crime itself is insignificant to Ostroy.

3. Ostroy instructs Obama to tell Cheney to get lost and “shut the fuck up.” What Ostroy does not tell you is that Obama and Dick Cheney are eighth cousins.

4. Ostroy instructs Obama to not allow protesters to show up at his rallies with guns. Ostroy is referring to protesters who recently attended Obama rallies in New Hampshire and Arizona and were carrying guns. What Ostroy does not mention is that it is legal in New Hampshire and Arizona to carry guns and that the protesters were breaking no laws. These states have open carry laws.

5. Ostroy thinks somehow it was up to Obama to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man who was imprisoned for blowing up Flight Pan Am 103 in Scotland in 1988. Ostroy asks, “Where was Obama's stern warning not to release him?” My question: Why would a warning from Obama have mattered?

6. Ostroy tells Obama to take credit for the “recovered economy” and to “claim success”. I can’t even begin to explain how ludicrous of a statement this is. Ostroy gives no evidence the economy is even in recovery and even if it was, how would that be Obama’s doing?

Ostroy said this in the last paragraph of his “I Love Obama” article of June 8:

“To be sure, in the first five months of his nascent presidency, Obama has shown incredible tenacity, resolve, vision and statesmanship. He's truly the right guy for these troubled times, and I suspect the history books will judge him accordingly many years from now. Let's just say he's won me over.”

Didn’t last too long, did it?

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Authorities Prepare To Seize Kids During Swine Flu Pandemic

International swine flu summit trains responders to enforce quarantines, mass vaccinations, deal with riots & unrest
Paul Joseph Watson
August 24, 2009

Authorities are preparing to seize children from schools, set up quarantines and morgues, conduct mass vaccinations, and deal with riots and unrest, according to an international swine flu summit recently held in Washington DC which was attended by distinguished scientists, industry leaders and top health officials from all over the globe.

A conference first discussed by this website three weeks ago has now taken place, with health authorities meeting at the end of last week to finalize response plans to a swine flu pandemic that has been all but guaranteed to occur this coming fall.

According to a PDF information leaflet released before the meeting, attendees were briefed on how to "conduct morgue operations," manage an interruption in food supplies and "manage panic caused by sudden disruption of services & interruptions in essential goods & services".

During a swine flu pandemic, their duties would also include dealing with civil disturbances, controlling and diffusing social unrest and public disorder, carrying out mass vaccination programs and enforcing quarantines, according to the conference documentation.

One of the most shocking modules of the conference deals with "School/University Pandemic Planning" and strongly implies that authorities will usurp parental rights over children in the event of a swine flu pandemic.

"Concurrent Breakout Session #10″ outlines plans to "train teachers to screen for symptoms & know whatto do when students / teachers fall ill," before then transporting ill students, which presumably means transporting them to quarantine zones with or without the consent of parents. The use of schools as "shelters" or quarantine centers is also mentioned.

As we have documented, authorities have been training to raid and remove children from schools during times of emergency for over a decade, mainly under the auspices of preparing for school shootings or during drug sweeps.

In October 2001, authorities swooped in to kidnap and remove 115 children from Heartland Christian Academy without a warrant. Children were forcibly loaded onto buses like criminals as they screamed for help in shocking scenes featured in Alex Jones’ Road To Tyranny documentary.

Earlier this month we reported on how a Maine high school was taken over by the National Guard in a drill focused around riots during a mass vaccination program. In this scenario, the rioters were begging for the vaccine, but obviously the opposite is likely to be the case if a mandatory vaccination program is announced, if there are riots then they will consist of people refusing to take the shot.

A You Tube user posted the following video which covers some of the issues raised by the swine flu conference.

Here are main portions of the PDF leaflet about the Swine flu Conference for easier viewing (click to enlarge each)

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Arizona pastor Steve L. Anderson prays for the death of Obama and says homosexuals should be executed

Pastor Steve Anderson to Obama: “I'm not gonna pray for his good. I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell"

Anderson to homosexuals: “He (God) commanded they should be taken out and killed”

by Larry Simons
August 23, 2009

Normally, this would easily fall under a “Lifestyles of the Religious Nutball” story, but when I write those stories, I usually try to add even the smallest bit of satire. I can’t with this story. It’s too serious and profoundly disturbing that even hinting at satire would only minimize how very disturbing this is.

A pastor, by the name of Steve L. Anderson (so as not to confuse him with any other person with the same name), who preaches at the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, has delivered some of the most vile, disturbing and hateful sermons I have ever heard in my life, just in the past 8 months.

Last Sunday, Anderson preached a sermon actually titled, “Why I Hate Barack Obama”, which I cannot describe any better than "an hour and six minutes of the most hateful and venomous discourse I have ever heard." What added to the sheer shock of it was that it was behind a pulpit, in church. First of all, why are pastors and ministers allowed to use the pulpit for political indoctrination? Anderson claims to be a defender of the Constitution, but apparently ignores the whole separation of church and state concept.

As people who frequent my site know, it’s no secret that I find most people who stand behind a pulpit in church to be nutty for even talking about things they can’t prove and have never seen as if it was just something they witnessed in the parking lot before church. But Anderson is far beyond nutty; he’s downright vile.

