Sunday, November 29, 2009

Sarah Palin tells Billo that she has the common sense of most Americans. I think she may actually be correct this time!


That’s because most Americans are complete dumbfucks

by Larry Simons
November 29, 2009

From Bill O’ Reilly’s November 20 interview on The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo asks Sarah Palin if she is intelligent enough to handle being the President of the United States. Palin responds by saying that maybe Americans are not looking for candidates who have experience and education but rather common sense instead.

Here’s a portion of the transcript:

O’REILLY: Let me be very bold and fresh again. Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?

PALIN: I believe that I am because I have common sense, and I have, I believe, the values that are reflective of so many other American values. And I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the the kind of spineless… a spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite Ivy League education and a fat resume that’s based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership. I’m not saying that has to be me.

Here’s the clip [around the 7:45 mark]


Palin tells O’ Reilly that she’s qualified because she has the “values that are reflective of so many other Americans”, whatever the hell that means. If that means that most Americans are complete and utter dumbasses who do not even know what the Vice President’s only two jobs are [as Palin herself did not know in July 2008 and STILL didn’t know in August 2008 after the story had been headline news---and STILL didn’t know in October 2008 during the VP debate!], then she is exactly right. After all, are we forgetting so quickly what the common sense of most Americans got us the past 8 years?



‘Nuff said

Audit the Fed: Bernanke and the Bankers Are Running Scared


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 29, 2009

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve mob boss, is running scared. He is deathly afraid an audit of his criminal organization.

“These measures are very much out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks, and they would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States,” Bernanke wrote in the CIA’s favorite newspaper, The Washington Post.

Maybe Bernanke is worried he will be obliged to wear an orange jumpsuit in the wake of an audit.

Bernanke penned his tribute to central banking and globalism prior to his scheduled testimony before a Senate panel on his renomination to serve a second four-year term as Fed mob boss.

Bankster tool Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, tried to derail an effort to audit the Fed but failed. A proposal to audit the Fed’s monetary policy deliberations won a committee vote recently over Frank’s objections.

In his Mockingbird media editorial, Bernanke “conceded the Fed had missed some of the riskiest behavior in the lead up to the crisis. But he said the Fed had helped avoid an even more damaging economic meltdown and has stepped up its policing of the financial system.”

In fact, the Fed was specifically designed to create financial crises. It was all plotted in 1910 when minions of J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, the Rothschilds and Warburgs met on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. In 1913, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank was created as a direct result of that secret meeting. Said Congressman Charles Lindbergh on the midnight passage of the Federal Reserve Act: “From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”

In order to scientifically create an economic depression, the Fed prompted irresponsible speculation by expanding the money supply sixty-two percent between 1923 and 1929. The so-called Great Depression followed. This depression “was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence,” declared Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee. “The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all.”

In March of 1929, Paul Warburg issued a tip that the scientifically created crash was coming. Before it did, John D. Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, Joseph P. Kennedy, and other banksters got out of the market.

A few years later, the banksters and their minions met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and plotted the creation of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The purpose of these two criminal organizations was to set-up a global Federal Reserve system and wage economic warfare on billions of people. The weapon they used was debt and the loss of sovereignty that follows.

In 1971, then president Nixon fit one of the last pieces into the puzzle — he signed an executive order declaring that the United States no longer had to redeem its paper dollars for gold. It was a great day for the banksters and the global elite. The gold standard ensured predictability and regularity in the economy and the banksters wanted to put an end to that. For the bankers, order and control is realized out of chaos and misery.

Fast-forward to the present day. Bernanke’s Fed has meticulously sabotaged the economy in order to create a crisis in classic Hegelian fashion. The corporate media tells us the crisis is the result of ineptitude and mismanagement at the Federal Reserve. Au contraire. Like the Great Depression, the even Greater Depression now on the horizon was scientifically created.

The Fed is the primary instrument the bankers are now using to destroy the middle class, hand over all public assets and resources to them, implement a crushing austerity, usher in a new era of global corporatist feudalism and build a sprawling planet-wide slave plantation based on China’s totalitarian model.

It is the ultimate dream of the banking cartel. It will be used as the foundation to build world government. Destroying the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is only the beginning.

Bernanke knows Ron Paul and the audit the Fed movement are extremely dangerous. That’s why he is pushing this facile “oops” theory. In order to fix things, the Fed will use its “knowledge of complex financial institutions” in order to supervise them, he writes in his Mockingbird editorial. Allowing audits of Federal Reserve monetary policy would increase the perceived influence of Congress on interest rate decisions, he says.

No, it would lay bare the criminality of the Federal Reserve. Maybe Bernanke is worried he will be obliged to wear an orange jumpsuit in the wake of an audit.

As for Congress, Bernanke needs to read Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall have exclusive power to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,” not a criminal cartel of monopoly men who dream of a prison planet.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

George Noory interviews researcher Steve Quayle [from 11-16-09]

Coast to Coast with George Noory
November 16, 2009

Sorry I’m a tad late on posting this. Good interview with Quayle about many topics including the H1N1 virus and the economic situation. Quayle continues to completely lose me on the “Giants” topic, but still very interesting to listen to.











Sunday, November 22, 2009

Prison Planet continues to cry censorship. This time [as they did to RTO] they condemn being removed from a websites archives


Rush Limbaugh posts a Prison Planet story and the PP logo on his site, then removes it from his archives. Hypocrite PP webmaster Paul Watson cries censorship

by Larry Simons
November 21, 2009

In a story from Prison Planet on Friday, PP writer and webmaster Paul Joseph Watson detailed that Neocon douchebag Rush Limbaugh had posted [on his own site] a Prison Planet story from Nov. 19 about how Al Gore used PhotoShop to insert fake hurricanes onto the cover of his new book, "Our Choice; A Plan To Solve The Climate Crisis".

Watson also said that Limbaugh mentioned Prison Planet on the air and in the transcripts of his radio show only to later delete it from the transcripts. Watson provides a YouTube video of Limbaugh making reference to Prison Planet in the audio of his radio show.

