Thursday, December 30, 2010
“No refusal” DUI stops soon to expand nationwide
Steve Watson & Paul Watson
December 30, 2010
In a shocking, but not unprecedented, turn of events drivers in Florida will be mandated to allow police to jab a needle in their arm and extract blood at DUI checkpoints should they refuse to submit to breath tests.
At what have been described as “no refusal” checkpoints, judges will be on hand to issue a warrant allowing police to demand blood.
DUI defense attorney Kevin Hayslett told 10 News WTSP that the mandatory blood tests are a clear violation of constitutional rights:
“It’s a slippery slope and it’s got to stop somewhere,” Hayslett explained, “what other misdemeanor offense do we have in the United States where the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?”
Watch the report:
The program is gathering pace and has already been instituted in other States. As we have previously highlighted, police in Texas and Idaho are already forcibly jabbing needles into people’s arms and taking their blood at DUI checkpoints, even if they are merely “suspected” of being drunk.
The Associated Press reported last year that officers in Texas and Idaho are training to withdraw blood from “suspects” as a replacement for the standard breathalyzer test, primarily because police can’t make anyone breathe into a tube but apparently, in the “land of the free,” they can forcibly hold someone down and jab a needle into their arm and take their blood, “a practice that’s been upheld by Idaho’s Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court,”.
Nicole Watson, the College of Western Idaho phlebotomy instructor teaching the Idaho officers, described how the process would unfold.
“Once they’re back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They’ll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said.”
The practice of cops drawing blood at the side of the road has been in place in some areas since 1995 but the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that the program is ultimately intended to be introduced nationwide.
As Alex Jones exposed over a decade ago, the eventual plan, under a 1993 executive order signed by Bill Clinton, is to institute mandatory blood and urine testing at the DMV:
In October of this year, Washington DC introduced a voluntary program offering free HIV testing at the Department of Motor of Vehicles office in Penn Branch in Southeast Washington for those renewing their licenses. Participants received up to $15 to help defray their DMV costs.
The program was clearly intended to acclimatize drivers to the idea of providing blood samples when applying for a new license.
Of course, once Americans are trained to accept authority figures jabbing them with needles against their will on a whim, programs for mandatory mass vaccination will be all the more easier to implement.
As we covered earlier this year, the government is harvesting samples of DNA from every newborn child in the country, storing them in monolithic bio banks and providing them to outside researchers and other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, all without the consent or knowledge of parents.
In April 2008, President Bush signed into law a bill which formerly announced the process that the federal government has been engaged in for years, screening the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months of birth.
Described as a “national contingency plan” the justification for the law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of “public health emergency.”
The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the internet and is updated at least quarterly”.
Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests, both by the government and by researchers chosen to handle the DNA samples and the information that goes with them.
Allowing the government to illegally obtain and store Americans’ blood is a total invasion of privacy and completely unconstitutional. Every effort should be made by citizens to resist this tyranny and prevent the bloodsucking state from building their national DNA database.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
by Larry Simons
December 22, 2010
Four months ago, I would not have imagined that Obama-worshipping liberal blogger Andy Ostroy would be taking home his second Fraudie award in as many years, for several reasons: 1. I have not written much about him this year [mostly because a majority of his stories were strictly partisan political rhetoric centered on non-issues]. 2. I thought Glenn Beck was going to snatch his first Fraudie [and he would have if not for the reason Ostroy won the tie-breaker. I will get to that soon]. 3. I wanted some new blood to win their first award.
Nevertheless, Ostroy has won it again. Here’s why:
Ostroy began 2010 by writing an article titled, “The Problem with Democrats” [Jan. 27, 2010], in which he criticized a Facebook user who voted for Republican Scott Brown [who also had voted for Obama in the 2008 election] because the voter wanted change. Ostroy responded by suggesting that Obama had not been given enough time to change anything, when in fact Obama had more than enough time to continue a plethora of Bush policies [which Ostroy failed to mention…naturally].
In the same article, Ostroy claimed, “I’m no Obama groupie….” despite the fact that in the previous 19 months before his current article, he had written countless articles about Obama that were filled with so much adoration and praise, you would think that Obama died for our sins.
What makes Ostroy the colossal fraud he is is not necessarily that he condemned another voter for requiring quick change from Obama that never came, but that just 41 days before….yes, I said before Ostroy condemned another voter for saying Obama has not changed anything, Ostroy HIMSELF admitted Obama failed miserably to bring change.
