Friday, May 28, 2010

Ron Paul: Inside Sources Told Me Fed Is Panicking At Mass Awakening

Congressman: “We are still fighting,” to add stronger provisions to watered down legislation

Paul Joseph Watson
May 27, 2010

Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Congressman Ron Paul revealed that through his inside sources he had learned that the people who control the Federal Reserve are panicking about the fact that Americans are waking up to the fact that the U.S. is controlled by the central bank.

“I had some information passed on to me, sort of inside information, somebody who knew somebody who was well tuned to the people at the Federal Reserve – and they said they are really really concerned about our movement to expose the Fed for what they’re doing,” said Paul, adding, “What they’re upset or worried about is the fact that more and more people are aware of the Federal Reserve now like never before,” explaining that exposure will lead to change and a reform of the Federal Reserve.

Paul attributed the success of the freedom movement in the last decade to the growing awareness of the power that the Federal Reserve wields over America.

“Even those who defend the Fed are very frightened about it,” added Paul, noting that a growing number of Americans were knowledgeable about the central bank despite the fact that the subject is rarely covered by the education system.

Host Jones made reference to a recent Council on Foreign Relations speech by Trilateral Commission and regular Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski in which he warned that a “global political awakening,” in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government.

“I hope he has some real reasons to be worried about that,” responded the Congressman.

Despite the Senate voting down Ron Paul’s version of the audit the fed bill earlier this month, a weaker version was passed which will mandate the central bank to reveal which financial institutions received bailout money at the peak of the economic crisis, something the Fed has desperately tried to avoid divulging.

Paul expressed his own disappointment at the watered down bill, but his colleague Congressman Alan Grayson expressed confidence that the stronger provisions of the original House amendment could be added in Committee, ensuring the Federal Reserve doesn’t get off the hook, as Congressman Paul has warned.

Paul told host Jones that people should look into which Senators did not vote for the original audit the Fed bill, characterizing the weakened version as “A bailout for the system and for the Federal Reserve.”

Paul said he was going to try and influence the bill in conference by adding stronger provisions.

“I think right now the cards are stacked against us but we’re going to keep fighting because the more attention we get and the more people know, I ink we can be proud of how far we’ve gotten already,” said Paul.

Watch the full interview with Ron Paul below

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

MSNBC Transcript of The Rachel Maddow Show Blatantly Posts False Information To Make Rand Paul Appear Racist

First Andy Ostroy, then Bill Maher. Now MSNBC says that Rand Paul said “Yes” to Rachel Maddow’s question “Do you think that a private business has a right to say, “We don’t serve black people”?” in their transcript

by Larry Simons
May 26, 2010

In my nearly 4 years of reporting and writing on this site covering some of the biggest liars and frauds in government and media, I do not think I have ever come across a lie so blatant and irresponsible as the one posted by MSNBC in their transcript of The Rachel Maddow Show.

As I reported on May 21, Kentucky primary winner Rand Paul appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show on May 19, 2010, and was asked by Maddow, “Do you think that a private business has a right to say, “We don’t serve black people”? Before Maddow was finished asking the question, Paul was already starting to respond, and there was cross talk over Maddow’s words “…has the right to say, “We don’t serve black people?”

The very next thing Paul said was the word “yeah”, most likely, not even hearing the entire question because of censorship delays. I am 100% convinced that Paul’s usage of the word “yeah” [NOTyesas most mainstream liberal media have reported, as well as a few right-wing outlets who support Paul] was only meant as a way of saying “yeah, I hear you”.

It makes no sense that Paul would have been answering “Yes” to the question because of what he said immediately afterward: “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race.” So, the liberal media thinks Paul was saying “Yes, I support racism” and “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form” in back-to-back sentences?

It’s easy for the liberal media to make claims that Rand Paul is racist by editing soundbytes and resorting to Bill O’ Reilly-style reporting: Verbalizing the lie without showing any footage. Now MSNBC has stooped to a new low…rewriting history by posting dialogue in the show’s transcript that was never said. [See screen shot above of actual transcript on the MSNBC website]

It’s one thing for corporate-controlled shills to simply verbalize lies saying Rand Paul used the word “Yes” and was answering Maddow’s question, it’s a whole different ballgame when the word “Yes” is posted in the transcript of the show on the website [especially when one can easily go to the video footage on the site or on YouTube and see clearly that Paul did not say the word “Yes”].