What I find interesting about this story is that, unlike the other hypocritical censorship stories that Watson has written in the past two months, this particular story about what Limbaugh did to Prison Planet is an exact replica of what PP did to Real Truth Online several months ago: removed links from archives.

I have no idea why Watson deemed this a “story”. The real story here should have been Watson being angry over why a Neocon is frequenting Prison Planet, not because a Neocon used a PP story and then removed it from his archives. Watson should be jubilant about that.

Why would Watson and Prison Planet be upset about the removal of a story of theirs from the website of one the biggest Neocons in the world when the very mention of Prison Planet could lead legions of “diitoheads” [Limbaugh’s followers] to conclude that Prison Planet is a news source for Neocons?

On the other side of the coin, what Prison Planet did to Real Truth Online in September is more of a telling story. I simply exposed [here, here, here and here] the fact that Alex Jones was receiving hundreds upon hundreds of negative comments on a story he did about actor Charlie Sheen after he wrote [and Prison Planet posted] a mock interview that Sheen would like to have with President Obama.

Sheen made it appear as if the interview had already happened and did not insert a disclaimer that the interview “had not taken place…yet” until the end of the interview, leaving many, many Alex Jones followers mad as hell. I simply wrote a few stories about this exposing the fact that Prison Planet webmaster Paul Watson had deleted hundreds of negative comments aimed at Jones, and Watson REMOVED all 21 stories I had written for PP from their archives, the EXACT same thing Watson now condemns Limbaugh for doing.

What makes what Prison Planet did to Real Truth Online much worse than Limbaugh deleting the mention of PP is that Limbaugh is a racist, Neocon and has trashed Prison Planet in the past for their truthful stories of the Bush administration. I am not a Neocon and am in agreement with PP roughly 95% of the time and even used to be a writer for them. The very minute I show integrity and report fraudulent actions of the very people I support is when I suddenly become a traitor to them.

Prison Planet has not been able to debunk any of my stories, even after I sent numerous emails to Paul Watson giving him the opportunity to clear it all up before I had written my stories. Prison Planet writers, it appears, are only able to write stories and expose those in whom they are able to debunk. If they can’t defend themselves or debunk anything, they simply remain silent and hope it all just passes and goes away.

What makes matters worse for Prison Planet is the fact that they continue to post stories about how others have censored them, despite the fact that they have done the same thing [at least to me, who knows how many others?] and to this day continue to do so. I still cannot post comments on any of their stories. After the Charlie Sheen episode, Prison Planet switched comment servers to Word Press, a system that allows webmasters to ban bloggers by IP address.

I have PROVEN Watson has censored RTO. Why does he continue to display his hypocrisy so blatantly? Can anyone answer this?

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Fed Sicks Attack Dogs On Ron Paul After Audit Amendment Passes


Establishment efforts to kill move toward Fed transparency are crushed

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
November 20, 2009

The Federal Reserve attack dogs are out in full force today following Congressman Ron Paul’s decisive victory in the battle to bring transparency to the privately owned central bank.

The House Financial Services Committee passed the amendment to increase Federal Reserve transparency in an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 43 to 26.

The amendment, sponsored by Ron Paul and Democratic Representative Alan Grayson, mandates a genuine and full probing audit of the Fed.

The Committee rejected the parallel amendment introduced by Congressman Mel Watt (D-NC) which would have severely limited the audit, “gutting” Ron Paul’s H.R. 1207 bill as the Congressman put it, and paving the way for further Fed secrecy.

Key Committee Democrats such as Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) who had previously expressed support for an audit, had moved behind the Watt amendment at the behest of banking industry and Fed officials, as well as the Democratic leadership.

Had the alternative provision passed, those individuals would have succeeded in appearing to support transparency while actually protecting the Fed from any real examination.

The success is significant because it proves beyond doubt that there is true bipartisan support for H.R. 1207. Barney Frank had pushed for a no vote on the Paul/Grayson amendment, but 15 Democrats defied him to vote with Ron Paul.

The vote acknowledges the fact that representatives on both sides of the political spectrum are sick to the back teeth of the the incessant pillaging of America’s economic security by a handful of financial elites who have bought and paid for the leadership of both parties.

The power the Fed now holds has vastly increased over the past twelve months owing to the fall out of the financial crisis, yet it continues to operate in total secrecy. Its chairman and other officials act as if their unfettered power is a god given right, and they express loathing and contempt when they are simply asked to describe and explain their actions to Congress and the American people.

The establishment was forced to move against the tide of momentum to audit the Fed by introducing it’s own watered down legislation. However, they acted too late and they have been thoroughly crushed.

“Today was Waterloo for Fed secrecy,” a victorious Grayson noted following the vote.

“We are happy to see the Financial Services Committee preserve a measure to bring true Fed transparency,” said John Tate, President of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty. “This amendment helps to ensure that real and complete audit legislation remains unaltered, and from here on out we will continue to push for a standalone floor vote of H.R. 1207.”

In addition, a further bill sponsored by Grayson and Paul also passed – this requires written concurrence by the Treasury Secretary prior to the Fed engaging in a foreign currency swap.

Predictably, in response to this victory, the Fed has come out in force in today’s press with former chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, along with former vice chairman Alan S. Blinder all penning attack pieces about how harmful the move to audit the Fed remains.

While Binder’s piece appeared in the Washington Post, Greenspan and Volcker sent their letter to the Financial Committee’s chairman and ranking Republicans.

Knowing that the tired counter of “this is harmful to the Fed’s independence” would be wheeled out again, Ron Paul addressed his detractors on the issue during the hearings yesterday, making it clear that the argument holds no weight, noting that H.R. 1207 and the amendment are not about regulation of the Federal Reserve, the powers it holds or political influence on monetary policy.

“‘Independence’ means secrecy, it doesn’t mean anything else.” Paul noted.

“We live in an age where the American people are sick and tired of this. They are sick and tired of secret government and government out of control and Congress passing TARP funds and on and on with nobody knowing what happened.” the Congressman asserted.

