Thursday, December 29, 2011

James Williams [Who Is Black] Says, “Ron Paul Came to My Rescue” in the 1970’s

Man says Ron Paul attended to his sick wife in the early 70’s when no one else would help. Ron Paul did not even send them a bill. Odd thing for a “racist” to do, huh?

by Larry Simons
December 29, 2011

A new video showing a black man by the name of James Williams telling a story of the compassion of Ron Paul has hit the internet. Williams, of Matagorda County, Texas tells a true story of when his wife [who is white] had a complication with her pregnancy in 1972. He says no doctors would care for her or deliver the bi-racial baby. Williams says that even the hospital nurse called the police on Williams, claiming Williams was “harassing” her.

After Dr. Ron Paul was notified, he delivered the Williams’ stillborn baby. The Williams’ never received a hospital bill. This falls completely in line with the reputation Ron Paul had as a physician of “routinely lowering fees and working for free and refusing to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments” as wikipedia explains.

This story also flies in the face of the smear tactics used on Ron Paul that he is a “racist” because of racist newsletters published under his name in the 80’s and 90’s, which Paul has consistently denied writing.

Would a racist help a black man and his white wife deliver a baby and then not even send them a hospital bill for their services?

The mainstream media will dismiss this video and testimony as “partisan” or may even attempt to say Williams was just some paid actor hired by the Ron Paul campaign to give a false story. This begs the question: Would a black man [even if hired as an actor] sign on to do a video that is praising the actions of a racist, essentially implying they are not racist if they really are?

watch the video

Friday, December 23, 2011

Andy Ostroy is Blasted on the Huffington Post about His Lie-Infested Article on Ron Paul

Majority of comments are pro-Ron Paul and nearly every comment that is jammed packed with substance is ignored by Ostroy, who chooses to only respond to the less substantive one-liners

by Larry Simons
December 23, 2011

On the popular liberal website The Huffington Post, the website that three-time Fraudie winner Andy Ostroy also writes for, Ostroy has taken a verbal beating from the majority of respondents to his article, “What Our Young Folks Need to Know About Ron Paul”, an article that is not only packed with false accusations that Ron Paul wrote racists comments in newsletters 20 years ago, but also is filled with lies like Ron Paul is a “Texan” [he was born and raised in Pittsburgh] and that he “doesn’t believe in the 1964 Civil Rights Act”.

I find it hilarious that just the average Joe Schmoe respondent puts Andy Ostroy, the so-called “political and pop culture analyst”, who has made appearances on TV and radio, in his place on basic facts like the role of government in civil rights.

I cannot put it any better than the actual posts themselves so I will just simply post just a few to showcase the barrage of pro-Ron Paul comments that have been posted under Ostroy’s story at HuffPo. I find it interesting as well that as I skimmed page after page of comments under his story, Ostroy seems to only respond to one-liners from certain people that while what they said in their post was relevant, it was usually less substantive than the majority of the posts that appeared.

Here are just a few of the posts with profound substance [which Ostroy ignored]. I bet it makes Ostroy’s blood boil that he does not control the comment thread on HuffPo. He enables comment moderation on his own site, making what I’m quite sure would be a carbon copy of what has taken place at HuffPo impossible.

Here are some of my favorite posts under Ostroy’s story at HuffPo. Enjoy.
[Like I said, these are only a few]

from mc1135

"Even if Ron Paul made these remarks, I'd take him over a president who's legalized indefinite detention of American citizens even if found innocent..­. A president who has assassinated American citizens with NO trial.

I mean, Ron Paul is being nailed to the wall for POSSIBLY writing some slightly off-color but mostly innocuous comments, yet we currently have a guy in office who's systematically dismantling the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A man who's reversed hundreds of years worth of Common law dating back to the Magna Carta up to and including Posse Comitatus.

In Barack Obama's America, we're ALL slaves, regardless of our skin color... So keep pretending these comments from a Ron Paul newsletter 22 years ago mean anything in comparison to the atrocities of the Dictator Obama."

from downtownny

"If Ron Paul did write these, and was not afraid to do so at the time, shouldn't there be at least one audio or video clip of him saying anything even remotely similar? If he had no problem writing that, he certainly wouldn't have a problem saying it. I think that the fact there is no evidence of Ron Paul ever saying anything like that is conclusive proof that these were not his writings and that it was an unfortunate case of him lending his name to other writers. Further, it is important to note that after Ron Paul discovered what was in these newsletters, he immediately changed the staff responsible for writing them. That right there shows that not only did he not write them, but he is adamantly against them (and his speeches and pro-black policies regarding civil liberties prove that as well)."

from treyday247

"I'm a black male and traditionally conservative democrat and I have heard ALL the things that these news letters say and guess what? I don't even care and am I still a ron paul supporter. Why? For one, I don't believe he wrote them or endorsed them like he says and it is inconsistent with his libertarian rhetoric but more importantly Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that actually vows to do something GOOD for the black community. What I am saying is that I would take a racist that sticks to his guns on his vow to end the wars aboard and the wars at home (war on drugs) than a BLACK PRESIDENT who has done nothing for the black community and I am not the only black person who feels that way."

from chichora123

"Racism is collectivist idea. It is fundamentally opposite to the Idea of Libertarianism. The central tenet of Libertarianism is the protection of individual’s rights. Nobody is allowed to violate anybody else's fundamental rights. Racism violates this basic principle of Libertarianism.

Ron Paul, who is a staunch Libertarian, is not a racist. Period.

Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about ending the disastrous war on drugs which disproportionately effects African Americans. Too often, silly minor violations result in sending young kids to Jails and they come back in to society as more hardened people. Besides, war on drugs is just about as successful as the prohibition was.

Ron paul is the only candidate defending the due rights of everybody including muslims who are put under the state sponsored suspicion because of the patriot act. Ron Paul is absolutely NOT A RACIST. End of discussion."

from AlfredE69

"I hold Obama accountable for extending the Patriot Act. I hold Obama accountable for harassing medical marijuana patients. I hold Obama accountable for trying to get out of the troop withdrawal agreement with Iraq. I hold Obama accountable for hiring Wall St insiders. I hold Obama accountable for starting a war with Libya.

Andy, would you support Obama's policies if a republican did the same?"

from The State

"If the racist claims were true and had substance, why didn't anyone running against Paul - where he won 12 times - use it to attack him or smear his campaign?

In 2008 when Paul was running for the GOP nomination, why did *NO* candidate running against him use it to attack him or smear his campaign?

If this material had substance:
- Why has Cain not used this to attack him or smear his campaign?
- Why has Romney not used this to attack him or smear his campaign?
- Why has Gingrich not used this to attack him or smear his campaign?
- Why has Bachman not used this to attack him or smear his campaign? She certainly has incentive after his comment about her "not liking Muslims" on the Jay Leno show.
- Why has Santorum/Huntsman not used this to attack him or smear his campaign?

Politicians will use whatever dirty laundry they can dig up on the other to win an election. They will attack and smear any other with the hyperbole ever escalating against the other when polls show they are losing.