The sermons that I have watched on YouTube were nothing more than the equivalent to a KKK rally, with Bible versus inserted throughout them. Although I heard no racist remarks (in just the videos I watched, I have actually agreed with his comments regarding race), the very same level of hatred was there. You could hear the sounds of babies in the congregation, so one can only assume that teenagers or even elementary school aged kids were listening to this as well.

Let me make something very clear here: I am in no way suggesting or even hinting that Anderson does not have the right to have these feelings or even say them. What is disturbing is how he feels it is appropriate to deliver this hateful message in a church, continually use words like “faggot” and “queer” when describing homosexuals and call for the death of a President in an open forum.

Free speech is one thing, but civility and judgement is another. Sure, you may be free to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but see what happens to you if you do. You may be free to say, “I want to kill the President”, but say it to a Secret Service agent, and see where you end up. This is not about whether one has the right to say something. This is about whether you should.

In Anderson’s “Why I Hate Barack Obama” sermon, he says this (at 5:08 into the video below):

“Who’s heard that before…’I just believe God loves everybody’? Well, let’s see if that’s really true tonight. OK? Look at the Bible. Look at Psalm 11. It says in Psalm 11, verse 4, ‘The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men. The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.’

Now look, God does NOT love everybody. Now you can say that all you want. You can hear that preached all you want. People can get up and say it ‘til they’re blue in the face, it doesn’t make it true. GOD-DOES-NOT-LOVE-EVERYBODY. In fact, there are even some people whom God hates. And let me tell you the kind of people that God hates. People who are violent and people who love violence and people who are bloody and deceitful men.”

He continues, “Now I used to believe that God loved everybody, ‘cause that’s what I heard so many times. And you know, God did love everybody at one time or another. Every baby that’s born, Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world is really a true song. Because, ya know, when a baby’s born in this world, God gives them life, God created them, God loves them, but people can push it with God too far. Where they can get to the point where God doesn’t love them anymore.”

And continues, “And I’m gonna tell you something, I HATE Barack Obama. You say ‘well you just mean you don’t like what he stands for’. No, I hate the person. ‘No, wait, you mean you just don’t like his politics’, No, I hate HIM. Now I’m going to prove this from the Bible tonight why I should hate Barack Obama, why God wants me to hate Barack Obama, why God hates Barack Obama!”

Then he says this, “Now tell me if anything we read tonight contradicts my thesis here…God hates Barack Obama, I hate Barack Obama, OK.”

OK, I would love to point out the contradictions.

I will list them later, after I share more excerpts from his sermons.

Anderson’s “Why I Hate Barack Obama” sermon from August 16, 2009

Not only does Anderson compare Obama with Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Jeffrey Dahmer, he also says homosexuals should be executed. He says:

“The same God who instituted the death penalty for murders is the same god who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals, sodomites and queers!

That's what it was instituted for, okay? That's God, he hasn't changed. Oh, God doesn't feel that way in the New Testament ... God never "felt" anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed.

You know why God wanted the sodomites in the Old Testament to be killed? You know why every good king of Israel, the Bible says they got rid of the sodomites in the land? You know, the good kings that came after the bad kings who had allowed the sodomites to infest their land, they had infiltrated ... King Asa got the sodomites out of the land, Jehoshaphat exterminated the sodomites that were left from the days of his father, Asa. Why? Because the sodomites are infectious, that's why. Because they're not reproducers, that goes without saying, they're recruiters.

How are they multiplying? Do you not see that they're multiplying? Are you that blind? Have you noticed that there's more than there were last year and the year before, and the year before that? How are they multiplying? They're reproducing right? No, here's a biology lesson: they're not reproducers, they're recruiters! And you know who they're after? Your children. Remember you dropped off your kids last week? That's who they're after. You drop them off at some daycare, you drop them off at some school somewhere, you don't know where they're at. I'll tell you where they're at: they're being recruited by the sodomites. They're being molested by the sodomites. I can tell you so many stories about people that I know being molested and recruited by the sodomites.

They recruit through rape. They recruit through molestation. They recruit through violation. They are infecting our society. They are spreading their disease. It's not a physical disease, it's a sin disease, it's a wicked, filthy sin disease and it's spreading on a rampage. Can't you see that it's spreading on a rampage? I mean, can you not see that? Can you not see that it's just exploding in growth? Why? Because each sodomite recruits far more than one other sodomite because his whole life is about recruiting other sodomites, his whole life is about violating and hurting people and molesting 'em.”

In his August 16, 2009 sermon (from above) he also says this:

“The Bible doesn’t contradict itself. That’s why there’s no verse in the entire Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 that says God loves everybody. Because if there were a verse like that, that would be a contradiction of the Bible. There’s a verse that says he LOVED all the world and therefore he gave. But, there’s no verse that says that TODAY he loves….you know, in the past he loved…..”

Hmmmm. I thought God doesn’t change?

Here are shorter clips that I uploaded to YouTube showcasing some comments from the videos posted here mixed with excerpts from other sermons

Part 2

In his January 18, 2009 sermon titled, “Barack Obama, Melting Like a Snail”, he said this:

“I wish we had a government that would act on God’s behalf like the government is supposed to do. You know, the government is supposed to carry out God’s laws. They’re supposed to enforce God’s laws against murderer, against stealing, against lying, against deceit, against adultery. That’s the purpose of human government.”

Government is supposed to enforce God’s laws? Really? Against lying? Against adultery? Against deceit?