Ron Paul's remarks:


Alan Grayson's remarks:

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Huffington Post writer calls 9/11 truthers “extremists” yet fails to debunk anything…..naturally


Sam Stein calls Phoenix radio talk show host Charles Goyette an “extremist” because he simply questions the utterly fraudulent official story of 9/11

by Larry Simons
November 18, 2009

In his latest article for the Huffington Post [Nov. 16, titled, Beck's Guest List Included White Supremacists, Other Extremists], political writer Sam Stein [pictured above] attacks Glenn Beck for having a track record of inviting white supremacists and extremists on his show. There’s a mile-long list one can justifiably attack Beck for. Whether it’s his saying that 9/11 truthers “work with al Qaeda”, his denial of FEMA camps or his outrageous and nutty behavior, God only knows that Beck makes himself a perfect target for anyone to attack.

Stein may have a point with some of the people he mentions [that have been Beck’s guests]. My purpose is not to refute them all. I simply don’t know enough about Michael Hill, Thomas Naylor, Tom Woods, Larry Pratt or Roy Beck to refute Stein point-by-point. My beef with Stein is who he mentions last in his article; Phoenix-based radio show host Charles Goyette.

Of Goyette, Stein says:

“Finally, there is Charles Goyette, a self-described Independent and popular Phoenix-based radio host, who appeared as a guest on Beck's October 12, 2009, Fox News program. Goyette would be non-controversial except for the fact that months earlier, on his own program, he said that the official story behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks is "worse than Swiss cheese." Beck, of course, memorably pilloried Van Jones for putting his name on a petition that questioned whether 9/11 was a government conspiracy.”

Stein links to an interview that Goyette had with Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson in 2008 about 9/11. Stein criticized the interview by saying, “Goyette would be non-controversial except for the fact that months earlier, on his own program, he said that the official story behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks is "worse than Swiss cheese.” I found it very interesting that Goyette makes the ‘Swiss cheese’ comment in the first 34 seconds of the 39 minute clip. Here is that clip:



Did Stein even bother to listen to the remaining 38 and a half minutes of the interview? I also find it very interesting that Stein does not bother to debunk anything Goyette said in the interview. Perhaps because he is not able to? Instead Stein resorts to the same tactics that most would-be debunkers use: Say the words “9/11 conspiracy” and “extremist” together in the same sentence and bingo, no debunking is ever needed.

Goyette on the Glenn Beck show on 10-12-09


Naturally, Stein does not say one word about the classic interview Goyette did in August of 2006 with Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics. In the 23-minute interview, Goyette, from start to finish, destroys Coburn point-by-point on the 9/11 anomalies. This was the same interview in which Coburn claimed that the DNA of the hijackers was found in the rubble at ground zero.

When Goyette responded by asking Coburn, “Where did they get the DNA in which to match the DNA found at ground zero?”, Coburn panicked like a frightened rabbit and for the remainder of the interview, Coburn played the classic dodge and deflect game and never answered Goyette’s question. This makes Goyette an “extremist”? Simply asking excellent, intelligent questions to someone who believes in a bullshit and miserably flawed conspiracy theory? And when the other person fails to answer the question, they are the truth-bearers who don’t receive one bit of criticism?

Stein concludes by saying:

“If Beck were a self-avowed journalist -- which he's not -- these guests could be chalked up as an effort to foster intriguing debate, whether about immigration policy, constitutional principles or the strength of the dollar. But, taken as a whole, the roster reflects the host's partiality to an ideology that is far-right if not outright extremist.”

Stein illustrates clearly why the left/right paradigm is false. He calls 9/11 conspiracy theories “far-right”. Of course he would. Stein is a liberal who holds views that are considered “leftist” to those who believe in the phony left/right fairy tale. People who are considered right-wing like Bill O’ Reilly and Glenn Beck call 9/11 conspiracy theories left-wing.

If the left/right paradigm really existed, then 9/11 conspiracy theories would only fall under one category. It would either be left or right. But, as you can clearly see, people on each side of the phony left/right game say 9/11 conspiracy theories fall under the other sides’ agenda. It’s the biggest political hot potato in history.

People like Stein can write all the bullshit articles he wants proclaiming that 9/11 truthers are nutballs, extremists or terrorists. Until he refutes one of our claims, he will forever be a colossal fraud.

I emailed Stein shortly after reading his crapola article. This was my response:

“Mr. Stein,

Commenting on your article "Beck's Guest List Included White Supremacists, Other Extremists". So Charles Goyette is a right wing extremist because he questions the official version of 9-11? I guess you simply dont care that in 2006 on Goyette's radio show, he completely annihilated Davin Coburn [of Popular Mechanics, the magazine that has written articles and books attempting to "debunk" the 'conspiracy" theories of 9-11] when Coburn suggested that DNA of the hijackers was found in the ground zero rubble, in which Goyette simply replied, "Where did they get the DNA in which to match the hijacker DNA?". For the next 3 minutes of the 23-minute interview, Coburn panics and attempts to dodge and ignore answering Goyette's question. Here is the link to listen to the interview.

Goyette/Coburn interview

I realize of course you wont, because heaven forbid you make an attempt to examine evidence that will destroy what you claimed about Goyette. Funny thing is, Goyette is more of an agnostic about the cover-up of 9-11 than a true believer and he still destroyed one of the official story's main defenders. I called Goyette about a month after he gave that interview with Coburn and we talked for about 15 minutes. He told me that he found out that Coburn had 3 more interviews scheduled that same day. He canceled all 3. Care to retract what you said about Goyette? How does rejecting the government's bullshit story of 9-11 make one an extremist anyway? Hell, how does believing that the South was RIGHT in the civil war make one an extremist? You DO realize that secession is permitted by the Constitution, right?”