Blatant lies is not journalism. It is dishonest, cheap, irresponsible and a crystal clear admission that the entire effort to paint Rand Paul as a racist is a vicious and conscious smear campaign, orchestrated by those who are scared shitless that true Constitution-loving politicians like the Paul family are not only popular among true liberty-loving Americans, but well on their way to becoming dynasties in Washington.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Bill Maher Repeats the LIE That Claims Rand Paul Said "Restaurants Should Be Able To Refuse Service To Black People"

Continually telling Rachel Maddow that he abhors racism and that [he's] "..not in favor of any discrimination of any form" is synonymous with the stance that he thinks "restaurants should be able to refuse black people?"

by Larry Simons
May 22, 2010

On Friday’s telecast of Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher repeats the lie that has spread like wildfire through the mainstream media, that Kentucky primary winner Rand Paul holds the view that he opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that he feels that restaurants in that day had the right to refuse to serve black people.

As I wrote yesterday about the lie that came from the mouth of liberal wingnut and colossal liar, Andy Ostroy, that supposedly Rand Paul, when asked by Rachel Maddow if he thought restaurants had the right to post signs saying they would not serve blacks, said “Yes” to that question. I clearly illustrated that Paul said no such thing and that not only did he not say “Yes” to that question, he repeatedly stated during the interview that he opposes racism and discrimination in any form.

On Friday night, Bill Maher had this to say:

“But how to describe Rand Paul, I mean, he’s a doctor. It’s as if Sarah Palin somehow made it through medical school”. “…he has a lot of interesting points of view. He says restaurants should be able to refuse service to black people.” Then said, “I tell ya, the shit doesn’t fall far from the bat, does it?” Implying that Rand’s father, Congressman Ron Paul, is a “nut” as well.

watch the clip

I find it interesting that Maher is attempting to distance himself from not only Rand Paul, but his father as well, since just 3 years ago on Real Time, Bill Maher called Ron Paul his hero while talking to Chris Dodd.

watch the clip

Here’s Ron Paul being praised again by Maher on Real Time in 2007

So, it’s perfectly clear. When Ron Paul embarrasses other Republicans, Maher stands behind Ron Paul 100% and has his full support. When people like Rand Paul, who associates with the Tea Party, which is largely against Obama [in the eyes of the media, but in reality attempting to restore Constitutional values, while being hijacked by neocons like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin], Maher calls not only Rand Paul "crazy", but likens him to his father and implies that Ron Paul is "crazy" too, despite the fact that Maher has continually praised him the last 3 years on his show [Ron Paul has been a guest on Real Time twice in 2007 and once in 2009].

It is the classic example of someone who holds political party in higher esteem than one's country. Maher cares not that he vilifies someone in whom he has continually praised the last 3 years when they were speaking truth to the very people Maher despises, but when those same people then threaten the party Maher associates with, then they suddenly become "crazy nutjobs", and the best way to smear them is to attach to their name the most hated political correct label there is: racist.

That's party over country, and Bill Maher is a colossal embarrassment to this country.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Big Fat LIAR Andy Ostroy Claims Rand Paul Is A Racist By Making Up Dialogue That Paul Did Not Say

Ostroy claims Rand Paul said “Yes” to Rachel Maddow after she asked him if he was in favor of businesses in the 1960’s refusing service to blacks. He did NOT say “Yes”. Ostroy simply LIES

by Larry Simons
May 21, 2010

In liberal blogger Andy Ostroy’s latest article entitled, “Rand Paul the Tea Party Pooper”, he delivers what may be his most blatant lie to date. The lie this time is actually placing in the mouth a word that another person did not even say.

On Wednesday night’s The Rachel Maddow Show, Maddow speaks with Rand Paul about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ostroy claims that after Maddow asked Paul if private businesses had the right to refuse blacks in those days, that Paul said “Yes” to the question. Here is what Ostroy wrote:

“The latest Tea Party brewhaha involving Paul is his convoluted views of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which he believes private businesses should have the right to bar from their premises whoever they choose. On MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show Wednesday night, Maddow asked if those establishments had the right to refuse service to blacks. "Yes," Paul astonishingly replied. Since then, he's taken a lot of heat from party officials shaking in their boots over his self-destructive views. Radical positions that include raising the Social Security retirement age to 70 and questioning the legality of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

Here is how the verbatim dialogue went during the interview. If you notice in Ostroy’s article, Ostroy fails to provide verbatim dialogue.

Maddow: If there was a private business, say in Louisville, say somewhere in your home state that wanted to not serve black patrons, or wanted to not serve gay patrons or somebody else on the basis of their, on the basis of a characteristic that they decided they didn’t like as a private business owner. Do you think that they had a legal right to do so? To put up a ‘blacks not served here’ sign?

Paul: Well, the interesting thing is, is you know, you look back to the 1950’s, the 1960’s at the problems we faced, there were incredible problems, you know, the problems, the problems had to do with mostly with voting, they had to do with schools, they had to do with public housing, and so, this is what the Civil Rights largely addressed, and all things that I largely agree with.
Maddow: But what about private businesses? I mean, I hate to, I don’t want to be badgering you on this, but I do want an answer. Do you think that a private business [has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people’?]