In Ostroy’s December 17, 2009 article titled, “Why is My Party So Spineless?”, he said this:
“Have Democrats so thoroughly and so quickly blown their unprecedented seat at the controls? Has Obama failed so miserably to deliver on his promise of change? Have Republicans demonstrated once again that in the political equivalent of a street fight they know how to kick the crap out of liberals? Yes, yes, and yes.”
There you have it. Ostroy is allowed to admit that Obama has not changed shit, but when another voter [although voting for Obama for President, but voted Republican after realizing Obama lied and changed nothing] says Obama has not changed shit, Ostroy will have none of that, will he? And why? Simple. Because the voter voted for a Democrat because he was duped into believing that things would actually change. When they didn’t, he voted Republican, and that makes Ostroy’s blood boil.
You see, what should make Ostroy irate is the fact the he himself was duped into believing the guy he voted for would change things and he did not. Instead [because Ostroy’s total allegiance is in his party, not his country] he is angry at people who admit they were wrong and switch up on what party they vote for because they feel it is the individual candidate who will bring about change, not the party itself. This alone could have won Ostroy the Fraudie, but there’s more.
In March, I wrote about the fact that Ostroy had called an angry tea party protester’s actions [who he claimed “spit” on Congressman Emanuel Clever at a Health Care protest] “vile”, “despicable” and “unacceptable” even after Ostroy admitted that he was unsure that the protester intentionally spit on Clever.
In Ostroy’s article about this incident, titled, “Spitgate: It Was All Just Projectile Drool, I Swear!" [March 30], Ostroy blatantly lies by saying [about the protester]:
“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 leaves out is the fact that the protester was cupping his mouth with both hands long before Congressmen Clever walked by him and in my article I provide pictures as proof. Ostroy is not deterred by pictures and proof now is he? Oh heavens no!
In May, Ostroy lied again by saying that Rand Paul [now Senator Rand Paul], in a discussion with Rachel Maddow about civil rights, said the word “Yes” to Maddow right after she asked him the question, “Do you think that a private business has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people?’”, insinuating that Paul is a racist.
Maddow did ask the question, “Do you think that a private business has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people?’”, but during Maddow’s words, “….has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people’”, Paul was cross-talking with Maddow saying, “I, I, I’m not in, I’m not in, I’m not in…” and then said the word “Yeah” as a way to say “Yeah, I hear you”.
Ostroy completely omits what Rand Paul’s complete statement to Maddow was after Maddow finished the question. His complete statement was:
“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race, but I think what’s important about this debate is not getting into any specific ‘gotcha’ on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?’. Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way, in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of things freedom requires, is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it. The implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don’t in any form or fashion.”
Why would Ostroy include Paul’s entire statement? Because Ostroy is not the least bit interested in facts and Paul’s complete statement makes Ostroy’s article null and void.
I wrote about Ostroy in September as well regarding his support for a stupid comment made by Lady Gaga, but that story was not about Ostroy being a fraud. He simply supported a ridiculous comment she made about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
I mentioned above that Andy Ostroy beat Glenn Beck in a tiebreaker for the Fraudie winner. Amazingly, the one thing that catapulted Ostroy to victory was an article that he wrote last month that I did not even write about at the time.
That article [from November 23, 2010] titled, “I Wanna Be Scanned and Groped”, which discusses the public outrage at the TSA and full body scanners at airports, could not be any more contradictory from past Ostroy articles if it was written by a completely different person. From “I Wanna Be Scanned and Groped”, Ostroy says:
“I can only speak for myself. After the horrific 9/11 attacks and the failed missions of both the shoe and underwear bombers, as well as the general daily threats we face from those who wish to blow us out of the sky, I say do whatever the hell you want to me if it means I get to go home alive at the end of the day. And if that means stripping me naked, so be it. Truth is, we're all half-naked at the X-rays now anyway. No jackets, no belts, no shoes...it's just a short hop to no pants or shirt. If you need to put a hand down my pants to check for explosives, grope away. In fact, dim the lights and serve me a glass of Chardonnay and I just might even enjoy it. When you consider all the indignities we already suffer at airports, a little groping is actually a fitting reward, no?”