Why aren't they using it? Have the competing campaigns agreed with each other not to, unless it looks like Paul will win? A last ditched attempt to discredit Paul? What are the odds this is true? Slim to none. Just like the odds of the allegations being true."

from 7garments

"Our president recently signed legislation that gives him the right to issue an order to kill any American citizen, within the USA or abroad. No due process, no trial, no publicity. Our president regularly sends drones to kill "terrorists," who not infrequently turn out to be children collecting firewood or other innocents. But, somehow, you feel a great and urgent need to sound the alarm about the moral integrity of a presidential candidate who was tangentially associated 30 yrs ago with some politically incorrect throwaway advertising circulators."

from davidngo4415

"You lack the rational depth to understand why Ron Paul takes those positions on those specific laws. But I will take the time to explain them to you. (You don't have to agree, but at least understand his perspective clearly, instead of creating strawmen to attack)

The Civil Rights Act is a Federal law which says no private business can discriminate. Paul's and any libertarian or freedom-concerned citizen's stance is that this is a violation of the constitutional right of what the Federal government can do. Can the government tell McDonald's to stop selling french fries to children? Can the government tell a small business owner that they can't open a cigar shop because it's discriminatory towards people who don't smoke? The government has NO right to tell a private business what they can do with their business or who they serve. The free market will decide who survives and who doesn't. If you hate a business owner because they are racist, just don't be their customer. Removing the Civil Right Act will no more make people more racist than legalizing drugs will make all people drug addicts. Laws cannot make people less racist. Individuals decide that on their own.

What business owner in their right mind would refuse to serve a large portion of potential customers? It's in their self-interest to make as much money as possible, otherwise, their competitors will put them out of business. And with Yelp, everyone can find out about such prejudices faster."

He also says:

"Wow. You're incredibly condescending in this article. You think all of us young Ron Paul supporters haven't seen the racist charges he's gotten throughout the years? All of it points back to these newsletters that he has repeatedly said he repudiates and did not write. You think we all didn't look into this? We did. And we're not dropping him. Why? Not because of his single act of denial or repudiation. No. Because he has spent all of his life and all of his time in office defending the rights of EVERY individual. He is a politician of incredible principle and consistency. And NOTHING. NOTHING in his actions, his words, or his political record point to him being racist. if ANYTHING, he has done more for the fight of the individual and the oppressed minority than anyone else. Because he sees how the Drug War has affected lower income communities and how many african-americans are wrongfully imprisoned and kept down by the laws of our government.

Ron Paul is NOT a racist. And we all see that very clearly. We certainly aren't swayed by a weak argument like yours. Wish I could say it was even a good attempt. But you've just repeated the same old smear campaign Ron Paul has been dealing with every single election he's gone through. And he's won 12 times. Because people are smarter than you. We see through such lies and understand the character of such a man. Unlike the strawman you attacked."

from hess1745

"This is what I don't understand, how can Ron Paul be considered a racist when he calls for an end to the war on drugs, which by large is racially disproportionate and motivated. Why also does Ron Paul oppose racial profiling by TSA? I believe these two policies alone discredit the whole racist thoery."

I even chimed in and said this:


"Its becoming very clear why Ostroy dislikes Ron Paul: he is the ONLY GOP candidate that has an actual chance of beating Obama. Until today, Ostroy has NEVER written ONE article on Ron Paul. Ostroy claims that RP has no chance and there should be no attention given to him, yet Ostroy just wrote a story attacking him [thus giving him attention] because the mainstream media is bringing up the newsletter­s--why? Because Ron Paul is surging in the polls! Thats why! Why wasn't this newsletter story important during Ron Paul's TWELVE election wins as Congressma­n? Why weren't they important when he won every single straw poll in 2008 and this time? Its because the story is BOGUS and no one [unless to attack for political purposes] believes this crap! If it was a REAL story and this REALLY was important to Ostroy, why hasn't he written about it BEFORE now???? This is a 20 year old story, and Ostroy is just NOW writing about it??? I guess Ostroy is soft on racism then!"

and I said:

"Andy, answer this: If I began a newsletter and called it "The Andy Ostroy Political Report" and your name was in HUGE letters and my stories talked about things that you abhor, would you ADMIT you wrote the things that I actually wrote? What if you didnt even know about the newsletter until 10 years later? Would you still fess up and admit you wrote the content? I would guess the answer would be a big "no" to both questions, right? You would go on TV and tell others you did not write the material and you would show your contempt for it right? Then tell me please, how would YOUR actions be any different than what Ron Paul has already done [MANY times now I might add]??"

Obviously many will say that the "Paul-ites" hijacked HuffPo and ambushed Ostroy. They, most likely, are the same imbeciles who call conspiracy theorists "kooks", yet they fully accept a conspiracy against Ostroy from the Ron Paul supporters.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Andy Ostroy Accuses Ron Paul of Racial Remarks while Admitting He May Not Have Written Them

2011’s Fraudie Recipient Solidifies His Third Consecutive Win

by Larry Simons
December 22, 2011

Ostroy has done it. He has finally written his very first article on Ron Paul. Not surprisingly he has chosen to hop aboard the smear Ron Paul wagon and make miserable attempts to label Ron Paul a racist for 20 year old newsletters that Ron Paul has repeatedly denied writing and has condemned on numerous occasions.

It is becoming obvious, even to the likes of people like Ostroy, that Ron Paul has now emerged as a rock-solid threat to capturing the GOP nomination, so the mainstream media, along with liberal hacks like Ostroy, are pulling no punches in digging up whatever they can to make Ron Paul’s poll numbers drop. This is all they can come up with on Ron Paul: 20 year old newsletters that were not even written by Ron Paul. Hilarious.

In fact, Ostroy even admits this in his article. Ostroy writes:

“And as for whether he's the actual writer or not, the offensive comments were made in his newsletters under his byline.”

Just to point out how easy this is to do [create a newsletter and attach Ron Paul’s name to it], I have created the “Andy Ostroy Political Report”, complete with racial comments. I will attribute these very words to Andy Ostroy. Why? Well, because I can. Here is the first issue: [click to enlarge]

See? Easy to do. I created it in under 10 minutes.

Will Andy admit to making these racial comments posted by me in his very first political report newsletter? Probably not. Why? Because he didn’t write them? Well, that’s a fair reason. But, will we believe him? Ostroy expects Ron Paul to admit to words he never wrote or endorsed, but will Ostroy admit to uttering the words in his newly created newsletter [above]? If not, why?? After all, look at the newsletter. It has the name "ANDY OSTROY" in real big fucking letters. That alone confirms he wrote them, does it not??

Ostroy also lies in the article when he says:

“Paul is a 1950's era Texan who's on record saying he doesn't believe in the 1964 Civil Rights act.”

First, Ron Paul was not born in Texas. He did not move to Texas until he was 33 years old. So, he’s not a Texan. As far as the Civil Rights act, Ron Paul endorses civil rights. My goodness, he’s a libertarian! He has said over and over [only for it to fall on the deaf ears of liberals] that he does not favor the government legislating civil rights.

I posted this on Ostroy’s blog. Naturally Ostroy will not approve of the comments, so here they are:

“Ostroy, youre a liar. Ron Paul did not write the newsletters. As for your comment "Paul is a 1950's era Texan who's on record saying he doesn't believe in the 1964 Civil Rights act."---wrong AGAIN. He believes in civil rights, he just disagrees that its the GOVERNMENTS' job to interfere in that and force people to act civil. It's a moral issue, not a LEGAL one that the government should interfere in.

If a restaurant owner doesnt want to serve a black person, they should not forced to by some civil rights law. They have the right NOT to serve them, but they will feel the reprocussions of that act. They will lose business because they are racists, no doubt. Not the governments job to interfere in that. THAT is all Ron Paul is saying in that issue. Nothing more, nothing less.