The part in parenthesis above is cross talk between Maddow and Paul, where Paul cut in and said:

Paul: I, I, I’m not in, I’m not in, I’m not in….
Then, when Maddow finished saying, “…has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people’?”, Paul is clearly heard saying, “Yeah”, but it is also crystal clear that Paul was not saying “yeah” as an answer to Maddow’s question “Do you think that a private business has a right to say ‘we don’t serve black people’?”, because Paul was already in mid-sentence before Maddow was finished asking her question.

Paul is clearly saying, “Yeah” as a way of saying, “Yeah…I hear you”. It is also crystal clear that Paul is not saying, “Yeah” as an answer to Maddow's question by what he says in his complete statement.

Paul says: 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.
Naturally, Ostroy does not bother to post the entirety of both dialogues, because in doing so, would clearly shoot down his monumental LIE of claiming that Paul said “Yes” to Maddow’s question of whether Paul would be in favor of private businesses refusing to serve blacks.

Also, posting the entirety of the dialogues would clearly show the ridiculousness of claiming that Paul was a racist when in his response to Maddow he says, “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form”. So, according to Ostroy, it makes perfect sense for Paul to say “Yes, I would be FOR private businesses refusing to serve blacks” and then to immediately say right after that, “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form.”

This is exactly why Ostroy refuses to post a verbatim transcript of the interview and why he completely makes up the fact that Paul said the word “Yes”, when he actually said the word “Yeah”, but was clearly not an answer to the question Maddow was asking.

I posted this response to Ostroy on his blog. I’m posting it here because Ostroy has comment moderation enabled on his blog, meaning that he will not approve of a comment that he cannot refute.

“Andy, you’re simply lying. Where did Paul say "Yes" at ANY point in this clip after Maddow asked him anything?? He said "yeah" at one point but he was already in the middle of a statement in which Maddow finished her thought and Paul was simply saying "yeah" as if to say "I hear you"----NOT as an agreement that restaurants shouldnt have served blacks. He constantly says he's against racism. He mentions William Lloyd Garrison for crying out loud! Garrison was a strong abolitionist during the time of Lincoln. Lincoln by the way, was FOR slavery and was probably the biggest racist this country has ever known. Do you even realize that Lincoln was so racist, that he even created a department in his administration that was for the sole purpose of getting rid of all the blacks in the country and sending them to Africa? You DO know that, right?

If Paul was a racist, he'd be admiring LINCOLN, not Garrison! Now, you resort to blatantly lying. Paul never says the word "Yes" and he sure as hell wasn’t answering her question when he said "yeah". He was saying "yeah" as his way of saying "yeah, I hear what you’re saying". What sense would it make to say yes to denying blacks service if the entire rest of the clip he is saying he's against racism and even mentions the strongest abolitionist of the 1800's???? You’re a fucking joke! If you’re SO sure I’m wrong, then post my comment and address my comment, rather than ignoring it and rejecting it.”

Here is the clip of Maddow and Rand Paul. Amazingly Ostroy has posted this same clip on his story, despite the fact that it incriminates his own story. I guess he figures his three readers won’t bother to watch it and take Ostroy’s words at face value

There simply hasn’t been enough stories like this from Ostroy this year, or else he would be in commanding contention for 2010’s Fraudie award

Thursday, May 20, 2010

The Establishment Is In Full Blown Panic Over Rand Paul

The status quo doesn’t care from which direction of the phony left-right paradigm the mud is thrown , so long as it sticks

Paul Joseph Watson
May 20, 2010

The establishment is in full blown panic over the runaway success of Kentucky primary winner Rand Paul and has set about attacking the son of Congressman Ron Paul from every conceivable angle in an attempt to undermine his support base and ensure his defeat by a Democratic opponent in November.

Whatever your personal agreements or disagreements with the nuances of Paul’s policies, the fact is that he represents the rarest breed of politician – one not controlled by special interests – and that is a fundamental threat to the status quo and the gravy train for the crooks and scoundrels in Washington DC.

On the one hand, establishment neo-con news organs like the New York Daily News have attempted to eviscerate Paul’s Tea Party base by implying that he is not “conservative” enough in that he doesn’t support endless unconstitutional wars of aggression that have not been authorized by Congress. Of course, classical conservatism of the George Washington, founding fathers variety, dictates that foreign policy should be based around a strong national defense while avoiding foreign entanglements and interventionism – which is exactly what Rand Paul embraces.

So the sight of the neo-cons trotting out the universally loathed Dick Cheney – he had the lowest approval ratings for any Vice President in recent history – to back Paul’s opponent Trey Grayson was a pathetic effort to characterize Paul as being soft on foreign policy, a tactic that went out of date some five years ago, and its failure was evident in the size of Paul’s crushing victory.