Odd, that with Obama now in the White House, Ostroy is in full support of being scanned and groped at airports. When Bush was President, a completely different Andy Ostroy was at his keyboard typing this:
From “It’s Time to Start Profiling and Stop F***ing Around” [August 11, 2006], Ostroy said this:
“…our main enemy today just happens to be Muslim extremists. I don't give a crap about being politically correct, and I wish the U.S. government wouldn't either. If we truly want to keep America as safe as possible--at airports, train and bus stations, major sporting events, concerts, public buildings and elsewhere--then it's time to start profiling our enemy and stop wasting our time and money on those who don't fit this profile.
The unfortunate truth is that it is Muslim extremists who strap on bombs and blow themselves and everyone else around them to smithereens. It is Muslim extremists who kill innocent men, women, and children. It is Muslim extremists who've terrorized students, travelers, beach-goers, diners, worshippers everywhere. It is Muslim extremists who attacked us in New York and Washington, DC. It is Muslim extremists who hate Westerners and America, hate capitalism, hate Democracy, hate freedom, and plot our destruction from the minute they awaken until the minute they lay their barbaric heads to sleep. It is these Muslim extremists who place no value whatsoever on human life, including their own, in their fantastical journey to Allah to receive their 72 virgin reward.
We did not get attacked by, or live in fear of, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, young White families, 3-year-olds, blue-haired old women with canes, homosexual couples, middle-aged salesmen with bad suits and pot-bellies, rappers or acned teenagers with their pants hanging off their asses. Yet if I see one more of these non-terrorists getting frisked at the airport and pulled aside for a near strip-search, I think I may blow a gasket.”
Hmmmm. So, let’s get this straight. Under Bush, Ostroy was vehemently against anyone except Muslim extremists getting frisked and being pulled aside for a strip search. Now, under Obama he is unequivocally, 100% in full support of it? Interesting.
Under Bush, Ostroy minimized any talk of “terror” and threats by anyone who is not a Muslim. Ostroy even questioned the term “war on terror” by putting the term in quotations. In his article, “Lies, Lies and More Lies. Bush Fires More Weapons of Mass Deception at American Legion Propaganda Speech” [August 31, 2006], Ostroy says this:
“More important is that voters will not likely accept the new round of incendiary rhetoric about Iraq, the war on terror, and calculated comparisons to World War II. The simple fact is, we've been fighting terrorists for decades. It's nothing new. Terrorists killed Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972; bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983; tossed Leon Klinghoffer off of the Achille Lauro in 1985; and have been committing random acts of violence since. George Bush did not invent the battle against terrorists despite coining the grammatically-challenged phrase, "war on terror.”
Under Bush, the “war on terror” is made up and terrorism is no big deal since it’s been around for decades. But under Obama, Ostroy is willing to evoke 9-11 to Giuliani levels and have TSA agents stick their arms up his asshole even though he is not a Muslim extremist.
Here are other articles by Ostroy in which he downplayed terrorism during Bush’s tenure:
In his article, “Fear-Mongering Giuliani Losing Ground to Clinton” [June 13, 2007] he says this:
“Giuliani still invokes the 9/11 attacks at every possible turn, especially when justifying his delusional position on the war. Despite the facts on the ground that would indicate the war is out of control, that the Bush "surge" has been a lesson in futility, and that victory is but a fantasy, Giuliani's been pounding the hawkish table on this debacle. And it's all about fear, fear, fear. Big bad scary terrorists are swallowing up Iraq. "We gotta fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" is the popular refrain of the GOP fear-mongers. "If we pull out of Iraq they'll follow us home." Puh-leeze. Somebody get me a barf bag.”
Ostroy’s message is clear: Under Bush, terrorism was not a big issue and whenever any Republican mentioned terrorism or 9-11, they were doing so for political points. Under Obama, terrorism is a worldwide crisis that needs to be dealt with using any possible means, even if those means are TSA agents fondling his balls [an act in which he said, under Bush, he would “blow a gasket” if he saw again].
It just so happens, my exposé on Ostroy is not about whether I think he was wrong before and correct now, or vise versa. I agreed with his articles during the Bush years [because he was right]; I am simply pointing out blatant contradictions in his views for the mere fact that a Democrat is in office now. Ostroy hammered Republicans [and rightly so] for evoking 9-11 at every turn. He was right for doing that. Now that his Lord and savior Barack Obama is Prez, Ostroy has no problems with Giuliani-style references to 9-11 and saying Muslims are evil with every breath he takes.
As I have pointed out, the liberal fraudamopolous does not even require long periods of time to pass before he spews forth another major contradiction. In a few cases he only needed a month to flip flop like a fish out of water.
