Either Jesus loves obscenities and sexual harassment, or Billo is no believer in Jesus
by Larry Simons
July 31, 2011
In the wake of Bill O’ Reilly’s now famous “no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder” crapola [which I refuted with ease], I decided to investigate to see what exactly “believing in Jesus” deters people from doing.
Apparently, Billo believes one major thing that "believing in Jesus" keeps people from doing is committing mass murder. Billo claims the Norway Christian terrorist Anders Breivik by no means cannot be a Christian because a Christian would not commit mass murder. Well, I have already shown that even God himself can't refrain from mass murder, and he created Jesus!
Billo insists that Breivik is not a Christian and there is no evidence he is one [despite the fact that he claims he's a Christian and wrote a 1,500 page Christian manifesto and posted it online].
Billo has made it clear over the years that he believes in Jesus. Naturally, one would assume that since Billo believes in Jesus, he lives a flawless, exemplary lifestyle.
Billo said this to Atheist Richard Dawkins in 2009 on The O’ Reilly Factor:
“Science doesn’t advance the human condition in any moralistic way, and Jesus did, see? My thesis is: That if everybody followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, that we’d have peace on Earth, uh, love your brother, everybody’d love one another, and we’d almost be an idealic civilization. Now, am I 100% sure that Jesus is God, no, but I choose to believe that because the man was so extraordinary in what he did in his 33 years on Earth…”
watch the clip [Billo loses this debate, by the way]
If Jesus is powerful enough to instill “peace on Earth”, then why is he not powerful enough to stop Bill O’ Reilly from sexually harassing former FOX News intern Andrea Mackris in 2004? O' Reilly said these words to Mackris:
"You would basically be in the shower and then I would come in and I'd join you and you would have your back to me and I would take that little loofa thing and kinda soap up your back...rub it all over you, get you to relax, hot water...and um...you know, you'd feel the tension drain out of you and uh you still would be with your back to me then I would kinda put my arm - it's one of those mitts, those loofa mitts you know, so I got my hands in it...and I would put it around front, kinda rub your tummy a little bit with it, and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard...'cause I like that and you have really spectacular boobs.
So anyway, I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda kissing your neck from behind...and then I would take the other hand with the falafel [sic] thing and I'd put it on your pussy but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business..."
Does Jesus allow that, Billo?
Does Jesus also allow fits of rage where you spew out obscenities at the teleprompter/producer of a show you're taping?
Here's Billo [circa 1991] on Inside Edition going nuts and screaming "Fuck it! We'll do it live!"..."Fucking thing sucks!". Two statements that I'm quite sure Jesus shouted on a continual basis [I always welcome an excuse to show this clip]
My point is clear. Billo attempted to make the point that Anders Breivik cannot possibly be a Christian because Christians do not commit mass murder [although quite a few have...including God]. Using Billo's warped logic, since Billo believes in Jesus and sexually harassed his former intern by wanting to rub her tits and pussy with a loofa and a falafel [a food from the Middle East] and spewed obscenities at his Inside Edition camera guy, that means Jesus finds these behaviors acceptable, right? What am I missing?
If Billo is going to use believing in Jesus as a deterrent to committing sins [no matter how disturbing...murder, profanity, sexual inappropriateness, etc], then either Jesus allows mass murder or Billo is not a believer in Jesus.
Billo simply cannot have it both ways.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
In fact, the mass killings of Hitler, Pol Pot and Josef Stalin pale in comparison to the Christian slaughterers
by Larry Simons
July 30, 2011
On Tuesday’s telecast of The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo may have let one of his biggest lies to date slip from his lying lips. As he began to tell his audience of mindless slugs about that awful liberal media bias in reporting that Anders Behring Breivik (the loon that murdered a total of 76 people [8 in a bombing of government buildings in Oslo, and 68 people at a youth camp on the island of Utøya] on July 22) is a right-wing Christian, Billo said this:
“Breivik is not a Christian. That’s impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.”
Did Billo just say no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder? I believe he did, and he said it in a serious tone with a straight face.
Let me list just a few of the all-time Christian mass murderers.
