Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Andy Ostroy Admits It Being Hard To Tell If Protester Intentionally Spat On Congressman, but Calls Him Names and His Behavior “Unacceptable” Anyway

Then, to top it off, Ostroy calls it “despicable" and "shameful” to attack Congressman Cleaver, when he does the exact same thing to the protester, in whom he just admitted it being “hard to tell” whether the protester intentionally spat on the Congressman

By Larry Simons
March 30, 2010

Our favorite liberal wingnut Andy Ostroy is at it again; showcasing the litany of contradictions that frequently emit from both sides of his mouth. In his latest article, titled, “SpitGate: It Was Just Projectile Drool, I Swear!”, Ostroy offers his views on the spitting incident [or what may not have been] that happened on March 20, 2009 during a Tea Bagger protest of the health care bill that was passed the next day.

First, let me accurately explain what the incident was:

As Congressman Emanuel Cleaver walked past shouting protesters, it appeared there was some altercation between Cleaver and a protester. As Cleaver walked up the stairs, as he made his way in front of the shouting protester, you see Cleaver turn his head, as if he was startled at how close he was to the protester.

You see Cleaver wave his left hand twice then begins pointing at the protester with his right hand. At this point, the two are having an angry exchange. Cleaver points again and slowly walks away. Cleaver continues his walk up the stairs, then looks behind him again at the protester, turns forward again and continues walking and then wipes his mouth with his right hand. The entire incident lasts 17 seconds.

watch the clip

This brings us to the hilarity that is Andy Ostroy’s March 30th article on this incident.

Ostroy ends his article by saying:

“The rush to unequivocally deny the occurrence, while simultaneously attacking Cleaver's credibility, reputation and motives, is despicable and shameful”.

Interesting that Ostroy rebukes those who attacked Cleaver [whoever they are] while in the very first paragraph of the article, Ostroy calls the protesters' actions “vile”:

“The accusation has sparked heated passions on both sides, with Democrats condemning the vile behavior while Republicans uniformly accuse Cleaver of lying.”

Ostroy attacks the protester in his very next sentence by calling his act “despicable”:

“Right wing talking heads Sean Hannity and others have spent hours of radio and TV time mitigating the circumstances and denying the despicable act occurred.”

Ostroy would be completely justified in attacking the protester and calling his actions “vile” and “despicableIF it was a known fact that the protester intentionally spat on Congressman Cleaver. Ostroy would even have the right to his own opinion that the protesters' actions were “vile” and “despicable”, except for the fact that Ostroy admits in the very same article that it’s hard to tell if the protester spat on Cleaver intentionally. Ostroy says:

“I admit, it's pretty hard to tell if the enraged Tea Bagger intentionally spit on the Congressman.”

Wait a minute here. Ostroy admits he isn’t sure that the protester intentionally spat on Cleaver, but he’s using words like “vile” and “despicable” to describe what could be unintentional spitting?

Ostroy closes by saying:

“Maybe, just maybe, this cretin actually did spit on Cleaver. And to be sure, he clearly did something highly offensive to the Congressman. Why can't Republicans then, out of simple human decency, just acknowledge and condemn this unacceptable behavior?”

Once again, Ostroy, who just admitted that it was hard to tell if the protester intentionally spat on Cleaver, is calling the protester a “cretin” and then says his behavior was “unacceptable”? How can an action that is unintentional be deemed as “vile”, “despicable” and “unacceptable”? How can one be called a “cretin” for an action that, even if it did happen, was accidental?

Ostroy offers what he calls “highly suspect circumstantial evidence” that the protester did indeed intentionally spit on Cleaver. I will list each point of his “highly suspect circumstantial evidence” and then follow with my debunking of it in [ ].

Ostroy’s “highly suspect circumstantial evidence”:

1. “Cleaver obviously is either a great physical actor or some "spit-like" fluid definitely hit him in the face as he passed the protester, causing his entire body to jerk away from the accused”

[What I saw was Cleaver first turn his head because it looked as if he was startled at being so close to a man yelling. If any spit did hit Cleaver’s face, why didn’t he immediately wipe it off? Instead, he waits until he points at the protester several times, yells at him and then proceeds to continue walking up stairs to wipe off anything. Odd behavior for someone that was just spat upon. How many people do you know who get spit on and do not immediately wipe it off? Also, Cleaver’s entire body did not “jerk away” from the accused. Cleaver took a step or two away from the protester, that was it. There was no jerk. The only jerk I see is Andy Ostroy himself for over-sensationalizing the incident.]

2. “the angry, visceral reaction from Cleaver to the protester clearly signals that something very bad had just happened. Something beyond simple partisan, anti-reform shouting”

[Must not have been that bad. There was a cop right alongside Cleaver during the entire incident and not once did Cleaver summon the cop to intervene or taze the guy. Spitting is assault. If Clever was intentionally spat upon, I’m quite sure the cop, who was inches away from Cleaver, would have been utilized.]

3. “notice how the protester's hands are strategically cupped over his mouth, which would conveniently conceal the act of spitting. Keep in mind that both men at this point are perhaps two feet away from each other, which would mean the rabid protester's vein-popping shouting at Cleaver would easily be heard sans hand-cupping, and that such distance might also make the "spray it" theory a bit of a stretch”

[What Ostroy conveniently omits is the fact that the protester had been cupping his mouth with his hands LONG BEFORE Cleaver walked past him, as my photos below show. Either the protester spat on everyone who walked by, or Ostroy is intentionally deceiving his readers. Hmmmm, I wonder which one it could be?]

4. “After he passes, Cleaver begins to wipe something off his face in disgust. Again, great acting?”

[Maybe he is wiping off his own spit from shouting at the protester. I’ve wiped off my own spit from my mouth quite a bit in my life, but Ostroy leaves out this possibility. Maybe he is wiping off the protester’s spit, but if so, one has to wonder why he hadn’t done that immediately.]