I’m guessing my email will go completely ignored, but to be fair, if I do get a response, I will update this with his response.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Sneak peak at Jesse Ventura’s new show “Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura


Starts December 2 on TruTv

by Larry Simons
November 16, 2009

Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura” will debut December 2, 2009 and air Wednesdays at 10pm on TruTv.

List of scheduled topics:

“HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program)”
Airs December 2 at 10pm

In a remote region of Alaska, a special government research center is said to be testing radio waves that some believe are being developed as a potential weapon. If true, some say these radio waves could do everything from change the weather to control people’s minds. Jesse Ventura and his team head to Alaska to investigate, but are stopped at the gate of the facility, unable to enter and see its real purpose first-hand. They also talk to a scientist who demonstrates how radio waves can be used to literally move clouds.

Featured Experts and Eyewitnesses: Jerry Smith, author of HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy; Dr. Brooks Agnew, a physicist who believes he accidentally triggered an earthquake by using radio waves to locate underground oil; Dr. Nick Begich, a native Alaskan and anti-HAARP activist; and Robert Eastlund, the son of Bernard Eastlund, whose ideas were allegedly the catalyst for the creation of HAARP.

“9/11”
Airs December 9 at 10pm

Jesse Ventura steps into America’s most controversial conspiracy by challenging the 9/11 Commission report and considering evidence that the September 11th attacks were an inside job. At the urging of victims’ families, he finds witnesses who claim the towers were brought down by revolutionary explosives that were placed in plain sight of everyone, but no one knew what they were. Ventura also hears from those who claim the missing black box flight recorders were actually recovered. And he is told a shocking story about who may have been in the cockpits before the jets took off.

Featured Experts and Eyewitnesses: A former World Trade Center janitor who said he felt bombs exploding from below seconds before the plane hit building one; physicist Steven Jones, who says he found evidence of bomb material (thermite) in the residue from Ground Zero; explosives expert Van Romero, who performed a test purported to show that liquid thermite can make steel girders burn hotter and faster; demolition expert Brent Blanchard, who says that no inspection for explosive materials was done at the scene; former Air Force pilot Jeff Dahlstrom, who is convinced that that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation carried out to push the country into war; Mike Bellone, a recovery worker at Ground Zero who says that he saw airline flight recorders recovered at the scene; Dave Lindorff who says that the recorders were recovered, inspected and turned over to the FBI; Dale Leppard, a former head of the Airline Pilots Association who insists recorders are always found; and former FBI investigator Jack Cloonan, who disputes claims the recorders were found.

“Global Warming”
Airs December 16 at 10pm

Whether global warming is real or not, some people may be using the issue to make billions of dollars, start a one-world government and control people’s lives. Jesse Ventura’s deep investigation uncovers evidence that could point to one man being behind an entire global-warming conspiracy.

Featured Experts and Eyewitnesses: Lord Christopher Monckton, British politician, business consultant, policy advisor, writer and inventor who disagrees with mainstream scientific consensus on global warming; Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, professor of meteorology at MIT and author who alleges political pressure on climate scientists; Amit Chaterjee, founder and CEO of Hara Software, an environmental startup backed in part by Al Gore’s venture capital firm; Ben Santer, climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Noel Sheppard, associate editor of NewsBusters.org and outspoken critic of global-warming science; “Dr. X,” an eminent climatologist, who wants to protect his identity for his family’s safety; George Hunt, a UN whistleblower and author; and Martin Durkin, producer and director of the UK Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

“Big Brother”
Airs December 23 at 10pm

Big Brother may be watching, but it’s not who most people think. Jesse Ventura’s investigation of government surveillance on its citizens uncovers a nationwide program that allegedly turns local businessmen and office workers into spies, snooping on their neighbors and ratting on their friends in exchange for information and special privileges from the FBI. Some even claim those special privileges include a “license to kill.”

Featured Experts and Eyewitnesses: Jeff Dahlstrom, a former U.S. Air Force pilot who has dedicated his life to uncovering the truth about 9/11; Katherine Albrecht, a popular media commentator and author of Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID; Elwood “Woody” G. Norris, award-winning inventor and technology integrator; Matthew Rothschild; editor of The Progressive magazine, one of the leading voices for peace and social justice; and Tim Shorrock, investigative journalist and author of Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing.

“Secret Societies”
Airs December 30 at 10pm

As the story goes, the Bilderberg Group is a collection of the world’s elite who meet once a year at a luxury hotel and decide how it will run the world. Their latest alleged plan is to thin out the world’s population through disease…and vaccines. In this stunning episode, Jesse Ventura attempts to infiltrate the Bilderberg Group, expose its well-known members and stop their latest “soft kill” plan before, as Ventura fears, it’s too late.

Featured Experts and Eyewitnesses: Daniel Estulin, author of The True Story of the Bilderbergs; Alex Jones, syndicated radio host and documentary filmmaker; Max Keiser, former Wall Street broker who claims Goldman Sachs used political influence to deliberately crash the market and eliminate competition; and Jim Tucker, author and researcher who has tracked the Bilderbergs for more than 25 years and claims to have crashed several meetings.


“Manchurian Candidate”
Airs January 6, 2010 at 10pm

Authors and experts warn that they believe forces within the government have revived a program that uses mind control techniques to turn ordinary citizens into programmed assassins. This real-life “Manchurian Candidate” scheme seems outlandish, until Jesse Ventura tracks down the evidence of how it is supposedly being done. He even goes face-to-face with a man who claims he’s one of the killers.

Featured Experts and Eyewitnesses: Psychiatrist Colin Ross, an expert in Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) (aka split personality); General Albert Stubblebine, former commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command; David Corso, who claims to have been a part of Project Talent, allegedly a top-secret, experimental military program that sought to create “super soldiers”; Duncan O’Finioian, who says that after a car accident, he regained memories of being programmed as part of Project Talent; and hypnotist James Kellog. Also included are interviews with a DID patient and a self-described expert on real life “Manchurian Candidates.”