First of all, if government prosecuted these offenses, most of the politicians in Washington would be behind bars themselves. Second, it’s not the job or purpose of the government to incorporate any one religion into its structure. (This guy just doesn’t get the separation of church and state thing…at all) You would have to have an official state religion in order for government to “enforce God’s laws”. How could this be done? Which religion is right? Which religion is wrong? What if you’re an atheist? Do you obey then? This is exactly why the founders wanted religious and government institutions separate from each other.

Here are more excerpts from Anderson:

“But let me tell you something: I don't love Barack Obama. I don't respect Barack Obama. I don't obey Barack Obama. And I'd like Barack Obama to melt like a snail tonight. Because he needs to recompense, he needs to reap what he's sown.

You see, any Christian will tell you that someone who commits murder should get the death penalty. Because that's what it says in Genesis Chapter 9, that's what it says in the Mosaic Law, that's what it teaches us throughout the Bible. 'Who so sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.' 'From the image of God created he Man.'

And when Barack Obama is gonna push his partial birth abortion, his salty saline solution abortion, hey, he deserves to be punished for what he's done. I'm not going to pray for God to bless Barack Obama. This is my prayer tonight to Barack Obama.

...Now, look, if somebody wants me, it somebody twisted my arm and tells me to pray for Barack Obama, this is what I'm going to pray, because this is the only prayer that applies to him: 'Break his teeth, O God, in his mouth. You know, as a snail which melteth, let him pass away. Like the untimely birth of a woman, that he thinks -- he calls it a woman's right to choose, you know, he thinks it's so wonderful. He ought to be aborted. It ought to be, 'Abort Obama.'”

Let me tell you something: Barack Obama has wrought lewdness in America. America has become lewd. What does lewd mean? L-E-W-D? [Pause] Obscene. Right? Dirty. Filthy. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. All of the -- everything that's on the billboard, the TV. Sensuality. Lewdness! We don't even know what lewdness means anymore! We're just surrounded by it, inundated with it!

... And yet you're going to tell me that I'm supposed to pray for the socialist devil, murderer, infanticide, who wants to see young children and he wants to see babies killed through abortion and partial-birth abortion and all these different things -- you're gonna tell me I'm supposed to pray for God to give him a good lunch tomorrow while he's in Phoenix, Arizona.

Nope. I'm not gonna pray for his good. I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell. When I go to bed tonight, that's what I'm going to pray. And you say, 'Are you just saying that?' No. When I go to bed tonight, Steven L. Anderson is going to pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell.”

Anderson’s “Barack Obama melting as a snail” sermon from January 18, 2009

Let me make something else very clear: I do not support Barack Obama and I heavily oppose many of his stances and policies ranging from health care to the many Bush policies he has continued. I can even understand hating a politician, because I hated Bush almost the entire 8 years he was in office. Hating someone’s actions and policies and openly calling for their death are two different issues. Of all the anti-Bush stories I wrote on my blog in the past 3 years, I never once wished him dead (and I’m an agnostic!)

You can think someone is evil all you want to, but wishing for their death makes you actually no better than the person in whom you claim to hate. Unfortunately, for Anderson, he is clueless on his many hypocrisies and contradictions:

Here are just a few:

1. On the website of his church, here, it says in the doctrinal statement that the church believes in the “once saved, always saved” doctrine. This is a doctrine that teaches that at no matter what point in someone’s life they are saved, they are eternally secure and will go to heaven, even if they “fall away” from God and cease living a Christian life. The contradiction here is that in the many clips and excerpts I included, Anderson condemns homosexuals and people like Barack Obama, who he claims is a violent man. Well, if the homosexual or Obama was saved at any point in their past, according to Anderson, they are STILL saved (thus, still going to heaven). If that’s the case, why does Anderson condemn them? Why does he want them executed and sent to hell if his God has already secured them a seat in the heavenly splendor?

2. Even in my agnosticism, I can clearly understand that when God said he “hated” people in the Old Testament, he was clearly talking about their sin and not the person. Why doesn’t Anderson understand it? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Anderson has no degree or formal Bible college education and he believes Bible colleges are evil. In other words, he simply just memorizes the Bible and studies nothing else about cultures in Bible times, original languages or any other Bible concepts.

Here's a clip of another pastor teaching Anderson the difference between Bible translation (Anderson only accepts the KJV as the true word of God) and Bible transliteration (the original language the Bible was written in: Hebrew and Greek). Anderson's response to the pastor? "Well, that's your prerogative, I-I don't believe that, that's your prerogative."

3. I mentioned above, that Anderson said, "The same God who instituted the death penalty for murders is the same god who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals, sodomites and queers! That's what it was instituted for, okay? That's God, he hasn't changed." But, apparently God has changed when it comes loving people. Anderson said, “There’s a verse that says he LOVED all the world and therefore he gave. But, there’s no verse that says that TODAY he loves….you know, in the past he loved…..” According to Anderson, God used to love everyone, now he doesn't.

4. How does Anderson go door to door and “win people to Christ” while at the same time believing that God doesn’t love everyone? How does he know that the next house down is a person God “doesn’t love”?

5. I thought the Bible taught that in God’s eyes, sin is sin, and to him it didn’t matter if the sin was murder or lust and that any and all sins earned us a spot in hell? If that’s the case, why does Anderson think HE is going to heaven when he judges people and teaches false doctrines?