Another observation worth mentioning is the question of why Cleaver would walk so close to angry protesters who were there to oppose their votes? Democrats had to know their party was the main target of the anger, along with anyone who voted for the bill. In the clip, you see Cleaver walk right up against the partition that the protesters were not allowed to cross. Am I suggesting it was staged and Cleaver was faking? I can't say one way or another. It could have been, and that's another possibility that Ostroy omits.

Additionally, something else very peculiar happens at roughly 1:23 into the above clip. From the bottom of the screen, Cleaver enters the picture again, this time with another policeman. He seems to be looking for someone. Maybe the protester who "spat" on him? Who knows? Cleaver seems to be looking in the exact spot where the incident happened, as if he might be looking for the culprit but not being able to locate him.

If this is the case, what makes this behavior absolutely mind-boggling is the fact that the very same protester is right in front of Cleaver and the policeman!! If Cleaver is looking for the "spitter", there's three explanations as to why Cleaver is not immediately pointing him out to the cop:

1- Cleaver can't see him. If this is the case, then how did he ever find the policeman? He'd be too fucking blind to put on his own shoes!

2- Cleaver knows this is being filmed and he is intentionally creating the illusion of being the tough guy by going to get the police. Since the protester is right in front of Cleaver's nose hairs makes it obvious that the protester never spit on Cleaver, or he would be pointed out and arrested immediately.

3- the protester is a highly skilled Jedi Knight [we're talking Obi-Wan powers here] and he is simply using the force to evade arrest by the use of mind control. "No one spit on you"...."I am not the protester you're looking for"...."move along".

At roughly 1:54 into the clip, Cleaver and the policeman disappear off the camera, and you never see them again. Naturally, Ostroy completely omits any mention of this later appearance by Cleaver from his article, despite the fact that Ostroy has posted on his site the very same 2 minute and 30 second clip that I have posted.

Not only did I provide enough evidence that Cleaver’s credibility should be attacked, but so did Cleaver himself. In the clip below, Cleaver admits he doesn’t want to talk about the issue, nor be interviewed about it. He just wants it all behind him. Maybe that’s because he knows damned well that if spit was involved in this incident, it was accidental. If I was spit on intentionally, especially if I was a Congressman, I would want the guilty party charged. But no, Cleaver doesn’t even want to talk about it. Because he knows there is nothing to talk about. If it happened at all, it was an accident…case closed, and Cleaver knows it.

I sure wish Andy Ostroy did too!

Here is a clip of Cleaver being interviewed about the incident

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Things I Hate: Stupid-ass Reality Shows That No One On Earth Gives A Rat's Ass About

by Larry Simons
March 30, 2010

There's nothing I hate more than when all I want in the whole world [when I want a break from reading and writing] is to flip over to the one channel where you should be free of reality TV......TV Land, and watch an old classic Three's Company or The Cosby Show and laugh while I woof down some smack ramen and find out I can't watch it because of another bullshit reality TV show.

Remember when MTV showed music videos? Now I hear myself asking, "Remember when TV Land showed classic TV shows?" Pretty soon, we will be saying, "Remember when Cartoon Network showed cartoons?"

If the particular reality TV show was anywhere even near the realm of something I would remotely be interested in, I might say, "OK, I can deal with it." But no, we have to stomach yet another stupid ass show that has no business being on the channel it's on. That show: High School Reunion. Who watches this utter crapola? I'm guessing the only people who would watch TV this shitty are 35 year old women and people who would run for Mayor of Loserville.

I don't even give a flying fart about my own high school reunions! Why would I care about reunions of people I don't know? Geesh. I'd rather watch wild animals take a shit on the National Geographic Channel.

As if one dumbass reality show isn't enough for TV Land, now they have another: First Love, Second Chance [there may even be more than two shows like this on TV Land---I wouldn't know, I don't keep track of dumbass bullshit]. It's no fucking wonder why Americans are the dumbest people on the planet, and why we are losing our country right out from under our noses. Complete, 100% stupidity. If they sold stupidity in a fucking jar, Americans would buy it.

I only like ONE reality Well, technically two, but they are both hosted by Gordon Ramsay [Hell's Kitchen and Kitchen Nightmares]. They are almost the same show. I like that show because Ramsay is a no-nonsense Brit and for some strange reason, I have always been attracted to shows about restaurants/food. I really don't know why.

Friday, March 26, 2010

Obamacare “Same Doctor, Same Plan” Promise Is A Bald Faced Lie

Obama’s guarantee that Americans would still be able to keep the same health care plan is already proving fraudulent as businesses, insurance companies and medical device manufacturers jack up prices

Paul Joseph Watson
March 26, 2010

President Obama’s promise that Americans would still be able to keep the same doctor and the same plan they were on before the health care bill was passed is already collapsing, with businesses, insurance companies and medical device manufacturers jacking up prices in response to Obamacare, and making it clear that the burden of the raft of new taxes imposed by the legislation will fall on Americans across the income spectrum.

Accusing critics of “fearmongering” and “over-heated rhetoric.” Obama mockingly said birds were still chirping after he signed the legislation and that armageddon had not arrived during a speech yesterday in Iowa.

“After I signed the bill I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling or some cracks opening up in the earth – turned out it was a nice day,” quipped Obama.

Obama said “the cynics and naysayers would have to confront the reality,” and that the reform “isn’t a government takeover of our health care system,” claiming that “if Americans like their doctor they’ll be keeping their doctor, you like your plan, you’ll be keeping your plan.”

Obama promised that 6 months from now Americans would still have the “same doctor, same plan”.

Watch the clip below

However, millions of Americans will lose their doctor and their current plan once businesses, insurance companies, and medical devices manufacturers inevitably raise their prices as a result of Obamacare, which is already happening.

As Business Insider highlights, “Remember the part in the ObamaCare pitch when they said if you like your current healthcare, it won’t change? Turns out it might.”