Establishment neo-con Republicans have to know that the game is up. Unless they can completely take over and subvert the Tea Party movement, which they have openly called for, it’s all over for them. The fact that the Tea Party got right behind Paul despite his openly stated desire to bring the troops home proves that neo-con sentiment within the ranks of the Tea Party is on the wane. Conservatives are finally starting to understand that unconstitutional foreign wars of aggression are not conservative.

On the flip side of the rigged political spectrum we have the neo-libs crying foul about Paul’s libertarian credentials. Despite the fact that Paul has vehemently supported his father’s stance of shrinking big government, legalizing marijuana and ending the drug war, putting a stop to banker bailouts, reducing the national debt, lowering taxes, and restoring personal liberties, just because Paul hasn’t explicitly supported gay marriage, this invalidates everything else according to this warped and myopic argument.

In reality, the issues of abortion and gay marriage have always divided libertarians into socially conservative and socially liberal camps. Rand Paul believes that one of the few roles of government should be to protect life, which he believes begins at conception. Just because Paul doesn’t believe that individual freedom should give people the freedom to kill their own children doesn’t make him a neo-con.

While people who profess to be libertarians may grandstand with righteous indignation and attack Paul for his stance on abortion in the belief that they are performing some kind of moral duty to “expose” him as a neo-con, in reality they are only doing the bidding of the establishment in acting as the left-wing of the pincer attack on the Senatorial candidate’s support base.

The establishment does not care from which direction the mud is thrown at Rand Paul – so long as some of it sticks – which is why they will continue to desperately try to undermine him before the elections in November, while still failing to grasp that real populist candidates who resonate with the burgeoning resistance to big government are all but immune to such smears.

Aided by helpful attacks from both sides, Democrats are apparently “giddy” about taking on Paul come November, but so long as the Senate contender sticks to his core principles, he should have little problem in seeing off an opponent who will be unable to extricate his campaign from the plunging popularity of Barack Obama and the big government agenda that he fronts for.

“I say bring it on,” Rand Paul shot back yesterday. “Please bring President Obama to Kentucky, bring him to campaign as much and as often as they can because he’s incredibly unpopular here, the Democrat policies are incredibly unpopular here – so I say bring it on.”

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Overtime with Bill Maher: Proof That the Left/Right Paradigm Is Complete, 100% Horse Shit

9/11 Truthers are both left and right wing? How?

by Larry Simons
May 18, 2010

On Friday’s telecast of Real Time with Bill Maher, in the Overtime segment [after the main telecast, only seen online]. During a debate about the lack of balance in lunatics on the “left” and “right” between Bill Maher and CNN political contributor John Avlon, Maher says this:

“Tell me what on the left is the equivalent of militias, tea baggers, birthers, truthers…tell me where on the left..”

S.E. Cupp interrupts and says, “Truthers are on the left”. Maher says, “What’s this?”, and Cupp repeats, “Truthers are on the left.” Avlon, says, “The truthers began on the left and now they’ve migrated over..” Maher responds, “Truthers are neither.”

Just 10 seconds earlier, Maher said truthers were on the right by asking what the left-wing equivalent to them was. After Cupp distances her political affiliation [which is “right” wing] away from the truthers by saying, “Truthers are on the left”, Maher, rather than wanting his political affiliation associated with truthers, says truthers are neither right or left.

Proving my point, once again, that “left” wing people call truthers “right” wing and “right” wing people call them “left” wing. This is why our media ignores 9-11 truth. It’s a hot potato issue that both major political affiliations do not want to associate with, as clearly demonstrated in this segment of Real Time with Bill Maher. This is why 9-11 has never been [nor will ever be] thoroughly investigated and why no one wants to talk about it anymore. It is also why people are demonized for simply asking questions about it.

It cannot be [still] the work of terrorists that has caused the mainstream media and our politicians to treat 9-11 as a hot potato issue, demonize and ridicule those who still ask questions about it. That can only be done here, in America, by our bought-and-paid-for, controlled and manipulated media and government. Do the terrorists have power and control of our media and politicians?

watch the clip [at the 5:28 mark]

Bill Maher’s Heated Debate with an Atheist and A Christian

The atheist tells lie after lie and the Christian has no clue that Jesus professed to be the only way to heaven

by Larry Simons
May 18, 2010

On this past Friday’s telecast of Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher gets into a heated discussion with two of his guests: Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker [a Christian] and author S.E. Cupp [an atheist]. What is interesting about Cupp is that she is a right-wing conservative while at the same time, does not believe in God, so she claims.

I say “claims” because of some of the past statements she has made like, “I like to think I adhere to the same Judeo-Christian values that most of religious America does. It's an understanding of and a respect for these values that keeps me moral”, and “Today, I don’t believe in God, but I’m open to being converted”.