“Apocalypse 2012”
Airs January 13 at 10pm

There have been many apocalyptic predictions that the world is heading for disaster in 2012 and that the government is allegedly preparing to save and protect the elite, while leaving all others to fend for themselves. Ventura goes in search of the alleged Top Secret underground bunkers being built in places ranging from the Nevada desert to the White House. He even explores evidence that the largest such bunker is now under construction in a major metropolitan area, hidden in plain sight.

Featured Experts and Eyewitnesses: Lawrence Joseph, author of Apocalypse 2012 and former chairman of an advanced plasma physics research and development company; Larry Hall, owner of a what he describes as “a 14-story survival condo,” where he says he has a waiting list of buyers willing to plunk down $2 million a piece; Jay Weidner, a conspiracy researcher who says a secret, bunker exists underneath one of the mid-West’s largest international airports; Patrick Geryl, leader of a 300-person survival group with plans of heading to Africa in 2012; George Green, a former corporate banker and high-ranking military serviceman who claims to have been involved with the building of these underground bases.

watch the clip


Saturday, November 14, 2009

Billo has no clue what the difference is between a mass murderer and a terrorist

To Billo, a mass murderer who is a Muslim is a terrorist, but a non-Muslim mass murderer is just a mass murderer whose religion is not important at all

by Larry Simons
November 14, 2009

On Thursday’s telecast of The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo gives his “analysis” of the Fort Hood shooter, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Billo began his Impact segment by showing a Rasmussen poll that indicated that 60% of those polled said they wanted the Fort Hood shooting investigated as a “terrorist” act. Billo interviewed Sally Quinn of the Washington Post who recently went on Morning Joe and said she wondered why everyone is focusing on the fact that Hasan is a Muslim when they should be focusing on the fact as to why the military did not pick up on the fact that Hasan was emotionally disturbed.

Billo asks Quinn, “why can’t we do both?”, [referring to why can’t we find out what the Army knew and why they didn’t take action and why we can’t call Hasan a Muslim terrorist]. For the next 4 minutes of the segment, Billo continues to grill Quinn about why she is not using the phrase “Muslim terrorist” to describe Hasan.

Quinn responds by saying there are too many factors in this story to oversimplify all the details regarding Hasan. Quinn is correct. There are too many questions and too many mysteries as to why [if Hasan is a terrorist, as Billo deems] this man was allowed to do everything he did in the Army and yet still not questioned or investigated by the FBI. Billo even admits during the segment that the FBI even knew Hasan was emailing an al Qaeda member, but then completely fails to question why the FBI did not detain and investigate him.

Billo’s goal is crystal clear: Keep saying the words “Muslim terrorist” over and over and over and over and over and over and over again so as to psychologically brainwash his brain dead FOX News zombies into further cheerleading the two illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Billo then says to Quinn:

“But you have a hard time saying the words "Muslim terrorist," and so does Obama. He has a hard time saying it. I don't know why you guys aren't saying it. You know, why, why?”

Quinn responds:

“Well, I think, first of all, there are different kinds of terrorists. As I said, Timothy McVeigh –"

Billo interrupts:

“He's a Muslim terrorist! What do you mean, different kinds of terrorist? He killed people under the banner of jihad! That's who he is! What do you -- look, what do you want, him to come to your house with a strap-on bomb? The guy did it for jihadist reasons! "Allah Akbar!" That's the slogan! He mails Al Qaeda! Miss Quinn, you're a brilliant woman, and I'm not saying that facetiously. You are. A third-grader gets this, and you're resisting it! I wanna know why!”

Quinn then asks Billo if he would call the guy [James von Brunn] who shot up the Holocaust Museum a terrorist. Billo responds, “Did he yell "Allah Akbar?" If he yelled "Allah Akbar," and he e-mailed Al Qaeda in Yemen, I'd call him that, Miss Quinn!”

Translation: Because von Brunn did not yell “Allah Akbar”, he is not a terrorist. Billo couldn’t make his point any more clear. Billo is saying, if you are a Muslim and you kill people, you are automatically a terrorist, no “ifs” “and’s” or “but’s” about it. So, I guess if you kill large numbers of people and you’re not a Muslim, then you’re not a terrorist, you’re just a person who killed people.

The funny thing is, earlier in the segment, when Quinn brought up Tim McVeigh, Billo said, “He is…was. A terrorist act, you blow up an office building and kill people, it’s a terrorist act.” Oh, but wait a minute Billo. McVeigh didn’t yell “Allah Akbar”. So, wouldn’t that make him just a guy who killed a lot of people? You just said to Sally Quinn “If he yelled "Allah Akbar," and he e-mailed Al Qaeda in Yemen, I'd call him that, Miss Quinn!”, which translates to: Billo is not calling von Brunn a terrorist because he didn’t yell “Allah Akbar”. So, why is he calling McVeigh one? Whew! My head hurts.

The issue here is that Billo has no fucking clue what the difference is between a terrorist and a mass murderer. Obviously, von Brunn is not a “mass” murderer. He killed one person, not a “mass” amount of people. He’s not a terrorist either. He was simply a nutball with a gun. By Billo’s definition of a terrorist [which was: killing people under the banner of jihad] then not even McVeigh is a terrorist.

The legal definition of terrorism says it is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents”.

We have no idea if Hasan’s actions were “politically motivated” or if he was a clandestine agent. As it stands right now, Hasan’s actions seem to be along the lines of a Columbine-style or Charles Whitman-style rage killing, but Billo wants to immediately play the terrorist card.

Perfect for FOX News. This is what they needed to sound the trumpets for support of our illegal occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, all of this only solidifies the fact that Billo is just a bought-and-paid-for neocon shill who continues to take his marching orders from Lord Murdoch.

watch the clip [from Crooks and Liars, since You Tube will remove it in a week]

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Jesse Ventura Back on Alex Jones: Jesse’s New Show ‘Conspiracy Theory’ on TruTv

The Alex Jones Channel
November 11th, 2009

Alex welcomes back to the show former Minnesota governor, retired professional wrestler and color commentator, Navy UDT veteran, actor, and former radio and television talk show host, Jesse Ventura. Jesse is the host of a new television series on TruTV, Conspiracy Theory. The program is scheduled to debut on December 2, 2009.