Ostroy also questioned the “war on terror” [using quotations] in his article, “Dems End Troop Withdrawal Debate, Setting the Stage for the Next Great Big Bushevik Lie Come September” [July 19, 2007] when he said:
“Forget the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate released this week stated that al Qaeda is a major threat still, indicating that six years after 911 we seem to have made no material progress in the ridiculously coined “war on terror.””
Ostroy continually minimized terrorism and scoffed at the mention of 9-11 when Republicans ran the White House. With a Democrat in power now, terrorism and 9-11 are of the utmost importance to Ostroy. In fact, they are so important it has made him sound like the very Republicans he bashed in his Bush-era articles. Here is another excerpt from his recent article, “I Wanna Be Scanned and Groped” which could easily be mistaken for the words of Cheney, Bush or Giuliani prior to November 4, 2008:
“To be honest, I don't get all the outrage. I think it's quite foolish, actually. Have these Americans forgotten about the carnage of 9/11? Have the images of planes crashing into buildings, of bloodied dust-covered New Yorkers running for their lives, been erased from their collective brains? Are they so arrogant and in denial that they're gonna now stage boycotts and other planned disruptions at airports to protest the new measures? Like there's not enough frustrating inconveniences and delays as it is? What are they protesting against anyway, safety?”
No, Andy, they are protesting the EXACT SAME THING you protested in your 2006 article, “It’s Time to Start Profiling and Stop F***ing Around” when you said:
“What the hell has happened to America's resolve? Have we gotten so politically correct that we're too afraid to do the right thing anymore? For every old woman, toddler or gawky White teenager that's searched at the airport, we're wasting a ton of time, effort and money that could be spent on who we've identified as our primary enemy. For crap's sake, this is war, and we need to start fighting like it is one on every possible front instead of squandering resources and assets in the interest of political correctness. We were attacked and killed by Muslim extremists, we live in fear of Muslim extremists, and it is Muslim extremists who we need to find at airports and elsewhere. I want every cop, every guard, every screener, every ID checker and everyone else involved in the security process to have their eyes trained on the enemy; the profiled enemy. Until the profile should change and we therefore need to change and/or expand our focus. But until then, it's Muslim extremists we must be on the lookout for almost exclusively.”
Well, Andy, the profile has NOT changed. The whole body scanner fiasco began after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [who is a Muslim from Nigeria] attempted to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 last Christmas by putting explosives in his underwear. So, you see, Ostroy’s view should not have changed. He should still be supporting the notion that Muslims be the profiled target. But no, he now fully supports EVERY American citizen to be scanned and groped.
Another glaring contradiction on Ostroy's part is his continual use of the term "Muslim" when referring to who attacked us and who we should profile, yet in his artcile titled "Muslims Killed Us On 9/11?" [from October 15, 2010] he attacks Bill O' Reilly for using the very same term. In that article, Ostroy says:
"So Muslims killed us on 9/11? Was it Jews who killed innocent New Yorkers in the Son of Sam murders in the 70's? Was it blacks who killed 29 Atlanta children in the early 80's? Was it Christians who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City in 1995?
O'Reilly and his fear-mongering cohorts know very well what they're doing as they regurgitate their incendiary rhetoric to the masses. There's nothing like a little good old fashioned racist propaganda to scare the bajeesus out of the blissfully unaware and bolster one's position. And for those despicable ignoramuses who oppose the building of the Islamic Community Center, that includes demonizing an entire religion."
Yet Ostroy is permitted to demonize an entire religion when he defends body scanners to fight the "war on terror". It is people like Andy Ostroy, as well as Neocons on both sides [Republican and Democrat] who make me sick to my stomach with their partisan hackery and undying devotion to party over country. How many contradictions do I have to expose from one person to make my point clear that they are a colossal fraud?
Andy continues [from his 2006 article]:
“Additionally, I want more and better technology at airports, train and bus stations. Our current security and screening equipment and mechanisms are so antiquated and inconsistent from airport to airport (and non-existent at train/bus stations and ports) it's pathetic. I want universal ID cards for U.S. citizens who, after going through an initial extensive security check, can avoid long lines, unnecessary searches and frustrating delays. I want profiling. What I don't want is to be told that everyone's safer because I can't bring my coveted Snapple on board for a 6-hour flight to California even though I'm about as far from fitting the Muslim extremist profile as Richard Simmons.”