You did not post ONE link or ONE source in your article that proves Ron Paul wrote those letters. All you did was post quotes and say Ron Paul wrote them. That's not journalism and it's not fact-checking. It's propaganda and you should be ashamed.”

Of course, Ostroy is not ashamed at all. You have to be human first.

CNN Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites

So much for the “racist” smear

Paul Joseph Watson
December 22, 2011

While the establishment media continues to hype a 15-year-old story concerning decades old newsletters as part of a dirty tricks campaign to smear Ron Paul as a racist, the latest CNN poll shows that Paul has the most support from non-whites out of all the Republican candidates.

The latest CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday finds that Congressman Paul scores highest amongst minorities when matched up against Barack Obama in a hypothetical election head to head.

Paul scores 25% of the vote amongst non-whites, whereas Romney polls at 20% and Gingrich gets 15%.

Ron Paul is clearly the most popular GOP contender amongst non-whites out of the entire field, suggesting that the “racist” smear, which was heavily pushed back in 2008, has had very little impact whatsoever on the views of those who presumably would be the most likely to be offended by it.

Indeed, it’s a remarkable coincidence that those who seem to be most offended by the non-controversy are well to do, white, establishment Republican cheerleaders, Paul’s foremost political adversaries.

The establishment media has predictably launched a second round of smear concerning the “racist newsletter” controversy that was first reported in 1996 and firmly debunked when it cropped up again in 2008.

Unsurprisingly, the hit piece was originated by a hardened anti-Paul neo-con who enjoys membership of the same shadowy billionaire-financed lobbying group as Paul’s election rival Newt Gingrich.

Paul has repeatedly pointed out that he had nothing to do with writing the offensive statements and didn’t even read them until years later, at which point he completely disowned the content.

The key piece of evidence, universally ignored by the race baiters, which proves Ron Paul’s stance was the exact opposite of that portrayed in some of the newsletters released under his name in the early 1990′s, relates to Martin Luther King.

The attack dogs have attempted to imply that Ron Paul either wrote or at least signed off on the characterization of civil rights hero King as a violent philanderer who “seduced underage girls and boys,” and that he criticized Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, which Paul’s newsletter (not written by Paul) labeled “hate whitey day”.

If this was Paul’s belief in the early 90′s then why, over a decade previously and then again in the early 80′s, did Paul vote to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday, the only time in history that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution?

Ron Paul has accepted responsibility for the newsletters, he did so no less than 15 years ago, but he has maintained the fact that he never wrote or approved what was written in them. His support for a day to honor Martin Luther King years before newsletters were written by other authors denigrating King, provides concrete evidence for this assertion.

Paul’s support for King back in the 70′s proves that the newsletters were written by other people and did not represent the views of Paul himself, debunking the entire farce for what it is – a craftily manufactured smear attack.

Ron Paul is the most popular Republican candidate amongst minorities because he seeks to end the war on drugs and the biased, racist court system it engenders that unfairly targets minorities.

The video below illustrates how Ron Paul’s policies are almost universally in the same spirit as Martin Luther King, and how minorities are resonating with his message of true liberty.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Real Truth Online’s 2011 Fraud of the Year: Andy Ostroy

Snatches victory from Billo to capture a 3-peat

by Larry Simons
December 21, 2011

I did not want this. I really did not. I did not want liberal blogger Andy Ostroy to win his third straight Fraudie award in three years. I do write about others on my blog and I was trying to prevent anyone from thinking Ostroy only wins because he is all I write about. Not true. But, I could not ignore the fact that Ostroy’s fraudiness was just too overwhelming for the 3rd straight year.

To recap, here is why Ostroy is this year’s Fraudie recipient:

Andy’s journey to his third Fraudie began early, in January, when Ostroy exploited the Tucson, Arizona shootings, in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was nearly assassinated. Ostroy immediately blamed shooter Jared Loughner’s “right-wing” stances and by being influenced by right-wingers like Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin when he had absolutely zero evidence of this. Ostroy said:

“…are we to be so naive as to think that 22-year-old mass murderer Jared Loughner, who took his glock to that supermarket parking lot with the clear intent to assassinate Giffords, was not at all influenced by this steady stream of hate-speak from Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly and others? Or worse, have we become so dominated by political correctness that we fail so miserably to directly place blame where it so rightfully lies?”

Even almost a year later, evidence supporting Ostroy’s claims has still not surfaced. Naturally, this does not force Ostroy to remove his unproven words from his website.

Also, in January, Ostroy took only two days to produce a massive flip-flop in reference to Sarah Palin and her would-be influence in the Tucson shootings.

Ostroy blamed Palin for the shootings in his January 10 article. Two days later [in his January 12 article], he said this:

“To be sure, Jared Loughner did not go that parking lot Saturday with Palin's inflammatory rhetoric as his driver. He very likely never heard any of her speeches or seen her website. So to blame her directly is nothing more than partisan vitriol, no matter how much some may dislike her or condemn those words and actions.”

In the very same [Jan. 12] article, Ostroy ended the article with blaming her again, saying:

“Palin could've used the Tuscon tragedy as a mechanism to chart a new, more effective course for herself. Instead, her message to America is, 'My toxic rhetoric is here to stay. Deal with it.'”

Then, the very next day [Jan. 13], Ostroy removed blame from Palin again by saying:

“Palin was right about one thing: it's unfair and inaccurate to blame her toxic political rhetoric for the Tucson shooting.”

He could have won his third Fraudie just for that article alone…but, ahhh, there’s more.

In late January, Ostroy threw a hissy-fit that the Illinois Appellate Court actually upheld the law and omitted Mayoral hopeful Rahm Emanuel from the election ballot because Illinois law states Mayoral candidates must reside in the state of Illinois for a whole year prior to running.

Since then, Emanuel has become Mayor of Chicago because the elitists can have anything they want in this country, and that is just fine and dandy with Ostroy.

In May, after reports that Osama bin Laden had been killed [a complete bullshit story that liberals lapped up and asked for more], Ostroy wrote one of the most lie-infested articles about “what his death means to America”. The best way to truly understand why his article was complete bullshit is to just read my review of it.

One major flip-flop of his article were these two completely contradictory statements:

It's ok to cheer and celebrate his [bin Laden’s] death. We killed our enemy before he could kill us.”

Celebrating the death of anyone is not supposed to be something which causes elation and high-fives. We are supposed to be above that. Civility and the rule of law is what really makes America great.”

In August, Ostroy wrote an article in which he claimed he never “drank the Obama Kool-Aid” and never really put emphasis on the fact that Obama is black. My article showcases Ostroy’s repeated contradictory comments, as I compared Ostroy’s current comments with ones he made prior to Obama’s election.

My article also shows Ostroy’s colossal lies by proving that Ostroy did the very two aforementioned things he denied: “drinking the Obama Kool-Aid” and emphasizing his race.

The next articles I wrote on Ostroy showcase his disdain for Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

In November, I responded to a story Ostroy wrote on his blog on why he supports Jon Huntsman for the GOP nominee when he always finishes in the low three in nearly every poll, but ignores Ron Paul from any article he writes [when Ron Paul polls high].

Ostroy continually flat out omits mention of Ron Paul in his articles despite the Congressman’s high poll numbers, which, most of the time place him in the top 3. But other GOP candidates that Ostroy calls “crazy” like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, Ostroy writes article after article about.