1. God himself/ Jesus
The Bible says in Genesis 7:11-24 that God sent a great flood to Earth and instructed Noah to build an ark in order to save his family [apparently, the only righteous ones left on Earth]. In vs. 20-23 the Bible says this:
“The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.”
In other words, God himself is the biggest mass murderer in history. He wiped out the entire Earth’s population except for 8 people and a shitload of animals. Christians will defend this and suggest God did this to cleanse the Earth and wipe out the sinful people and start anew.
Doesn’t matter. Death is death. I added Jesus’s name above because the Bible says numerous times that Jesus is God. Christians do not believe that Jesus’s existence began with his birth in the manger in Bethlehem, but that he has always existed. If Jesus has always existed, that means Jesus was around during the great flood, giving him the title of mass murderer as well, since Jesus is God.
If wiping out the entire Earth’s population [sparing only 8] is not mass murder, I challenge anyone to tell me exactly what they call it. Surprisngly, I do not believe God is a mass murderer in this particular example because I do not believe in the ridiculous and insulting Noah/flood story. It might just be the most ridiculous story/event in the entire Bible. It’s more tragic that human beings actually believe this complete nonsense than it is that God allegedly snuffed out the entire population of the Earth.
God apparently omitted an 11th commandment: Thou shall not name call. We see that God even murders over petty things, like name-calling. In 2 Kings 2:23-24, it states:
“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you baldhead!” they said. “Go on up, you baldhead!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.”
God not only sent two bears to rip 42 people to shreds for calling one of his prophets a “Baldhead”, but they were fucking kids! Exactly which commandment did they violate? Why would God have 42 KIDS slaughtered for such a petty incident? I will tell you why: Because God is a mass murderer and he is infatuated with death and torment. Oh no? Let us take a trip down “God loves death” lane, shall we?
Leviticus 20:9 states:
“If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death”
Deuteronomy 22:20-25 states:
“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.”
Leviticus 20:13 states:
“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Leviticus 24:13-14 states:
“Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.”
These are just a FEW. There are hundreds of passages like this in the Bible.
Let’s not forget how God handled the fact that Pharaoh kept the Israelites in bondage and used them as slaves in Egypt. God sends Moses and Aaron to free their people and sends down 10 plagues onto the people of Egypt [because of the actions of one, Pharaoh, I might add…real fair this God is].
What is mind-boggling is the fact that God tells Moses and Aaron that he has hardened Pharaoh’s heart [so apparently, even if Pharaoh wanted to release the people, he is prevented to do so because God hardened his heart]. Finally, God sends his last plague: killing all first born children including Pharaoh’s first born, which finally makes Pharaoh release the Israelites.
This just might be the second silliest story in the Bible. If God is all knowing, why didn’t he know that sending nine plagues would do absolutely nothing, but he would get a winner on his tenth? Why didn’t he send the 10th plague first? If he is all-just, why did he punish ALL of Egypt for the actions of one man? If he is all-powerful, why didn’t God just speak the words “you are free” to the Israelites and it came to pass, in the same manner that speaking the Earth, sun and all the planets into existence made them all appear? Are Christians telling me that God can speak the entire universe into existence with ease, but freeing a huge group of people is where his powers cease? It’s just too ridiculous to believe.
Also, keep in mind that several times throughout Exodus 7-12, God states that the reason for the plagues, misery and death to the Egyptians is so God can “multiply his wonders and miraculous signs”. Hmmmm, I thought God loved us? How wonderful it must have been for God to heap misery, destruction and death upon people he claims he loves, then hardens Pharaoh’s heart so that there is no way possible for him to do the very thing God wants him to do [although God supposedly knows the future and knows Pharaoh will NOT do it] then murders all first born children in Egypt because God wants his miraculous wonders to be multiplied? Insanity! Insanity! Insanity!
In Numbers 25: 1-9, God instructs Moses to kill 24,000 Israelites for sleeping with the women of the Midianites [who opposed Israel] and for worshipping their gods [the Baal of Poer]. It pissed God off, so he resorted to what he does best…kill.