It’s crystal clear: Under Bush, Ostroy was against every American citizen being scanned and searched. Under Obama, safety and terrorism is Ostroy’s top concern and now he wants every citizen searched, despite the fact that nothing changed whatsoever that would have caused his profiling policy to change.
In his current article, Ostroy speaks as if he could have been Bush or Giuliani's speechwriter:
“This is about safety and security. Mine, yours, and that of everyone who travels. It's about the safety and security of those working in office buildings, who don't want planes crashing into them. It's about winning. Winning the war against those who wish to destroy us wherever and whenever they can. And that includes the skies. I'm getting sick of hearing about how the new scanners and pat-downs "have gone too far." Funny how no one said that on September 12, 2001. How quickly some forget.”
“Winning?” “Winning the war against those who wish to destroy us wherever and whenever they can?” Sounds like excerpts from George W. Bush’s State of the Union addresses!
Under the comment section of Ostroy’s 2006 article, “It’s Time to Start Profiling and Stop F***ing Around”, Ostroy said this to a reader who was offended at Ostroy’s idea of profiling:
“Frank, you, like all of my readers, are very important to me so i'll take a few minutes to try to explain my position a bit more for you. I do believe I'm saying what a lot of people feel but are afraid to say. The simple fact is, after 9/11, I, like everyone around me at airports and train stations, were looking over their shoulders at people of Arab descent. If they sat near us on planes, we were nervous. If they sat next to us in the terminal carrying a knapsack, we were nervous. And under the ciurcumstances, this was a normal reaction. C'mon, we all know who "fits the profile" of the terrorists we're supposedly fighting in this Global War on Terror. I'll make it easy: they look like bin Laden, Zarqawi, Zawarhiri, Atta, etc. They look like the guys who attacked us on 911. You mention Jose Padilla? Sure, he's hispanic, but he looks like he fits this profile, so yeah, he's be detained and screened. Tomithy McVeigh? He was a random kook not attached to any international terror cell whom we're fighting in the Global War on Terror. He's the exception, not the rule. He's not who we're fearing right now. My main point, Frank, is that...let's say Joe Blow security agent at the airport, in his 8 hour shift, can only check 100 people. If right now he checks 50 people who fit the profile, and 50 who do not (gays, old people, young white families, black businessmen, etc), then we here in the U.S. are wasting precious time and resources. With that, I think you could agree.”
TSA agents would have been “wasting precious time” in 2006, but now Ostroy wants everyone scanned and groped [which would take more time]. I could understand Ostroy changing his view if since 2006 there was at least ONE incident of someone trying to explode a plane that did not fit the profile Ostroy mentions above. That has not happened. The only thing that has changed in 4 years is the party that runs the White House [oh, and Andy Ostroy’s stances on major political issues!].
Ostroy should want Bush back in the White House, because it seems as if Bush wasn’t the only thing that disappeared on January 20, 2009....so did Andy Ostroy’s integrity. Congrats Andy. You deserve this award hands down. Can you say “Three-peat?”
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Ron Paul Destroys the Myth That Wikileaks Frontman Julian Assange Is A Traitor on the Floor of Congress
As if anyone needed more proof that Ron Paul is a no-holds-barred champion of the Constitution
by Larry Simons
December 14, 2010
In a powerful display of courage, honesty and patriotism, Texas Congressman Ron Paul once again delivered another power-punch of American empire-shattering cogency that can only be matched by the likes of Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine.
Congressman Paul asserts that the real reason why Wikileaks frontman Julian Assange is being attacked, charged and threatened is not about the release of classified government information, but the fact that the release of this information is an embarrassment to the neoconservatives in support of perpetual war in order to maintain the American empire.
Paul makes the excellent point that military analyst Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for leaking classified information about the Vietnam war [Pentagon Papers] and The New York Times was not found guilty of releasing the information in 1971. What is interesting is that Ellsberg was charged with stealing the Pentagon Papers, although never convicted of it. Assange did not steal the documents he released through Wikileaks and he is being set up to be charged with espionage.
Naturally, Congressman Paul’s words received hardly any press and was virtually ignored by FOX News [except for this mention on Judge Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch] and every other neoconservative news outlet.