6. In Anderson’s “soul-winning” video (below), why does Anderson lie to the man at the door by saying, “God loves us” when in the clips/excerpts above he said, “God does not love everybody?” He also tells the man that “liars go to the lake of fire or hell”. Well, Anderson just lied to the man when he said, “God loves us”. Does that mean Anderson is going to hell?

7. Anderson said, "...people can push it with God too far. Where they can get to the point where God doesn’t love them anymore." So, God's love is not unconditional? I thought the Bible had no contradictions? Seems to me, saying that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world in one breath and then saying God's love doesn't cover ALL sins because "people can push it with God too far" in another breath is a huge contradiction.

8. Why does it take an agnostic to point out to a "so-called" Christian the colossal contradiction of being anti-abortion and then calling for homosexuals to be executed? If one is pro-life, does that not mean ALL people...ALL life, regardless of age, race, nationality, religion, gender, political affiliation or sexual orientation? I will admit, many of the Bible verses that Anderson reads to defend his positions do appear as if he has a point. This is exactly why I reject much of the Bible, because it is chock-full of contradictions.

Anderson’s soul-winning demonstration video

One thing that concerns me about Anderson is the fact that he has many of the same libertarian beliefs as I do. He believes 9/11 was an inside job, defends the Constitution, protests taxes, opposes the Iraq war, talks about the police state and the New World Order. This is the same man who Alex Jones interviewed back in April after Anderson was beaten by border patrol agents as he was traveling from San Diego to Phoenix. Anderson launched a tea party and there have been several stories about him on a Ron Paul website. (I realize that Ron Paul himself does not operate the website DailyPaul, but his followers need to do much better investigations of the people they endorse).

Don’t misunderstand. I am not suggesting that just because Jones has interviewed Anderson, that means Jones knows everything about him, knows specific details of his sermons or even supports Anderson's views. I am not saying Ron Paul is aware of the specifics of Anderson’s background either. I am simply saying, the association is there and it’s not good. I do not hold Alex Jones or Ron Paul responsible for the past actions of a guy who they either interviewed or whose stories appear on websites of theirs. I just now found out about Anderson’s ideologies myself.

My point is, this type of association is exactly what fuels the suspicion of anyone who opposes the stances of true libertarians. Earlier this year when the MIAC report came out from the Missouri State Police suggesting that anyone calling themselves a libertarian, a Ron Paul supporter and those who believed in “conspiracy theories” was a terrorist, it outraged the people profiled in that report, including Ron Paul himself. Left-wing bloggers called us “right-wing extremists” just because we protest taxes and war.

When a religious nutball like Anderson, who shares many of these same ideals and beliefs as we do, openly calls for homosexuals and the President of the United States to be executed or wishes for their death, it only makes things look bad for the overwhelming majority of us who are not complete lunatics.

If Alex Jones, Ron Paul or any other true conservative or libertarian give people like Anderson a platform in the future and continues the association, I won’t lie; I will be very concerned.

The funny thing is, when you watch other videos by Anderson or listen to audio clips of him on most issues, he seems very normal and sane. It’s when you listen to his sermons you come to the stark reality that this man is three fries short of a happy meal.

I don’t care if Anderson shares 95% of my views. His mental breakdowns during his sermons and his blatant hypocrisy and contradictory statements regarding the Bible (which I don’t even accept), not to mention calling for people he is supposed to love to be executed and sent to hell, are enough to make me want to distance myself from any association with him. Not for fear of what others might think, but because if I’m going to already be called “nutty” for what I believe about certain issues, I want to be able to defend it.

I have no defense if I’m associated with nutcases like Anderson.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Paterson, N.J. considers America’s first citywide non-emergency curfew for adults: Legitimate action or test for more cities to follow suit?

‘V for Vendetta’-like scenario from a Mayor with a vendetta

by Larry Simons
August 20, 2009

Paterson, N.J. officials have announced plans to adopt a new ordinance to cut down on the increasing number of violent crimes over the past summer. The country’s first ever citywide, non-emergency curfew, and that includes adults as well. Paterson Mayor Jose “Joey” Torres said, “We're trying to think outside the box. This was triggered predominantly by fear among city residents over the shootings that have been occurring this summer.”

Not only is a curfew unconstitutional, but a very bizarre proposed solution since homicides and shootings in Paterson have decreased since this time last year. There have been 6 homicides and 30 shootings this year, compared to 13 homicides and 37 shootings for the same period of 2008. So, it appears this is not about a “fear among city residents”. It seems the fear last year would have been doubled, but no curfew was proposed then.

Maybe it’s a lack of policemen? According to this July 27 article, that could be the case, since the Paterson police force’s allotted roster is 519, and they were recently 25 officers short of their mark. The only problem with that is, in the exact same article, it was reported that Mayor Torres laid off 59 officers on August 7 because of “financial” reasons.

Paterson’s Police Director, Glenn Brown, said the city’s crime rate was the lowest it had ever been and that even with 435 officers [84 under the allotment], the police department could still do the job. Not only does that fly in the face of Mayor Torres’ need to impose a curfew [that the crime rate is the lowest it has ever been], but although the salaries of the 59 laid off officers and the 25 it was already short would add money to the city’s coffers, why do they even need the money when the department’s budget had increased from 41.9 million in 2008 to 43.2 million in 2009 (a 3 % increase)?