In Joshua chapters 10, 11 and 12, God orders Joshua to slaughter a total of 31 kings and everyone else within these 31 kingdoms, which he did.
This is an interesting story. God instructs King Saul to go slaughter the Amalekites for being an enemy of Israel. King Saul follows God’s order of death and wipes out pretty much everything. But, Saul’s big boo-boo was killing everyone except Agag [the Amalekite king] and also sparing sheep, cattle, calves and lambs [how dare Saul show just a smidge of compassion and not kill EVERYONE!]. God is so pissed off that Saul does not slaughter Agag and the animals that he takes away Saul’s kingship. In fact, it states in 1 Samuel 15:11 that Saul's sparing of Agag “grieved “ God. Oh, I’m sure it did piss off God the slaughterer.
To please God, Samuel kills Agag right after Saul states to Samuel that “surely the bitterness of death is past”. The bitterness would be past to regular, thinking compassionate human beings, but to God, who wants nearly every living thing slaughtered on almost a constant basis in the Bible, the bitterness, anger and his vengeful nature are not so quick to make a disappearing act.
...of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries who killed….well, anyone who wasn’t exactly like they were and believed exactly what they believed.
These are just 5, but the list goes on and on. Yes, I realize the Bible characters in the list above were all from the Old Testament and therefore not officially “believers in Jesus”. Keep in mind two things: Christians hold the view that Jesus has always existed and that Jesus is God. The characters [above] actually knowing the name “Jesus” is irrelevant. It is the exact same God that ordained the aforementioned mass murderers.
Never has Billo been so easily debunked.
Cenk Uyger gives a pretty comical analysis of O’ Liar’s crapola in the clip below
Jon Stewart has a hilarious bit on Billo as well
Bill Maher chimed in on this specific issue [O' Reilly claiming no Christians commit mass murder] on his show Real Time with Bill Maher last night. Watch the clip
Naturally, one of Maher's guests, Margaret Hoover [of FOX News] claimed that Anders Breivik does not qualify as a "Christian terrorist" because he is not affiliated with a global terrorist network. Oh big fucking deal. So, now you have to be a member of a terrorist organization to commit a terrorist act?
Many people that FOX News have dubbed "Muslim terrorists" were not affiliated with a global terrorist network either, as Maher points out to Hoover [namely, for one, the Fort Hood shooter]. Naturally, that does not matter to people like Hoover. What matters is if the perpetrator's skin is brown and/or they don't practice Christianity.
Maher also adds other Christian mass murderers to the list: The Ku Klux Klan, Tim McVeigh and the Inquisition. All excellent examples. Many, if not all, Christians will argue that nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus instruct their followers to kill [but it does not in the Koran either]. Although I agree that there is no command or commission per se laid out by God/Jesus to commit murder, as I have already included above, there are many examples [almost exclusively in the Old Testament] of God ordering his servants/prophets to kill massive amounts of people...and his servants carried out those acts.
Do all Christians naively believe that there will never ever be some people along the way who will be influenced by these events in the Bible where God has specifically instructed his servants/prophets to slaughter hundreds/thousands of people and use that as a justification for gunning down doctors at abortion clinics or wiping out all their co-workers?
Whether Christians believe these things will never happen is irrelevant, because these real life incidents have already happened. And they will continue to happen, because although the number of Christians who would actually get violent and commit mass murder are a fringe portion of the Christian membership, no one can deny that their influence to commit those acts exists on the pages of the Bible [primarily in the form of the monstrous, compassionless, ruthless, death-obsessed God of the Old Testament, whose #1 hobby was mass murder].
I will give you a realistic example of the point I just made. How can Christians defend their religion and condemn Anders Breivik's horrible act of gunning down 68 people at a youth camp in Norway when there is a specific Bible passage/story [that I mentioned above] of God himself sending two bears to tear apart 42 young kids in the book of 2 Kings for the unbelievably petty act of calling Elisha a "baldhead"?
If Breivik told the police after his despicable act that he killed these 68 people because they called him names, how could a Christian condemn his act if God himself had 42 young kids mauled to death in the Bible? Do you see my point? How can a Christian justify God's act and condemn Breivik's act [if Breivik used name-calling as his excuse, which he did not. But for the sake of my argument, how would a Christian answer that question]?
