Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Also equates Abraham Lincoln to Moses and George Washington, despite the fact that Lincoln began a long and bloody war to put and end to one major issue that Beck advocates; secession
by Larry Simons
August 31, 2010
As if FOX News neocon stooge Glenn Beck needed another glaring contradiction to stare him in the face and laugh its head off, he has one anyway. This past Saturday at Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington D.C., Beck gave a speech that, if you removed all the errors, contradictions and Christian nationalism, it would have been like watching a silent movie.
The very first contradiction is the title of the rally, “Restoring Honor” while having the rally at the memorial of a man [Lincoln] who destroyed honor for his country by being a racist dictator who continually trampled on the Constitution. Lincoln launched the bloodiest war in this country’s history simply because he resented the entire concept of freedom and liberty by believing [as many Americans still do today] that state secession is an act of treason, despite the fact that our country was formed from an act of secession [from England].
Beck began by quoting Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, a speech with many glaring errors. Beck begins:
“If I may share with you the Gettysburg Address and ask you if it doesn’t apply to today:
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.”
First of all, the founders did not create a “nation” but a confederation of states. Lincoln’s usage of the word “nation” throughout the aforementioned quote is ill informed. States are sovereign and independent, as the founders state in the Declaration by saying “These colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other Acts and things which Independent States may of right do.” In other words, the Independent States can easily be viewed as separate “countries”. The founders clearly understood this. Beck does not.
Lincoln historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo states in “The Real Lincoln”:
“The death of states’ rights ultimately meant that Americans were forced to effectively give up the idea of government by consent. In its place was put the European idea that citizens owe obedience to the central state---the very idea that caused many of the original colonists to flee England in the first place.”
What Beck miserably fails to comprehend is that it is because of Lincoln’s disdain for liberty that he launched the war to begin with. Lincoln did not believe in state sovereignty. If he had, he would have allowed the states to secede without the use of military force to “save the Union”.
“It could not have been a mere accident or oversight that, in his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln quoted the dictum in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal but completely ignored the part about how governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and that whenever governments become destructive of liberty, it is the duty of the citizens to replace the existing government. The Federal victory in the war did irreparable damage to the concept that the powers of the American government are derived from the consent of the governed. As the founders understood it, consent of the governed had little meaning in the absence of state sovereignty and the right of secession.”
“Far from “saving the Union”, Lincoln destroyed it in the philosophical sense, if by “Union” one means a voluntary confederation of states. Forcing a state (or states) to remain in the Union at gunpoint defeats the whole purpose of having a union in the first place”
“After the Gettysburg Address, I invite you today, go in and read the second inaugural. Abraham Lincoln found God in the scars of Gettysburg. He was baptized and gave the second inaugural. He looked to God and set men free.”
Here, Beck appears to be referring to the fake Lincoln quote that supposedly after viewing the battlefield at Gettysburg, Lincoln said, “I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes I do love Jesus!” Lincoln never said this. This quote most likely was spread by the New England clergy to equate Lincoln with Jesus and Moses, as Beck does when, during his rally speech, he says:
“Have trust in the Lord, and recognize that Moses and Abraham Lincoln and George Washington…they were men. They were just like you.”
Like the New England clergy after the war, Beck erroneously links Lincoln with Moses and probably is one of the still lingering misinformed stooges that still refers to Lincoln as the “redeemer president”.
What I find interesting is that just last year on Beck’s show on FOX, he spoke with New Hampshire State Representative Dan Itse about NH proposing a bill to protect states rights and secede from the Union if need be. Beck was in agreement with Itse during the entire segment and made no secret about the fact that he endorses state secession when he stated:
“I find this so fascinating because I read the founding fathers, I know what they believed…and it makes no sense that you couldn’t back out of the Union if they started trampling on those rights. It would only make sense.”
Yes, you're right. It would make sense Glenn. That’s why the founders instructed that the Independent States have every right to separate themselves from a Federal government that was in violation of the Constitution, which is exactly what the southern states did in 1861. Beck’s hero, Abraham Lincoln, simply would not stand for any free, independent, sovereign state to withdrawal from his plan to form a more powerful, centralized government, so Lincoln gathered his armies and invaded the South, destroying the very voluntary Union that he swore he was “saving”.