“Companies are already announcing that their healthcare premium costs are going through the roof. Some are responding by firing people. Some are cutting benefits. And some are presumably eating it.”

As the Wall Street Journal reports, within one day of Obama signing the bill, companies were already warning about higher health costs.

Caterpillar, the world’s largest construction machinery manufacturer, warned even before the bill was passed that new costs under Obamacare to cover its employees would amount to no less than $100 million dollars just within the first year.

Medical device maker Medtronic also cautioned that new taxes imposed by the bill would force the company to lay off thousands of workers to cover the costs.

Zoll, the leading manufacturer of heart defibrillators, also stated that Obamacare will completely eviscerate its profits, forcing it to lay off thousands of employees.

So under Obamacare, not only will tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Americans not get to keep their health care plan, they won’t even get to keep their jobs as a result of the bill.

Now Verizon is warning its employees that they are unlikely to be able to keep their current health care plan as a consequence of the legislation.

“In an email titled “President Obama Signs Health Care Legislation” sent to all employees Tuesday night, the telecom giant warned that “we expect that Verizon’s costs will increase in the short term.” While executive vice president for human resources Marc Reed wrote that “it is difficult at this point to gauge the precise impact of this legislation,” and that ObamaCare does reflect some of the company’s policy priorities, the message to workers was clear: Expect changes for the worse to your health benefits as the direct result of this bill, and maybe as soon as this year,” reports WSJ.

Verizon also warned that the burden of the 40% tax on high-end health plans under Obamacare “will simply be spread to all workers,” illustrating once again that taxes introduced under the guise of punishing the rich merely hit everyone in the pocket, while elitist Washington insiders like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama himself will be completely exempt from their own bill as a result of a loophole.

“Businesses around the country are making the same calculations as Verizon and no doubt sending out similar messages. It’s only a small measure of the destruction that will be churned out by the rewrite of health, tax, labor and welfare laws that is ObamaCare, and only the vanguard of much worse to come,” concludes the WSJ report.

So there you have it – Obama’s guarantee that Americans will be able to keep the “same doctor, same plan” is a bald-faced lie. Soaring costs across the board as a result of the plethora of new taxes mandated by Obamacare will simply be passed on to every American, amounting to gargantuan health care costs in the region of $15,000 a year for middle class families.

And if you refuse to pay it – Obamacare ensures there’ll be a willing army of heavily armed IRS agents ready to convince you otherwise.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Bush Shakes A Haitians’ Hand, Then Wipes It Off On Bill Clinton’s Shoulder

Where’s the hand sanitizer when you need it?

by Larry Simons
March 25, 2010

In this remarkable clip, you will see former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in Haiti as a part of their Clinton Bush Haiti Fund relief effort [also known as the 'Look Everyone, We Pretend We Care About Disaster Victims, But We Are Really Global Elitists Who Don't Give A Two-Cent Shit About You' Tour]. 11 seconds into the clip, you see Bush smiling as he extends his hand to give a handshake to one of the Haitian citizens.

Immediately after the handshake, you see Bush move his fingers while waving. Bush appears to be openly disgusted by the handshake and then proceeds to wipe his hand off on Clinton’s right shoulder. The clip cuts off after that to another piece of footage, but I wish it hadn’t. After the Bush hand wipe, it looks as if Clinton turns around as if to say, “did you just wipe your hand on my shirt, biatch?”

Here’s hoping that the Haitian citizen had just finished wiping his ass with his bare hand!

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

by David Hogberg
Capital Hill
March 21, 2010

With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Monday, March 22, 2010

Ron Paul: IRS Will Steal More Money To Fund Health Care

Only thing that will repeal Obamacare will be bankruptcy of the United States, warns Congressman

Paul Joseph Watson
March 22, 2010

Texas Congressman Ron Paul warns that last night’s passage of the health care reform bill will prompt the government to hire thousands of new IRS agents who will be used to steal money from taxpaying Americans to fund the new program.

Paul also told Fox News that the passage of Obamacare will only be repealed once the United States enters bankruptcy as a result of its exploding national deficit and runaway spending.

“Any time a government tries to give you a service or something of substance, they have to steal it from somebody else, so the whole process is immoral because it’s based on government theft, that’s why they’re hiring 16,000 more new IRS agents, because they have to steal more money,” stated the Congressman, referring to an analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee that found “Up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses,” under the health care bill.

Paul said that the passage of Obamacare will precipitate a deepening of the economic crisis that will be “defined by the destruction of the dollar,” meaning government won’t be able to pay for anything.

“You cannot spend this kind of money, borrow this money and create new credit to finance this debt….medical care will get worse and this country will go into bankruptcy,” added Paul.

“This idea of an executive order amending the bill just is such an outrage,” said the Congressman, slamming Obama’s intention to bar federal funding for abortion after the vote as both misplaced and completely unconstitutional.

“To think that we’ve gotten to a point where we allow our presidents just to write an executive order as the law of he land, there’s nothing conceivable about that being Constitutional,” said Paul.

Throughout his campaign, Obama promised not to use executive powers and signing statements to change laws, a principle he has completely abandoned in pursuit of his big government agenda.

Congressman Paul warned that apparent efforts to prevent health care money being used to fund abortions were utterly ineffectual, saying that hospitals and clinics are just going to shift money around to fudge evidence of where the funds are being used.

On the wider argument behind government providing health care, Paul stated, “Central economic planning, if anything the 20th century proves, central economic planning fails, every country in the world today is on the verge of bankruptcy….and we’re marching on to a worldwide economic catastrophe if we’re not careful.”

watch the clip below

Saturday, March 20, 2010

My Translation of the Reason Why Dennis Kucinich Changed His Vote On the Health Care Bill: He’s A Pussy

Democracy Now! interviews Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. Nader was rock solid and kicked ass on every point. Kucinich agreed with Nader on every point but spoke gibberish on his health care vote switcheroo

by Larry Simons
March 20, 2010

This might be the strangest interview I have ever seen. Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now! had on Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and consumer advocate Ralph Nader to discuss health care and more specifically, Kucinich’s changed vote on the health care bill.