It all boils down to the fact that Breivik is a nut who has profound mental issues. His heinous acts were simply an outward expression of the mental breakdown and neurological disorder that is required to accept the Bible as the truth in the first place.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Two nuts from South Carolina insist that Jesus has appeared on their Wal-Mart receipt. They call it a “blessing”
by Larry Simons
July 20, 2011
Oh Jesus, here we go again. Another “Jesus” sighting by loonballs who not only believe in Jesus, but also believe that he would have nothing better to do with his time than to involve himself in mundane, nonsensical activities like appearing on slices of bread, potato chips and now the latest…Wal-Mart receipts.
Two nutjobs from South Carolina named Jacob Simmons and Gentry Lee Sutherland insist that it is none other than the Son of God who has magically appeared on their Wal-Mart receipt days after lying around their house.
The couple said they bought pictures at Wal-Mart on June 12 and a few days later, after coming home from a Wednesday night church service, they noticed that “Jesus” appeared on the receipt [see below] although the image was not there they day made their Wal-Mart purchase.
"I was leaving the kitchen and I just looked on the floor, and it was like it was looking at me…then the more you look at it, the more it looked like Jesus, and it was just shocking, breathtaking”, Simmons said.
Obvious questions come to mind. First, how does anyone know what Jesus even looked like? Second, why appear on a Wal-Mart receipt? Why not appear on a page of your bible? Was God telling you loons “Thank you for choosing Wal-Mart?” After all, if they never had shopped at Wal-Mart, they wouldn’t have obtained that receipt and therefore, would not have seen the image at all, right?
Thirdly, why did it take “Jesus” three days to appear on the receipt? Was he wrestling with the idea of appearing in the skid marks in their underwear and finally decided the receipt would be the best place to appear, for no apparent reason at all?
Fourthly, although the image appears to show two eyes, a nose and a beard, why is it ALWAYS automatically assumed it is Jesus? Why can’t it be.......
Supertramp lead singer, Roger Hodgson?
I will give you the answer as to why people always assume it is images of Jesus that appear on everyday household items. Because, just like religion itself, people who so desperately want to believe something is true will tell themselves it is true, despite all common sense, logic and human reason. No evidence is needed. Facts do not matter. Logic does not matter. Science does not matter. The fact that it is absurd that Jesus would ever involve himself in some ludicrous and trivial act [putting his image on household items] does not matter. The only thing that matters is the fact that people will believe what they want to believe.
“We just feel like it's a blessing that God showed it to us and opened our eyes. And we just feel like we should share the blessing God gave to us to everybody else”, Sutherland said.
Really? Exactly how does this qualify as a “blessing”? You REALLY believe that God showed this to you? REALLY?
The only thing these two have “shared” with people is that they are two of the biggest lunatics in America.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Geraldo claims that Casey Anthony’s refusal to report daughter missing is not neglect
by Larry Simons
July 7, 2011
On Tuesday’s The O’ Reilly Factor, right after the disgusting verdict in the Casey Anthony trial, Billo has Geraldo on the show to discuss this travesty of justice. Geraldo begins by saying:
“There was not one bit of evidence that this mother in any way neglected or abused this child…”. Billo stops Geraldo and says, “Let me stop you there….how can you stand there and say that in front of millions of people all over the world, when a 2-year-old goes missing and the mother doesn’t even call 911. You’re telling me the mother never neglected the child, and she’s missing and doesn’t call 911? That’s neglect Geraldo”.
Geraldo responds by telling Billo that he [Billo] is confused between events leading up to Caylee Anthony’s disappearance and events after the disappearance. Billo chimes in again and states, “Wait, wait, wait. You said Casey Anthony, there was no evidence she ever neglected her child, and I’m telling you that’s bull. She neglected her child by failing to report the child’s disappearance.”
watch the clip
Geraldo then says this:
“That’s from June 16  on. That’s post-mortem. That’s after the child is dead.”