Watch Beck endorse what Lincoln hated…secession
So, why does Beck admire Lincoln so much, if his hero brutally murdered over a quarter of a million people to extinguish state secession---the very thing that Beck endorses? Because Beck is a controlled, confused, brainwashed sell-out and simply either has no clue that his endorsement of secession and admiration of Lincoln are at complete odds with each other on a massive scale, or he realizes it and is part of the widespread brotherhood of Lincoln cultists who view Lincoln as “the great emancipator” or “honest Abe”, and have been repeating the 145-year-old lie that Lincoln “ended slavery” and “saved the Union”.
Thomas DiLorenzo clearly and brilliantly explains why Beck and so many others portray Lincoln as a “saint”. He states in “Lincoln Unmasked”:
“If Lincoln was such a saint, why can’t his record speak for itself? The gatekeepers….ignore unpleasant facts about Lincoln, such as his suspension of habeas corpus, his imprisonment of tens of thousands of Northern political opponents during the War between the States, his shutting down of hundreds of opposition newspapers, his micromanagement of the bombing of Southern cities and the waging of war on civilians, his pledge to support a constitutional amendment prohibiting the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery, and his lifelong white supremacist views.”
Why didn’t Beck mention any of this on Saturday? Because it wouldn't have went over well with a large crowd of nutty, religious Lincoln apologists---and of course, it would have given an indication that Glenn Beck endorses something else more precious......the truth.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Common Purpose marxist front group Demos says state needs to “fight back” against people who question the authorities to “increase trust in government”
Paul Joseph Watson
August 30, 2010
Furious that state involvement in major terror attacks is being exposed to a wider audience than ever before via the Internet, a UK think tank closely affiliated with the Downing Street has called for authorities to infiltrate conspiracy websites in an effort to “increase trust in the government”.
“A Demos report published today, The Power of Unreason, argues that secrecy surrounding the investigation of events such as the 9/11 New York attacks and the 7/7 bombings in London merely adds weight to unsubstantiated claims that they were “inside jobs,” reports the London Independent.
In other words, the fact that the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that both 7/7 and 9/11 were “inside jobs” of one form or another, and that huge numbers of people are now aware of this via the increasing influence of the Internet, is hampering efforts to commit more acts of terror, therefore the government needs to change its strategy.
In the report, Demos, “Recommends the Government fight back by infiltrating internet sites to dispute these theories.” One of the tools Demos already employs to “fight back” against conspiracy theories is by labeling anyone who challenges the government’s official story as an extremist or a terrorist recruiter.
The strategy mirrors that advocated by White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a 2008 white paper similarly called for conspiracy websites to be infiltrated and undermined in order to dilute their influence. In the same report, Sunstein also called for taxing conspiracy theories (any viewpoint that differs with the official version) and outright banning free speech that the authorities disapproved of.
What Demos and Sunstein are essentially calling for is classic “provocateur” style infiltration, updated for the 21st century, that came to the fore during the Cointelpro years, an FBI program from 1956-1971 that was focused around disrupting, marginalizing and neutralizing political dissidents, often using illegal methods.
The fact that governments on both sides of the pond have been caught over and over again habitually lying about everything under the sun, allied to a compliant corporate media that has aided authorities in covering up their misdeeds, has prompted a complete collapse in trust from the people, an effect that is now seriously hampering the state’s efforts to enlist implied consent, with millions of people rebelling against the system through civil disobedience and non-compliance in a myriad of different ways.
That’s why Demos, a mouthpiece for the British authorities, is desperate to infiltrate “conspiracy websites,” ie groups of people who broadcast the truth, in order to “increase trust” in a government that has lost all credibility.
As we have documented, governments all over the world, most notably the U.S. and Israel, already employ teams of agents whose sole job revolves around infiltrating and subverting websites that publish the truth about government corruption and atrocities.
Demos is a front for the insidious Common Purpose network, a group that Lt Cdr Brian Gerrish has exposed as playing a fundamental role in the advancement of Britain’s role in the new world order. Julia Middleton, Chief Executive of Common Purpose, sits on Demos’ advisory council.