Well, sorry, but being open to being converted is NOT atheism. Atheism is the complete opposite to having a strong faith in God. Where atheism says, “I know there is no God”, theism says, “I know there is a God”. If Cupp is an atheist, then she knows there is no God. Therefore, statements like “I’m open to being converted” make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Converted to what? The non-existent God she claims she knows isn’t there?

watch the clip

In her discussion with Bill Maher last Friday, she tells Maher, “I don’t believe in God, but I’m not like, mad at him”. Mad at WHO, S.E.? If she’s an atheist, then God does not exist, and she knows God does not exist. Therefore to utter the words “…I’m not mad at him” indicates that she believes in the possibility of harboring anger toward an non-existent entity, which in essence constitutes her as being as nutty as any Christian who prays to an entity they have no idea exists.

Maher says to Cupp, “If you’re an atheist, you must think people who believe in God are deluded”. Cupp responds, “No, I don’t. I totally get the appeal.” Maher says, “I know, I don’t get that. Why don’t you have the courage of your convictions?”

Cupp responds by saying she does not think people who believe in God are deluded because she has met very smart people [who believe in God]. Cupp is implying here that ones being “smart” is a synonym for not being deluded. I can name a few very intelligent people right off the top of my head that the vast majority [if not, everyone] would call “deluded” and would not overlook their irrational thought because of their intelligence. Ted Bundy and Hitler immediately come to mind when I think of intelligent but delusional people. Would Cupp excuse these individuals because they were “smart”?

It isn’t until religion comes into the picture that people like Cupp begin excusing delusional thinking because one is “smart”. In any other non-religious scenario, no one would make that trade-off.

Cupp then says she has read study after study that proves that psychologically religion is very good for people, personally and for society. She says religious people happen to be more optimistic and are healed from diseases faster. Who conducted these studies and who were the ones being examined? People like TV evangelist Joel Osteen, who NEVER talks about sin [though the Bible constantly mentions it]? It’s very easy to be optimistic when you constantly ignore anything negative.

Good for society? Apparently Cupp didn’t run across these people in her study.

Healed from diseases faster? Really? Can she name anyone who was healed by diseases faster than any non-religious person? And if she could name some, where is the proof it was because they were religious?

Maher counters this argument brilliantly by mentioning examples to the contrary. He responds, “It causes most wars, the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11…”

Booker cuts in and says, “Humans cause war”. Isn’t it interesting when the humans just happen to be religious, then religion isn’t the issue. It’s because we’re “human”. What Booker fails to mention is that if the religious people who cause wars were really religious, there would be no wars, especially none that were based on the George W. Bush [“God told me to invade Iraq”] school of thought.

Maher says, “The justification for most of that [seemingly non-religious-based wars] is religion”. Cupp and Booker mentioned other examples of why wars are started: territory, colonialism, nativism, etc. Maher makes the point that most wars are started because of religious purposes, and he would be correct.

Cupp gives [what she believes are non-religious-inspired] examples of leaders like Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin. Maher responds, “Were state religions. Of course they were”. Cupp replies, “OK, communism is a state religion?” “Absolutely”, replies Maher, “You’ve never heard that?” Cupp replies, “I think we’re talking about different things.” Maher replies, “We’re not. We’re just talking about different labels.”

Maher then gets into a debate over Cupp’s book in which she accuses the liberal media of attacking religion. Maher, once again, destroys her by listing liberals who are religious: Michael Moore, Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton. Maher then goes to the text of her book and reads a quote by Joy Behar that she includes. Behar’s quote is: “You have to teach both. Darwinism is not some kind of religious fervor thing…” “Teach both?", Maher says, “So, she’s for teaching both Darwin---”, and is cut off by Cupp’s lie, “No, what she said was that teaching creationism to kids should be akin to child abuse.” Cupp told Maher that when Behar said both Darwinism and creationism should both be taught, she was saying it "facetiously".

This is a lie. Behar was not being facetious. Behar’s exact words on her show “The View” were this:

“Because Darwinism is not some kind of religious fervor thing, it’s got..we have proof. Scientific proof. And you want your children to go into the world being ignorant of that? That’s child abuse in my opinion.”

Here’s the clip

So, you see, Behar was being very serious in her comment, and she did not say teaching creationism was child abuse, she said not teaching kids the science of Darwinism [along WITH creationism] is child abuse. Cupp simply lied to Bill Maher to make her cheap, ill-informed point.