Kucinich had been strongly opposed to Obama’s health care bill and the lack of a single payer option within the bill. After a recent trip in Air Force One with Obama, Kucinich changed his vote to now being in favor of the bill.

Watching this interview made my head spin. Kucinich was given the floor first and told Goodman that he does not retract anything he said in opposition to the bill prior to his switch to support it. Then he goes on to say that despite his best efforts to get single payer into the bill, he was not going to succeed. Then Kucinich says he was faced with an option to kill the bill, or let it go forward in the hopes that they could build something from the ruins of the bill.

In other words, Kucinich is saying he would rather vote yes on a bad bill, then no on a bad bill and have the fear that the health care discussion would die. Total bullshit. In other words, he’s hoping something good comes out of a bill that he admits to still having every criticism of prior to his support of it.

How insane do you have to be to think the way Kucinich does? It’s like the owner of a restaurant who decides to hire a new chef through a vote by his other employees. One employee is strongly opposed to the chef that is favored by the owner and a number of the other employees. It is assumed that his vote may be the deciding vote, but he doesn’t think this particular chef is the best for the restaurant. He votes yes anyway because he feels that even though he thinks he’s a bad chef, he will get better in time and his good qualities will outweigh the bad. Complete insanity.

watch the interview

Nader was given the floor next and made excellent points as to why this health care bill is bad news for this country and Americans. Here are a few of the negative aspects of the bill according to Nader:

1. Bill does not provide universal, comprehensive or affordable care to the American people
2. Shoves hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money into the worst corporations [health care companies] who created this problem
3. Does not require many contractual accountabilities for people who are denied health care in this continual pay or die system
4. Does not require regulation to keep drug prices down
5. No public option to keep prices down
6. Does not kick in until 2014 and by then, 180,000 Americans will have died from not being able to afford medical care

The one thing that made my head explode is the fact that Kucinich, in his rebuttal, agreed with everything Nader said and told Goodman how vital it is for Americans to keep going forward in support of the single payer option, and that even he would still support single payer. WHY???

Why would he still support single payer when he votes on bills that does not include it? What would be the point for supporters of single payer to keep fighting the good fight when people like Kucinich [who as of just days ago, was strongly opposed to this bill], turn into colossal pussies and cave in to the pressure?

The one thing that stood out the most in this entire interview was the fact that Kucinich never really explained why he changed his vote. He never specifically said why. The whole “voting on a bad bill in hopes it would become good” is NOT a reason. It’s mumbo jumbo bullshit.

In fact, this was another attempt by Kucinich to explain why he changed his vote:

“There’s a point at which you are in the system and you have to figure out, is there a way to try to use the moment to move in a direction that gives you a chance to keep pushing the points and not lose total legitimacy by taking everything over a cliff, at least working inside the system. And so that’s kinda what I’ve been faced with here.”

I read that three times in a row and I still have no fucking clue what he is saying. It’s complete gibberish. It means nothing. Nader, on the other hand, nailed every point and was excellent.

For those of you who do not have the time to watch the interview, this was the gist of it:

Kucinich: I voted on the health care bill despite being against it forever

Nader: Who could be for this bill? It sucks and bad for America

Kucinich: I haven't changed my mind. I'm still for single payer, and I still hold all my previous stances. I voted against my personal stances because I'm a big pussy. But even though I voted for the bill, all of you that still support single payer, keep supporting it and defending it....I'm with you....I just wasn't with you this one time....which was my VOTE for the bill!

Goodman/Gonzalez: Why isn't Kucinich telling anyone here WHY he voted for the bill?

Nader: I'm wondering that too

Kucinich: Maybe this bad bill will magically become good with a special health care magic wand that "Doc" Brown from "Back To The Future" will invent [complete with its own flux capacitor]

Nader: You're a dumbass and a pussy, Kucinich

Goodman/Gonzalez: Yeah, we agree

Kucinich: I agree too. I'm a big pussy. I'm going to go work on my next speech, titled, "Why I Now Support The Iraq War [and Why George W. Bush Is The Best President America Ever Had]"

To me, there could only be two possible reasons why Kucinich changed his mind. 1- He’s a total pussy, or 2- He was personally threatened. After all, it was reported that he changed his mind after talking with Obama on Air Force One. How can you change your mind on a brief plane ride after being against an issue for years?

I have lost all respect for Kucinich now. Things like this make it more valid to say, “There’s only one Ron Paul”.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Liberals Still Not Holding Obama Or Democrats Responsible for the Continuation of War

Remember how liberals gleefully said Bush was responsible for 9/11 only after 8 months in office? They had, and still have, a valid point about that. But, why is Obama still getting a free pass on Iraq after 14 months in office?

by Larry Simons
March 19, 2010

Today is not an anniversary anyone wants to celebrate. Today marks the 7th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Iraq has always been called “Bush’s war”, and it is. Now, it is Obama’s war. Sure, Obama did not start the war, but he campaigned on the promise to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seven years into the Iraq war and nearly eight and a half years into the war in Afghanistan, also mark the 14th month these wars have lingered on into Obama’s presidency. Democrats and liberals have blamed Bush many times over for seemingly detached events, like 9/11, claiming it was Bush’s fault because it happened on his watch. I agreed with them [and still do], but I personally do not believe Bush was solely responsible. Forces much more sinister within our own government claim that prize.

Democrats and liberals are now hush-hush over Obama’s detached events. Sure, Bush launched the war in Iraq, but it is now in Obama’s hands. This is Obama’s baby now, and there’s not a Democrat or liberal in sight that is blaming Obama for the continuity of war in Iraq [and Afghanistan]. In fact, not only has Obama NOT ended the wars, he has increased their budgets by 83 billion, and has increased troop levels, twice. All this after he promised “CHANGE” we all can believe in. It appears the only thing that has changed since Bush left office is the color of the President’s skin.