Additionally, if the Mayor really wanted crime down and was concerned with finances, why, according to Police Benevolent Association President Detective Steve Olimpio, didn’t Torres lay off firefighters [but promoted them], the library or the DPW workers? Olimpio also said he feels the Mayor is specifically targeting cops because the police union rejected a city furlough proposal in April.

Under the comments on the July 27 story, one commentor [‘itsme5’] says:

“Remember the 780 Billion Dollar stimulus package our president rushed the country into and mortgaged our children’s future off with. The president promised that teachers, firefighters and police officers would not only be protected from layoffs, but the stimulus would also add jobs for teachers, firefighters and police officers. Torres was a huge supporter of this president in the election. WHERE IS THE MONEY JOEY???!!!!”

Another [DJHonda84] said:

“The city took a $3 million hit in state aid in the fiscal year that ended June 30." The math doesn't add up. I don't know how much these cops are making, but laying off a half-dozen should plug a hole like that. 59 sounds like overkill. There's something going on that this article is not telling us.”

mos8152 said:

“Why is the mayor laying off cops when he just got 4 million dollars last night, under the COPS grant, to retain officers?”

He’s right. Paterson received 3.7 million from stimulus money to hire 25 new officers, but none of the money could be used to save the jobs of any of the 59 officers it laid off. As I mentioned earlier, this is not about an increase in crime [it decreased]. It is not about a lack of police officers [59 were laid off], and it’s not about finances [the police department’s budget increased 1.3 million in the past year and now has an additional 3.7 million of stimulus money---totaling $5 million]. There is something missing here that is not being disclosed.

Could this be a “test city” under the guise of police lay-offs? It doesn’t hurt the city at all. Paterson will receive jacked up revenue from the salaries of 59 laid off officers, not to mention the money from the fines imposed on curfew violators. City officials may even raise property taxes, which many residents suspect. Cops won’t have to patrol except to search for violators. According to one of the comments here, the cops didn’t patrol one person’s street for 3 months. The ironic thing is, during the curfew the cops may be patrolling more often with even fewer officers than they did before.

Mayor Torres said the curfew would only last 2 months and prevents people from being outside between midnight and 7 a.m. Violators will face up to a $2,000 fine and 90 days in jail. Keep in mind, this is happening in America. In America, you will be thrown in jail and fined $2,000 for walking around outside in Paterson, New Jersey.

Can you say “Heil Hitler?

Also posted at Prison Planet, here

Monday, August 17, 2009

Arlen Specter thinks America is a Democracy, not a Republic

Dissent from Americans will not stand in the way of the orchestrated agenda in Washington to destroy America

By Larry Simons
August 17, 2009

Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) appeared yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos and was asked about the anger that he [and every other Democratic politician] has been subject to at town hall meetings from protesters of Obama’s health care plan.

ABC reporter Jake Tapper asked Specter, “Where does the anger come from Senator Specter?” Specter answered by saying the American people are nervous about losing their jobs and they are uncertain about the health care bill. Then Specter said this:

“Although those people need to be heard and have a right to be heard, that they’re not really representative of America in uh, in my opinion. We have to be careful here, uh not to let uh, those town meetings dominate the scene and influence what we do on health policy.”

So, in other words, because Specter “feels” these angry protesters aren’t in the majority and they only represent a small demographic of America, their voices and concerns mean nothing. It will have no influence whatsoever in Washington.

Specter thinks America is a Democracy, where the majority rule. Someone needs to remind Specter that America is a Republic, and a Republic is a government that establishes the rule of law and where representatives are chosen by the people to listen to their concerns and represent them accordingly.

Only in a pure democracy does the minority have no rights. Specter is essentially saying these angry town hall protesters have no rights because they don’t represent “most Americans.”

Specter then said:

“We also can’t allow these kinds of town hall meetings to dominate the political process. That would be destructive of what we need to do to figure out what is the best approach.”

Translation: Since the majority of protesters oppose Obama’s health care plan, of which Specter supports, then in Specter’s “opinion”, these people are the minority, and since he believes America is a Democracy and not a Republic, these protesters have no rights. Their dissent will not stand in the way of his plans in Washington because these people do not count.

watch the clip

Also posted at Prison Planet here

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Two-faced Pelosi: If you protest Republicans, you’re “very American”; if you protest Democrats, you’re a “Nazi”

Pelosi to war protestors in 2006:

I understand your anger
I’m a fan of disrupters
[You’re] “very American

by Larry Simons
August 15, 2009

During a town hall meeting in San Francisco on January 17, 2006, then House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said this to war protesters:

“So I think all of you who have spoken out for your courage, your point of view. All of it. Your advocacy is very American and very important.”

As the crowd begins shouting, “No more funding the war!”, Pelosi says this:

“I appreciate that you as advocates can say that. That’s ok, that’s ok.”

A moderator of some sort interrupts and says, “Ladies and gentlemen, please, let’s not dissolve into a shouting match here”, to which Pelosi responds, “That’s ok, that’s ok.”

watch the clip

Then a female protester begins to yell from the crowd [much of which is unintelligible].

Pelosi says to her, “I understand your anger”.

Pelosi then said, “When Franklin Roosevelt died, and I draw great inspiration from him because he was a disrupter, and I’m a fan of disrupters, people who make change”…..“so let’s not question each other’s patriotism when we have this very honest debate that our country expects and deserves.”

Oh really Nancy?

