Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Religious Poll: Atheists and Agnostics Possess More Religious Knowledge Than Evangelical Protestants, Mainline Protestants and Catholics

Jews and Mormons also outscore Protestants and Catholics

by Larry Simons
September 29, 2010

In a new poll conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

On average, Americans correctly answer 50% of religious questions [16 out of 32], but when broken down into religious groups, here are the results:

Average # of questions answered correctly out of 32

White evangelical Protestant........17.6
White Catholic........16.0
White mainline Protestant........15.8
Nothing in particular........15.2
Black Protestant........13.4
Hispanic Catholic........11.6

This really does not shock me since most Protestants and Catholics possess basic knowledge of Biblical dates, names, places, customs, characters and core teachings out of repetitious exposure alone, while very few actually study and research this information. On the other hand, most atheists and agnostics, no doubt, study, research and investigate this information, simply because they refuse to blindly accept [by faith] the Bible like most Protestants and Catholics do.

This poll is a brilliant reflection of what we normally see in every day life or in the mainstream media: People claiming to be religious while either spewing the most vile rhetoric one can imagine or committing crimes so horrendous, it could make a Satan worshipper shudder. These are the people who act as if they are God’s chosen prophets, but when it comes down to knowing what the Bible actually teaches, they don’t know shit from shinola.

I have made it no secret on my blog and in my personal life that I am agnostic. I took the 15-question religious knowledge quiz posted on the Pew Forum website. I did quite well, answering 14 out of the 15 correctly.

Here are my results [if you plan on taking the quiz here, take it before viewing my results]

[click to enlarge]

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Andy Ostroy Is Goo-Goo Over Gaga, and Supports Her Ridiculous Statement Regarding DADT

Ostroy is now in love with Lady Gaga over a stupid comment regarding the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy

by Larry Simons
September 22, 2010

Although I have nothing personally against Lady Gaga or gays serving in the military, I do have problems with people who make ridiculous comments and those who support those ridiculous comments on the sole basis of it coinciding with their political bias.

Enter wingnut Andy Ostroy, whose latest article supports a statement Lady Gaga made at a Maine rally on Monday regarding the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which allows gays to serve but not disclose their sexual orientation.

Lady Gaga said:

"Doesn’t it seem to be that DADT is backwards. Doesn’t it seem that we’re penalizing the wrong soldier? Doesn’t it seem to you that we should send home the prejudiced? The straight soldier who hates the gay soldier? The straight soldier whose performance is affected because he is homophobic? The straight soldier who has prejudice in his heart, in the space where the military asks him to hold to our core American values ... he instead holds and harbors hate, and he gets to stay and fight for our country."

Ostroy’s reply:

“Bravo, I say. We need more "voices of a generation" like Lady G to use their massive celebrity to help bring about much needed change in America. To help the small-minded and frightened close the discrimination gap.”

“Voice of a generation?” “Much needed change?” I guess since Obama has failed to bring about the “change” Ostroy believed in, he now has to hope celebrities do it instead.

“Small minded and frightened?” Notice that Ostroy did not mention once in his stupid article what is wrong with this policy. The DADT law states that those who are openly gay, lesbian and bisexual are banned from military service. Who would want anyone acting on their sexual orientation during training or combat, regardless if it was homosexuals or straight people?

You don’t have to be homophobic to be appalled or offended at any kind of unwanted sexual advances while serving in the military. I could love gay people and still be offended if I’m in a foxhole fearing for my life while a fellow soldier is staring at my ass.

Let’s break down the stupid remark from Lady Gaga:

“Doesn’t it seem to be that DADT is backwards. Doesn’t it seem that we’re penalizing the wrong soldier? Doesn’t it seem to you that we should send home the prejudiced?”

Yeah, let’s send home all the straight soldiers, who probably outnumber the gays 20-1. Who would be left to fight the war that Ostroy now fully supports [but opposed under Bush]?

“The straight soldier who hates the gay soldier? The straight soldier whose performance is affected because he is homophobic?”

How would the straight soldier’s performance be affected? It’s called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. That means that the straight soldier wouldn’t know who the gay soldier is! How would they be “affected” with no knowledge of who would be affecting them?

Ostroy then speaks of Lady Gaga as if she’s a national icon like Martin Luther King, Jr. or John Lennon:

“I now have immense respect for her as a person, in particular, a young person, who has achieved gargantuan success so quickly, and who has just as quickly realized how she can use this immense fame to make a difference in peoples lives. She's not just a marketing and branding genius, but one of those rare people who truly have their fingers on the pulse of society and culture. Many more good things to come from her politically I suspect, and hope.”

What was the first good thing?