So, one day on Ostroy’s blog I posed as someone named “Bob” and asked why he omits Ron Paul from his articles. Ostroy’s response?:

“Bob....I ignore Ron Paul because..well...he deserves to be. He's as serious a contender as you...”

Yet Ostroy never, ever says why in any article he writes. He completely ignores Ron Paul and calls him crazy, yet never writes one article explaining why.

In December, Ostroy gave credit to Ron Paul for skipping a debate that was scheduled for Dec. 27 and moderated by Donald Trump [this debate has since been canceled]. At the end of his article, Ostroy writes:

“One thing's for sure: you know you've become a pathetic joke when Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry won't have anything to do with you.”

This implies Ron Paul is crazy and equates him with the real nut jobs Perry and Bachmann, in which Ostroy has written several articles on each, while he has still not written one about Ron Paul’s “craziness”.

I responded on his blog by saying this:

“This is exactly the only reason you use comment moderation. It is not because you get “mean and nasty” posts filled with vitriol, because the evidence shows that when your readers have said mean and nasty shit in the past about people you despise [Palin, Cheney, Bush...] you left the comments posted and were fine with it. It’s because of comments like this very one I’m typing…posts that expose how big of a fucking hypocritical fraud you are….posts that are impossible to refute and expose the fact that you can post lie after lie about Ron Paul and get away with it [because you're too chicken shit to confront facts like the one contained in this writing] that you enable moderation…and it’s the only reason.

Until you do an article exposing why you “think” Ron Paul is crazy, stop lumping him in with actual crazy people in which the evidence they are crazy could fill a fucking stadium. You despise people like Perry, Bachman, Gingrich and Santorum for all the right reasons, because they are babbling idiots that couldn’t even name the state they represent, let alone other states. But you despise Ron Paul for a completely different reason….because he is everything you wish Obama was! And that is the fucking truth.”

Naturally, my comment was not “approved” for posting because Ostroy is too afraid to confront his own hypocrisy. This is what frauds are made of, folks. Hence, a third Fraudie.

Now that Ostroy has won his third straight Fraudie award, I might consider renaming the award after Ostroy himself. The Ostroy Award? Doesn’t have the same ring to it, but I will not rule it out. Maybe after he wins number four? That could be next year. Let’s wait and see.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Andy Ostroy Lies About What Ron Paul Said About His Economic Roots

Ostroy claims Ron Paul said he “grew up through the Depression”. A closer look reveals the Congressman did not actually say this

by Larry Simons
December 12, 2011

In Andy Ostroy’s latest article, “The GOP Candidates Do Monty Python's “Four Yorkshiremen” [Dec. 11], Ostroy writes about the moment during Saturday’s ABC Iowa debate when Diane Sawyer asks the candidates about a time in their lives when they had a personal financial strain.

Ostroy writes:

“But the most fun came at the end of the debate when the candidates were asked what financial sacrifices they had made in their lives. And as my friend Paul keenly observed, this is when the debate turned into Monty Python's hilarious "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch where a bunch of snooty aristocrats wax nostalgic about their difficult upbringings, trying to out-poor each other with one absurd claim after another.

Perry said he his house didn't have running water until he was six, and that his mother sewed his clothes until he went off to college. Gingrich said he was raised in an apartment above a gas station. Ron Paul told of growing up through the Depression. Michele Bachmann said she had to work at 13 because her single mom fell below the poverty line. Romney sheepishly admitted he hadn't been poor, but that his father had been.”

I found it odd that Ostroy includes a clip of the Monty Python sketch in his article, but omits a clip of this segment of the debate in which the candidates actually give their answers.

Here is the clip. Ron Paul’s answer is at 8:07 into it. Notice Ron Paul never states he “grew up through the Depression

In fact, Congressman Paul admits that he was rather fortunate despite growing up in a poor family and a poor era. Ostroy also omits that when Ron Paul started his own private practice in 1968, he often lowered fees for patients and worked for free. Even today as a Congressman he refuses to sign up for the Congressional pensions that he is entitled to because he says it’s immoral. Yeah, a real elitist prick Ron Paul is!

I left this post on his blog. It will never see the light of day, so I include it here:

“Ron Paul never said he “grew up through the depression”. His exact words were, “I feel very fortunate because, although I was raised in a system, in a family that was rather poor, but we didn’t even know it. It was during the depression/WW II, we didn't have very much and I worked my way through college and that was a natural instinct because that's what you were supposed to do...”

“Raised in a system that was rather poor” is not the same as “growing up through the depression”. But why should facts matter to you?”

“Growing up through the Depression” would imply that Ron Paul was born in the time frame of around 1915-1920 and that he was literally “growing up” during the Depression years of 1929-1933. In fact, the Depression only lasted until roughly 1933, two years before Ron Paul was born. WWII began in 1939 and ended in 1945, so it becomes obvious that Ron Paul was simply lumping the two events [Great Depression/WWII or 1929-1945] together.

He is right actually. The Depression/WW II era lasted from 1929-1945. Ron Paul was born in 1935. He was 10 years old in 1945. So, Ron Paul is correct when he stated that he was raised in a poor system. Nothing Ron Paul said was exaggerated or inflated to imply that his humble beginnings were better than they actually were.

So, what’s Ostroy’s problem? Simple: Ostroy loves lumping Ron Paul in with the rest of these elitist goons so he can marginalize his campaign, whilst at the same time continually supporting elitist and Wall Street-funded Obama.

Doesn’t get more hypocritical than that, folks.

Monday, December 12, 2011

Happy Birthday Grandpa

Laverne Isaac Brendle [1918-1955]

by Larry Simons
December 12, 2011

Today would have been my grandfather’s 93rd birthday. He was taken away from his wife and six children in 1955 at the age of 36. He was a PFC United States Marine and was on board the USS Astoria CL-90 while it sailed in the Pacific after the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was a devoted family man and loved his country. He was a talented illustrator and did illustration work for the government.

My grandpa developed acute myelogenous leukemia, roughly nine years after the bombings, in 1954. It is almost unquestionably certain his leukemia was the direct result of the radiation from the bombs [Even wikipedia states, "The only well-described risk factor for CML [chronic myelogenous leukemia] is exposure to ionizing radiation; for example, increased rates of CML were seen in people exposed to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"].

The government never took responsibility for this and never compensated any member of his family after his death.

Some would say God had a reason for taking him so young, but my grandmother, who died in 2008, never learned of that reason. Thanks, God.

My grandfather loved his country and gave his life for it, and the government turned its back on him. To the government, my grandfather was just an expendable pawn used for their military agenda. The government has pretended he never existed and has forgotten him, but my family and I never will.

Thank you grandpa and happy birthday. You're my hero.

My grandfather on August 6, 1945, aboard the USS Astoria CL-90, the very day of the Hiroshima bombing. He is holding in his hands a teletype dispatch informing him of the bombing.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Andy Ostroy Gives Ron Paul Credit for Skipping Trump’s Debate, But Still Ends Up Calling Him Crazy

Equates Ron Paul with buffoons Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann

by Larry Simons
December 10, 2011

As the announcement of this years’ Fraudie award inches ever so closer, our favorite liberal wingnut Andy Ostroy is putting forth his last minute efforts to snatch his third straight statue. In his latest article, “Donald Trump’s Irrelevance Must Be Killing Him” [Dec.9], Ostroy writes a four paragraph bashfest about Donald Trump and the Newsmax debate he is scheduled to moderate on December 27. Everyone, except Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, has decided to skip the debate.