Saturday, November 7, 2009

Dave Neiwert attacks Jerome Corsi for linking the Fort Hood shooter with Obama and doesn’t debunk one word Corsi says

Neiwert’s response to Corsi’s story linking Nidal Malik Hasan to Obama: ad hominem attacks and diversion. Once again showcasing why Neiwert is a Fraudie nominee

by Larry Simons
November 7, 2009

Liberal blogger Dave Neiwert is up to his old tricks again: When he doesn’t like something someone says about Obama or anything else he supports, he simply just calls them nuts, denies that it is true, links to his own articles in an attempt to debunk his opponent and most importantly, does not debunk ONE WORD of the article he is condemning.

In his latest article at Crooks and Liars, Neiwert slams author Jerome Corsi for writing an article on the website World Net Daily entitled, “Shooter Advised Obama Transition”, in which Corsi claims that Nidal Malik Hasan, [the alleged gunman who killed 13 fellow soldiers and wounded 30 at the Fort Hood Army post in Killeen, Texas on Thursday] was a participant at a Homeland Security Policy Institute Presidential Transition Task Force.

The document that was published on May 19 titled, “Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009," lists Hasan’s name on page 29 under a list of Task Force Event participants, not as members of the Task Force.

[click to enlarge]


Hasan was attending the meetings as a member of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine faculty at George Washington University. Corsi says in his article that the deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University, Daniel Kaniewski, told him in a phone interview that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre.

Whether all this means anything is one thing. What does have meaning is the blatant dodge, deflect and ignore tactics used by liberal blogger Dave Neiwert in his Crooks and Liars article, “WND conspiracist’s bogus claim: Hasan advised Obama’s transition team”. In the article, Neiwert posts a captured screenshot of Corsi’s story from World Net Daily, a segment of Corsi’s story and a segment from a story from Media Matters, and immediately Neiwert goes straight into attack mode from that point on until the end of his story.

One thing you won’t find in Neiwert’s story; a refutation of Corsi’s story. The only part of Corsi’s story that should be called into question is the fact that Corsi appears to have misrepresented his story by the headline he chose. His headline was, “Shooter Advised Obama Transition”, but in Corsi’s article he says this:

“While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity.”

Then he says:

“Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre.

Kaniewski said Hasan attended the meetings in his capacity as a member of the faculty of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, not as a member of the HSPI Presidential Task Force.”


Neiwert does have a point that Corsi’s headline and what is said in the story itself appear to be complete opposites, but one thing Neiwert does not do is offer any refutation of the fact that Hasan’s name does appear on the Task Force Event Participant list. The participants in the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force were apparently more important than just people who signed up to attend a few meetings; they were each mentioned by name in the HSPI Proceedings Report.

These participants were obviously not just the equivalent to people who gather around to hear a political speech. They were participants, not mere bystanders or observers. If this had happened under Bush and Hasan’s name was on some participants list that were connected to a Bush transition task force, not only would Neiwert have already written and posted five stories about it on Crooks and Liars, he would be calling Hasan a right wing extremist, a lone wolf assassin and linking him with Ron Paul, the Patriot/militia movement and calling him a terrorist.

Naturally, since Hasan was involved in a Presidential Task Force for Obama, he’s none of those things. In fact, if you even think anything negative of him, then you’re a kook. Here are the words Neiwert uses to describe Corsi: ‘Wingnut’, ‘conspiracy-meister’ and ‘extremist’.

After the Media Matters portion Neiwert posted, the next five paragraphs of his article are nothing but one long ad hominem attack on Corsi, not one word of it anything resembling a refutation.

Neiwert attacks Corsi’s books, “The Obama Nation”, “The Late Great U.S.A.”, his swift boat book and a book he did about the militia movement. What does all that have to do with Corsi’s story? Not a goddamned thing. How does mentioning Corsi’s past books refute him on the Hasan story? It doesn’t. It’s Neiwert’s way of saying, “Damn, I can’t refute a word of it [panic, panic, panic]….ohh, uh, by the way, Corsi’s books are crap, his associations are crap, he’s a liar and a kook, don’t believe Corsi, he’s a nutball.”

It’s the old tiresome “I can’t attack his facts, so I will attack HIM” tactic that I have seen all too often in my political journey. Notice Neiwert didn’t attempt to say, “Here’s why the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University is crap and false”. He can’t. They exist.

Notice Neiwert didn’t attempt to say, “The May 19 report entitled "Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009 is crap and made up”. He can’t. It’s real.

Notice that Neiwert didn’t attempt to say, “Hasan’s name isn’t really on that Task Force participants list”. He can’t. Hasan’s name is on it.

Neiwert didn’t have a choice but to rattle off the ad hominem attacks. He was in a corner; in panic mode. He didn’t have a refutation to offer his 12 readers, so it was time to attack, attack, attack.

Neiwert’s purpose is very clear: when someone goes on a shooting rampage, all Neiwert looks for is that the perpetrator believes some unpopular view or “theory” and bingo, they are a right wing extremist. It doesn’t matter to Neiwert how distant the connection is, or if there is a connection at all. If someone kills 15 people at a mall and it turns out they might have [at some point in their life] just heard of Alex Jones, they are a lone wolf, right wing extremist.

But Hasan can be a participant of a Presidential Task Force for the Obama transition, and to Neiwert, if you even say that out loud, let alone draw a connection from it, you are the world’s biggest kook.

Here is video showing Hasan at the Homeland Security Task Force conference

Friday, November 6, 2009

Real Truth turns 4 and announces this years official nominees for Fraud of the Year


Ostroy leads the pack

by Larry Simons
November 6, 2009

It was 4 years ago this week that my newsletter The Real Truth was started and 3 years ago yesterday [November 5] that my website launched. Thanks to all my loyal visitors and readers, and yes, thanks to provocateurs like Jas and The Last Name Left who make my mind sharper and solidify my views by claiming they know the truth, yet continually fail to debunk anything I post.