Demos was founded in 1993 by marxists Martin Jacques and Geoff Mulgan, and was seen as being closely affiliated with Tony Blair’s Labour government. Mulgan went on to work inside Downing Street in 1997. Current British Prime Minister David Cameron also works closely with Demos and has given speeches at the group’s events.
Demos has routinely acted as a platform for elitists who wish to drastically alter society, eliminate freedoms, and sacrifice British sovereignty in pursuit of global government. On August 9, 2006, British Home Secretary Dr John Reid, another former marxist, gave a speech at a Demos conference stating that Britons “may have to modify their notion of freedom”, claiming that freedom is “misused and abused by terrorists.”
Demos is partnered with numerous other globalist organizations from government and industry, including IBM, The Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and Shell International. The organization’s logo includes an all-seeing eye within its design.
Although the group poses as an independent think tank, Demos is little more than a public relations firm for the British government and security services. Its efforts to demonize conspiracy theories in order to “increase trust in the government” is a transparent ploy to do the bidding of its masters, by demonizing anyone who challenges a corrupt, lying state and its nefarious activities as an extremist and a potential domestic terrorist – contributing to the chilling process which seeks to crush free speech on the Internet.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Architect Richard Gage [on behalf of 9-11 truth] and physicist Dave Thomas [on behalf of official story] go head-to-head on 9-11
by Larry Simons
August 25, 2010
This debate [from August 21, 2010] features 9-11 truth activist and architect Richard Gage [pictured, above left] going against physicist Dave Thomas who defends the official conspiracy theory of 9-11.
I thought the debate was civil, fair and respectful. Lasting just under 3 hours, I have to give the win to Richard Gage. I realize I am partial [being against the official story] but I try not to judge debates based on my personal bias, but rather the evidence that is presented in the debate as if it was the very first time I had ever heard these issues discussed [as was the case with Charles Goyette annihilating Popular Mechanics stooge Davin Coburn in 2006].
Thomas’ views and evaluations brought nothing new to the table as far as convincing me the official story is correct. In fact, I was quite disturbed that still, after nearly 9 years since 9-11, people [particularly physicists] like Thomas are still clinging to the old, tiresome, debunked issues, like: WTC 7 did not fall in freefall time; WTC 7’s collapse was not symmetrical [oh really?]; Larry Silverstein meant “pull the firefighters out of WTC 7” when he said “Pull it”; there were no explosions [or reports of explosions] on 9-11 [oh yes there were]; the lobbies of the twin towers were damaged due to fire shooting through the elevator shafts [there was no trace of soot on any of the walls in the lobbies, plus, it would have burnt up the actual firefighters that were in the lobbies]; WTC 7 did not fall in its own footprint; there were massive fires in WTC 7, and so on.
One glaring contradiction on Thomas’ part: He stated that he accepts Larry Silverstein’s statement that “pull it” meant to “pull the firefighting units out of WTC 7”, then later he acknowledged the fact that they couldn’t put out the fires in WTC 7 because the damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers took out the water system.
Well then, one has to ask: Why would the firefighters even be in WTC 7 to begin with if they had no water to fight fires? One might answer, “Well, they didn’t know they had no water until they was inside.” OK, that begs the question: Why did they have to be ordered out of the building if, when they attempted to spray water, none came out? If you have no water, don’t you get the hell out despite your fire commander ordering you out?
Plus, I have never understood why people, like Thomas, keep insisting on the fact that Silverstein was referring to "firefighters" when he said "pull it" anyway. Here is Silverstein's 2002 quote:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Someone please tell me why, if there was no water, the fire commander was "not sure" if they were going to be able to contain the fire? Wouldn't he be definately 100% positive they wouldn't, since there was no water? Also, why would the fire commander need the opinion of the leaseholder to pull his own men out of a burning building [we are told was fully ablaze] when they had no water to fight it? Why would the fire commander even bother calling the leaseholder BEFORE ordering his men out, when they could have died during the commanders' phone call? Why would the fire commander even give a two-cent shit about what happened to an already unsalvagable [so we're told] building?
Listen to the debate
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Religious loon wants America to be ruled by a Catholic and all voting limited to Catholics. Guess he missed that whole “separation of church and state” concept from Thomas Jefferson
by Larry Simons
August 19, 2010
In all of my reading and research regarding the separation of religion with government, I have never seen anyone quite like religious TV host [and nut] Michael Voris. I would have to say Voris takes top prize and qualifies for Mayor of Nutville.