Ostroy gives credit to Ron Paul, as well as Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, for turning down participating in the debate. Ostroy ends the article by saying:

“One thing's for sure: you know you've become a pathetic joke when Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry won't have anything to do with you.”

This is not the first time Ostroy has either implied or flat out stated that Ron Paul is “crazy”. When I posted a comment on his comment-moderated blog on his November 14 article asking why he omits Ron Paul from his articles, he stated, “I ignore Ron Paul because..well...he deserves to be. He's as serious a contender as you...” Yet, while Ostroy claims Ron Paul deserves to be ignored and calls him “crazy”, he never explains why he writes so many other articles about the real nitwits in the race like Perry, Bachmann and Santorum, but never writes any on Congressman Paul.

Ostroy should love Ron Paul. Ostroy has repeatedly condemned the wars we are in [well, that is before Obama continued them], while Paul has been consistently opposed to the wars as well. Ostroy has repeatedly condemned neocons like Bush and Cheney, which Paul also condemns and has been engaged in fiery arguments with other GOP candidates in the last 2 elections [McCain, Giuliani, Perry and Santorum].

So, why is Ostroy [and others like him] so opposed to strong supporters of the Constitution like Ron Paul? Simple: because if Ostroy and his ilk support Ron Paul they would be, 1. Forced to admit they strongly favor a GOP candidate [which they could never bring themselves to do], 2. Faced with showcasing their colossal hypocrisy in once condemning wars and the foreign policy under Bush, then tolerating the same wars [and additional ones] and foreign policy under Obama, then turning around and supporting Ron Paul who is condemning Obama’s administration, which is a continuation of the Bush presidency, and 3. Forced to admit that, if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination, Obama would lose in 2012.

So, these three things is what requires people like Ostroy to label Ron Paul crazy and lump him in with the other actual crazy people, while never writing articles explaining in detail why he is “crazy”. They know Ron Paul is the only real threat to an Obama loss in 2012.

I posted this under Ostroy’s story. He will never approve the comment and allow it to be posted, so I am sharing it with you here:

“There you go again Andy, bashing Ron Paul again, equating him with Bachman and Perry, when Ron Paul has not done or said one fucking crazy thing to merit being lumped in with these two retarded turds—unless you call wanting to end all wars and bring all troops home, ending the Federal Reserve and returning to the Constitution “crazy”.

I find it quite funny that you have done article after article about Perry and Bachmann, detailing how batshit crazy and stupid they are [and rightfully so], whilst you continue to call Ron Paul crazy but you have not written ONE article about his “crazy” views….not fucking one!

This is exactly the only reason you use comment moderation. It is not because you get “mean and nasty” posts filled with vitriol, because the evidence shows that when your readers have said mean and nasty shit in the past about people you despise [Palin, Cheney, Bush...] you left the comments posted and were fine with it. It’s because of comments like this very one I’m typing…posts that expose how big of a fucking hypocritical fraud you are….posts that are impossible to refute and expose the fact that you can post lie after lie about Ron Paul and get away with it [because you're too chicken shit to confront facts like the one contained in this writing] that you enable moderation…and it’s the only reason.

Until you do an article exposing why you “think” Ron Paul is crazy, stop lumping him in with actual crazy people in which the evidence they are crazy could fill a fucking stadium. You despise people like Perry, Bachman, Gingrich and Santorum for all the right reasons, because they are babbling idiots that couldn’t even name the state they represent, let alone other states. But you despise Ron Paul for a completely different reason….because he is everything you wish Obama was! And that is the fucking truth.

This will be yet another post you won’t approve of and not post because you’re a chicken shit fraud that would piss your pants if you ever had to confront any post that is the least bit challenging.

Doesn’t it bother you even in the least bit that you keep bashing someone that you never ever ever ever write and article about? That doesn’t bother you, even as an amateur writer? Do you have a journalistic conscience at all Andy? Or is your conscience non-existent [like your articles on Ron Paul]??"

Worthy of a Fraudie 3-peat? Wait and see.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Billo Is Back with “War on Christmas 2011”. Does His Insanity Ever Cease? Answer: No

FOX News “saves” Christmas in Fort Worth, Texas by lying…O’ Reilly-style: Doctoring video tapes to omit and distort facts

by Larry Simons
December 8, 2011

Thank God for Bill O’ Reilly. Seriously, what would we do without him every single year at Christmas time? If not for him, America would be completely unaware that every year at Christmas, there is about a dozen people in the entire country [yes, about 12 people out of 300 million] trying to ban the word “Christmas” from the English lexicon and the nation's department stores. We must stop these bastards! Oh, wait, we don’t have to. Billo is fighting this injustice for us. Thank you…thank you Bill O’ Reilly for saving Christmas for the 15th year in a row [really the 8th].

Last week, Billo used his Pinheads and Patriots segment [calling it Pinheads in Toyland] to point out, yet again, that two people in America [that Billo calls “secular progressives”, despite the fact that no one knows what the fuck this even means] hate the word “Christmas” and are making attempts to “diminish the national holiday”.

I have documented in the past how insane Billo is by proving these attempts, although in some cases real, are rare at best. In last week’s segment Billo lies by saying, “You may remember a few years ago some companies actually ordered their employees not to say [Merry Christmas]”. In 2006, Billo claimed the spokeswoman for Crate and Barrel said their employees were ordered to not say Merry Christmas. It’s a lie. I wrote this in 2006:

“I guess little facts don’t matter to Billo, like the fact that the spokeswoman was asked if employees there were required to say Merry Christmas to customers. She said no, they weren‘t required. They could if they wanted to. Crate and Barrel didn‘t think it was any of their business to tell their employees what they could or couldn‘t say. Again, more SPIN from the NO FACT zone. From the above statements, it’s clear that Miss Kahn’s meaning behind, "we’re not going to say Merry Christmas" was a general comment suggesting that employees of Crate & Barrel would not seek to offend their wide variety of clientele by exclusively saying "Merry Christmas". It was a business decision and is something that is clearly understood by ANYONE, except for Bill O’Reilly and his Neo-con wanna-be followers. Also unimportant to O’ LIEly, the FACT that Crate & Barrel’s own website has the word "Christmas" all over the place. Under the "SHOP" icon, there is a link titled "Christmas". There is a Christmas browse section. On that page you can search for Christmas Entertaining or Christmas Decorating! How dare those secular progressives try to disguise their "REAL" agenda under the term "CHRISTMAS"!”

I wrote this in 2008:

“First of all, there was never any evidence that companies ordered their employees not to say ‘Merry Christmas’. In fact, one of the stores in the big national ‘conspiracy’ was Crate & Barrel. C & B spokeswoman Betty Kahn said none of the employees and C & B were told not to say it. They had the liberty to say it or not to. I personally spoke with Betty Kahn on the phone in November of 2006 and she told me this. She told me that neither FOX News nor Billo’s minions had even contacted her store.”

Billo then shifts to talking about a Fort Worth, Texas school district spokesman named Clint Bond, who stated last week that the school district in Fort Worth has to be concerned for the people who don’t see Santa Claus as the icon for the Christmas season. Billo showed a clip of Bond saying these exact words:

“We have students and parents who don’t see Santa Claus as the icon for this time of year, so we have to be concerned about what their feelings are.”