Here is the complete transcript of Congressman Paul’s speech
WikiLeaks release of classified information has generated a lot of attention worldwide in the past few weeks. The hysterical reaction makes one wonder if this is not an example of killing the messenger for the bad news. Despite what is claimed, the information that has been so far released, though classified, has caused no known harm to any individual, but it has caused plenty of embarrassment to our government. Losing our grip on our empire is not welcomed by the neoconservatives in charge.
There is now more information confirming that Saudi Arabia is a principal supporter and financier of al Qaeda, and that this should set off alarm bells since we guarantee its Sharia-run government. This emphasizes even more the fact that no al Qaeda existed in Iraq before 9/11, and yet we went to war against Iraq based on the lie that it did. It has been charged by experts that Julian Assange, the internet publisher of this information, has committed a heinous crime, deserving prosecution for treason and execution, or even assassination.
But should we not at least ask how the U.S. government can charge an Australian citizen for treason for publishing U.S. secret information that he did not steal? And if WikiLeaks is to be prosecuted for publishing classified documents, why shouldn't the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others that have also published these documents be prosecuted? Actually, some in Congress are threatening this as well.
The New York Times, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history.
Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information that challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars. Few are interested in understanding the relationship of our foreign policy and our presence in the Middle East to the threat of terrorism. Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.
Questions to consider:
Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised ‘Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.’
watch the video
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Interview from Dec. 7, 2010. Noory talks with Alex Jones about Wikileaks, censorship and spying
Coast to Coast with George Noory
December 9, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Billo and the War on Christmas 2010: Now Billo Has A Problem with Atheists Not Celebrating Christmas
Billo also says the funniest thing he’s ever said: He’s a “Christian”
by Larry Simons
December 8, 2010
Ahhhh yes, it wouldn’t be Christmas without Billo’s annual rundown of the half a dozen people in America who don’t celebrate Christmas and his inflating of that number to 200 million. A few days ago on FOX News’ #2 comedy The O’ Reilly Factor [Beck is #1], Billo resumed his annual role as the Grinch police by informing his zombie viewers of a new sign that can be seen in North Bergen, N.J. outside the Lincoln tunnel [that connects N.J. to New York City].
The sign [see below] was put up by the organization American Atheists and it depicts the three wise men on camels approaching the baby Jesus’ birth. The sign reads, “You KNOW it's a myth. This season, celebrate REASON!”
Billo, never missing a chance to look across his desk at two blonde FOX News bimbos, decided this would be a perfect time to have on Fox and Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover [great-granddaughter of former President Herbert Hoover, one of America’s worst President’s ever] who, apparently are experts in religious discourse.
watch the clip
Billo says, “Now I don’t object to being an atheist”. No, Billo, you don’t object at all. I guess the primary reason that Billo is even doing this segment at all is because he fully believes in freedom of religion, freedom of expression and independent thought.
Billo adds, “But why would you want to run down….people’s sincere beliefs by this kind of an exposition, do they think that this is going to create more atheists?” Well, why is Billo attacking the atheists’ sincere belief of calling the birth of Christ a myth? Didn’t Billo just say 10 seconds earlier that he doesn’t object to being an atheist? Well, Billo, this is what atheists believe in…that Christmas is a myth. Why is he putting that down?
As far as it being “this kind of an exposition” as Billo dubbed it, well, what kind of exposition does Billo expect from an atheist? How does Billo think it makes atheists feel when they see nativity scenes and hear religious Christmas songs? I guess he believes they should just accept it because the “majority” of Americans do. A majority’s acceptance and beliefs makes it right?? Well, I guess the Earth really is flat since at one time that’s what the majority believed!
Billo then says, “But it makes people angrier against atheists, that’s what it does.” Only if you are NOT an atheist or you are an advocate of free and independent thought Billo [which you are not]!
Carlson says, “They [atheists] never put up these billboards in July, do they? They always have to try and hijack the Christmas season”. What a ridiculous comment. Do Christians put up nativity scenes in July? There isn’t a more perfect time for an atheist to put up an anti-Christmas billboard than at Christmas! FOX News idiocy at its peak.
Billo then asks why people [atheists] want to put these signs up when they know it will offend people who believe in Jesus. Brilliant Margaret Hoover chimes in and has the answer. “I know why. I will tell you why. I went to the website…and it says... here’s why they do it at Christmas: They do it at Christmas Bill, because atheists feel alone during Christmas, ‘cause everybody else is religious and together.”