In a video that is gaining popularity on the internet, Voris, who is the founder of St. Michael’s Media and host of the Catholic TV program The One True Faith, possesses, no doubt, the nuttiest solution I have ever heard in how the United States government should be run.
In the video, Voris criticizes the voting system in America, saying how absurd it is that both the well informed and the apathetic hold equal voting power. While I agree with Voris that many ill-informed Americans do vote in this country, what Voris completely fails to grasp is that although ill-informed people shouldn’t vote, they have the RIGHT to. This is called freedom; a concept Voris fails to recognize.
Voris’ solution? He states:
“This is why, if we’re going to insist on a system where we elect leaders, if we’re going to insist on that system….only virtuous people should be allowed to vote.”
He continues, “The only way to prevent a democracy from committing suicide is to limit the vote to faithful Catholics”, “….when they [Catholics] cast their votes, they cast them with an eye to what God desires, not fallen human nature.”
Only virtuous people are allowed to vote? How does one hold the power in their hands to deem another human being virtuous or not virtuous? What is this based on? Is it based on the opinion that there is even a God to begin with? And if there is a God, how does one know whose religion is right?
Loons like Michael Voris are exactly why the founding fathers had the wisdom to create the first amendment in the first place. The first amendment reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In other words, the government does not have the right to instill one established religion upon anyone, nor does it have the right to stop people like Michael Voris from practicing his catholic religion. The exact same law [first amendment] that allows Voris to worship freely is the exact same law that does not allow Voris to bring to reality his distorted, fucked up visions of a Catholic-controlled country.
Aside from the glaring Constitutional reasons why Voris should win the Lunatic of the Year award, there is the issue that even IF one religion would be chosen to be the sole voter base, he thinks it would be Catholicism? Of the Catholic voters that Voris would love to see at the polls, does that include the multitude of Catholic priests that have been involved with sex abuse cases? I would post links but there are so many, it would take me well into next week to do so. Here is wikipedia’s page on Catholic priest sex abuse cases.
“The only way to run a country is by benevolent dictatorship. A Catholic monarch, who protects his people from themselves, and bestows on them what they need, not necessarily what they want, who protects their rights as human beings. It was this political system that caused Europe to emerge from the morass of marauding barbarians and create western civilization. A noble Catholic monarch advances the common good while loving and caring for his people.”
First of all, not only is the term “benevolent dictatorship” contradictory, but to suggest any form of dictatorship is unequivocally un-American. It’s like using the term “good fascist”.
Let’s break down the rest of his ridiculous comment:
“A Catholic monarch, who protects his people from themselves, and bestows on them what they need, not necessarily what they want, who protects their rights as human beings.”
“Protects their rights?” What rights does one have in a dictatorship? Who established these “rights” to begin with if you reject the way American democracy is implemented and want to replace that democracy with a dictatorship? In a dictatorship, one has no rights, so even if we could imagine some loving “dictator” who did not rule with an iron fist like Hitler did, the masses would still be stripped of having “rights” because a dictator “dictates”. This means the subject or citizen does NOT dictate because they have no right to have a voice. Voris fails miserably to understand this concept.
“It was this political system that caused Europe to emerge from the morass of marauding barbarians and create western civilization”
And by "marauding barbarians" you mean who? The Roman Catholic nuts who launched holy wars known as the Crusades? Or the Catholics and Protestants who fought in the French Wars of the 16th century? And the political system that Voris is referring to is called the "Become a Christian or DIE" system. So, when Voris makes references to "barbarians", he is simply talking about people like HIMSELF.
“A noble Catholic monarch advances the common good while loving and caring for his people.”
Don’t you already have a Catholic monarch in the Pope? Move to Vatican City Mr. Voris and get the fuck out of America if you despise our founding documents so much.
People like Voris are perfect examples of why the founders documented that religion and government be completely separated. Religions are based on opinions and matters of faith. They consist of thousands and thousands of different rituals, interpretations, creeds, denominations, opinions and teachings. The founders were very wise in separating this from what they intended to be taken ONE way, with ONE meaning and not subject to a smorgasbord of opinions and interpretations.