Nicole Belle, of the liberal, Obama-worshipping site, Crooks and Liars writes:

“As of today, iCasualties lists 4,703 allied servicemembers killed in Iraq and Iraq Body Count estimates that 95,680 - 104,382 Iraqi civilians (not insurgents/military/soldiers) have been killed. And that doesn't include injured veterans or those who committed suicide. Tens of thousands of families have been torn apart by the what we now know was the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. We've spent $747.3 BILLION in Iraq, with the full cooperation of the pearl-clutching deficit hawks in the Republican Party.

And not one of us can honestly claim that we are safer.

What a sad anniversary.”

With the full cooperation of the pearl-clutching deficit hawks in the Republican Party”? What about the Democrats who voted on going to war? What about the fact that Obama promised to END the wars after being elected? I am no defender of Bush by any means, but at least Bush at no time ever said he would end the wars. Obama did say that, and he has not. Not a peep from Democrats and liberals about the fact that American troops are still dying, billions and billions is still being spent on wars in which we are still not safe as a result of.....because of Obama.

The Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House, but somehow the Republicans are still to blame? Amazing.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Jesse Ventura’s Huffington Post Article Removed Because They Just Don’t Like the Truth

Despite HuffPo claiming they have a anti-promotion of “conspiracy theories” policy, they posted Ventura’s other article on the drug war, an excerpt from his “American Conspiracies” book

by Larry Simons
March 15, 2010

Here is what you find when you go to Jesse Ventura’s latest article on The Huffington Post [about 9-11, that they asked him to write]

Editor’s Note: The Huffington Post’s editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories — including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post.

Despite HuffPo claiming that it does not promote “conspiracy theories”, it ran an article penned by Ventura on Feb. 26 about the drug war, which was an excerpt from his new “American Conspiracies” book. What HuffPo really meant is, “The Huffington Post’s editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories — ONLY those about 9/11.”

Despite HuffPo claiming that they do not endorse the “promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories”, they were more than happy to run an article about Ventura appearing on the Opie and Anthony Show this past December when the topic was 9-11 and Ventura’s [then] new show Conspiracy Theory.

HuffPo appeared to waive their anti-conspiracy theory policy because this article clearly mocked Ventura about his beliefs and exploited the fact that Ventura walked off the set of the Opie and Anthony Show [which to HuffPo probably made Ventura look like an “angry” person] despite the fact that Ventura showed incredible restraint and didn’t do what 90% of any sane human being would have done ---- punch moron and sissy boy Jim Norton right in his dicksucking mouth for continually talking over and interrupting Ventura .

Here is the deleted article [take a wild guess why it was removed]:


Jesse Ventura
March 9, 2010

You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but two weeks ago at a conference in San Francisco, more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.

That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy – because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible – or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.” He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 47 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon – even though it was never hit by an aircraft.

This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies , published this week by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows:

Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9/11 were going 440 and 550 miles an hour.

Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings? I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics. These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately ten seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal , in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:

“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.” [i]

Richard Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”

In this clip from the Alex Jones Show on March 12, Ventura discusses the HuffPo article being removed

Friday, March 12, 2010

Things I Hate: "In Memory Of" Window Decals

by Larry Simons
March 12, 2010

OK, I can understand that people are going through a tough time when they lose someone and they want to pay a personal tribute to their deceased loved one by sticking a "In Memory Of" decal on their back window. The key word there was "personal". Why should I have to look at it? I didn't know your Uncle Billy, your Aunt Mabel, your sister Sue, or your bowling buddy Skip. Why can't you put the tribute on your rear view mirror or the front of your glove box where only YOU see it?

Not only do I have to look at this mobile headstone of your father [that I didn't know] for 5 or 6 miles, but if you piss me off by driving 5 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. zone, stop abruptly or cut me off, now I can't yell at you and call you a "stupid asshole" without getting an eerie feeling that I'm also yelling at your dead father [John Lee Smith, Sr., who was born April 2, 1938 and died just 2 weeks ago] and he is saying to me, "Take it easy on my son, he's still in mourning."

Thanks Dad, and it sucks that your dead, but your son just made me late for music trivia at Buffalo Wild Wings. Now my chance of a top 100 win is in jeopardy.

I want to yell at drivers guilt-free and free from the feeling that the deceased mother of the douchebag I just yelled at for cutting me off won't call on spirits from the great beyond to cause my breaks to quit.

Jesse Ventura’s Latest TV Appearences [Larry King, The View]

Ventura discusses his new book “American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies, and More Dirty Lies That the Government Tells Us

March 12, 2010

The View

Larry King Live

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

And Yet Another Blog I Own

I was “Ostroyed”. That’s when a blogger deletes your post and claims you said something “nasty” when in reality it was something they could not debunk

by Larry Simons
March 10, 2010

The newest member of the “Blogs I Own” club is, without a doubt, the most cowardly, because it is the only blog in the club that withholds his name and photo. Other members of the Blogs I Own club are: Crooks and Liars, Dave Neiwert’s Orincus, Andy Ostroy’s The Ostroy Report, Dave Willis’ Watcha Talkin’ Bout Willis? and Prison Planet. Add to that The Last Name Left, a liberal douchebag from London, England who I have repeatedly debunked on 9-11, global warming, and every other issue we debate.

Yesterday I was “Ostroyed” by TLNL. The term “Ostroyed” comes from my debates with liberal blogger Andy Ostroy last year when I posted comments on his blog, only to have them deleted the next day and being told by Ostroy my comments were deleted because they were "nasty” and I “violated his rules”. In reality, my posts would contain irrefutable questions and remarks. Ostroy, in his panic [because he couldn’t have his readers witness the fact that I posted a comment or question Ostroy could not debunk] would delete my posts, claiming I made a “nasty” or “profane” comment, or that I violated his or’s rules.

Instead of leaving my comment posted [which would have exposed my “nasty” comment and been the evidence needed to delete my account, as well as made me a target of ridicule and scorn of his readers if what I said was really nasty], Ostroy protected me and removed the comment [something that made no sense if he was threatening to report me to]. Oh, and by the way, I never violated any rules.

Hence the term “Ostroyed” was born. Ostroyed: Having your comment deleted from a blog when the blogs owner claims you were “off topic”, “nasty” or you violated rules, when in reality, it was because the comment contained something the owner could not debunk or wanted to confront.

Below is a screen shot of TLNL asking me two questions. I clearly answer his questions. He deletes my comment and says I brought up an “irrelevant point”. He CLEARLY deleted my post because I asked him, “How does being RIGHT-wing make people go on shooting sprees?” He had no answer, so it was DELETE time for The Last Dick Left.

Notice the time under each photo showing 08:16 on March 9, before AND after the deletion.
(click to enlarge)


Friday, March 5, 2010

As Predicted, Pentagon Shooting Blamed On 9/11 Truth

Two days after we warned that anti-government activists were about to be framed for violence, Californian man attacks police officers, media cites motivation as advocacy for 9/11 truth

Paul Joseph Watson
March 5, 2010

Just two days after we warned of false flag domestic attacks that would be blamed on the federal government’s political adversaries were all but inevitable, a Californian man attacked the Pentagon last night in a shooting that wounded two police officers and has since been blamed on the John Patrick Bedell’s advocacy for 9/11 truth.

On Wednesday we explained how a Southern Poverty Law Center report which demonized We Are Change 9/11 truth organizations in the same breath as violent racist skinhead groups was part of a preparatory set-up for violent domestic acts that would be blamed on anti-government extremists.

We pointed out that since examples of Americans committing violence in pursuit of their political beliefs, FBI patsy Timothy McVeigh aside, were thin on the ground, organizations like the SPLC were begging for such incidents to occur in order to provide the federal government with the pretext to crack down on dissent and silence free speech on the Internet.

Low and behold, last night 36-year-old John Patrick Bedell calmly walked up to a subway station immediately adjacent to the Pentagon building, pulled out a gun and opened fire at point blank range.

“He walked up very cool. He had no real emotion on his face,” said Richard Keevill, chief of Pentagon police.

Two officers were injured before Bedell was gunned down and later confirmed dead in the early hours of the morning.

Authorities said they were investigating reports of a second man at the scene who was apparently aiding the shooter.

As is routine, people who knew Bedell expressed shock that he would attempt such an attack.
“He just seemed like a normal guy to me,” Ronald Domingues said. “I wouldn’t suspect he would be involved in anything like this.”

Under the headline, Pentagon Shooter Railed Against U.S. on Internet, the Associated Press reports that one of the primary motivations for the attack was Bedell’s “Resentment of the U.S. government and suspicions over the 9/11 attack.”

“Signs emerged that Bedell harbored ill feelings toward the government and the armed forces, and had questioned the circumstances behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,” according to the article.

Bedell was also “determined to see that justice is served,” according to another Internet posting, in response to the death of Marine Col. James Sabo, which was ruled a suicide but suspected by Bedell to be a cover-up.

“Officials said they’d found no immediate connection to terrorism but had not ruled it out,” states the report.

The proximity of the incident to the release of the SPLC report is seamless and the implication is clear – anyone who demands that ‘justice be served’ in response to government corruption or anyone who demands the truth behind 9/11 be made public is a dangerous extremist who is likely to go on a shooting rampage.

The media attempted to craft a similar scenario following the Richard Poplawski shooting, which killed three Pittsburgh police officers, despite the fact that the incident arose as a result of a domestic dispute between Poplawski and his mother, and not as a consequence of Poplawski’s political beliefs, as the media attempted to spin the events.

The debunkers and the establishment can now have a field day with the Pentagon shooting and use it to make the case that 9/11 truthers are violent and should be silenced, ignoring the fact that not a single 9/11 truther has committed an act of violence in pursuit of their beliefs, and despite efforts to frame 9/11 truther Gary Talis when he was falsely accused of attacking a girl in a wheelchair. Talis was acquitted by a New York jury despite New York police officers and one Secret Service agent lying in claiming Talis had assaulted the girl when in fact he was the one being assaulted by the girl’s father.

There can be little doubt that we will see more incidents like last night’s shooting and, whether genuine or staged, they will be exploited to the maximum by the establishment media and the government to portray anyone who questions 9/11 and anyone who expresses “resentment” about how they have been looted for trillions of dollars as violent extremists who need to be silenced.

Such incidents will dovetail perfectly with the rapid advancement of cybersecurity and Internet censorship laws that will force people to obtain licenses to exercise free speech on the web, while providing Homeland Security with the perfect pretext to increase surveillance of all Internet traffic and communications.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Mark Potok Says Believing the Government Is In On an Evil Scheme is A “Theory”, Then Proceeds to List Evil Things They’ve Done

Mark Potok says Patriot groups are paranoid for believing that the government is part of an evil scheme, then becomes a “conspiracy theorist” himself 10 seconds later, when he lists their evil schemes

by Larry Simons
March 3, 2010

Mark Potok, of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is at it again. More doublespeak from Jeff Lynne and William H. Macy’s lovechild. This time, it’s just more of the same from Potok, speaking out now in defense of his SLPC Intelligence Report that was just released in which details the statistics of hate/extremist groups in America.

Potok says this [from the clip below]:

“The thing to really understand about the Patriot movement and the militias which are the para-military wing of the Patriot movement is that they really believe the government is part of an evil scheme to do in Americans. This is a movement that sees the government as the primary enemy, uh, and is also completely eaten up with all kinds of conspiracy theories about martial law, about concentration camps, uh, about the Federal Reserve acting as an evil agent, and the list goes on and on.”