On another important note, the official nominees for the 2009 RTO Fraud of the Year award are in. Here are the nominees: (updated from my July post)

1. Andy Ostroy [liberal blogger, The Ostroy Report]

Once embraced here at RTO for his truthful columns and insights about the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and John McCain, liberal blogger Andy Ostroy shed his integrity and his soul on the night of November 4, 2008, when his Lord and savior, Barack Obama, became the 44th President of the United States.

Ideologies and defense mechanisms that Ostroy previously condemned Bush administration officials and Bush supporters for adopting quickly became Ostroy’s favored new style, transforming him, almost overnight, into the one of the biggest hypocrites and frauds in RTO history.

I have written 14 articles this year on Ostroy. Here are the reasons Ostroy is leading the race:

*For saying he wants to be black simply because Obama is black, but completely omitted mentioning anything about Obama’s character or qualifications. Also, for mentioning Martin Luther King, Jr. in the same article, completely omitting that King once said, "Let us not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character", thus contradicting himself by making the entire article the very type of stereotypical mindset that King condemned.

*For lying about posting all my comments on his blog and then continuing to delete my comments after he denied he was doing it

*For lying and saying I was violating Blogger.com’s posting rules and then not allowing a post I sent WITH Blogger.com’s rules attached to it proving him to be wrong

*For his Jekyll and Hyde flip-flopping on the Iraq war, supporting it now when under Bush he strongly opposed it

*For saying there was a woman who does his “screening” for him on his blog when the screener is really Ostroy (I proved it)

*For denying there was a financial depression under Obama despite continually saying there was under Bush

*For blaming the internet for “destroying the economy” when he wrote his story on a free website and doesn’t send a dime to Google CEO Eric E. Schmidt

*For saying that Obama is a “transcendent leader” even though Obama has continued/adopted over 15 Bush/Bush-like policies

*For saying the Holocaust museum shooter was a right-wing nut just because he was a white supremacist even though he hated McCain, both Bush’s and FOX News

*For vilifying and convicting Michael Jackson of his child molestation charges (despite being acquitted of them) a day after his death

*For saying that when Obama said “…the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting someone when there was already proof that they were in their own home” [when referring to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates in July] that he was using urban slang!

*For doing a complete 360 in his terminology usage about Obama in two articles just 79 days apart

*For saying that Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize

*For saying that America and Americans are in a better economic and sociological situation than we were a year ago

2. Barack “ObamaBush” Obama [President]

For promising Americans "change" and the complete opposite of what George W. Bush subjected us to, yet continuing well over 15 Bush policies including the Military Commissions Act and continuing the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Also, for publically condeming waterboarding and admitting it is torture, yet not prosecuting anyone for them.

For continuing the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, sending more troops to these wars and continuing to fund them despite the fact that he continually promised to END them.

Also, for extending our troop presence to Pakistan and quite possibly, Iran in the near future.

3. Bill O’ Reilly [FOX News commentator]


For denying he had anything to do with influencing the killing of abortion doctor George Tiller, yet 3 years ago Billo implied [on his radio show] that he would like to kill Tiller himself.

For having no integrity and speaking at a rape victim luncheon [when he has blamed rape victims for their plights].

For sending out his producer-thugs to stalk women on their vacations and then lying about it.

4. Dave Neiwert [author and liberal blogger, Crooks and Liars]

For rarely citing any evidence outside of his own writings to back up the claims in his stories. His stories are 95% opinion, 1 % fact and 4% gobblygook.

Also, Neiwert, like the rest of his liberal buddies, loves to call other peoples' evidence "imaginary" when they cite mainstream sources as proof, yet considers himself the "sane" one when his sources are rants, opinions and links to his own writings.

5. Dave “the FRAUD” Willis [conservative minister, 2008 RTO Fraudie winner]

For saying he's "not down with neocon hijacking of the conservative movement", but then admits he supports big fat neocon and neocon-lover Pat Buchanon.

For condemning Al Franken and Jesse Ventura for winning elections in Minnesota over neocon and Bush-clone Norm Coleman. Remember Dave saying he hated neocons? Yet, he was pissed off that a neocon lost two elections [to Independent, Constitutionalist and Ron Paul supporter Jesse Ventura and to newcomer Al Franken---both men in which Dave "the FRAUD" Willis failed to mention anything negative about].

For condemning me and insisting my 9/11 views are "fictional", yet admitting that he loves a book titled, "Who Stole My Church?", which he admits is fictional but still calls it "realistic".

Also, I launched the new feature "This Week in Dave the Fraud" in March. That alone qualified Willis as a nominee.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Andy Ostroy assesses the first anniversary of the 2008 election. He just gets fraudier and fraudier

He even thinks the 2008 election was on November 1! But it gets worse...much worse

by Larry Simons
November 2, 2009

In our favorite fraudster’s latest love letter to Obama entitled, “One Year After Election Day: The Verdict on Obama”, Andy “the Fraud” Ostroy assesses what has changed since the 2008 election. Ostroy immediately begins his article in fraud fashion by strongly implying that the 2008 election was held on November 1, not the actual date, November 4. Then he begins his assessment of Obama.

Ostroy says:

“I'm not going to get into Iraq and Afghanistan, wars which Obama's inherited and which have raged on for for eight and six years respectively. There's no quick fix, and it's going to take him some time to sort out strategy and future direction. It's simply too early to judge him here.”

Perhaps the reason why Ostroy is “not going to get into Iraq and Afghanistan…”, is because of the fact that Obama constantly vowed to end these wars. It was one of his staples of the “change we can believe in”.

In one of his many, many speeches on the campaign trail in 2008, Obama said this to his supporters in Charleston, WV, “Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting for the people of West Virginia. For what folks in this state have been spending on the Iraq war, we could be giving health care to nearly 450,000 of your neighbors, hiring nearly 30,000 new elementary school teachers, and making college more affordable for over 300,000 students. We could be fighting to put the American dream within reach for every American - by giving tax breaks to working families, offering relief to struggling homeowners, reversing President Bush's cuts to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and protecting Social Security today, tomorrow, and forever. That's what we could be doing instead of fighting this war.”