This is the very reason why mixing religion with government or…..anything else, really, is dangerous at best and at the very worse, toxic.
Watch Michael Voris, the nut
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Media Defends Clinton, Gore Over Rape Allegations, But Crucifies Rand Paul For a Harmless College Prank
While serious Clinton and Gore sex scandals are belittled, sidelined, and ignored, Rand Paul is crucified for jokingly suggesting his college friend worship the Aqua Buddha
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
August 15, 2010
Even after the anonymous woman whose words the corporate media twisted to slanderously claim Rand Paul kidnapped and forced drugged her recanted and admitted that she was not kidnapped, she was not force drugged, and that “the whole thing has been blown out of proportion” and was actually a harmless college prank, the establishment is still using the manufactured hoax in an effort to discredit Paul, a display of enthusiasm that was noticeably lacking when the far more serious rape scandals surrounding President Bill Clinton and more recently Al Gore came to light.
Despite the shocking allegations recently made against Al Gore, that he tried to sexually molest masseuse Molly Hagerty in a predatory fashion, the popular Drudge Report website was the only big hitter to adequately cover the story. Most mainstream media outlets either ignored it completely or defended Gore, even after police re-opened the investigation.
Indeed, Rand Paul’s apparently abhorrent behavior of jokingly asking a college friend to worship the Aqua Buddha has rumbled on as a prominent story for longer than Gore’s alleged behavior in an expensive hotel room, where he supposedly “groped, kissed, and pinned the woman down on a bed like a “crazed sex poodle.”
The fact that Gore announced his divorce from wife Tipper shortly before the allegations re-surfaced only lends credence to their accuracy, but the establishment media wasn’t interested and the controversy was largely confined to the tabloid papers.
Top establishment liberal news outlets like Salon.com as well as the Washington Post defended Gore while deriding his alleged victim. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who has constantly featured guests on his show solely for the purpose of attacking Rand Paul, said it was “unfair” to even discuss the Al Gore rape story.
“The media outlets that bothered to report on the story have hardly reported the story. With one dubious exception, I couldn’t find a single source that did what any reporter with the most basic questions about the charges should have done: interview an expert on sexual violence who might be able to provide context and comment on the likely credibility of the story,” wrote Jaclyn Friedman, the Executive Director of Women, Action & the Media. “Instead, they trotted out excuses in Gore’s defense, often going the way of The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, who, in musing about whether the mainstream media would pick up the story, treated it as a choice between defending Gore’s integrity or indulging in a base appetite for celebrity scandal, as if there wasn’t a possibility that a real 54-year-old woman had suffered a violent assault.”
The rape story was accompanied by other tales of Gore’s alleged sexual indiscretions, including “rumours of further extra-marital liaisons and wild parties at Gore’s San Francisco bachelor pad, with bikini-clad girls cavorting in his hot-tub,” but the establishment media in the United States barely uttered a word. Imagine if Rand Paul had even been rumored to have engaged in similar behavior, what would the response have been?
The establishment reacted similarly back in 1998, when Juanita Broaddrick alleged that then President Bill Clinton had raped her two decades earlier. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans believed the allegations to be true, 54 per cent versus 23 per cent who thought they were false, and despite Clinton settling the case with a whopping $850,000 settlement, “A lot of money from someone who claims he did nothing wrong,” as Larry Elder wrote, the corporate media again defended Clinton and downplayed the seriousness of the allegations.
Again, the details of the allegations made by Broaddrick against Clinton were infinitely more shocking and disturbing than Rand Paul’s college tomfoolery. Broaddrick claimed that Clinton forced her down on the bed in a hotel room, tore away her underwear and began aggressively raping her while biting her lips as she begged him to stop.
Feminist icon and liberal establishment mouthpiece Gloria Steinem also sprang to Clinton’s defense in a separate sexual harassment allegation against Clinton, absolving Clinton for allegedly forcing Kathleen Willey to place her hand on his genitalia. “Steinem suggested that women should be of sterner stuff and that Willey’s description, if true, is small potatoes. After all, said Steinem, when Willey said, “Stop,” Clinton stopped. No harm, no foul.”
Despite the fact that Clinton publicly lied to the American people during the Monica Lewinsky scandal when he said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” the numerous other women who alleged affairs or who claimed they had been raped or molested by Clinton were all dismissed as liars by the corporate media, just as Lewinsky was branded deceitful before she produced the semen-stained dress that proved her story to be true, and just as Gennifer Flowers was also savaged by the establishment before Clinton, during the Paula Jones deposition, was forced to admit the he did indeed have sex with Flowers.
While in the case of the Rand Paul, the corporate media took a non-story, overhyped it, and then manufactured an outright hoax by claiming that Paul had forcibly kidnapped a woman and drugged her, and still persisted with claiming the issue was of any importance even after the woman herself dismissed the claims, in the case of Clinton and Gore, the establishment did everything it could to belittle, downplay, and ignore what were obviously far more serious and factually grounded allegations.
The establishment has crucified Rand Paul for his tangential involvement in a harmless and consensual college prank for two weeks because, unlike alleged rapists Clinton and Gore, who they defended to the hilt, Rand Paul represents a serious threat to the status quo and has become the de facto voice of the Tea Party – that’s why Washington elitists and their liberal media sycophants will continue to invent hoaxes, overhype non-events from 30 years ago, and slander Rand Paul ceaselessly in a desperate effort to eviscerate the massive support he enjoys in Kentucky that is set to help him secure a place in the Senate and become a true representative of the American people.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
GQ writer also claims Paul was in a “secret” society at Baylor University, despite inserting a photo of the “secret” society [from their newspaper The Rope] in his story
by Larry Simons
August 10, 2010
It seems it did not take long for establishment-embracing, Constitution-hating liberals to begin their smear campaigns on Kentucky Senate hopeful Rand Paul just in time to attempt to divert voters away from candidates [like Paul] who go against the status quo and advocate true Constitutional liberty.
In a recent article by GQ writer Jason Zengerle, Paul is accused of behavior [while he attended Baylor University between 1981 and 1984] that [if true] would completely contradict the principles and political stances Paul holds to be true.
After Zengerle admits that Paul and his campaign team have never lied about the fact that Paul did not graduate from Baylor, Zengerle goes into attack mode, claiming that Paul “wasn’t your typical Baylor student”. Zengerle says that Paul was a member of a secret society called the NoZe Brotherhood.
Zengerle compares the NoZe Brotherhood to Yale’s Skull and Bones, despite the fact that Skull and Bones is truly a secret society in the fact that no one is allowed to even discuss being involved in it. Both 2004 Presidential candidates [and cousins] George W. Bush and John Kerry, who are Bonesmen, were asked on separate occasions by Meet the Press host Tim Russert about their membership in Skull and Bones. Both replied that they could not talk about it. Skull and Bones also embraces satanic imagery and rituals and is designed to be an institutionalized meeting place for those who seek superiority and power.
Zengerle admits that the NoZe Brotherhood is nothing more than a club that “existed to torment the Baylor administration, which it accomplished through pranks and its satirical newspaper The Rope”. Hardly a club that was designed to promote superiority and power. In fact, if the club existed to “torment” the Baylor administration, then one could translate that as “going against the establishment”, which is exactly what Rand Paul is to this day, an anti-establishment politician. Where’s the contradiction and controversy?
Inserted in Zengerle’s article is a photo [below] of the NoZe Brotherhood that was apparently taken from the clubs’ newspaper The Rope. How many secret societies publish newspapers? How many secret societies insert photographs of their “secret” club in those newspapers? That’s a shitty way to keep your club secret, isn’t it? Yoo hoo…here we are! All seven of us for all to see!
The "secret" society BoZe Brotherhood showing themselves for all to see
Zengerle then completely contradicts himself by saying, “In 1978, the Baylor administration became so fed up with the NoZe that it suspended the group from campus for being, in the words of Baylor's president at the time, "lewd, crude, and grossly sacrilegious." During Paul's three years at Baylor, according to former NoZe Brothers, if the administration discovered a student was a member of the NoZe, the punishment was automatic expulsion.” Right underneath this paragraph in his article, Zengerle inserts the photo of the NoZe from 1983 [with Paul in the photo].
If the Baylor administration automatically expelled NoZe members, why would the group plaster their photo right inside their newspaper? Better question: Why, after the administration saw the NoZe’s picture [and they had to see it] in their paper, did they not expel all seven people in the picture immediately? Hmmmmm.
The answer to this question might be best answered by someone who posted a comment under Zengerle’s story.
“Pfw51” said this:
“…to label the Noze Brotherhood as some malicious "secret society" is so absurd I fully understand why Paul would choose to ignore your attempt to smear him. Every one of us knew the Noze and who was in it... they were pranksters who put out a silly newspaper and sneaked their float into the homecoming parade, and if GQ had wanted to find this out it would have been very easy to do so. Your story is a smear, pure and simple, and I lost a lot of respect for you today.”
So, according to “Pfw51”, the NoZe Brotherhood is nothing more than a more intellectual version of the Delta house clan in the film Animal House. Would Zengerle call Bluto, Otter, Boon, Pinto, Flounder, D-Day, Hoover and Stork a secret society? Apparently so.
Another comment by “Clayboy73” says:
“I am a Baylor alum. Give me a break! A secret society? The NoZe Brotherhood? LMAO!!! It was just a group of pranksters...good guys, just silly. They act as if they were the Masons. The assault on the Tea Party continues.”
“Pfw51” also commented on Zengerle’s other accusation of Rand Paul: that in 1983, Paul and another NoZe brother paid a visit to a female member of Paul’s swim team, came to her house, knocked on the door, blindfolded her, tied her up, put her in their car, took her to their apartment and forced her to take bong hits and to worship an Aqua Buddha. “Pfw51” said:
“As a Baylor alumni who graduated a few years ahead of Rand Paul, I can tell you with absolute certainty that if this act happened at Baylor 27 years ago as the story claimed, the Baylor administration would have acted quickly and harshly and Paul, as an athlete representing Baylor, would have been out on his butt the next day. Baylor is a relatively small Baptist university and things like that don't happen in a vacuum. If this had happened, everybody from the students to the media would have known about it immediately.”
Zengerle says that the woman “requested anonymity because of her current job as a clinical psychologist”. But yet she spoke with a reporter for GQ about it? Why would this woman think that revealing this information and going public with it would hurt her job? Better questions:
*Why didn’t this woman report this incident 27 years ago?
*What evidence does GQ have except this woman's testimony that this incident really happened?
*Why did she not go to MSNBC, FOX News, ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN about it?
*Why would GQ care about protecting the woman's anonymity?
*She comes out of nowhere 27 years after the incident and picks GQ magazine to tell this story to?
Near the end of his article, Zengerle says that the woman said of the incident, “They never hurt me, they never did anything wrong, but the whole thing was kind of sadistic. They were messing with my mind. It was some kind of joke.”
They never did anything wrong? Being kidnapped, tied up and being taken from your home is perfectly OK? Hmmmm. It’s crystal clear that this mystery woman, whoever she is, was doing damage control when she claimed that they “did nothing wrong”, because she knows the very first question that any sane, rational person would ask in their first breath about the incident is, “Why didn’t you go to the police when it happened?” Because, according to her, they “did nothing wrong”, that’s why. Now the question of “why didn’t you report them?” can be laid to rest.
Under the comments for the article, “Turbolover” says:
“WOW! what a lame article. It's quite clear the author of this article has some beef with rand and ron paul. What kind of women admits to getting tied up, blind folded and shoved in the back of a car and thinks that it was some kind of joke and there was nothing wrong with it. and this lady is a clinical psychologist! LAAAAAAAAAAMME GQ!”
The bottom line is, the incident never happened. This is why the woman’s anonymity is being protected and why she claims Paul and his friend “did nothing wrong”. This is a classic example of a savage, blatant smear. A claim is made with zero evidence to back it up, the general public hears about it and bingo, it must be true. Why would anyone make up a story like this, right? Questions like, “Who is the woman?”and “Why didn’t she go to police?” are unimportant and completely ignored.
GQ editor-in-chief Jim Nelson claims that his magazine “vetted, researched, and exhaustively fact-checked it”. Then he claimed that he gave Rand Paul and his team a chance to refute the accusations before the article was printed and they did not. I am quite sure that all the GQ people did was call Paul’s office and did not disclose they were GQ. I bet they asked, “Can we speak to Mr. Paul?” and after hearing, “Mr. Paul is not in right now, can I take a message?”, they ran their story.