Just 3 years later she is saying this [in response to the question “Do you think there’s a legitimate grassroots opposition going on here or do you think they’re an Astroturf type of deal?]:

“I think they are Astroturf … you be the judge..of carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.”

watch the clip

Pelosi also said in a USA Today Op-ed on August 10, 2009:

"…it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue", and "These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

Hhmmmm. I thought you were a "FAN of disrupters", Nancy?????

Nancy Pelosi.........two-faced FRAUD

Also posted at PrisonPlanet, here

Friday, August 14, 2009

George Noory interviews Steve Quayle on Coast to Coast

Coast to Coast with George Noory
August 10, 2009

This interview is from August 10. I meant to post it then, but had to wait for it to appear on YouTube. Author and researcher Steve Quayle discusses the plans of the global elite and the Swine Flu. Steve also touches on martial law and why microbiologists are dying under mysterious circumstances.

I can do without the segments on giants and biblical prophecy, but Steve is very interesting even when he touches on subjects that I personally find a bit ‘nutty’. Steve Quayle’s website is here.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Left-wing blogger calls the late Aaron Russo a “crackpot”

Links to a New York Times story bashing Russo’s film “America: Freedom to Fascism” from debunked columnist David Cay Johnston

by Larry Simons
August 10, 2009

Left-wing spin-doctor and debunked liar Dave Neiwert (ironically from the left-wing blog Crooks and Liars) is up to his old tricks again: smearing true patriots who obey the Constitution and who confront and expose our fraudulent and criminal government.

In his latest column, Neiwert vilifies tax protestors and Constitutionalists and once again equates them with “right-wing extremists” who are hell-bent on committing acts of violence. Neiwert says:

“Indeed, the response from the right-wing media -- particularly on Fox -- so far to suggestions that extremists are manipulating these "tea party" protests has been to snort and roll their eyes. Of course, these are the same right-wingers who had a conniption fit over a Homeland Security bulletin about right-wing extremism by somewhat tellingly conflating its contents to include them -- only to have those warnings come starkly true.”

The “conniption fit” that Neiwert is referring to is the outrage expressed by Constitutionalists and civil libertarians that the DHS report labeled anyone who exercised their Constitutional right to bear arms, to engage in free speech and to openly express government dissent as terrorists. Oddly enough that would make us angry. Neiwert then adds:

“Along with their extremist beliefs -- including a bevy of conspiracy theories and scapegoating narratives, as well as an unmistakable racial animus -- the violent and thuggish tendencies of the Patriot movement is a matter of well-established public record. So it is not a surprise to see such behavior bubbling up whenever and wherever they are involving themselves.”

What Neiwert fails to see, or he does see and ignores, is the fact that there are “nuts” or “lone wolves” on both sides. But, to Neiwert, it does not matter what side you’re on. If there’s a “lone wolf” out there shooting people to death, they are “right-wing”, regardless of what you actually believe.

Neiwert was among the many left-wing hacks who, right after the Holocaust museum shooter killed a security guard on June 10, said the shooter, James von Brunn, was “right wing”, despite the fact that von Brunn hated both George Bush’s, John McCain and FOX News.

If there’s a shooting and it’s political in nature, you’re “right-wing” according to Neiwert, despite facts.

Another thing Neiwert conveniently ignores is the fact that even if people do have conspiracy theories or they feel the income tax is unconstitutional, it is our right as Americans to think freely and dissent if we feel there is injustice. That is what makes America so great and unlike any other country. Neiwert, too blind to see through the thick cloud of the false left/right paradigm, does not want people to exercise their Constitutional rights if those very rights lead them to denounce the political figures he supports.

Neiwert then attacked a true American hero when he began talking about a man who is associated with the anti-Obama crowd. He said the man, Ron Ewart “runs an outfit called the National Association of Rural Landowners, which has been built off the bones of the organizations left behind by the late crackpot Aaron Russo.”

Neiwert links Aaron Russo’s name to an article from 2006 written by then NY Times columnist and “tax expert” David Cay Johnston. The article ridicules Russo’s film “America: Freedom to Fascism” and Johnston basically calls Russo "nutty". Whether you agree or disagree that the income tax is unconstitutional or not, it should be well noted that Johnston is a proven fraud.

Listen to excerpts from nationally syndicated talk radio host Dave Champion here, here and here discussing the tax issue and why Johnston was too afraid to appear on Champion’s radio show to discuss the tax law. Champion also acted as a consultant to Aaron Russo on “America: Freedom to Fascism”.

Here is also an interesting clip. It is none other than David Cay Johnston at a press conference in 2003 asking I.R.S. Commissioner Mark Everson, “Mark, there are a group of people standing outside [tax protestors] who assert that they are no longer required to pay taxes and that you will not answer their petition to the government as to whether they’re required to pay taxes. Are they required to pay taxes and what do you say to them?”

Everson replies, “I’ve been paying my taxes ever since I had my first job. I think it’s a fundamental construct of our nation that those of us who expect and demand the services from our government that the government provides, be they the protection of our country through the military or be they the education of our children or be they the protection of our environment, that we must pay for those services. So yes, I think there is a fundamental obligation and that it’s an understood and well accepted one.”

watch the clip

Johnston then re-asks the question (acknowledging it was dodged), this time I.R.S. assistant commissioner Dale Hart mentions that there have been numerous court cases that have asserted the I.R.S.’ right to levy taxes and then instructs Johnston to go to the I.R.S. gov website to look it up. The fact that two I.R.S. representatives in 2003 could not flat out explain what law there is that requires Americans to pay taxes did not deter Johnston from portraying Russo as a nut in his 2006 column.