Billo responds, “You don’t know that…”
Billo is correct. We have no idea when the child died. Official reports list her death date as the date of disappearance [June 16, 2008], but the real date of death is unknown, and really, it doesn’t matter. If Casey Anthony is not the killer, she had no idea when and where her daughter was murdered, so Billo is 100% correct when he asserts that Casey Anthony did engage in neglect when she failed to report her child missing. In fact, it just may very well be the highest form of neglect.
Not knowing where your child is, not caring where it is and not reporting it is missing does not get more inhumane, uncaring and neglectful than that. This is what Geraldo fails to grasp.
Then to make matters worse, Geraldo actually defends Casey Anthony’s behavior [of not reporting her child missing] by claiming that “her brain is distorted by years of abuse she can’t think straight” and she’s “mentally ill”. Ahhh, now Casey Anthony is the victim? Jesus Christ. I can’t believe this douchebag has kids of his own!
Was she thinking straight when she was partying at a nightclub and taking part in a hard body contest two fucking days after her daughter disappeared? Geraldo even calls Anthony a “good mother”. It might be the only time Billo has ever taken the exact words right out of my mouth when he says, “A good mother? How does a good mother go to a wet body contest when her baby is missing? How does that happen?”
A good mother would be in complete mental and emotional anguish that her baby is missing. A good mother would report the fucking disappearance to begin with and would not be satisfied by whatever the cops would do. She would be out frantically searching for her child herself. A good mother would print pictures and distribute them everywhere so that the chances of her being found would increase drastically. A good mother would not be able to sleep or function until her child was found. Anthony displayed NONE of these behaviors.
Does her actions translate to murder? Of course not. But actions like these should make her an accessory to the murder and therefore make her deserving of the same fate as if she was found guilty of the murder itself. Laws need to be passed that make people accessories to killing their children if they are not doing everything humanly possible to locate their child.
Anthony did absolutely nothing to find her child, lied to authorities countless times and showed no remorse whatsoever for her missing child in the days and months after her child’s disappearance. There may have not been enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Anthony killed her daughter, but there’s more than enough evidence that she was an accessory to the murder by keeping silent, lying and obstructing justice. Laws need to be changed/adopted to make the actions of people like Anthony deemed accessories to murder.
Maybe one day Casey Anthony will get justice. We can only hope one day she gets sent to prison for doing something really bad…like stealing a hot dog cart from a New York City vendor.
Let’s keep our fingers crossed and hope that justice prevails.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Douchebag blogger The Last Blog Left ignores a story I wrote in March on anti-Fed-was-a-secret-conspiracy debunker Ed Flaherty, in which I destroyed Flaherty’s Fed fables with the words of G. Edward Griffin, then three months later [today] posts the already debunked words of Flaherty on his blog
by Larry Simons
July 1, 2011
On March 28, 2011, over 3 months ago, I wrote a story in response to liberal blogger Dave Neiwert’s article about how crazy Glenn Beck was for having G. Edward Griffin on his show and for believing that the Fed was created as a result of a secret conspiracy in 1911.
In 1994, Griffin wrote an excellent book on the Fed, The Creature from Jekyll Island, detailing that the Federal Reserve was created as a result of a secret meeting consisting of bankers and politicians and their brain child, the Federal Reserve Act, was passed 2 years after their 1911 meeting.
A douchebag blogger that cowardly goes by the moniker The Last Blog Left, who frequently pops up on my blog attempting to debunk me [but never has] completely ignored that March 2011 story I wrote. I suspect it was because TLBL is a liberal left-winger and the fact that many left-wing liberals actually condemned Neiwert’s article on Crooks and Liars because this time, Beck was correct. Read the plethora of negative comments directed at Neiwert.
These negative comments were not from Beck fans. They were from regulars at C & L who normally embrace Neiwert’s articles, but rejected this one.
Recently, within the past few days, TLBL and me began another fierce debate on The Fed. I was winning naturally, but what new trick did TLBL have up his sleeve? What was TLBL’s secret weapon this time? The already debunked words of ED FLAHERTY that I had posted three months ago in a story on my blog in which TLBL IGNORED.
Holy shitballs is this douchebag a colossal FRAUD!