Will Obama Force America To “Absorb A Terror Attack” To Save His Presidency?

Ominous words suggest desperate administration could turn to false flag in bid to crush resistance against big government

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
September 22, 2010

President Obama’s ominous claim that America can “absorb” a terror attack will have many fearing that staging some kind of false flag event will be the only way the government can overturn the massive resistance to big government that has grown exponentially since Obama took office.

During an interview with journalist Bob Woodward, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

However, the only thing that was made stronger by 9/11 was the federal government’s power to harass, shake down and spy on the American people, as was exemplified yet again recently when Pennsylvania’s Office of Homeland Security was caught conducting surveillance on peaceful protest groups with the aid of an Israeli security company who listed Second Amendment groups amongst others as terrorists.

Given how both Bush and Clinton before him exploited terror attacks on U.S. soil to boost their flagging political agendas, we should be wary of Obama and his masters making good use of their own “October surprise” to counter record low approval figures for Congress on the eve of the midterm elections.

Talk show hosts such as Michael Savage have long been warning of a “Reichstag fire-like event” would be concocted to reinvigorate support behind Obama and given that his advisors include such ruthless individuals as Rahm Emanuel, the knife wielding son of a former Israeli terrorist who was involved in bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as massacres, we would be naive to put anything past these people.

Indeed, it was only two months ago that former Clinton advisor Robert Shapiro wrote in the Financial Times that the only thing that could save Obama’s tenuous grip on power was a terror attack on the scale of Oklahoma City or 9/11.

“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” said Shapiro, adding, “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

Shapiro was clearly communicating the necessity for a terror attack to be launched in order to give Obama the opportunity to unite the country around his agenda in the name of fighting terrorists, just as President Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11 when his approval ratings shot up from around 50% to well above 80%.

Similarly, Bill Clinton was able to extinguish an anti-incumbent rebellion which was brewing in the mid 1990’s by exploiting the OKC bombing to demonize his political enemies as right-wing extremists. As Jack Cashill points out, Clinton “descended on Oklahoma City with an approval rating in the low 40s and left town with a rating well above 50 and the Republican revolution buried in the rubble.”

Only by exploiting a domestic terror attack which can be blamed on right-wing radicals, or by rallying the country round another war in the middle east, can Obama hope to reverse the tide of anti-incumbency candidates that threaten to drastically dilute the power monopoly of establishment candidates from both major political parties in Washington.

Shapiro is by no means the first to point out that terror attacks on U.S. soil and indeed anywhere in the world serve only to benefit those in positions of power.

During the latter years of the Bush presidency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mused with Pentagon top brass that shrinking Capitol Hill support for expanding the war on terror could be corrected with the aid of another terror attack.

Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, told the Toronto Star in July 2007 that “The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago.”

The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would “validate” the President’s war on terror and “restore his image as a leader of the American people.”

In June 2007, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

The Obama administration has proven itself to be alarmingly adept at lying about every issue under the sun, so why should we believe any different when it comes to the terror threat to America?

Using terror or the threat of terror as a political tool has been a routine ploy in recent years, and was acknowledged by former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge when he admitted he was forced to issue fake terror alerts shortly before elections to influence the outcome.

Threatening terror has also been a tactic of some of Obama’s biggest supporters in the Democratic party, people like former Senator Gary Hart, who in 2007 wrote a thinly veiled threat to Iranian leaders pointing out that the U.S. has been involved in numerous staged provocations over the years to achieve political agendas, mentioning specifically the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the sinking of the Maine.

Given the documented history of staged false flag events being used to manipulate both domestic and geopolitical affairs, added to the numerous threats of such provocations from several highly respected political operatives, it would be foolish to rule out the notion that the Obama administration could turn to such desperate measures in a last gasp effort to salvage power and demonize its growing legions of political adversaries.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Proof That Most "WTC7 Smoke" Was NOT Coming from WTC7

This is not new information, but this is what some morons need....old information to disprove their old, long-debunked fairy tales

by Larry Simons
September 6, 2010

I'm sure we have all seen the famous photos [below] of WTC7 supposedly "fully ablaze" and the smoke that is supposedly "pouring from WTC7". Smoke "pouring from WTC7" is a scenario that is essential for the buffoons that need to believe that WTC7 was "fully ablaze" so they can claim it collapsed due to fire. One problem: One major, much needed element the photos below do NOT

What they have never seen is photos from the REAL cause of most of that smoke. The "pouring smoke from WTC7" was actually the pouring smoke from WTC5, which was fully ablaze! Here's the proof. You can see WTC7 on the far left in each photo below. Notice how the smoke that was actually pouring from the roof of the fully ablaze WTC5 is drifting over to the south face of WTC7. These pictures are virtually IGNORED on every 9/11 "debunking" site. I wonder why.