Billo then says, “As soon as we began calling down to Fort Worth, the tone changed. Here’s Mr. Bond today”.

Billo then shows a clip of Clint Bond saying this:

“The district cannot endorse, or promote or foster any particular religious belief or doctrine. So, what we’re saying on our, in our policy about seasonal celebrations is basically use common sense, You know, any of the current icons that are out there like Santa Claus or Christmas trees or snow flakes or any of those other icons we all use are fine for the classroom.”

What Billo fails to mention [because it would shatter the illusion he wants to convey to his audience of zombies: that a call from FOX NEWS made the Fort Worth school district completely change their policy!] is that during the second clip in which I quoted above, where Bond says, “any of the current icons that are out there like Santa Claus or Christmas trees or snow flakes or any of those other icons we all use are fine for the classroom”, Bond is talking about PICTURES of Santa, Christmas trees, snowflakes in the classroom. But, in the first clip Bond is talking about Santa [a physical human Santa] actually appearing in the classroom.

How do I know this? Because in this article Superintendent Walter Dansby says this:

“Santa Claus is welcome to visit our schools. He can be in the lobby. He can be in the cafeteria. He can be in the auditorium. He can be in the school, outside the school, around the school. But he cannot visit the classroom while the teacher is teaching.”

It's painfully obvious what Billo did here. He purposely played a video clip of Bond making a negative comment about Santa Claus [“We have students and parents who don’t see Santa Claus as the icon for this time of year, so we have to be concerned about what their feelings are.”] when Billo had to know that Bond was simply making a generalized comment about how some children and parents feel about Santa in order to convey to people why the Fort Worth school board made the decision to now allow a physical human Santa [as opposed to pictures of Santa] into the classroom during class time.

So, Billo plays the first clip of Bond saying, “We have students and parents who don’t see Santa Claus as the icon for this time of year, so we have to be concerned about what their feelings are, then plays the second clip of Bond saying, any of the current icons that are out there like Santa Claus or Christmas trees or snow flakes or any of those other icons we all use are fine for the classroom” so he can say FOX News made the difference with a phone call!

In the very same story, here, in which Bond utters the quote [above that says “We have students and parents who don’t see Santa Claus as the icon for this time of year, so we have to be concerned about what their feelings are”] that Billo showed in the first clip, Bond also says this:

“We’re not against Santa Claus. We invite Santa Claus into all of our schools provided the principal can work that out before school starts, after school. The message that has unfortunately gotten out there, that we are against Santa Claus or holiday parties, is not really accurate," Bond said. "The reality is Fort Worth ISD is not against Santa Claus. We’re not against the Easter Bunny, we’re not against the Great Pumpkin or any holiday icon. In fact, I’m wearing a Santa Claus tie at the moment.”

Billo omits this. Hmmmmm. We all know why. It’s because if Billo uses this quote in the very first clip he played of Bond, then obviously Billo could not attempt to deceive the goons that watch him every night that FOX NEWS was responsible for the Fort Worth school district “changing” their policy!!

Of course, FOX News did no such thing. Bond and the Fort Worth school district never had anything against Santa Claus, as I proved [above]. Their policy is that Santa, a real life human being dressed like Santa, is not allowed in the classroom WHILE CLASS IS IN SESSION. Photos of Santa are allowed, and an actual human Santa is allowed in any other part of the school at ANY time.

But Billo OMITS this, doesn’t he?? Of course he does! How else could the Grinch police [FOX News] claim they are saving Christmas if not to lie by omissions and distortions of the facts??

Watch Billo lie by omitting and distorting [if you must]

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

48 Years Ago Today, the Resurrection of a Once Again Great America Was Tragically Ended

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: 1917 – 1963

by Larry Simons
November 22, 2011

Our country was becoming great again with the Kennedy presidency. It was the closest our country had come to Jeffersonian constitutional liberty since 1865, the year America died. Kennedy was attempting to resurrect it when the real powers that own America stopped him with a bullet to the head.

There’s not much more I can add to the volumes that have been written about this day and our last great President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, except…rest in peace Mr. President, your country died with you that day in Dallas.

Monday, November 21, 2011

After 148 Years, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address Is Still A Lie

Lincoln’s poetic, Biblical-sounding Gettysburg Address is still treasured by the masses of Lincoln cultists, but it is still, after 148 years, a big fat lie

by Larry Simons
November 21, 2011

This past Saturday, November 19, marked the 148th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s 272-word “masterpiece”, the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln gave the address at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery. Many still regard this to be one of the greatest speeches in American history and many hold it as sacred as Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I Have A Dream” speech or the four gospels. What they do not realize is, it is packed with several flat out lies.

What many also do not realize is, the speech was criticized by several sources at the time, including the Chicago Times, who wrote, “The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States”. They also stated, “But aside from the ignorant rudeness manifest in the President’s exhibition of Dawdleism at Gettysburg,--and which was an insult at least to the memories of a part of the dead, whom he was there professedly to honor,--in its misstatement of the cause for which they died, it was a perversion of history so flagrant that the most extended charity cannot regard it as otherwise than willful”.

H.L. Mencken had this to say about the Gettysburg Address:

“The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”

Let us examine each section, starting with the first untruth of the Address: the first six words of it.

“Four score and seven years ago”

[four score and seven years ago was 1776, from 1863, meaning that Lincoln is suggesting that the birth of America was 1776. 13 colonies declared their independence from King George III in 1776, but our country was created by the Constitution in 1787. So, Lincoln, if speaking correctly, should have stated, “Three score and 16 years ago”]

“our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation”

[the Founding Fathers did not create a “nation”, but a confederation of states. The founders did not create a consolidated national government, but a compact among sovereign states. As historian Carl Degler of Stanford University once explained, “The Civil War . . . was not a struggle to save a failed union, but to create a nation that until then had not come into being.”]

“conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

[It is interesting that Lincoln here is adopting the Jeffersonian concept of “all men are created equal”, when in reality Lincoln strongly opposed Jefferson and his states rights and decentralization of government stances. Quite odd that Lincoln would both quote Jefferson [who he opposed] and pen the Gettysburg Address in a Scripture-esque manner [when he was practically an atheist] when he was strongly against the teachings of both Jefferson and the Bible. Lincoln did not believe in the equality of the races. He was a staunch advocate of colonization and wanted all blacks deported to Liberia.

It is highly possible that the Gettysburg Address, as was the Emancipation Proclamation [although more of a war measure issued to prevent foreign countries from joining forces with the South to defeat the North], a political tool used for the upcoming election of 1864. After all, Lincoln did not think he had much of a chance of getting re-elected. Hardly a coincidence that the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address were issued the same year, 1863, when campaigning for the upcoming election would normally begin]

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .”

[Another lie. The definition to a civil war is when two different factions are fighting for control of the same central government. Jefferson Davis wanted nothing to do with the control over Lincoln’s government. Robert E. Lee never wanted to conquer anything. Lincoln sent his armies to invade the South in order to prevent southern independence]

“testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.”

[Southern secession and independence would not have stopped the endurance of the federal government or the Union. In fact, the Union would have truly been saved if Lincoln had allowed peaceful secession. The South was in no way attempting to END the government in Washington D.C., but simply separate from it, which the Constitution permits.