Cupp then gives an example of the magazine Newsweek declaring the death of Christianity on Easter as an example of the “liberal media attacking religion”. Maher replies, “Are you kidding? Jesus or Mary is on the cover of Newsweek or Time like every other week. If Jesus had an office on Sunset Boulevard and you walked down the corridor, he’d have his magazine covers on every wall.” Maher then shows a collage of covers of Time and Newsweek magazines just in the past few years that mentioned Jesus or Christianity. [see below]

Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker chimes in and begins telling Maher he is arrogant by saying, “I don’t think you have all the answers, and for you to say you do is just as wrong…” and is cut off by Maher. Maher says, “I don’t. You say YOU do. People of faith say they do…..”. Apparently, Booker has no clue that Maher made a documentary film in 2008 titled “Religulous” where he repeatedly makes agnostic statements like, “I preach the gospel of ‘I don’t know’”. Maher has repeatedly appeared on talk shows like The Tonight Show and Larry King Live and outwardly professed his agnosticism by saying he just doesn’t know [whether God exists].

Booker then begins to get off topic by saying churches transform people’s lives. Maher gets back on track and says, “You say I’m the arrogant one. You’re the one who thinks you know what happens when you die. That’s arrogance.” Booker says, “No, absolutely not. Absolutely not.” Maher says, “Oh, you don’t? So, you’re not sure of whether Jesus will save you?” Booker never answers the question, but proceeds to tell Maher that he keeps a copy of the Koran and the Bible on his desk at City Hall.

Maher then says, “They [the Koran and the Bible] contradict each other.” Booker says, “Absolutely not.” Maher replies, “Of course they do”. Booker then says, “Gandhi said in the most beautiful way how arrogant it is to think there’s only one path to understanding….[unintelligible]”. It takes agnostic Maher to remind 'Christian' Cory Booker, “Jesus said ‘only through me’ do you get to heaven or else you burn. Same thing in the Koran.”

Booker ignores this by saying, “We could go through a Jesus by Jesus quote…I’m less interested in what you preach than what you do.” He must be less interested in what people preach [including Jesus himself] since he has no clue that Jesus repeatedly stated in the Bible that he is the only way to get to heaven!

So, the Christianity-defending atheist has to lie to make her points and the Christian has no clue what Jesus even preached. Maher annihilated these two buffoons and it was a sight to see.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Glenn Beck Supports Anti-Government Free Speech But If You Question 9-11, You’re A Nut

Beck condemns Elena Kagan and Cass Sunstein for advocating the banning of anti-government free speech, but lumps Van Jones in with them for being a 9-11 truther [which is anti-government free speech!]

by Larry Simons
May 14, 2010

On Thursday’s #1 FOX News variety/comedy hour Glenn Beck, Beck demonstrated yet another of his Beckorian multi-personality contradictions, the kind that only fake libertarians can deliver.
Beck devoted his entire show to illustrating who he believes to be some of the key players in the plot to begin a world government, many of whom are directly related to Obama. Among his list of evil plotters is 9-11 truther Van Jones. Van Jones’ contribution to his evil plot to incorporate a one-world government? His belief that 9-11 was an inside job! Wow! That means I too am involved in the plot for a one-world government, and yet nobody told me I was included. Not one invitation to a Bilderberg meeting…nothing…hmmmm.

In the clip below, Beck says:

“For instance, Van Jones, when he was caught on tape, 9-11 truther, and he had a 9-11 truther, you know, his signature on a list..his excuse, he said he just didn’t know what he was signing. He was tricked into signing it, and he’s…he thought he was helping 9-11 families.”

at 8:41 into this clip, Beck includes people like Van Jones in with others like Kagan and Sunstein who are destroying America

Beck completely omits any mention of what constitutes a 9-11 truther as being someone who is “dangerous” or “scary”. He heavily implies in the above excerpt that being a 9-11 truther is synonymous with being someone who hurts 9-11 families, despite the fact that a majority of the family members of 9-11 victims question the official government account of 9-11 as well, and more has been done for these families by truth activists than “official story” believers and the government combined.

Also omitted by Glenn Beck in the course of the entire show, was any mention of the Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and any other of the long list of secret societies that exist in the world that convene to create and enforce world policy.

Later in his program, Beck mentions newly Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and White House Administrator of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein as being two of the biggest anti-First Amendment advocates in the country [of which Beck would be correct]. In fact, both Kagan and Sunstein want the government to regulate free speech, even taxing and censoring it if the government deems particular viewpoints “radical”.

Beck then shows a quote by Sunstein from a 2008 white paper he wrote titled “Conspiracy Theories”. He reads:

“What can the government do about conspiracy theories, and what should it do? Government might ban conspiracy theories somehow defined. Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. Government might engage in informal communication with such parties encouraging them to help.”

What is amazing about the fact that Beck specifically mentioned Sunstein’s very words “..marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories”, is the fact that he said this about Van Jones earlier [in the top clip, at 3:57 into it], “…he [Jones] was not discredited, he was just moved.”