Notice the smoke actually billowing from the roof of WTC5 [the small building below that is being sprayed with water] and heading toward the south face of WTC7. Wingnut official story defenders claim this smoke [that is clearly seen coming out of WTC5 and heading in the direction of WTC7] is actually smoke that is billowing out of WTC7.

These pictures also prove that there was enough water to fight the fires. The official story claims that the WTC7 fires were not extinguished because the destruction from the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 destroyed the water system. You can clearly see water being sprayed on WTC5 in both photos above. Because WTC5 was fully ablaze [unlike WTC7]. Below is what "fully ablaze" looks like.

And as you can see, WTC5 did not collapse

Know why? Because fire alone does not collapse buildings.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

New Book by David Ray Griffin Exposes Obama Appointee Cass Sunstein as Cointelpro Agent

New Book: Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee's Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

September 5, 2010


Shortly after taking office on January 20, 2009 President Obama appointed Harvard law professor (and personal friend) Cass Sunstein to the post of administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In June 2009 Sunstein published an essay in The Journal of Political Philosophy entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he provided an "analysis" of conspiracy theories, viewing them, as his title indicated, as "caused" by psychological conditions and requiring "cures", i.e., elimination. The article led to an outcry by civil libertarians of all political stripes, who especially singled out for protest Sunstein's call for covert "cognitive infiltration" by government agents of organizations the government deems "conspiracist".

Because Sunstein explicitly states that "9/11 conspiracy theories" are his main focus, virtually all interpreters have agreed that Sunstein's call for what is essentially another Cointelpro Operation is directed specifically against the 9/11 truth movement. (Cointelpro, or "Counter Intelligence Program", was the FBI's name for its high-priority operations to infiltrate, provoke, undermine and disable civil rights, socialist, antiwar, black power and Native American movements during the late 1950s and the 1960s.) The fantastic picture Sunstein paints of the 9/11 truth movement as "harmful," "dangerous," and likely to resort to "terrorism" suggests that he is serving a function similar to Philip Zelikow's during the Bush/Cheney years; in his own way, Sunstein too is a "myth-maker."

In his new book COGNITIVE INFILTRATION David Ray Griffin has provided the first truly adequate response to Sunstein's deeply flawed and legally questionable arguments. Griffin penetrates the obfuscation and phony scholarship employed by Sunstein to create the illusion of a rational critique of the 9/11 truth movement's alternative account of the events of September 11, 2001. Griffin presents a series of ten theses put forward by Sunstein, and shows that each is fundamentally flawed. Further, he demonstrates that Sunstein is unable to avoid numerous self-contradictions, either explicit or implied, that together amount to an internal, hidden counter-argument to his own position, which Griffin, in a novel and entertaining approach, brings out as an ironic "esoteric" meaning of Sunstein's essay.

Griffin demonstrates that Sunstein is completely unable to refute the major positions of the 9/11 truth movement, and doesn't actually even try to do so. Instead, Sunstein has produced a pseudo-scholarly fake "analysis" as a basis for a call for the government to infiltrate and neutralize the movement through activities which create "cognitive dissonance," clearly not the least bit different from the FBI's Cointelpro operations. But in so doing Sunstein has provided Griffin the means to demonstrate yet again that defenders of the official account of 9/11 actually cannot proceed by using reason and fact. They are forced to resort to disinformation, suppression of evidence, lies, illogic, threats and intimidation, always with the same result: failure. The more people study the events of 9/11 the more certain they become that the government and its media outlets are lying.

Sunstein's essay appears to reveal that the government response to its ongoing failure will be to resort to illegal activities directed against people who are speaking out about the highest crimes carried out in the corridors of power. The remarkably inept manner in which he makes his case suggests, however, that providing a rationale for such a future policy may not have been his real intention. Rather, it seems plausible that his purpose is to suggest that such actions have not even been considered before, let alone implemented, when in fact such operations have been ongoing since 9/11.

Griffin's COGNITIVE INFILTRATION is a lucid and compelling exposure of the contempt held by the official defenders of the 9/11 myth for dissenters who have seen through their Big Lie. These officials expect that no one will be able to penetrate the murk of Sunstein's latest defense of the pretext for the US wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, now covertly expanding into many other countries. But with David Ray Griffin's book, everyone who is concerned with bringing their carnage and criminality to a stop, as well as to reverse the rapid erosion of civil liberties in this country, will have no difficulty remaining clear-headed in the face of the "cognitive infiltration" carried out by the holders of high office and their agents.