It was, in fact, the SOUTH that understood the words of the founders. They were the ones attempting to separate from a government that was stripping them of their rights. Jefferson laid out in the Declaration very clear that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Lincoln either had no clue what Jefferson meant, or he did all too well and feared these words, therefore, not being able to let these principles endure. Lincoln was not trying to stop one nation from being torn apart, he was trying to create a new one, one in which the teachings of Jefferson did not exist. Lincoln succeeded]

“We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.”

[Permitting secession would not have threatened the life of the country. The only thing that would kill America is exactly what Lincoln did; eviscerate states rights and create a centralized, monotheistic government. Lincoln killed America, not the southerners]

“that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth”

[Lincoln was right. The nation did have a “new birth”, but not of freedom, and surely not a nation in which its government is “of the people, by the people and for the people”. That country died in 1865. The new nation we have been living in for the past 146 years is the very nation or form of government in which the founders instructed is our “duty” to throw off and to form anew. Ironic, that is what the South attempted to do, but Lincoln stopped them at gunpoint]

The Gettysburg Address will long be cherished and adored by the same number of those who worship Lincoln as if he was the 13th disciple of Jesus. But it will also long stand as a colossal lie to those of us who truly understand our founding documents and true meaning of constitutional liberty. Lincoln needed things like the Gettysburg Address to divert attention away from his dictatorial actions.

Perhaps nobody knows the facts of the real, tyrannical Abraham Lincoln than the people of the South. It is time for the rest of this country to wake up and stop praising this man and his lie-riddled speeches.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Andy Ostroy: Ron Paul Deserves to Be Ignored

Finally, the truth comes out from the Obama-loving, liberal two-time Fraudie winner

by Larry Simons
November 17, 2011

Over the course of the 2011-2012 GOP debates, I have watched our favorite liberal friend and blogger Andy Ostroy write article after article about the GOP candidates, hardly ever mentioning Ron Paul unless it was to make some snide comment about him or imply he is ‘nutty’.

Instead, as Ostroy has done in recent years past, he endorses those who actually have no real chance of becoming President. In 2008, he endorsed Bill Richardson and Al Gore. Yes, Al Gore, who didn’t even run in 2008! Now, he endorses Jon “I Have No Chance in Hell of Polling in the Top 5, Let Alone Becoming President” Huntsman. Andy is a lost little pup, isn’t he?

Oh my, Andy is a confused-one indeed. On October 12, 2011, he said this about his favorite GOP candidate Jon Huntsman:

“He's exactly the sort of candidate conservatives should be nominating but likely won't because his party has been hijacked by it's radical fringe element which advocates everything from eliminating taxes and entitlement programs to eviscerating the EPA and Department of Education all the while seeking to turn America into an evangelical empire.”

Amazingly, he said the above comment in the very next paragraph following one in which he listed his reasons for supporting Huntsman, in which he said this:

“So why am I supporting Huntsman? The state of politics today is the ugliest it's been in decades, if ever. The partisan divide has never been greater and is plagued by rabid, vitriolic hatred. We're no longer a society of Americans but instead one of two angry armies of blue and red. Our political system is broken, brought to a virtual legislative standstill by one party whose leaders are more obsessed with defeating Obama than they are with actually doing something to fix the economy, put people back to work and have government run as the Founding Fathers envisioned.”

So, Ostroy is for a government that is run as the Founders envisioned, when he goes on to say in the next paragraph he is against eliminating taxes [the Federal income tax is unconstitutional], against eliminating entitlement programs [which the Founders would have never supported because they were not socialists and wanted the government out of people’s lives], and against getting rid of the EPA and Dept. of Education [which the Founders, again, would be strongly for]?

Ostroy implies that Huntsman is the only candidate that is not interested in turning America into “an evangelical empire”, while completely ignoring the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate among the GOP hopefuls that truly understands Thomas Jefferson’s separation of church and state concept. Also, Ron Paul has never, ever uttered one word in support of making America an evangelical empire.

Ostroy writes an article three days ago about why he thinks Huntsman will be the GOP nominee in which he eliminates the chances of all corporate-controlled media’s “top tier” candidates: Romney, Perry, Cain, Bachmann and Gingrich from being the GOP nominee. Naturally, he completely omits mention of Ron Paul, who has consistently placed in the top tier in just about every straw poll and after-debate poll that has been conducted [Huntsman has always placed in the bottom 3 in nearly every poll].

So, under the name “Bob” [because Ostroy would never post my comment if he knew I was Real Truth Online], I posted this comment on his blog:

“You just LOVE omitting Ron Paul from your articles dont you? Despite the fact that he has been consistently ranked in the top 3 of almost every poll and straw poll. The new Iowa poll has him at 2nd place, just 1% behind Cain. But you never mention this Andy---why is that?? Huntsman---lol, you're kidding right?”Ostroy responded:

“Bob....I ignore Ron Paul because..well...he deserves to be. He's as serious a contender as you...”

[click to enlarge]

I responded with this comment [pending approval......don't hold your breath]:

“Ahhh, yes, but what are your reasons? Why would ANY anti-Bush person [like you] be against Ron Paul? He is against just about everything Bush was for and did. He voted NO to all the wars, voted NO on the Patriot Act, the list goes on ad on. I wonder if it might be because of the FACT that Obama, since taking office, has just about continued everything Bush has, wars, Patriot Act, military commissions, torture....etc. and since Ron Paul is against all of this, then by default you have to be too.

Ron Paul is the #1 leading Constitutional rep there is in Washington, and I suspect that if you were a supporter of the Constitution, that means, by default, you'd have to be against Obama, since Obama violates the Constitution as much as [maybe even more] than Bush did.

This is precisely the reason you don't do entire articles on why Ron Paul "deserves to be" ignored. I would very much like to know the REASONS you say he deserves to be ignored. Can I request you do a whole article on it rather than you just say in a post RP should be ignored? He's the only SANE one among the GOP candidates.

He's the ONLY one telling the truth about the financial crisis, the only one speaking out against the Federal Reserve, the only one who tells the truth about our history with Iraq and Iran.

If he isn't a serious contender, why does he always rank in the top tier in straw polls and debate polls? Yet he is ignored by the mass media---why? Because RP is anti-establishment and the corporate-controlled media is in bed with the establishment, so it doesn't serve their purpose to give attention to Ron Paul.

RP is also the only candidate who doesn't get mass financial support from giant corporations. Obama was heavily financed by Wall Street, the very people Obama poses to be against. Tim Geithner is his Treasury secretary, who ran the NY Federal Reserve, and anyone who has brains knows the Fed is responsible for this financial meltdown.

You oppose Ron Paul because he is against everything you support, and if you truly cared about our Constitution and this nation's sovereignty Andy [which you clearly do not], you'd be supporting every single thing that Ron Paul supports, because he is truly the ONLY one in Washington that fights for our liberties. Do you know anything about liberty Andy?

I request you do an article on Ron Paul and why you say he deserves to be ignored...if you have the guts to.”

I will go out on a limb and predict that this comment will not be “approved by the moderator” and make it on to Ostroy’s blog.

Ostroy’s hypocrisy, outright lying and complete lack of understanding of what our Founding Fathers believed in and stood for just blows the mind. This guy is supposed to be intelligent. He is a marketing executive in New York City and frequently appears on TV and writes for The Huffington Post.

How can someone who is supposed to be so full of wisdom be so full of shit?