So, on one side of Beck’s two faces, he is saying, “it is OK to criticize and question your government and even believe in conspiracy theories. If you do, your speech should be heard without condemnation or censorship, and people like Kagan and Sunstein have no right to impose regulation on anything you say”, and on the other, he is saying, “If it is a crazy and wacky conspiracy theory [in other words, one Beck doesn’t believe in] then it is perfectly OK for Kagan and Sunstein to attempt to discredit you, tax you and censor you."

This adds to the already mile-long list of glaring contradictions from the mouth of the fake libertarian circus clown Glenn Beck. According to Beck, it is 100% A-OK for you to believe in anything you want about the government. You may hold any conspiracy theory you find to be true, BUT if you don’t believe in the exact same conspiracy theories that Beck does [like the one the entire segment was about, the conspiracy of a coming one-world government], then you are a raving, radical madman who deserves to be censored and discredited by the very likes of Kagan and Sunstein, who he just condemned for proposing such unconstitutional policies.

At the very beginning of this clip, Beck condemns Sunstein for wanting to tax and regulate government conspiracy theories [of which he condemned Van Jones for believing in]

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Ron Paul: Euro Bailout Will Lead To Currency Collapse

Congressman: Bernanke broke promise that U.S. taxpayer dollars would not be sent to European banks

Paul Joseph Watson
May 10, 2010

As Europe is bailed out to the tune of nearly $1 trillion dollars, Congressman Ron Paul warns that the constant monetization of debt, allied with taxpayer-funded bailouts, will inevitably lead to runaway inflation and the collapse of paper currencies.

Under the terms of the Federal Reserve’s credit swap deal with the EU – in addition to an additional IMF bailout of which U.S. taxpayers will be picking up 20 per cent ($57 billion dollars) of the tab, Paul pointed out that not just taxpayers but “anybody that buys anything” will be funding the European bailout because of the attendant inflationary consequences.

“The prices are going up already, producer prices are going up, the cost of living will go up so everyone in American will suffer and eventually the whole world will suffer because we cannot carry the whole world with our dollar,” Paul told Fox Business, adding that eventually people will lose confidence in the dollar.

The Congressman agreed with the host that the bailouts would lead to the crash of paper currencies, noting that last week’s stock market turmoil was accompanied by gold acting as a currency rather than just reacting to the value of the dollar.

“Gold has been money for 6,000 years and it will remain that way and it will rule the roost,” said Paul, adding that the dollar was weak in comparison with the strength of gold.
“All paper currencies are under attack and this cannot be sustained,” said the Congressman.

Paul then explained how the ECB has completely reversed its promise that it wouldn’t monetize debt and how Bernanke had also gone back on his word that U.S. dollars would be use for this purpose. “When I talked to Bernanke last time in the Committee he said they had no intention of bailing out Greece but they are, through the IMF as well as opening up these swap lines to all the central banks, so it is on the shoulders on the burden of the American taxpayer and our dollar so all we’re doing is perpetuating a very very bad system and this is not a solution at all,” he said.

Paul agreed with the host that the bailout was merely a stunt to buy time while failing to address the underlying problem of European socialism and the entitlement culture, which is fast running out of money with which to keep itself ticking over.

watch the clip below

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Michelle Obama: Barack Obama Is “Kenyan”

Newly uncovered video likely get so-called “birthers” excited over President’s dubious origins

Paul Joseph Watson
May 5, 2010

Last month, so-called “birthers” got very excited over a clip in which Michelle Obama called Kenya President Obama’s “home country,” but a newly uncovered video is likely to stoke even more controversy, because in it the First Lady clearly states that Obama is “Kenyan”.

In a video of a 2008 speech that went viral last month after it was resurrected from the archives, Michelle Obama states, “When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test.”

Some media pundits expressed doubt that the First Lady was explicitly saying that Obama had been born in Kenya, and Glenn Beck even implied that the release of the tape was a trick designed to push Tea Party members over the edge and incite violence, allowing Democrats to demonize their political opposition as extremists.

However, yet another clip has been uncovered from the archives in which the First Lady plainly states that Obama is “Kenyan,” leaving little open to speculation in terms of context.

During a December 2007 speech in Tampa Florida, Michelle Obama stated, “What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country – the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama – a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world.”

The comment is made at the 2:16 mark. Watch the clip below

It would be quite a stretch to claim that Michelle Obama means anything other than that Obama was born in Kenya when she says that the President is “Kenyan”. When it comes to the term “home country,” there’s a little wiggle room, but saying that Obama is “a Kenyan” seems to be reasonably cut and dried.

This seems as straightforward as saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger is Austrian, because he was born in Austria. Of course, under the terms of Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, to be eligible to become President, an individual must be “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States”. This prevents Schwarzenegger from ever becoming President, as it would make Obama’s presidency illegitimate if it was conclusively proven that he was born in Kenya.

We’ve largely sat on the fence regarding the whole “birther” issue, pointing out that there are legitimate arguments coming from both sides, but what’s not up for debate is the fact that Obama’s real name is Barry Soetoro, the name given to Obama at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school.

Whatever the exact nature of the controversy, it seems inevitable that Obama is being blackmailed over his dubious origins, making it imperative that a proper investigation of the issue be conducted in the interests of both national security and the basic rule of law.

Monday, May 3, 2010

My Letter To Roger Silverstein of Silverstein Properties

My email to Roger Silverstein, the son of Larry Silverstein and Senior Vice President of Silverstein Properties, concerning Jeffrey Scott Shapiro’s April 22 article revealing Silverstein’s discussion of demolishing WTC 7 with insurers
by Larry Simons
May 2, 2010

I have decided to email Roger Silverstein [pictured], son of World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein concerning the article written by FOX News’s Jeffrey Scott Shapiro on April 22, in which he inadvertently revealed that he heard cops and city workers tell him that Larry Silverstein was on the phone on 9-11 talking to insurers, discussing bringing down WTC 7 by controlled demolition.

Of course, this information completely flies in the face of the fact that Silverstein has denied having any involvement in the bringing down of WTC 7 for eight years and even won $500 million for Building 7 alone based on the fact that WTC 7’s collapse was unexpected.

I emailed Roger Silverstein in 2006 about WTC 7, and he responded by denying involvement in WTC 7’s destruction by saying:

“You need to spend your time more wisely by reading and understanding the true facts of 9/11, instead of the garbage you read from conspiracy theories.

For your information, the correct story is that 7 WTC came down as a result of a massive fire that was ignited from fuel tanks located within the Building's base floors, in turn causing the steel to melt and buckle upon a number of hours of burning. Following the collapse of the Towers, 7 WTC became fully ablaze shortly thereafter. Firefighters tried to contain the blaze for some six hours, but due to very difficult conditions (rapid spread of the fire), could not bring the blaze under control.

To your conspiracy theory, think about this: would Silverstein Properties have ever been awarded by the Federal and State governments the wonderful task of rebuilding the most important real estate project in New York City's history if we acted improper in ANY way? Think about it.”

Discussing controlled demolition of his own building and then being awarded $500 million based on the fact that it was an unforeseen event is acting very improperly. Wouldn’t you agree?

Here is the email I sent to Roger Silverstein yesterday. I will keep you posted if there is a response.

"Mr. Silverstein,

I urge you to read my email [despite any objections you may have to the topic].

An article on FOX on April 22, 2010 by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro has shed new light on the issue of whether your father, Larry Silverstein, had advance knowledge of WTC 7 coming down with the use of explosives. Your father has claimed [ever since the big 'pull it" controversy] that he had absolutely nothing to do with its collapse and that explosives were not used at all.

But, in a recent article attempting to debunk former governor Jesse Ventura's claims that the government or your father was involved in WTC 7's collapse, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro has inadvertently revealed information that, if true [and there would have been NO REASON why Shapiro would lie], could incriminate your father for insurance fraud, which could mean prison time for him and anyone involved in it, which could also include you.

Shapiro wrote in his article "Shame On Jesse Ventura" that Ventura is simply wrong for his theories that it was the government involved in the collapse of WTC 7. In an attempt to debunk Ventura, Shapiro inadvertently reveals this information:

"Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

There's no reason why Shapiro would be lying, because Shapiro has no clue he was even revealing incriminating information. He was simply attempting to debunk Ventura by saying "It wasn't the government that took down WTC 7, it was Silverstein."

Your father has vehemently denied being involved in any way to the taking down of WTC 7. You have denied it as well in an email you sent to me in 2006. This new information by Shapiro is very incriminating against your father, and Shapiro didn't even have a clue he was leaking damning information.

If this information is true, this is a MAJOR case of insurance fraud on the part of your father and Silverstein Properties as a whole, and it is definitely worthy of investigation. Shapiro, as of this day [May 2, 2010] has not changed his article nor has retracted anything, but even if he does, I have captured screen shots of his original article proving that he claimed he heard cops and city workers tell him your father was on the phone with insurers discussing the controlled demolition of building 7. This proves that explosives were already set in place in the building. It takes 7 or 8 weeks to rig a building of that size with explosives. The ONLY way your father could have been discussing demolition is if the explosives were already set in place.

I will be pursuing this with the proper authorities and I will make attempts to get in touch with the insurance carrier involved and with the NY courts to expose this information. Your father made $500 million from building 7 alone based on the contention that Building 7's collapse was an unforeseen, unexpected event. Shapiro's revelation states otherwise, and this will be pursued.

I would love to hear your response to this and please enlighten me on where I am wrong. Click here for the article by Shapiro 

Larry Simons"