Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Ron Paul Questions Why Obama Daughters Haven’t Taken Swine Flu Vaccine

Despite declaring national emergency in response to H1N1 outbreak, President refuses to allow his own children to be inoculated with controversial shot

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 27, 2009

Congressman Ron Paul has questioned why, despite his efforts to encourage the general public to get vaccinated against the H1N1 virus, President Barack Obama has refused to allow his own daughters to take the swine flu shot.

Despite the fact that Obama on Friday declared a national emergency in response to the H1N1 outbreak, he apparently doesn’t deem it enough of a threat to have his two daughters vaccinated against the virus.

Such double standards have led media pundits to call for Obama to get his daughters vaccinated on live television, in an effort to encourage American parents to do the same for their kids. The swine flu vaccination program, which was initially intended to be a “mass” inoculation covering the entire population, has been rejected by a majority of Americans who harbor deep suspicions about dangerous additives contained in the vaccine such as mercury and squalene.

In a Campaign For Liberty video message, former Presidential candidate Ron Paul labeled the vaccination program a “failure,” and slammed Obama for failing to follow the same advice he gave to the nation.

“It’s interesting to note that the President’s children have not gotten their shots and the explanation for this is it hasn’t been available to them – now that’s a little bit hard to buy when you think that probably anything the President wants can be available for their children,” said Paul, adding, “So in a way he’s made his decision not to give his children these inoculations – so if he has freedom of choice on this, I would like to make sure that all the American people have the same amount of freedom of choice.”

Others have echoed similar sentiments. “Surely if there is a national emergency and if the President and First Lady of the United States wanted flu shots for their daughters, they could get them. It is certainly connected to our national security right? I mean the president needs to have his wits about him 24/7 not worrying over sick children. Could this instead be yet another case of “do as I say, not as I do” from the Obama administration?” writes Cathryn Friar.

Paul compared Obama’s hypocrisy to politicians who lobby for the virtues of public education yet in every instance educate their own children privately.

“The biggest champions of public education make sure their kids never get public education, they always get private education where there’s a lot better choices than the kind of system they’re promoting,” said the Congressman.

Obama certainly isn’t stupid enough to inject his own kids with the same toxic soup that he encourages the idiot public to receive, and will probably be keen on getting access to the special additive-free swine flu shots produced by Baxter International that have been made available for the elite.

As Spiegel Online reported earlier this month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and government ministers received a mercury and squalene-free H1N1 vaccine. “The Vakzin [vaccine] does not contain disputed additives — contrary to the vaccine for the remainder of the population,” reported the newspaper. Soldiers in the German army were also given the adjuvant-free vaccine.

Employees of the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany also received the “green” inoculation after their president Johannes Löwer labeled the vaccine a greater threat than the virus itself.
Löwer’s comment came after German lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg said the vaccine increases the risk of cancer. The nutrient solution for the vaccine consists of cancerous cells from animals.

In the video update, Congressman Paul also warned that Obama’s emergency declaration on Friday was part of a plan to condition people to accept the notion of government as protector and coerce the public into complying with whatever they say, including forced quarantines.

Watch the Ron Paul clip below

Don Imus’ wife tells Sean Hannity that Obama should get his kids’ vaccinated on live TV

Friday, October 23, 2009

Prison Planet once again boo-hooing about censorship of Alex Jones despite their continued censorship of Real Truth Online

Prison Planet attacks Facebook for censoring links to Alex Jones’ latest movie while they still censor RTO and who knows how many others

by Larry Simons
October 23, 2009

Once again, Prison Planet is up to their old tricks: complaining about being censored, then censoring others only to go right back and continue to complain about being censored. Prison Planet writer and webmaster Paul Joseph Watson [pictured above] seems to still be practicing the golden rule from the hypocrisy playbook: Act perplexed that others are not doing unto you what you would have them do to you, then do unto them the very same deed you were perplexed about, then act perplexed that they are not doing unto you what you would have them do unto you all over again.

Watson condemns social networking website Facebook for blocking links to Alex Jones’ new film Fall of the Republic. Prison Planet has often condemned others such as YouTube for censoring or deleting altogether Alex Jones YouTube pages, Ron Paul videos and the most recent ‘Joker’ videos from a contest Alex Jones started early this year.

Watson has a point. After all, this is America where free speech is not only a first amendment right, but is also one of the staples that makes our country great. You should be able to post anything you want on a website as long as it is not violating a law, threatening someone with violence, posting a person’s personal information [like address and phone number] or blatantly spreading false information about something or someone.

I violated none of the aforementioned common sense rules when I exposed Prison Planet in September for censoring my comments after they ran a story of a fake interview actor Charlie Sheen had with Barack Obama. Prison Planet didn’t just stop at that. They also deleted all 21 articles I had written for them from December 2007 to September 2009. They did that in order to block any access to my site from their site, I’m assuming to prevent anyone from coming to my site and reading the truth about how they censor websites as well.

In Watson’s latest story of the Facebook censorship. He posts evidence of the Facebook censorship by way of a YouTube video.

I also posted evidence of how Prison Planet censors commenting on their site in a story I did, here, in late September

Just today I posted a comment on Watson’s Facebook story. It immediately appeared posted on the comment thread so I captured a screen shot of it. When I refreshed my screen moments later, it was gone.

Here is the proof. Notice the comment by “DomenK” above my post

After I refreshed the screen and my comment was gone, a new comment appeared underneath “DomenK”, clearly exposing the fact that my comment had either been deleted, or systematically ejected because of my blocked IP address.

Not only is any story Prison Planet does on censorship from this point on profoundly hypocritical and discredited, but I find it interesting that they find it unbelievable that other entities like Facebook would censor them, especially since Watson admits in his latest article that Facebook appears to be pro-Obama.

Watson says, “Facebook has been staunchly pro-Obama since his election, even offering an ‘Obama skin’ page design that the company bragged was used by hundreds of thousands of people.” So, Watson, why is it shocking that they censored Jones’ links?

If they are pro-Obama and someone is posting links to an anti-Obama film, well, of course they would censor! Such behavior may be understandable, but at the very least it is fraudulent. Likewise, it may be understandable for Prison Planet to ban me for the exposés I have done about Alex Jones in the past 2 months, but [especially for them] it is very fraudulent, since Prison Planet has always been a defender of free speech, liberty and proclaiming that people should NOT be banned for simply telling the truth.

What makes Prison Planet complete frauds in my in particular case is the fact that I hold many of the same views they advocate on their site. Yet when I disagree with them on one particular issue, they not only censor my comments but delete every single story I have ever written for them.

To prove that I have not harbored the exact same behavior as Prison Planet in retaliation of their blatant hypocrisy in censoring me, I have even posted several of Paul Watson's stories on my site since my fued with them over this censorship issue. Why did I post them? Because they were good stories and it was the truth. My motivation for posting them was not to prove I am a better man than Paul Watson and Alex Jones, but because I posted them, proves I am a better man than Paul Watson and Alex Jones. My site is not about any one man. It's not about Alex Jones. It's not about Ron Paul. It's about the truth....regardless of where the source is.

I am 100% certain the main reason Watson is exposing Facebook about their censorship of Alex Jones’ movie, besides it being anti-free speech, is because Watson would probably argue that the people who run Facebook did not debunk one thing in Jones’ film. Watson would probably argue that the lack of refutation of Jones’ film on the part of Facebook is an admittance that the content is true and cannot be debunked.

This is exactly what Prison Planet did to me. They blocked me from commenting on their stories and deleted every article I had posted on their site, and they did all of that without offering ONE refutation of my stories on any of their sites. How is Prison Planet any different than Facebook?

Actually, Facebook is different than Prison Planet. Paul Watson even admitted it in his story. Watson says, “It is important to stress that this does not occur for all versions of Fall Of The Republic posted on Facebook. For example, the link posted at the top of http://www.facebook.com/FallOfTheRepublic can still be shared. However, if it is a policy for Facebook to block links to this film, then we can expect more different versions to be censored in future.”

So, in other words, Facebook did not completely censor everything. Prison Planet, on the other hand, did completely delete every story of mine from their site and has banned me completely from posting comments.

So, Facebook is different from Prison Planet. Facebook still allows unfavorable content on their site!

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Planning on making coffee naked in your own kitchen? Not in America, pal!

Virginia man is arrested for being naked in his own house

by Larry Simons
October 21, 2009

29-year-old Springfield, Virginia resident, Eric Williamson, decided to wake up Monday morning, walk downstairs and, like many Americans, have a few cups of morning joe. But, probably unlike many Americans, Williamson strolled into his kitchen feeling an unfamiliar breeze on his ass and nutsack.

He was naked.

No big deal, right? After all, it was 5:30 in the morning, he was alone, the house was mostly dark and it was still dark outside. Not a big deal to let Mr. Happy dangle in the open air and freeball, one would assume.

One would assume wrong.

Apparently, Williamson just happened to be enjoying 'naked coffee time' at the very same time one of his neighbors was taking her daily 5:30 a.m. stroll with her 7-year-old son. Needless to say, the neighbor walked by the house, saw Williamson through his window and learned the ‘bare’ facts; that in 2009, people have the audacity to walk around naked in their own houses.

Naturally, like any concerned citizen would do, she immediately called the police. God knows if she hadn’t, this could have caused an irreversible chain reaction where hundreds…thousands…hell, even millions of Americans would have followed suit and simultaneously disrobed while enjoying their coffee [or bacon and eggs for that matter], causing the planets to realign, forcing the new disciples of nudedom to take over the world.

Obviously, the female neighbor would not let that happen, so she called the Fairfax County Police to the scene immediately. Who cares if they are too busy responding to drug dealers, murderers or bank robbers? This is a naked man in his own house we’re talking about here! Priorities, people…priorities!

Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me” , Williamson said. Good point. Isn’t anyone wondering why a woman is milling around at 5:30 a.m. with her 7-year-old son looking in people’s windows?

Doesn't an incident like this fall within the same rule of thumb that if you don't like what is on a certain channel, you simply just click to another one? If you don't like looking at a nude man inside of his own house, look at another house that has it's lights off inside! Look at a fucking tree. Look at the sidewalk. Look at the stars. Look at a street sign. Look at anything except the naked man's scrotum if it offends you so much! Or just walk away! If I was the cop that arrived on the scene, my first question to the woman would have been, "Why didn't you just keep walking or simply just not look?"

Fairfax County Police officers arrested Williamson for indecent exposure because they believe that he actually wanted the public to see him in the nude. Wouldn’t Williamson have increased the chances of him being seen if he had been outside of his house, or if the sun had come up and there was a larger number of people around? Since it was dark, how did he even know there was anyone walking around outside?

If Williamson is convicted on the misdemeanor charge, he will face up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Trial lawyer Dickson Young says that the Virginia statute requires an intentional display of ones private parts in order for someone to be convicted of indecent exposure. This would exclude an individual accidentally, occasionally or inadvertently displaying ones private area.

Young also said that in order for Williamson to be convicted of a crime, the police and the state would have to prove that Williamson knew the neighbors were outside the house when Williamson was inside naked.

It sure is good to know that there are police officers still willing to ‘crack’ cases like this. One thing baffles me. Why didn’t the neighbor just turn the other cheek?

watch the clip

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Alex Jones interviews David Ray Griffin

Griffin talks with Alex about his new book on the collapse of WTC 7 and the farce that was the National Geographic Channel 9/11 hit piece

by Larry Simons
October 20,2009

Friday, October 16, 2009

Danish Prime Minister Knew WTC Would Collapse

Giuliani received the same warning – victims and firefighters inside the tower did not
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 16, 2009

During a recent interview on Danish television, the former Prime Minister of Denmark admitted that he received a message 5 to 10 minutes beforehand telling him that the south tower of the World Trade Center was going to collapse, prompting questions as to why the victims and rescue personnel inside the building didn’t get the same warning.

Poul Nyrup Rasmussen told Denmark’s largest broadcast television network, The Danish Broadcasting Corporation, that before he walked into his office to hold a security meeting on the morning of 9/11, he got advance knowledge of the south tower’s imminent collapse.

"I am told that the first tower has completely collapsed….I received a message 5-10 minutes before it physically happened saying there was impending danger the tower would collapse so I knew disaster was coming" said Rasmussen.

Rasmussen added that the imminent collapse of the building was confirmed as soon as he entered his office.

The Danish Prime Minister was not the only high-level official to receive advance knowledge that the World Trade Center was going to collapse.

During an interview on 9/11 with ABC News’ Peter Jennings, then New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani stated, "I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."

In the eight years since the attacks, Giuliani has failed to explain how and why he received advance knowledge of this unprecedented event and why that same warning was not passed on to those inside the towers, who had been told to remain in their offices via loudspeaker after the first plane struck at 8:46am.

"Some people — it’s not clear how many — returned to their offices after announcements on the building’s emergency loudspeaker system said that it was safe to stay in the south tower," reported USA Today under the sub headline "announcements caused deaths," adding that to some this sounded like an order to return, not an option.

The fact that officials knew the tower was about to collapse as much as 10 minutes before it fell was completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission. If that same warning had been transmitted to those inside the towers who still had the capability to get out, hundreds of lives could have been saved.

Add to this the fact that the collapse of a steel building that was purposefully built to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner without collapsing through fire damage was a completely unprecedented event, and the notion that the 9/11 Commission wouldn’t even question these advance warnings sounds alarm bells and provides yet another reason why a new investigation is needed.

Watch the two clips below.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Richard Belzer exposes criminal bankers behind the unconstitutional and private Federal Reserve to Bill Maher

Belzer: “John Kennedy wanted to stop…using the Federal Reserve….so they exploded his head"
by Larry Simons
October 13, 2009

You got to hand it to comedian/actor Richard Belzer. Not many people have the guts to say what he said on last Friday’s telecast of Real Time with Bill Maher.

During a discussion between Maher and his panel about how it was so much easier for the middle class to live 40-50 years ago, when today it is near impossible, author Cornel West finished making a point when actor Richard Belzer interjected and said this:

“In 1910, Senator Aldrich on his private train, brought a bunch of billionaire bankers, the Morgans, the….all these different people, the Warburgs, down to this place called Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia. And they figured out a way to create the Federal Reserve, because central banks were looked down upon by the people, and they caused a lot of problems.

By creating the Federal Reserve, they convinced the Congress and the people that the Federal Reserve is a government arm. It’s not. They borrow money from private banks. We’re owned by banks, and you can’t alter that. John Kennedy wanted to stop borrowing, wanted to stop using the Federal Reserve, use silver certificates to determine the value of the dollar and print money through the treasury….so they exploded his head. The point is…..”

Maher interrupts and says, “Well, that’s quite a connection you made” [with a disgusted “oh no, another damned conspiracy theorist” look on his face].

Belzer continues, “Forget the Kennedy part, he did want to do that, he did want to…[unintelligible]…”

Maher then says, “I’ve heard a lot of reasons why he got shot; I’ve never heard that one.”

Belzer responds, “Well, that’s thee reason, and that’s the scam. It’s..it’s not billions of dollars the banks control, it’s trillions. You don’t mess with the banks.”
watch the clip

Belzer's comment about Kennedy also reveals that he, like I, as well as most thinking people in this country [and even the world], believes that Kennedy was assassinated by our own government. Oswald [even if he was the killer] sure as hell wouldn't have killed Kennedy because of Kennedy's desire to end the Fed! I would love to hear Belzer's views on 9/11.

Why does the truth always come from the least likely people….actors, comedians, singers? Why not from the news commentators, journalists or politicians?

I met Belzer in 1997 in Baltimore. If I only knew then what I know now, we might have had a very interesting conversation.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Andy “the Fraud” Ostroy says Obama deserves the Nobel Prize and comes closer to deserving his own award; the Fraudie

Ostroy says Obama is a “peacenik"?. What planet is Ostroy living on? Head-Up-Assia?

by Larry Simons
October 10, 2009

I figured it wouldn’t take long for Obama worshipper Andy “The Fraud” Ostroy to write his latest love letter to his Lord and Savior, Barack Hussein Obama, for winning the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday.

From start to finish, Ostroy’s latest billet doux to Obama entitled, "Why Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is Deserved", was one contradiction and mind-numbing falsehood after the other to the point where it could actually lead someone to believe Ostroy was referring to someone else other than the President of the United States.

Ostroy begins:

“…now that he [Obama] has won the Nobel Peace Prize, beating out 200 other candidates for addressing the threat of global warming; for trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons; and for attempting to achieve a global peace.”

Addressing the threat of global warming?” What threat? You mean, the hoax of global warming. “Trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons?” I guess he’s referring to only those countries that are oil rich and are threats to Israel. If he was trying to “rid the world” of them, that would also include ridding the world of the ballistic missiles [that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads] that North Korea actually fires off and of course, dismantling our weapons too. Oh that's right, the United States is allowed to have them. Why are WE allowed to have nuclear weapons but no one else can? “Attempting to achieve a global peace?” Is he kidding? By continuing Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, extending them to Pakistan and now eyeing Iran to be the next one we bomb? It’s the kind of peace that has to make John McCain proud!

Ostroy continues:

“In Oslo, Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjørn Jagland said "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. We are not awarding the prize for what may happen in the future, but for what he has done in the previous year.”

I would ask Chairman Jagland, “What has he done but continue wars, taken the baton from Bush’s hand and is now trying to finish the global militarism and American imperialistic agenda of the neocons?” And he is doing swimmingly.

What Obama has accomplished is actually quite remarkable. With Bush, you had his supporters [supporting the wars] and his opposition [opposing the wars]. It was two camps of people...simple. Now, Obama is in power and he is carrying out the neocon foreign policy of the Bush regime. Many who despised the Bush administration who continually condemned the wars [Ostroy, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi and a plethora of other liberals] are now either openly cheerleading for the wars to continue or just being silent.

Obama has reeled in a very large number of the former antiwar crowd by simply doing the exact same thing Bush has done, but with eloquence. The pro-Bush camp opposes Obama on every other issue it seems except the wars. Have you noticed no one talks about ending the wars anymore except for Independents and civil libertarians?

Ostroy continues:

“As the news broke Friday, conservative pundits were in high-gear robotically regurgitating the primary talking point that Obama won the award simply for not being George W. Bush.”

This is where political party clouds minds, because Obama is EXACTLY like Bush in many ways. The ironic thing about Ostroy's statement is, that since Obama won the Peace Prize, then Bush should have as well. They are almost the same person.

Ostroy continues: (My reaction inserted in black)

“But let's get something straight here: this is a very proud day for America. For all Americans [Speak for yourself shithead. He’s not my President and not my leader. You have no right to speak for me]. After eight embarrassing, unrepentant years of reckless cowboy arrogance marred by war, war crimes and human rights abuses, Obama's Nobel Prize symbolizes the beginning of the Unites States' return to respectability and perhaps even greatness someday [You mean the wars that Obama has continued, not to mention adding Pakistan and possibly Iran? You mean the war crimes that Obama has failed to prosecute and has said he will NOT prosecute, which according to the Geneva Conventions makes him a war criminal too? You mean the human rights abuses that Obama has also continued? Ostroy is obviously living on the planet Head-Up-Assia]. A time when the world is looking to America, and its president, for leadership [They are? News to me!]. This isn't about Bush. It's about Obama and what he represents on the world's stage" [And what does he represent? Broken promises, more war, socialism and greater government control of the lives of its citizens?].

Ostroy bellows:

“The notion that Obama's prize is undeserved is absurd and an insult to every American [The fact that he won it is absurd and it deeply tarnishes the dignity and prestige of the award]. First of all, who said the Nobel Committee's criteria for winning requires candidates to be "accomplished" U.S. presidents? Or that they even be a U.S. president, for that matter? [The Nobel Prize website states who is eligible for winning the award: “Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace”. Obama would only be eligible to win under the peace category, and I believe I have debunked that one].

So the fact that Obama was selected so soon after his inauguration is totally irrelevant [Because he’s a Democrat, right? Besides, didn’t you say in your first paragraph that one reason he won was “for trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons?” How much “ridding” of nuclear weapons did he get done between January 21 and the nomination deadline of February 1?]. This honor isn't about what he's done since January [Good, because that would be…nothing]. To the contrary, it's about how this relatively unknown Midwestern politician with humble beginnings became the first black president of the United States [Actually, half black] by inspiring a nation through a message of peace, hope, and aspiration...and thus shifted the political and racial winds in this country and throughout the world [Funny, I didn’t see "Be the first black president", "Must have humble beginnings", "Must shift political and racial winds" or "Be an unknown midwestern politician" listed in the categories of qualifying achievements].

The award is a recognition of Obama's vision for a new, harmonious planet, and how he's serving as a catalyst for that change [By continuing Bush’s wars and starting new ones? You’re right---that IS change!]. To say he's won because he's not Bush is grossly oversimplifying the significance of the prize. Rather, he's undoing the colossal damage that's been done by Bush" [I repeat....by continuing his wars and policies????].

Ostroy continues:

“It's been eight years since America's been led by such an intelligent, inspirational figure as Obama. A president who thinks before he speaks [OK, so he didn't say, “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” when referring to the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates in July? Nahhh, that never happened]. One who weighs options before he acts [With the exception of weighing the option of sending more troops to die in the wars that Ostroy was against under Bush]. A president with depth and intellectual curiosity. A president secure enough in his manhood to be able to talk with his enemies, rather than simply talk tough. A peacenik rather than a warmonger [No, he’s a warmonger who can pronounce words and doesn’t make up new ones]. Obama's restored dignity and diplomacy to the most important office in the world [That was really an accomplishment? Considering his predecessor made Larry the Cable Guy look like Einstein?], while setting an example for everyone else in the quest for peace on Earth [More war is peace??]. That's why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize" [Really? I thought it was for peace?].

Ostroy concludes [thank god]:

“It's unconscionable that on this great day for America, Obama's achievement has to be turned into something ugly and partisan by a bunch of un-patriotic, mean-spirited, sore-losing Republican crybabies who've yet to emotionally get beyond last November...and probably never will.”

Great day for America? Tell me something Andy: How many troops died in Afghanistan and Iraq on yesterday’s “great day?” How many Iraqi and Afghan civilians died yesterday on that “great day?” Or don’t you care? How are critics of Obama's Nobel Prize win "un-patriotic"?? So, if I simply point out that Obama is a half-black, younger version of George W. Bush [as I have], I don't love my country? Please explain how one equals the other. I'm all ears.

You can point the finger at George W. Bush for taking our country into two illegal wars all you want to [and you'd be correct], but these are Obama's wars now. He is now just as guilty for them as Bush is. Even more so. Bush didn't extend our troop presence to Pakistan and it won't be Bush's fault if we bomb Iran. Bush also did not promise to END the wars and then two and a half months into his term request an additional 83.4 billion for the wars he promised to end----Obama did that.

It was the “peacenik” Obama who was responsible for the deaths on yesterday’s “great day” because he can order troops home immediately, and he has not. In fact, Obama is not only responsible for the nearly 3,000 people [120 U.S. troops in Iraq, nearly 400 U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan and approx. 2,300 Iraqi civilian deaths] who have died since his inauguration [almost as many as on 9/11] , but is a war criminal himself for failing to make one attempt to prosecute the war crimes of Bush and his administration.

How in the fuck do you call that ‘peaceful’?

I do know one award that will be well deserved come mid-December: RTO's 2009 Fraudie Award, which is presented to the year's biggest FRAUD. Congrats Andy, the award is in the bag! Do I send it straight to your marketing firm in New York City or to Obama's bedroom?

Friday, October 9, 2009

War Criminal Obama Deserves An Oscar, But Not A Nobel Peace Prize

Barack is good at propagandizing for an attack on Iran, and he has dutifully expanded the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but a peacenik he is not

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 9, 2009

In a world where war criminals like Tony Blair are rewarded and those that oppose war criminals, like the Iraqi shoe thrower Muntadhar al-Zeidi, are imprisoned and tortured, it comes as no surprise that another war criminal – Barack H. Obama – has been rewarded for his stoic service to imperial bloodletting with the Nobel Peace Prize.

The man who gallantly promised "change" from the Bush regime’s illegal wars and a return to diplomacy over belligerency in dealing with Iran, has perpetuated the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while expanding another in Pakistan and becoming belligerent towards Iran.

How in anyone’s mind can such behavior constitute a move towards peace?

Obama has done nothing to dismantle the sprawling network of well over 700 U.S. military bases all over the world.

Instead of coming to an understanding with Iran over their nuclear power program, Obama gleefully read from his trusty teleprompter and crafted the hoax that the Iranian nuclear facility at Qom was an evil secret that the Iranians had kept hidden from America as part of a clandestine agenda to build nuclear weapons. In reality, Iran had followed precisely the guidelines set out by the IAEA on when to report the facility and the U.S. had known about it for several years anyway.

Obama’s slick propaganda in expressing his shock at the "discovery" of the plant was worthy of an Oscar but not a Nobel Peace Prize, since the scam has increased the likelihood of sanctions on Iran that will only accelerate the path to war.

By dutifully playing his part in this contrived hoax, Obama was mimicking the tactics of how George W. Bush sold the attack on Iraq.

As Paul Craig Roberts wrote, "By accusing Iran of having a secret "nuclear weapons program" and demanding that Iran "come clean" about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" to set up Iraq for invasion."

The fact that Obama launched himself into the role of war hawk in an effort to propagandize for belligerency towards Iran completely discredits the claim by Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland that Obama "Has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."

Obama’s acting skills in front of a teleprompter and his slick rhetoric about peace and diplomacy may look good on the surface, but the reality of what he has actually done to further the PNAC agenda for endless war underlines why the award of the Peace Prize is a sick joke.

If Obama intended to bring peace to the world, then why were his early appointments mostly neo-liberal war hawks who have a history of backing military adventurism?

If Obama is such a huge peacenik, then why has he sent 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan already, with tens of thousands more at least on the way?

If Obama plans to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and bring peace to the region, then why has he gone back on his promise and ensured that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in the country?

If Obama is so deserving of being recognized for his efforts towards peace, then why has he intensified the Bush-era missile drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan that have killed and injured countless innocent civilians?

If Obama is so interested in promoting peace, then why does he protect war criminals who have violated the Geneva Conventions from prosecution?

Beyond the meaningless platitudes served up by his fellow elitist snobs, the true hilarity of Obama receiving the prize was illustrated by just a couple of individuals who the corporate media dared to quote.

Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad, told Reuters: "He doesn’t deserve this prize. All these problems — Iraq, Afghanistan — have not been solved…The man of ‘change’ hasn’t changed anything yet."

"Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative religious party in Pakistan, called the award an embarrassing "joke."

"By implementing his war continuation plan, Obama will complete the work of Bush and his militarist clique," writes author Chris Floyd, and in doing so send, "an apparently endless stream of American troops to die — and, in even greater numbers, to kill — in a criminal action that has helped bankrupt our own country while sending waves of violent instability and extremism around the world. It will further enfilth a cesspool of corruption and war profiteering that has already reached staggering, world-historical proportions."

Floyd encapsulates perfectly why Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize award is a disgusting farce, an insult to those who really are fighting for peace in the world, and just another reminder that the Nobel Peace Prize represents little more than a gaggle of back-slapping elitists who bestow awards upon each other so that they can pose as global saviors to the public when in reality they are mostly a bunch of crooks, con-artists and deceivers.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

A ‘Christian’ confession from Sean Hannity: I want my enemies destroyed

Despite the fact that Jesus says to love them? Hmmmmm

by Larry Simons
October 7, 2009

On Tuesday’s telecast of Hannity, filmmaker Michael Moore was on to talk about his latest film, “Capitalism: A Love Story”. Before the discussion actually got to Moore’s movie, Hannity and Moore went into other subjects like the war in Iraq, 9/11 and religion.

Moore asked Hannity why we [the United States of America] being this great, free country and great democracy invade other countries that did nothing to us. Hannity said we need to defeat the people that plot terror attacks [USS Cole, World Trade Center bombing]. Of course, Hannity never answers Moore's question as to why we need to invade a country to "defeat the people that plot terror attacks".

Moore made an excellent point in saying after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, we didn’t treat them like they were some nation that we had to go send an army after. Moore said, “we just caught the bastards and we put them in prison.”

The discussion switched to religion after Hannity said that he believes that there are millions of religious fanatics that believe there are virgins in heaven for those who commit a suicide bombing. Hannity then asked Moore if he was a religious fanatic. Moore laughed and said, “I’m a religious fanatic? (laughing)…I believe that when Jesus said that you’re to love your neighbor..[Hannity interjects “as yourself”] as yourself, you’re to love your enemy.”

Moore then asked Hannity, “You love your enemy?” Hannity replied, “Yes I do”, in which Moore replied, “So you love al Qaeda then?” Hannity replied, “No, I don’t love them. I love them in the sense that I want to destroy them.”

watch the clip

Hannity’s response to Moore [“I love them in the sense that I want to destroy them”] completely summarizes in a nutshell the premise in which I have always tried to make my point that religion is dangerous. It’s dangerous because you have one religious entity saying their beliefs are from the one true god and you have another religious entity saying their beliefs are from the one true god.

Obviously, two different gods can't be the “one true god”, hence the disagreements, the fighting, the piousness, the separating/lack of unity and of course, the killing and the wars. What Hannity completely misses is the fact that in making that comment, that makes him a religious fanatic.

Why are Hannity’s religious views any better than a Muslims religious views? People like Hannity argue that one of the precepts of the Islam religion is that their goal is to take over the world and have everyone converted, and the one’s who either don’t convert or practice another religion are to be killed. That might be the view of the Muslim fanatic, but that is not what Islam teaches.

Christianity has their fair share of nutball fanatics as well, as I have pointed out here. Why are Muslim fanatics worse than Christian fanatics? They’re not. A nutball is a nutball regardless of what religion you practice. Hannity is making himself no better than a Muslim fanatic by saying he wants his enemies destroyed, because just as the fanatical Muslim violates his religion by killing non-Muslims, Hannity violates his religion by not loving his enemies and wanting them destroyed.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Latest swine flu gimmick: Get a shot for “the ones you love

New gimmick at Walgreens: “Arm yourself for the ones you love

by Larry Simons
October 5, 2009

Translation: If you don’t get injected with a deadly dose of mercury and squalene for someone you love, well, you don’t really love them, do you?

People who should get the swine flu shot , according to Walgreens:

*Pregnant women
*Caregivers of children less than 6 months of age
*Healthcare and Emergency Medical Services personnel
*Individuals from 6 months to 24 years of age
*Individuals from 25 through 64 years of age with health conditions that will put them at higher risk of complications.

In other words: Everyone

Sunday, October 4, 2009

New L.A.P.D. terrorism “prevention” program would just create society of snitches

Program gives absolutely zero terrorism prevention instructions outside of what a person would do anyway

by Larry Simons
October 4, 2009

A new “terrorism” prevention program launched by the Los Angeles Police Department called “iWatch” instructs/encourages average American citizens to report on suspicious behavior of their fellow citizens.

Los Angeles police chief William Bratton and L.A. police commander Joan McNamara developed the iWatch program, which has been introduced and endorsed by police chiefs of the 63 largest police departments in the United States and Canada.

watch this promotional video of the iWatch program

What is ridiculous about this program is, the list of “suspicious behaviors” to report are a combination of behaviors you report anyway and activities, even if reported, would not prevent a thing.

According to the iWatch program, here are behaviors to watch for and the places to watch for them

Behaviors and activities to report:

* People drawing or measuring important buildings.
* Strangers asking questions about security or building security procedures.
* Briefcase, suitcase, backpack, or package left behind.
* Cars or trucks left in No Parking zones in front of important buildings.
* Intruders in secure areas where they are not supposed to be.
* A person wearing clothes that are too big and too hot for the weather.
* Chemical smells or fumes that worry you.
* People asking questions about sensitive information such as building blueprints, security plans, or VIP travel schedules without a right or need to know.
* Purchasing supplies or equipment that can be used to make bombs or weapons or purchasing uniforms without having the proper credentials.

Places to Watch

* Government buildings
* Religious facilities
* Amusement parks
* Sports/Entertainment venues
* High-rise buildings
* Mass-gathering locations—parades, fairs, etc.
* Schools
* Hotels
* Theaters
* Shopping malls
* Bridges
* Public transportation

Let me just examine each “suspicious” behavior one by one and illustrate how ridiculous this list is:

“People drawing or measuring important buildings”

[Yeah, people do this all the time. Plus, even if I wanted to draw a building or measure it, why can’t I? Does the Constitution not allow this anymore? The last time I checked, the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers were hit without a single person measuring them or drawing a picture]

“Strangers asking questions about security or building security procedures”

[And if they are asking those questions in order to be assured that they and their family are safe, they can’t ask those questions without someone being suspicious that they are terrorists? So, the next time you enter a stadium or a big concert hall, don’t ask how secure the facilities are. You have no right to know how safe YOU are in large places. You will be considered a terrorist for asking]

“Briefcase, suitcase, backpack, or package left behind”

[Oops. I forgot my backpack....I’m a terrorist. Even if a real terrorist did leave it behind to blow something up, it would detonate long before any action was taken after being reported]

“Cars or trucks left in No Parking zones in front of important buildings”

[Again, if a device were inside a vehicle, it would detonate long before any action was taken. The Ryder truck used in the Oklahoma City bombing exploded within minutes of the bombers exiting the truck. It would take several minutes at least for someone to even think about reporting it, let alone the incident being reported, police acting on that information, arriving at the scene and the bomb being diffused all within minutes]

“Intruders in secure areas where they are not supposed to be”

[If it’s a secure area, how did they get IN?]

“A person wearing clothes that are too big and too hot for the weather”

[So, this is no longer America where we can wear what we want without being suspected of being a terrorist? Wonderful, just wonderful]

“Chemical smells or fumes that worry you”

[The next time I’m in McDonald’s and I smell bleach in the mop water from the employee mopping the floor, I will be sure to report it immediately. I also hope I don’t spill any gas the next time I’m filling up at the pump. I could end up at Gitmo!]

“People asking questions about sensitive information such as building blueprints, security plans, or VIP travel schedules without a right or need to know”

[Nobody needed to ask any of these things prior to the Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11. Terrorists were able to take down WTC 7 on 9/11 without even flying a plane into it]

“Purchasing supplies or equipment that can be used to make bombs or weapons or purchasing uniforms without having the proper credentials”

[Which could be nearly anything. I would hate to be a cop in any city in America that has a supply or equipment store. I didn’t know a person needed credentials to purchase uniforms. Wouldn’t a terrorist just kill someone wearing a uniform and take it off their dead body if they really wanted to disguise themselves? This is “Brady bill logic”. Why would a terrorist care if he gets a gun legally if he’s going to commit an illegal act with it? Likewise, why would they care if they obtained a uniform legally?]

So you see, the above behaviors/activities to report would do very little or nothing at all to prevent terror. The most it would do would be to victimize scores of innocent people in the name of “terror”.

If the iWatch program had been in place before 9/11, the attacks [even the official story scenario] would have still happened.

Los Angeles police chief William Bratton calls this a 21st century version of “Neighborhood Watch”. Bratton also said, “It's really just common sense types of things”. Well, if it’s “common sense types of things”, what is the purpose of the program? I will tell you. It is designed to create a society of snitches in order to create an excessive workload for police. The workload becomes so high that more police officers have to be trained and hired, further accelerating the police state.

Here’s a video of Bratton talking about crime reduction in Los Angeles throughout the past 6 years.

I find it interesting that he says at the beginning of the video:

“I knew going in that getting the crime numbers down would be a real challenge. The department has historically been understaffed, technology hadn’t been updated, there was no real crime management system in place and the employees of the L.A.P.D. were demoralized and tired of always being asked to do more with less.”

I have one question in response to Bratton’s statement: If police departments are understaffed and police officers have been overworked, what makes Bratton think they can handle the thousands upon thousands of additional phone calls they will get as a result of the iWatch program? Where would the manpower come from?

I personally believe the whole purpose for programs like these are not to see a decrease in crime or terrorism, but an increase in arrests. Arrests look good for police departments, whether or not they actually prevent crime.

Why would they want an end to crime anyway? They are in the crime business. It’s like doctors saying they want a decrease in sick people. Where’s the money in low numbers?