Since Monday, Rand Paul has threatened to sue GQ for libel and has denied the accusations. Isn’t it funny how the pro-establishment can swarm by Obama’s side when people accuse him of not being a natural born citizen, and when Obama doesn’t deny it, but simply ignores it, they say, “Because it’s not even worth entertaining”. When Constitution-embracing, pro-liberty politicians ignore accusations, they “must be guilty” because they “ignore it”.
I wonder what the liberals would say if Rand Paul was able to seal his records by executive order like Obama has already done?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Four years ago Mancow ripped apart Alex Jones’ producer Kevin Smith on “Planet Mancow” about 9/11. Now Mancow loves Alex Jones and Alex Jones loves Mancow. Hmmmm....
by Larry Simons
August 5, 2010
For some strange reason, Alex Jones has a love affair with popular radio talk show host Erich “Mancow” Muller that four years ago would have seemed downright disturbing. This is because four years ago, on the FOX News channel, Mancow took part in one of the worst hit pieces on 9/11 truth I have ever seen on his special “Planet Mancow”.
On that November 2006 special, Mancow tore into 9/11 truther Kevin Smith with ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack, as he likened believing in the 9/11 cover-up to believing in Bigfoot, the Lochness monster and space aliens. Oh yeah, Smith also just happens to be Alex Jones' producer at Infowars.com.
Now, it appears that Alex Jones has become chumsy with Mancow. Not only because of the fact that Mancow was a guest yesterday on Jones’ radio show, but Jones has had Mancow on as a guest at least three other times in the past [in April, June and September of 2009].
It is also apparent now that “Mancow” Muller is a conspiracy theorist. Yesterday, on the Alex Jones Show, Mancow was invited on to discuss pharmaceuticals being added to water supplies. Well, isn’t that special. Four years ago, Mancow called Jones’ producer Kevin Smith a “conspiracy nut”, and today Mancow is Alex Jones’ BFF [best friend forever].
This is yet another example of Alex Jones’ love affair with schmoozing with celebrities [even if it is only Mancow]. I did a story in September of last year where I brought up the topic of Jones’ obsession with celebrity. In that story I wrote:
“Jones loves schmoozing with Jesse Ventura, Willie Nelson, Charlie Sheen, and whatever celebrity he can get on his program. It’s not about the real news anymore. It’s about fame, more listeners, more financial support and most importantly, Jones’ ego and self-promotion. It’s now a business to Jones. It’s a love of celebrity.”
I stand by that comment because nothing has changed with Jones.
The Mancow obsession is also another example of how Jones and his crew continue to associate with people/entities that have previously condemned, insulted and mocked Jones [or issues he believes in] or the other way around.
In that same September 2009 story mentioned above, I wrote about how Jones once thought writer David Icke was a nut and fraud, but now Icke and Jones are best buds and Icke is on Jones’ show frequently. In 1998, Jones said of Icke, “He’s either a smart, opportunist con-man, or he’s completely insane or he’s working for them directly. But, I tend to think he’s just a con-man..uh, who understands how things works, and is just a real opportunist.”
My oh my how things change. I think the only thing that changed is Jones, after realizing that it would generate more revenue to schmooze with Icke and get all of Icke’s fans to tune into Jones’ radio program, deciding that selling one’s soul for more cash is highly beneficial.
Also, I have previously written that Prison Planet writer and webmaster, Paul Joseph Watson, still links to sites such as Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, Think Progress, The Raw Story and Media Matters even after the fact that these sites ran stories that connected Alex Jones to Richard Poplawski, the man who shot three Pittsburgh police officers in April 2009.
So, you see, this is not about integrity, having principles or doing the right thing; it’s about association for profit and ratings. It’s about selling out.
Why doesn’t Alex Jones interview and schmooze with Popular Mechanics, Al Gore, Dick Cheney or Bill Maher? All these people strongly oppose Jones’ signature talking points. How would these people be different from Mancow? They aren’t, but yet they don’t get invited on Jones’ show and Jones doesn’t schmooze with them. Why?
Give it time.
Jones’ latest interview with “Mancow” Muller [who, by the way, thinks Alex Jones is a “conspiracy nut”, but Alex loves him anyway]