What I cannot figure out is, does Potok have contempt for people who join militias or people who join militias and believe that the government is involved in an evil scheme? It would seem clear from his above quote that the answer is obviously the latter. The reason why things get hazy is because of what he says immediately after the above quote.

“The economy being in shambles, so many people being unemployed, uh, has left a lot of people hurting, frustrated, angry and looking for a reason why they are in the place they’re in. In addition, I think that a great many people out there are very angry over things like the bank bailouts, the bailout of the auto industry. You know, what they see, I think, uh, is a government simply pouring money, uh, into the hands really of the elites, of people who then go on to get bonuses of millions of dollars and the ends of the year, and they don’t feel that what the government has done to try and end the recession is really reaching real working people.”

So, in other words Mark, you’re saying that the reason why people feel the government is the primary enemy and that it is a part of an evil scheme is because… IS the primary enemy and a part of an evil scheme?? So, basically, the people involved in the militias and Patriot movements are simply just paying attention to what the government is doing to the American people. And when they simply react by joining groups that are comprised of people who take oaths to obey the Constitution, they are nutty “conspiracy theorists” when you just admitted the government is ruining the country? Wow!

watch the clip

Potok is speaking as if the government is playing the role of a well-meaning parent who continually screws up, but deep down wants the best for their child; they just need direction. BULLSHIT and utter crapola. If the government was truly concerned with fixing this country and confronting the real dragons behind the curtain who are destroying it, their first step would be to abolish the Federal Reserve.

No country can continue to print money, and print more money and print more money and not eventually collapse economically. With the exception of the time period between 1815-1821, the United States had not seen a real major economic collapse until the 1920's. Even during one of America's darkest periods, the Civil War, the country ran rather smoothly. We never ran into huge deficits because the war was completely paid for by taxes from the American people. The country ran beautifully until just around the time Lincoln was elected and began his desecration of the Constitution.

Since then, the country has been taken over by bankers and the corporate elite. No conspiracy theory there. Just ask the Warburgs, Rockefellers and Rothschilds. Of course, they may be hush-hush about it, since they were a few of the major conspirators. Almost immediately after the creation of the Fed [within 16 short years], we were suffering a great depression. Potok would call that mere coincidence.

What is going on in Washington is an orchestrated plan. The government could fix health care tomorrow if they wanted to [and I’m not referring to Obamacare]. They could fix the auto industry, the housing industry and unemployment in days if they truly wanted to fix it. They don’t. It’s not an accident; it’s an agenda.

Conservative author Gary Allen said, “If we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of the events affecting our nation’s well-being should be good for America. If we were dealing with mere incompetence, our leaders should occasionally make a mistake in our favor….We are not really dealing with coincidence or stupidity, but with planning and brilliance.”

People like Potok believe that the leaders in Washington mean well and they really care, but they just keep fucking up and they need our prayers and support. Yet they have fucked up so much, so often and so badly…and never in our favor. Potok is the nutball for believing it’s coincidental.

Potok continually condemns “conspiracy theorists” [debunkers love using that term in the pejorative sense] but fails to mention that the alternative to conspiracy “believing” [the term I like] is to accept that, like Gary Allen said, things never work in the favor of the American people. Potok even admitted that the government not only fails, but also goes out of its way to fail the people. He admits it and yet we are crazy if we simply acknowledge it and vow to defend the Constitution.

Now, are there nuts in the militia and Patriot movements? I’m sure there are. You can’t assemble a group of any size and be nutball free, but that hardly makes the cause dangerous, crazy or even terroristic. How does Potok think our country even started? We fought the redcoats with militias. Were there [maybe] a few people in those militia regimens who were considered ‘nutty’? Maybe. Maybe not. Was the cause deemed “dangerous”? Well, considering we gained our Independence as a result of it, I highly suspect anyone would call them dangerous. But, I could be wrong.

On liberal wingnut Dave Neiwert’s blog some time back, I had intense debates with other bloggers about the militias in the 1770’s. The wingnuts on Orincus [Neiwert’s blog] called the militia’s of the 1770’s terrorists [despite the fact that, if not for their actions, we wouldn’t live in the country we have today and the nutcases on Neiwert’s blog wouldn’t be enjoying the freedom to write that the very people who gave them the right to speak freely were nothing more than terrorists].

[Oh, by the way, I was banned from Dave Neiwert’s site for saying the militias in the 1770’s were not terrorists. Neiwert’s supporters, who claimed our founders were terrorists, were not banned].

Potok calls anti-government people in the Patriot movement delusional for believing that the Federal Reserve is “acting an evil agent” and claims they are “eaten up” with conspiracy theories, but what Potok completely omits from his ramblings is that the creation of the Federal Reserve was a conspiracy. And it’s not just people in militias that know this fact. As I posted prior, even actor Richard Belzer acknowledges the conspiracy on Jekyll Island in 1910 by a group of elite bankers. Belzer shared these views on Real Time with Bill Maher last October.

Belzer said:

“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.”

watch the clip

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan ADMITTED on national TV that the Federal Reserve is an independent agency and they answer to no one.

watch the clip

Since the Fed is a central bank, and the founding fathers warned us all about the evils of central banks and the people who created the Fed were bankers, not politicians, that means the Fed was created by people who were not elected into office. Mark Potok doesn’t think that is an evil agent. Wow.

Thomas Jefferson said, "A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."

Jefferson said central banks [the Fed being the central bank] are a threat to our liberties. Interesting is the fact that Potok later says that members of the Oath Keepers are paranoid because they think "foreign troops are going to be on American soil, putting Americans down". In the quote by Jefferson, he said institutions such as the Federal Reserve are a greater threat to our liberty than standing armies. So, if the Oath Keepers think that foreign troops will be on our soil, so what? Thomas Jefferson said that institutions like the Fed are a greater threat than armies. I guess Potok considers Thomas Jefferson a conspiracy theorist as well.