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Ron Paul Just 1 Point Behind Frontrunner Cain In Crucial Iowa Poll

Figures vindicate Paul campaign’s angry response to CBS News debate shame

Paul Joseph Watson
November 15, 2011

Despite being given just 89 seconds of speaking time during Saturday’s Republican debate, Congressman Ron Paul is in a dead heat with fellow top tier candidates Cain, Romney and Gingrich for the highly influential Iowa caucuses, placing second just one percentage point behind Cain amongst likely voters.

A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away.”

Paul is undoubtedly in the strongest position going into the race, because his support is “more solidified than his rivals,” a key factor given that 60 per cent of respondents in the poll said they could still be persuaded to change their vote.

32 per cent of Paul’s backers say they are sticking with the Congressman, whereas only 25 per cent of Romney supporters and 17 per cent of Gingrich voters say the same.

Being the first event of the electoral nomination process, taking place this year on January 3, the Iowa caucuses are traditionally seen as a highly influential in determining the final GOP nominee. If Ron Paul takes Iowa he can no longer be ignored by the establishment media and will have a genuine shot at building momentum for a victorious campaign.

The results of the poll vindicate the Paul campaign’s angry response to CBS News’ treatment of the Congressman when he was afforded just 89 seconds out of a 90 minute debate on Saturday night in South Carolina.

It subsequently transpired that Paul and other candidates had been the victims of a deliberate CBS policy to restrict questions to so-called lesser candidates, despite the fact that Paul’s figures have consistently proven he is a top tier performer.

As Reason’s Seth McKelvey highlights, even candidates with significantly lower polling figures than Paul were given more time.

Despite his embarrassing faux-pas in the previous debate when he failed to remember the name of the federal agency he wanted to abolish, Rick Perry, whose support has been sinking for weeks, was given the most time out of all the candidates during the CBS News debate.


by Larry Simons
November 15, 2011

What I find additionally absurd in the aftermath of CBS only giving Ron Paul 89 seconds to speak in last Saturday's debate is an article by Stephanie Condon posted, ironically, on CBS' website titled, "New poll shows 4-way tie in Iowa as Ron Paul moves to top tier".

Absurd, because included in the artice are the exact same polling numbers mentioned in Paul Watson's above article: Cain in 1st [20%], Paul in 2nd [19%], Romney in 3rd [18%] and Gingrich in 4th [17%], yet Condon claims it is a 4-way tie. Notice how the article does not say "Ron Paul in 2nd place in Iowa"? One could be shocked that the article even includes Ron Paul's name, but I think it was done to indicate to ill-informed readers that Paul is "catching up" with the others.

Condon writes, "A new Bloomberg poll of likely caucus participants shows a four-way tie in Iowa, with Rep. Ron Paul joining Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain in the top tier of candidates." Notice she says, "with Rep. Ron Paul joining Mitt Romney...", when Paul has always ben a top tier candidate?

Maybe this article was published so that CBS can win back some brownie points with Ron Paul supporters and appear more fair-and-balanced, but it fails by undermining his campaign even more by outright lying by claiming that Ron Paul is just now joining the top tier and by claiming the Iowa poll is a 4-way tie when Condon's own words in the article indicate it is not a tie.

It is amazing the lengths that the mainstream media will go to eliminate anti-establishment and pro-Constitutional values and rhetoric from the Presidential debates. It is crystal clear proof that the Constitution remains under attack by not just our leaders in Washington but also by the very ones who claim they are bringing news to the people.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

CNBC Cans Debate Poll Because Ron Paul Was Leading

Network Managing Editor claims having well organized political support constitutes “gaming”

Steve Watson
November 10, 2011

CNBC pulled an online poll 25 minutes after last night’s GOP debate, reasoning that “one candidate” was leading by a large margin – that candidate was, of course, Ron Paul.

As the following video shows, Ron Paul was ahead of the pack by a large margin, before the poll was unceremoniously pulled from the CNBC site altogether and replaced with a generic article titled “Who won the debate – Attendees weigh in”:

CNBC Managing Editor Allen Wastler issued the following statement explaining the reason the poll was removed:

Gamed Poll…So We Took It Down

We had a poll up from our Republican Presidential Debate asking readers who they thought won. One candidate was leading by such a margin that it became obvious the polling wasn’t so much a reading of our audience, but of the Internet prowess of this particular candidate’s political organization. We have therefore taken the poll down. Yes, we’ve gone through this exercise before.

Wastler included a link to a previous statement from 2007, where exactly the same thing happened.

In an “open letter to the Ron Paul faithful”, Wastler sardonically exclaimed “Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can’t help but admire that”

“But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest “show of hands” — it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum.” Wastler added.

Of course, CNBC provides no actual proof that the latest poll was “gamed”.

Any serious online poll restricts voting to one per IP address. Wastler bemoans the fact that Paul’s online supporters came in droves to vote, yet he does not consider why supporters of the other candidates did not do the same.

Brandon Smith of Alt-Market has a great commentary piece on the pulled poll, wherein he points out that punishing Ron Paul and his supporters for being highly motivated is asinine:

“What margin of success does CNBC consider “realistic” for a presidential candidate?” Smith writes. “I mean, is it really necessary for you to punish Ron Paul for being a popular candidate, or to punish his supporters for being well organized and showing up for the vote? Do you not see the half-assed absurdity of your claim that Ron Paul won by “too much”?”

As we have previously documented, it seems that a poll is only deemed legitimate by the mainstream media if Ron Paul doesn’t win it. If Paul is successful, the poll is automatically considered null and void.

This is to be expected given the fact that there is an admitted media talking point to ignore Ron Paul’s campaign and try and write him off entirely.

The mainstream media sponsored debates are a prime example. A University of Minnesota study recently confirmed the fact that Ron Paul has been given the least time to speak OUT OF ALL THE CANDIDATES at the debates, despite national polls consistently proving he is a genuine top tier candidate.

When Paul is given the opportunity to speak, he is faced with questions that directly insinuate his ideas are practically insane.

As Jack Hunter points out, during last night’s CNBC debate, the station flashed up a graphic indicating that tuition prices have gone up nearly 500% since the inception of student loans and American student debt is now $1 trillion. The anchors then proceeded to grill Paul on his plans to phase out the Federal government’s involvement in student loans, as if he were crazy to suggest the system was failing!

Paul was even interrupted mid-speech by one anchor asking him “how are students going to pay for education”, to which the Congressman shot back “The same way you pay for computers and cell phones.”, explaining that having a market place with healthy competition will naturally bring costs down and improve quality.

Watch the video (specific section at 7 mins):

It is quite clear that Ron Paul is maintaining a top tier status IN SPITE OF the mainstream media’s best efforts to derail his campaign.

With the first caucuses impending, Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton said Wednesday that the Congressman must finish in the top three in Iowa and New Hampshire in order to maintain a strong position:

“We need to do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, because it’s very important for perception,” Benton told POLITICO after the Michigan GOP debate. “It’s also important because the voters in those states are very adept and astute at evaluating candidates, so we need to be in the top three in those states, no question about it.”

He continued: “But we’re setting up organizations in caucus states across the country and we have a real plan to win the delegates necessary to be the Republican nominee. I don’t think anyone, outside of perhaps Mitt Romney, can say that.”

GOP leaders in Iowa share Benton’s view that Ron Paul is the only other candidate aside from Romney with a strong enough core of supporters to carry him through the caucuses.

But hey, according to CNBC and the rest of the mainstream media frothbots, having dedicated and organized supporters renders a candidate unworthy to be even considered for the nomination.