In fact, the day after the press conference (from the above clip), Johnston wrote this NY Times column and did not mention one word about Everson evading his question. This is what he said about Hart’s statement:

“Asked why the I.R.S. has not answered the group's questions in writing, Dale Hart, the I.R.S. executive who oversees small businesses and self-employed taxpayers, said claims that taxes are voluntary are addressed at the I.R.S. Web site and in print publications.”

Actually, she said nothing about “print publications”. She only referred to the website alone, and neither Hart nor Everson answered Johnston’s question. In fact, Johnston mentions in his 2003 column that right after the press conference was over, I.R.S. senior spokesman Terry Lemons said that (quoting column), “courts had upheld the validity of the tax laws and that the agency did not want to waste time and resources dealing with well-settled issues. Mr. Lemons added that the recent spate of enforcement actions taken by the I.R.S. against promoters of abusive tax schemes, and the new agreement with the states, show other ways that government is answering the petition.”

Why didn’t Mr. Lemons just say, “We are enforcing the law and those who break the written law will be prosecuted?” Because there is no law…that’s why.

None of this matters to dishonest disinformationists like Dave Neiwert. Rather than actually do research and investigate the fact that there is no law on the books that require the American people to pay income taxes, it’s much easier to attack a true American hero and patriot like Aaron Russo and call him a “crackpot”.

It matters not that Johnston has been debunked and runs away from debating the issue with people like radio host Dave Champion. It matters not that Johnston himself asked two I.R.S. officials on camera if there is a law requiring Americans to pay the income tax and then the very next day omitted from his article they evaded the question…twice.

Facts hardly ever matter to the likes of Dave Neiwert and government shills like David Cay Johnston. These two cowards will continue to do what they do best, run away from the truth and attack deceased American heroes. That way, they have no one to answer to.

watch Aaron Russo completely destroy former I.R.S. Commissioner Sheldon Cohen in "America: Freedom to Fascism"

Posted also at PrisonPlanet, here

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Nazi-Style Denunciation Campaign Urges Americans To Report Each Other

WeTip program offers cash rewards for anonymous tips about guns, child abuse and suspicious behavior
Paul Joseph Watson
August 6, 2009

A privately-run informant program operating nationwide encourages Americans to anonymously turn each other in to the authorities for cash rewards in a chilling echo of the Nazi "denunciations" of 1930’s Germany, where neighbors would grass their neighbors up to the local Gestapo officer over petty issues.

The WeTip organization takes anonymous tips online or via toll free phone lines and carries the creepy slogan "For A Safer America!" on its website beneath an image of a U.S. flag.

The group forwards tips given by the public to law enforcement authorities across the country, with no jurisdictional borders.

An Orwellian poster being plastered up across American towns and cities as part of a campaign run by the organization reads, "ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IS NOT TOLERATED" and advises citizens to "turn them in" and receive a reward of up to $1000. Things to "turn them in" for include drug dealing and theft, but more vague examples such as "threats and intimidation" as well as "weapons" and "gang activity" are listed, as is "child abuse".

Is the presence of a "weapon" in and of itself evidence of a crime in a country where citizens have the legal right to own firearms? Will your neighbor be turning you in if he sees you loading your car with a rifle on your way to the shooting range? What about "child abuse"? Will your friendly local spy be informing the authorities when he sees you disciplining your child?

What else constitutes suspicious activity? According to law enforcement and Homeland Security guidelines, suspicious behavior includes owning guns, being politically active, and having bumper stickers on your car.

The WeTip organization also offers a training institute for schools, businesses and government employees, presumably providing skills courses on how to become an expert domestic spy, just like in Communist East Germany.

WeTip also claims in its promotional material that it has been endorsed by both Bush presidents, as well as Bill Clinton and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Deliciously ironic therefore it is that Arnie starred in the 1987 movie The Running Man, a futuristic portrayal of a wacky dictatorship 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!"

As America sinks into a military police state, it begins to parallel more and more aspects of Nazi Germany, especially in the context of citizens being turned against each other, which in turn creates a climate of fear and the constraining sense that one is always being watched.

One common misconception about Nazi Germany was that the police state was solely a creation of the authorities and that the citizens were merely victims. On the contrary, Gestapo files show that 80% of all Gestapo investigations were started in response to information provided by denunciations by "ordinary" Germans.

"There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors," wrote Robert Gellately of Florida State University.

Gellately discovered that the people who informed on their neighbors were motivated primarily by banal factors – "greed, jealousy, and petty differences," and not by a genuine concern about crime or insecurity.

Gellately "found cases of partners in business turning in associates to gain full ownership; jealous boyfriends informing on rival suitors; neighbors betraying entire families who chronically left shared bathrooms unclean or who occupied desirable apartments."

"And then there were those who informed because for the first time in their lives someone in authority would listen to them and value what they said."

Gellately emphasizes the fact that the Germans who sicked the authorities on their neighbors knew very well what the consequences for the victims would be – families torn apart, torture and internment in concentration camps, and ultimately in many cases death – but they still did it with few qualms because the rewards of financial bounties and mere convenience were deemed more important to them.

As we have covered before, the WeTip program is by no means the only initiative that is training Americans to become amateur domestic spies.

One of the largest cable TV companies in the United States, Bright House, is training its employees to look for suspicious behavior and report it to police under the guise of a neighborhood watch initiative called Operation Bright Eyes.

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.

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."

As the Recession Ready America blog points out in relation to the WeTip program and its offer of $1,000 for turning people in, in an environment of recession and unemployment, the temptation to inform on people for minor indiscretions would be too tempting for many to resist, creating a gargantuan backlog of petty offences reported by people with no criminal detective skills whatsoever, leading to harassment of innocent people and ensuring that more real crimes go unsolved.

We invite our readers to use the WeTip "Submit a Tip" form to remind the crypto-Nazis behind this program that this is America, not Germany in the 1930’s. Building strong communities is all about establishing strong bonds and friendships with your neighbors, not grassing them up to the authorities for a quick buck.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Lifestyles of the Religious Nutball: The Silence of the Goats

Nutball granted permission to slaughter animals in his home

by Larry Simons
August 3, 2009

On Friday, a Federal appeals court reversed a lower court’s ruling that barred a Santeria priest from slaughtering goats in his Texas home, all in the name of religious freedom, of course. Nothing says "love thy neighbor" like taking a hatchet to a goat's neck and watching the blood fly.

The nutball, 46 year-old Jose Merced (pictured above), complained that the city of Euless, Texas was violating his Constitutional right to religious exercise while the city claims that the religious practice endangers public health and it violates the city’s slaughterhouse and animal cruelty ordinances. Plus, it’s nutty (I added that).

So, on Friday, a 3-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said the Euless ordinance placed a substantial burden on Merced's "free exercise of religion without advancing a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means." Who knows what that even means? So, it means as long as they are not hurting the government, it’s fair game? Unbelievable.

Merced said by practicing his faith in the privacy of his own home, he didn't harm anyone. No, just animals. What makes the New Orleans Court of Appeals think that the slaughter of animals won’t lead to heinous crimes, like slaughtering humans or Jeff Dahmer-style cannibalism? Oooooooh, I’m way off base, aren’t I? Have you read what religious nutballs are capable of? Read this.

It’s also nice to know that 3 people can judge what’s right for a town and community that they never have to live in. Now, because 3 judges decided this nutball can chop off the heads of goats, turtles and chickens in his house, the locals have to live with the animal kingdom’s Hannibal Lector.

Here it is everyone, yet another example of the government incorporating real laws and statutes for the purpose of someone’s unproven belief. This man is now a burden to his community because of something that is only taking place inside his head. Like I have always said, if people exercise their faith and practice their beliefs without hurting or being a burden to any living thing, I’m fine with it. But, they can’t. They just can’t.

Always, in some form or fashion, religious people have to grab that spotlight and say, “here I am, do you see me? Do I piss you off? Good!” They can’t have faith in their whatever and just crawl in a hole somewhere and never bug the shit out of you. They need to bug the shit out of you. They crave it. I actually think there might be a lost commandment that says, “Bug the Shit Out of People (and don’t stop)”.

This has been Lifestyles of the Religious Nutball. Dun-dunt.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Shocking New Birth Certificate Proof Obama Born In Kenya?

If authenticated, document could create constitutional crisis, reaction could be martial law
Paul Joseph Watson
August 2, 2009

California attorney Orly Taitz has released a copy of a birth certificate that purports to show Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, which if authenticated would plunge the United States into a constitutional crisis and potentially herald a catastrophic loss of confidence in the legitimacy of the government.

The Obama birth certificate issue has been rumbling on for over a year, with researchers demanding to see a complete birth certificate proving that President Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims, yet none has been forthcoming.

Mainstream media attention on the issue has intensified over the past few weeks, even forcing the White House itself to publicly dismiss the controversy.

However, Taitz’ bombshell discovery blows the whole story wide open and its ramifications could be monumental.

According to World Net Daily, Taitz has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court seeking authentication for the document.

View the document below. Click for enlargements.

"The document lists Obama’s parents as Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Obama, formerly Stanley Ann Dunham, the birth date as Aug. 4, 1961, and the hospital of birth as Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya," reports World Net Daily.

"No doctor is listed. But the alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Oduya. It was allegedly issued as a certified copy of the original in February 1964.

"WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical."

Despite the fact that a hoax document similar in nature circulated the Internet last week, World Net Daily reports that the new document "bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax".

The birth certificate was released by an anonymous source who did not want to be named because he fears for his life.

"I filed the motion with the court asking for expedited discovery, which would allow me to start subpoenas and depositions even before Obama and the government responds," Taitz told WND.

"I am asking the judge to give me the power to subpoena the documents from the Kenyan embassy and to require a deposition from Hillary Clinton so they will be forced to authenticate [the birth certificate]."

If proven genuine, the document could herald a constitutional crisis in the United States and lead to Barack Obama being kicked out of office before he’s even able to complete his first year in the White House.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of president."

Obviously the more likely scenario will be that the court will be strong armed into dismissing the document as a counterfeit by the powers that be.

However, the overt preparations for martial law which have intensified since Obama took office have doubtless taken into account the fact that a complete loss of confidence in the legitimacy of the government could foster civil unrest and make a police state crackdown necessary from the perspective of the authorities.