In an article I wrote on February 18, I posted proof that martial law legislation has already been implemented and that FEMA camps are real. Ask Ollie North. He co-authored the plans for the Rex 84 [Readiness Exercise] centers that were created for the sole purpose of detaining large numbers of American citizens in the event of a national crisis. But, if someone just reads martial law legislation like HR 645 or shows videos of Ollie North being asked about his Rex 84 FEMA camps, they are loony “conspiracy theorists” who are a danger to America.

Oliver North in 1987, refusing to answer Jack Brooks about Rex 84 FEMA camps

So, if Mark Potok just saysconspiracy” people are nuts, well then, we must be. No video footage needed, just his good word. But, when we, the “nutty conspiracy people”, have video footage proving what we claim is true, we are dangers to the country and should be monitored night and day by the FBI.

It’s people like Potok that should be evaluated by mental health professionals. After all, he still believes in the biggest fairy tale of them all; that the government gives a shit about us.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

New Features: “Things I Hate” and “Things I Laugh At Every Single Time

by Larry Simons
March 3, 2010

I’m adding these two features, not in an attempt to re-format my blog, but to use as fillers whenever I go 4 or 5 days without a posted story. That usually only happens when I have found nothing of interest or importance to write about.

These segments will also show the other side of me; the satirical and human side of me, not the one that appears to be always serious and immersed in political issues 24/7. “Things I Hate” won’t be things like: George W. Bush, the Bilderbergers or Bill O’ Reilly. Those things are a given. They will be random brain droppings meant to show my readers what I think of trivial things that we all witness in our everyday lives. Hope you enjoy the new blog facelift.

For my grand opening of the two features, I will post one of each.

Things I Hate:

“Flo, the Progressive Insurance lady”

Her real name is Stephanie Courtney, and she is just as UN-funny outside of the Progressive commercials as she is in them.

Take a look

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that she’s a pitch person for a product. I have nothing against pitch people.

I love Vince the Sham-Wow guy.

I miss Vince. Haven’t seen him on TV since he slap-chopped that hooker last year. Damn, Vince, why’d ya have to do that?

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Why is Rand Paul Against Unemployment Extensions? And Why Is There Not A Peep About This on Prison Planet?

Ron Paul’s son Rand endorses Jim Bunning’s opposition to extending unemployment insurance. Not a word about this on Prison Planet and Infowars. Why?

by Larry Simons
March 2, 2010

This should prove to all my opponents [if I hadn’t proven it yet] that I put everyone under the microscope here at Real Truth Online. I have made no secret that I have been a big Ron Paul supporter [for 4 years now] and I have even supported his son Rand in his run for U.S. Senate in Kentucky. Paul is running to replace Jim Bunning, who announced that he would not seek re-election.

Bunning recently made headlines for being against extending unemployment benefits during the worse economic crises since the 1930’s. While he stood in session opposing the bill, he complained he was missing a basketball game, then when ABC Reporter Jonathan Karl followed Bunning to an elevator, asking him about his vote, Bunning replied, “Excuse me, this is a Senator-only elevator”.

Naturally I was disturbed and a bit angry to hear that even as I type this story, Rand Paul is holding a rally in front of Jim Bunning’s Lexington office to support Bunning’s blockage of unemployment benefits for roughly 1 million Americans, including nearly 120,000 Kentuckians.

I have no idea why Rand Paul supports Bunning. I can only imagine the reason being that the traditional Republican stance is one of small government and that Americans are not supposed to depend on the government, but be self-sustaining. I agree with that. But I also agree with the fact that the entire reason why the country is in this mess to begin with is because of the government!

The government can constantly fuck up, spread its abundant incompetence around the entire country, reward failing banks, ship all the jobs off to other countries, fail to get illegal immigrants the fuck out of this country [who are eating up millions of jobs that LEGAL American citizens could be enjoying, not to mention the free health care illegals enjoy] and fail to do a goddamned thing about the criminal Federal Reserve….[fail, fail, fail, fail, fail], and while Americans are suffering through the loss of their homes, jobs, their dignity and their life savings, they are now supposed to suffer through the loss of unemployment benefits, because Republicans are just NOW worried about the deficit?

Where was the Republican concern for our deficit during the six years of supporting Bush's wars and bankrupting the country? I can't even begin to imagine the amount of good and prosperity Americans would be enjoying with the hundreds of trillions of dollars that has gone to the war. Did Republicans care about this? I can only recall one Republican caring. Ron Paul. Now his son Rand is supporting a man who is against giving to 1 million Americans what they either would not need to begin with [because of the collapsing economy, due largely to Bush an Obama's wars] or what would be abundantly available to them [if not for the wars].

I am all for small government and the fact that Americans are supposed to stand on their own without government hand-outs, but it’s the government who has failed, raped and robbed the American people over and over again. Americans already have to shed their dignity to accept unemployment benefits to begin with.

Now, because of one asshole that is more concerned with missing a basketball game than the well-being of suffering Americans, the bill has to be delayed for another vote. Meanwhile, the unemployed will miss a paycheck while congressmen and senators sit and watch themselves jackoff for another week. The unemployed, who already have to suffer through not being able to find work, now have to wait for these pricks, who make $150,000 a year and can take a day off anytime they want [from their 3 day work week], to decide their fate.

Also interesting is the fact that, on any normal day on Alex Jones’ sites Prison Planet and Infowars, this unemployment blockage story would have been front-page news. Since Prison Planet and Infowars have done positive stories on Bunning in the past [speaking out against the Federal Reserve and the bailouts], and especially since Rand Paul supports Bunning on this, naturally, there is not a peep about it.

I plainly admit that I am a huge Ron Paul supporter and I have supported Rand [in my limited knowledge of his stances], but as this story proves, if there is something that angers me about the people that even I support, I will hold their feet to the fire.

And I have.