That was then, this is now. Yes, the billions and billions of dollars being spent on this war could do wonders for our country and our own citizens. Obama promised he would end this war so that Americans would no longer suffer. Fat chance. Nine months later and we are still knee deep in blood, death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was just announced that October 2009 has been the bloodiest month in the entire 8 year Afghanistan war. Congrats Mr. Obama, you just accomplished something in which even Bush can’t boast. Oh yes, we did get change all right.

No quick fix”, Ostroy says. To quote Congressman Ron Paul, “We went in just like that, we can come home just like that.” Why do brain dead imbeciles think our withdrawal has to be careful, planned and a long process? “It’s going to take him [Obama] some time to sort out strategy and future direction?” How much time does it possibly take to say, “bring them home?

Here’s the part that made me laugh out loud: Ostroy says:

“But let's take a look at the economy. When Obama's predecessor George W. Bush took office in 2001, unemployment was at a respectable 4.2%. When he left office, it had nearly doubled to 7.6%. It stands now at 9.8%. Former president Bill Clinton left Bush with a $281-billion budget surplus, yet Bush left Obama with a $1.2-trillion deficit. The deficit is now $1.4-trillion. The national debt handed to Bush in 2001 was $5.7-trillion, and grew to $10.6-trillion by the time he left in 2008. It's currently $11.9-trillion. What does this all mean? A couple of things: first it says that Obama's economy has not materially worsened since he took office, especially as compared to the bashing it got under Bush. Next, and more importantly, it proves that Obama's $787-billion stimulus plan worked.”

Oh really? It worked? The stimulus plan was supposed to CREATE jobs, not make them disappear. Ostroy just admitted in the same paragraph that since Obama took office in January, unemployment rose from 7.6% under Bush to [now] 9.8%. If the stimulus plan was meant to CREATE jobs [and it was], then how did unemployment rise?

Obama has only been in office for 9 months. If we prorate the increases in unemployment, the national debt and the deficit under Obama, then after 4 years in office [at the current pace], unemployment under Obama will reach 18.6%, the national debt will hit 17.1 trillion and the deficit will reach 2.2 trillion. Naturally, fraudamopolous Ostroy conveniently leaves this out.

Ostroy’s fourth paragraph, from start to finish, is complete unverified, unsourced and undocumented OPINION. Ostroy states:

“Let's not forget where we were last year at this time. The proverbial sky was falling. America's financial system was on the verge of collapse, a crisis not seen since the Great Depression. There was an unprecedented global economic meltdown, and for the first time in 75 years Americans contemplated withdrawing their money from banks for fear of widespread default. Credit froze, borrowing ceased, and all economic activity stopped. One year later there's appreciable GDP growth, businesses are optimistic, earnings are up, inventories are down, orders are rising, credit is flowing, borrowing has resumed and stock markets have rallied. And, monthly job losses have gone down from an average 750,000 when Bush left office to the low-mid 200's. On the economy, it's pretty safe to say that Obama and his policies have been highly effective.”

No links, no sources, no quotes, no evidence that anything stated [above] is anything near fact. Ostroy simply just says it. According to Ostroy, if he just says it, it’s TRUE! He mentions that monthly job losses have gone down from an average of 750,000 when Bush left office to now in the low-mid 200’s.

What Ostroy does not tell you is that that does not mean that jobs are being created. They are still being lost. That’s why unemployment is still rising under Obama [which Ostroy did mention above]. Saying that monthly job losses are going down is like saying there’s less starving people every month in third world countries than one year ago, but if they are given a few crackers to eat, they can’t be called starving anymore. It’s like Ostroy is bragging because Americans have to work the shittiest, most shameful and undignified jobs just so they can call themselves “employed”. Great work Obama!

Ostroy’s last paragraph made my ribs hurt as well. He writes:

“Nine months after taking the oath of office, while it's still way too early to label his presidency a success or failure, it is fair to conclude that he's definitely on the right track, and as far as the economy is concerned, he's brought America back from the dead. For that he deserves credit. On the foreign stage, given all that Bush left him, he also deserves a little more time to intelligently assess strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan. We've already had eight years of catastrophic military ineptitude. It's actually quite refreshing to have a president who's carefully weighing all options before committing troops to battle. But these are definitely now his wars to wage and/or end, and time is running out on his honeymoon. He needs to formulate a plan, and soon.”


Way too early to label that he’s a failure? Wasn’t nine months the same amount of time Bush served before 9-11, in which nearly every Democrat blamed Bush for 9-11? I just happen to agree with them on that, I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Ostroy claiming that nine months is too early to deem a President a failure.

He’s [Obama] brought America back from the dead? And your evidence for that is that unsubstantiated and unverified fourth paragraph in which you just spoke fake facts into existence? Obama “needs time” to assess Iraq and Afghanistan? I thought he wanted the wars OVER? How much assessment does “come home now” take? “Committing troops to battle?” He vowed he would END the wars Andy! How does that involve “committing troops to battle?

I’m awfully glad to see that during the last nine months of Obama’s presidency, people like Ostroy can call that a “honeymoon”. Meanwhile, since January 20, 2009, over 4,000 Iraq and Afghanistan troops, as well as Afghan and Iraqi citizens have been blown to bits and their lives have ended….forever, and Ostroy calls this a honeymoon.

What Ostroy completely leaves out is how much like Bush Obama really is. Habeas Corpus still suspended, the Military Commissions Act still in effect, still no trials and representation for detainees, still massive secrecy among his administration, two wars still going strong, banks still being bailed out and rewarded for failure, etc… etc…etc….

It’s completely astonishing how political party and affiliation can blind people. All Bush had to do was morph himself into a younger half-black Democrat, and the Democrats turn into hypocritical, soul-selling FRAUDS.