Brilliant. You heard it from FOX first….that atheists attack Christianity because they are jealous of them because they are a part of a religion and they are the only ones who have families and are together at Christmas! That may very well be the most ridiculous statement I have heard anyone say in my adult life.
Hoover then reveals what the second reason is [that atheists attack Christianity at Christmas]. Because “they feel closeted, because they feel like they can’t come out to the people they ought to…”. Hoover is simply lying and spinning [on the “No Spin” Zone…and of course, O’ Reilly puts no stop to it]. If atheists are not allowed to "come out", then why are Christians allowed to? Do not Christians go around "witnessing" to spread their faith to others? Can that be interpreted as "not wanting to be alone" in their faith as well?
Here are the facts from the American Atheists website as to the purpose of the billboard.
The purpose of the billboard is threefold:
1) To address those atheists who “go along to get along”, and to encourage them to come out of their closets
To “feel closeted” is much different than being encouraged to “come out of their closets”. One does not have to “feel” a certain way to be encouraged to do something. I could simply want to be with other people because I don’t want to be alone. It doesn’t mean I “feel” alone.
2) To attack the myth that Christianity owns the solstice season
This is a good point since December 25 has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. Why doesn't any of these goons talk about the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus was born on December 25 or that Christmas is celebrated on the 25th because of the pagan festival Saturnalia?
3) To raise the awareness of the organization and the movement
Notice none of these three reasons mentions anything about “feeling alone” at Christmas. This was simply made up, along with the entire “war on Christmas” issue in the first place.
I personally find atheism to be equally as nutty as believing because both views show a conclusive certainty about something in which there is no possibility of attaining certainty.
Then, Billo says the funniest thing I have ever heard him say. Billo says, “I don’t feel alone and I’m a Christian”. Really Billo?
Let’s look at Billo’s exemplary Christian behavior
Remember the outstanding Christian behavior he showed to intern Andrea Mackris 6 years ago?
Jon Stewart has the breakdown on the War on Christmas here
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|The Gretch Who Saved the War on Christmas|
by Larry Simons
December 8, 2010
It is hard to believe thirty years have come and gone since my favorite Beatle, John Lennon, was murdered in New York City by a deranged shitbag [whose name I won’t even mention].
He was not just one of my favorite musicians, but one of my favorite activists and humanitarians. He was truly one of a kind and there will never be another like him.
Here are just a few of my favorite songs with John on vocals
“A Day In the Life”
“Watching the Wheels”
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Geraldo admits that “those loathsome, ‘9-11 was an inside job’ protesters may have some reason to have adherence of people more mainstream…”
by Larry Simons
December 2, 2010
I admit, I missed these two shows in which the following two clips [below] come from, Geraldo at Large on November 13 and Judge Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch on November 19, in which Building 7 was brought the most national attention I have ever seen.
Geraldo admits that the thing that caught his eye about Building 7 is a new campaign called BuildingWhat? that is led by 9-11 victims’ families. Geraldo was also intrigued in finding out that over 1,200 architects and engineers publicly challenge the official story of Building 7 and believe explosives had to be used to bring the building down.
Although Geraldo should be applauded in now bringing Building 7 to the national spotlight, it is also this very reason that I have contempt for him and others like him in the controlled, bought-and-paid-for media. Yes, he is now admitting that 9-11 truthers may be validated in their beliefs if what they claim is true, but a few years ago he was calling truthers anarchists and giving them the finger like everyone else who accepts the official story hook, line and sinker and refused to do one minute of investigation.
If Geraldo had an interest in finding out why truthers were outraged and protested in New York City a few years ago, instead of sitting back calling them “nutjobs”, this issue may have been on the front burners a bit sooner. But he, like all the others major news outlets, called 9-11 truthers “whackjobs” and “kooks” and claimed they have no sympathy for 9-11 victims families, when in reality, truthers may have had the most sympathy for them, since our very own government recently voted no to giving money to helping the victims families. Now that Geraldo acknowledges that victims’ families make up a large number of what he called “kooks”, he seems to be listening.
I give credit to Geraldo for finally shedding light on this topic, but I still have feelings of contempt for him and his ilk for their irresponsible and lazy journalism over the past 9 years.
On November 13, Bob McIlvaine [who lost his son on 9-11] and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti appeared on Geraldo Rivera’s show “Geraldo At Large” on Fox News to talk about the “BuildingWhat?” TV ad campaign:
Geraldo Rivera appeared on Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch on November 19, 2010 to reiterate his position: