Monday, January 31, 2011

Dave Neiwert Condemns Pictures of Targets, But If You Say “You’re Dead” to Someone In Person...Perfectly A-OK!

Neiwert excuses violent rhetoric of Eric Fuller aimed at Tea Party member. Why? Because he really “meant no harm

by Larry Simons
January 31, 2011

For the first time this year, Andy Ostroy just may be in danger of losing a third consecutive Fraudie award to none other than Crooks and Liars liberal loonball, Dave Neiwert.

In Neiwert’s January 29 article titled, "Tucson shooting victim explains his threatening outburst: 'I really meant him no harm'", he sinks to new lows [even for him] as he attempts to explain away the threatening comment Tucson massacre survivor Eric Fuller made to Trent Humphries, a Tucson Tea Party leader.

At a January 15 Town Hall meeting sponsored by ABC News, as Humphries stood and spoke about gun control, Fuller pointed a camera at Humphries, clicked it and said, “You’re dead”. Fuller was taken away and arrested for the remark. Since this hateful rhetoric was aimed at a Tea Party member, it was barely mentioned on liberal blogs. Crooks and Liars’ Nicole Belle mentioned it in a story, but not without adding a smidge of justification for Fuller’s violent rhetoric. Belle said:

“I think it's important to first and foremost say that threatening violence is unacceptable. I don't know Fuller's political ideology nor do I think it matters. Wrong is wrong is wrong, on either side of the aisle. At risk of being accused of being Dr. Frist, I have to wonder if Fuller is suffering some sort of PTSD from the shooting, but his issues may run deeper and longer than last week.

Some on the C&L team have speculated that Fuller was trying to make a larger point over the dangers of the casual use of violent rhetoric and how it charges the climate with fear and instability. In a CBS profile, he blamed Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Sharron Angle for their eliminationist rhetoric. The pointing of a camera demonstrated just how easy it is to point a gun and get off a shot before anyone else can unholster their gun in response. It's an interesting point, although it's far too early to make definitive statements on Fuller's motivation.”

First Belle says Fuller’s political ideology is irrelevant to her, then proceeds to say that he may have suffered from PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] from the shooting and his issues may run deeper. While it may very well be true that Fuller was traumatized by the shooting, isn’t it interesting that when violent rhetoric is directed at conservatives/right wing/Tea Party members, immediately liberals eliminate the possibility that the rhetoric was politically motivated and that “mental instability” is the sole cause of such outbursts?

Then Belle adds a theory that Fuller may have been just trying to make a point of how quick someone’s life can be snuffed out by a bullet, by clicking his camera to illustrate that in the same period of time it takes to snap a picture, someone’s life could be over.

What a crock of shit.

Then, to make matters worse, Belle, before [and after] coming up with bullshit excuses and justifications for Fuller, interjects that his behavior is unacceptable and “wrong is wrong”. Well, naturally, the liberals have to say the behavior is bad, or else they would be cheerleading for Fuller. But despite how many times they say it’s “bad” and “unacceptable”, they immediately begin to justify and excuse the behavior.

Enter Dave Neiwert, King of the Loons, to provide his defense of Fuller. In his latest article [his ONLY article about Eric Fuller, I might add ], Neiwert says this:

“You may remember Eric Fuller -- the survivor of the Tucson massacre who fingered right-wing rhetoric for fueling the tragedy, and then a few days later was arrested for making a threatening remark at a Town Hall gathering directed at a local Tea Party leader. Fuller has now given a thoughtful interview to the local station in Tucson, KGUN, in which he tries to explain why he said what he did:

When Tucson Tea Party leader Trent Humphries suggested it was too soon to talk about tighter gun control, Fuller did something that got him arrested. He pointed a camera at Humphries and said, "You're dead." Now, Fuller has apologized for the perceived threat that landed him in hot water with the authorities.

[words of Fuller]

"I'd like to reiterate my apology to Mr. Humphries. I really meant him no harm. However, what I was trying to do is demonstrate how very quickly within the same space of time as the click of a shutter on a camera that another person can pull a trigger and your life is over, it's done," Fuller said.

A “thoughtful” interview Neiwert? Here is a guy who made a death threat to someone, in fact it was “eliminationist” rhetoric [“eliminationist” is Neiwert’s favorite word to describe “right wing” extremists] and Neiwert says his interview was “thoughtful”?

Neiwert is humanizing Fuller, making him appear as if he is someone we should feel sorry for. Yes, Fuller was shot, and that’s a tragedy. But, to attend a Town Hall meeting a week later, spew eliminationist rhetoric [how can you get more eliminationist than saying, “You’re dead”?] in Tucson where a mass shooting took place and then have the nerve to say the shooting happened because of “right wing” hateful rhetoric and then turn right around and threaten someone with death? That deserves zero sympathy.

Also hilarious is Neiwert calling Fuller’s words a “perceived threat”. Yep. That’s a liberal for you. When conservatives say vile and threatening things, there absolutely is NO DOUBT it's a threat. When liberal Democrats say them; it is not a threat. It’s a “perceived” threat.

Amazingly, Fuller’s given reasoning about why he said, “You’re dead” is exactly what Nicole Belle said it would be. Can Belle predict the future? Or does Fuller read Crooks and Liars? It is pretty obvious that the word got around real quick in liberal/Democratic circles that maybe Fuller was demonstrating a point of how quick a life can be taken and that someone either coached him on what his given reason was, or like I said, Fuller read it online himself.

How absurd is an explanation like that anyway? As if Fuller needed to demonstrate how quick someone can get shot by snapping a picture….as if nobody knows it only takes 1 second to pull a trigger.

Thanks Eric Fuller for such profound wisdom. Without your visual demonstration, nobody would know a gunshot takes a split second.

Neiwert continues:

“Back when this happened, Nicole suggested this might be what Fuller intended. And as she observed at the time, that's really no excuse: Even if Fuller intended no threat in his remark, two things remain obvious: A) it would be reasonable for anyone hearing that remark, especially the recipient, to interpret it as a threat; and B) it is nonetheless violent rhetoric in any event.”

Yeah, Nicole Belle is a psychic, I have already concluded. Either that, or Fuller frequents Crooks and Liars and read for himself what his reasoning was even before he knew it was his reasoning. Notice, like Belle, Neiwert does not fail to call the statement “violent” and a “threat”. That is because they have to, or else the entire article would sound like it was written by Fuller’s lawyer.

Neiwert concludes:

“For people who are confronting the real-world ramifications of violent rhetoric, this sort of reaction (especially on an emotional level) is perfectly understandable -- but it is also perfectly destructive. Violent rhetoric cannot be beaten by more violent rhetoric. It can only be defused by breaking the cycle of violence, choosing words that advance the debate, as President Obama put it, "in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

Still, given that the man was still recovering from his wounds, as Karoli pointed out, and was placed in an excruciatingly difficult situation to begin, I'd like to think most reasonable people would cut him some slack and accept his clear apologies.”

Translation: Violent rhetoric is understandable. It’s also bad. You can’t say violent rhetoric causes violence and then spew violent rhetoric yourself. Say nice things because Obama wants that. Fuller said it because he was in pain and put in a bad situation [he had a good reason, so he is justified]. Everyone should forgive him for making a death threat because he apologized. If you don’t forgive him, you’re not a reasonable person and probably filled with hate.

So, to Neiwert, if you walk up to someone and say, “You’re dead”, you should be “cut some slack” and forgiven [especially if they apologize and say they never really meant any harm]. If you use the word “target” or even show crosshairs on a picture, you are an accessory to murder. Despite the fact that just yesterday on The Huffington Post, the word “targets” were used in this sentence:

Tea Party Eyes GOP Targets for 2012

So, let’s recap [according to Neiwert]:

This [BAD]

This [Perfectly OK, and you should be forgiven if you say it]

"You're dead!"

David Neiwert is a colossal lying scumbag.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

My Prediction Comes True: The Elite Get What They Want

by Larry Simons
January 27, 2011

Rahm [my father is a terrorist] Emanuel is back on the ballot for Mayor for Chicago. You can't say "no" to the elite. At least, not for long. He will win too, because the people of Chicago are complete morons.

Andy Ostroy Calls It a “Travesty of Justice” That the Illinois Appellate Court Actually Upholds the Law!

Our favorite liberal friend whines over terrorist offspring Rahm Emanuel being omitted from Chicago mayoral ballot

by Larry Simons
January 27, 2010

Our favorite liberal wingnut, Andy Ostroy, never ceases to amaze. In his latest article titled, “Emanuel Ruling is a Travesty of Justice[January 25], Ostroy is bewildered over the fact that one of his liberal idols, Rahm Emanuel [former White House Chief of Staff and son of terrorist Benjamin Emanuel] has been ousted from the Chicago mayoral ballot. Illinois law states mayoral candidates must reside in Chicago for one full year prior to the election.

Ostroy cries:

“Rahm Emanuel was born in Chicago. He was raised in Chicago. He got married in Chicago. His home is on the North Side of Chicago. His synagogue is in Chicago. He votes in Chicago. He pays taxes in Chicago. He served six years as a U.S. Congressman representing Chicago's 5th District. When two U.S. presidents came calling, Emanuel left Chicago temporarily to serve his country, with Bill Clinton from 1993-1998 and Barack Obama 2009/10.”

Well, if Emanuel is “Mr. Chicago”, explain to me why he is clueless about their mayoral laws? It’s clear that it is probably not because Emanuel lacks knowledge of Illinois laws; but apparently Emanuel thought, since he served as Obama’s Chief of Staff, that his shit does not stink and that he would not have to abide by the exact same rules every other candidate is required to.

Emanuel’s home is on the North Side of Chicago”? “[He] pays taxes in Chicago”? Really? According to the website Right Soup in November of 2008:

“According to the Cook County Assessor’s website, the Chicago home of four-term Democrat Congressman and likely new White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, doesn’t exist. While the address of 4228 North Hermitage is listed as Emanuel’s residence on the Illinois State Board of Elections’ website, there seems to be no public record of Emanuel ever paying property taxes on this home…

Why would 4228 North Hermitage property owners Rahm Emanuel and wife Amy Rule not pay property taxes?

One reason could be because Emanuel and Rule declared their 4228 North Hermitage home as the office location for their non-profit foundation appropriately called the “Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Foundation”. As a non-profit headquarters, they may consider their home as exempt from paying taxes.”

Ostroy even admits:

“Illinois state code requires that mayoral candidates reside for at least one full year prior to the election in the city they seek to lead. The court states that the law requires physical presence and claims that Emanuel's White House service requires no special attention.”

What’s the problem then? I say “Bravo!” to the Illinois Appellate Court! “Bravo!” It’s about time that Washington insiders are stopped cold in their tracks from gallivanting across the country thinking they can get whatever the hell they want just because of who their friends are. It is music to my ears when I hear stories of when the high and mighty in Washington attempt to walk on water, they fall right in and drown just like the rest of us mere mortals.

Fucktards like Andy Ostroy feel as if it is a “travesty of justice”. How in the fuck do you call UPHOLDING THE LAW a “travesty of justice”? It is not because the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the law that has Ostroy’s panties in a bunch. It is because they upheld the law against one of Ostroy’s liberal icons, and that makes Ostroy’s face turn six shades of Democrat blue!

Ostroy then says:

“Emanuel's camp is arguing that his "intent" was to always live again in Chicago after his Washington stint was over, and that serving Obama should qualify as national service and be exempted as an exclusion.”

So, it’s also national service when our military men and women come home from fighting illegal, bullshit wars that politicians like Emanuel endorse, but do we ever see our military heroes get special treatment? Fuck no. In fact, in most cases, it’s the complete opposite.

Ostroy continues:

“The court's ruling is not rooted in anything partisan. The judges who made the decision ran as Democrats. No, it's not about politics. It's about stupidity. Their decision is just plain wrong and un-American.”

Ahh, yes, it’s now “stupid” and “un-American” to uphold laws in this country. But if they broke the law and allowed Emanuel on the ballot, the court would be as American as baseball and apple pie, right Ostroy? Pathetic.

Ostroy goes on and on:

“This is a very serious issue not just for Chicagoans who, according to the latest polls, overwhelming support Emanuel's candidacy, but for the entire country. How is it possible that someone as patriotic as Emanuel, who selflessly heeded the call of duty, who faithfully and tirelessly served his country and two presidents, is punished for his service?”

Who gives a fuck if Emanuel has overwhelming support? Americans overwhelmingly support ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan too [which are illegal wars, unlike the LAWFUL upholding of the Illinois law regarding Emanuel]. Is anyone listening to the American people on that?

Emanuel is “patriotic”? Are you serious? If he was so patriotic, he would accept the decision by the Illinois Appellate Courts and decline an appeal, since a patriotic person would know enough about our country and founding documents to know the States are free, sovereign and supreme over the federal system.

“…who selflessly heeded the call of duty, who faithfully and tirelessly served his country”? Is Ostroy freaking kidding? Does Ostroy mention Emanuel’s alleged dual citizenship to the U.S. and Israel during the Gulf War in 1991 or that his father, Benjamin, was a member of the terrorist militant group Irgun in the 1940’s? Of course he doesn’t! Does Ostroy mention why, if Emanuel “faithfully and tirelessly served his country”, he only served as Chief of Staff for 20 months before quitting?

According to Ostroy, because he was called to serve his country [although we may never know where his true loyalties are….with the U.S. or Israel] then he is as American as Uncle Sam! Hell, even Emanuel’s middle name is “Israel!

The bottom line is, Emanuel will probably win his appeal to have his name put back on the ballot for the Chicago mayoral race, and he will probably win. This will only serve as yet another illustration of how incredibly stupid and uninformed American citizens [especially in Chicago] are about Rahm Emanuel, and how the elite in this country [that Ostroy claims are “patriotic”] trample on the law and get any goddamned thing they want.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Olbermann Repeats the Myth That Secession Is “Treason”. Does He Know We Wouldn’t Have A Country if Not For Secession?

Also calls secession "insanity". Olbermann is living in a free country because of the founders' "insanity" to separate from Britain and gain independence from King George III

by Larry Simons
January 19, 2011

On last night’s telecast of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Olbermann did a segment in which he discussed the consequences of political hateful rhetoric among politicians. Olbermann displayed polls that were conducted to show how many Americans thought hateful political rhetoric contributed to the Tucson shootings [on Jan 8] and how many Americans thought the same rhetoric would lead to future incidents.

Olbermann mentions comments made by former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Texas Governor Rick Perry as three examples of “hateful rhetoric”. Of course, Olbermann gives no reason whatsoever that the quote he used from Bolton was from 1994 [17 years ago!] and how on Earth that would have contributed to TODAY'S political climate. Olbermann brings up Palin’s now controversial comment “blood libel” [that no one would really care about unless Palin was really to blame for the Tucson shootings…which she’s not].

The interesting part is when Olbermann mentions Rick Perry implying in April of 2009 that his state would secede from the Union if “government continues to thumb their nose at the American people”. Olbermann then brings on former speechwriter for George W. Bush, David Frum [God knows why these men are best buddies] to discuss in detail the aforementioned politicians and their comments.

Frum says:

“The problem with this kind of rhetoric is not its effect on crazy people who are lost in their own, um…their own brain disease and who respond to those kinds of perspectives. The problem is its effect on normal people, and your clip of Governor Perry is a perfect example.

Here’s the governor of the second biggest state in the country who is a very plausible Republican Presidential nominee who is trapped by things he said at the behest of an angry crowd. Now that’s probably, that doesn’t reflect his real view. He has no interest in seceding from the union. He would never comptemplate it. But he entrapped into saying those things and others have been entrapped into saying other things, and that rhetoric will haunt them……”

Olbermann responds:

“That brings us to our 3 examples, and Gov. Perry is a good one. He chose to, just sort of, you know, nod his head gently to secession, as you pointed out, instead of saying, you know, secession is insanity, economically and every other way, to say nothing of it being treason….”

watch the video

The ironic thing about secession and the myth that it is treasonous, is that on January 12, 1848, a future prominent American said these words about secession:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right---a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”

That prominent American? Abraham Lincoln. It was ironic he said this, obviously, since years after uttering these words, he resided over the deaths of over 600,000 people in order for him to prevent the very freedom he so eloquently expressed just 13 years prior.

In fact, secession was such a huge part of the political philosophy of our founders, the Declaration of Independence can also be referred to as the Declaration of Secession. What Olbermann fails to understand [or maybe he just does not want to] is that our country exists because of secession. The United States were founded by secessionists that began with a Declaration that justified the secession of the states from the British government of King George III.

It was Thomas Jefferson’s dictum that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and that whenever a government becomes destructive of the rights of life, liberty and property, citizens have a right to secede from that government and form a new one. This dictum was the basis of America’s two wars of secession in 1776 and 1861.

Jefferson and James Madison received little criticism when they authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 [documents written in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts], which declared the states supreme over the federal system.

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 states:

“..the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government.”

Put quite simply, the States are supreme and the only powers that the Federal government is to possess are powers delegated to it by the free and independent states. Author Thomas DiLorenzo says this in The Real Lincoln:

“It is important to recall that at the outset of the American Revolution, each state declared its sovereignty and independence from Great Britain on its own. After the war, each state was individually recognized as sovereign by the defeated British government. These sovereign states then formed the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”, which created the federal government as the agent of the states. The states then seceded from that document and dissolved the Union when the Constitution was adopted. The Union wasn’t “perpetual” after all, and the words “perpetual Union” are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. No state agreed to enter a perpetual Union by ratifying the Constitution.”

How people like Keith Olbermann can translate our founding documents and political philosophies, which spoke of secession being widely accepted and hardly ever subject to scrutiny, as “treasonous” is a big damned mystery. To reject secession as a patriotic act is to reject our entire political foundation and political system [at least in the eyes of the founders] because it was this very concept [of secession] that established the core principles of our country and its formation. The founders were not going to go to war with Great Britain to declare independence from King George III, and turn right around and create a political system of tyranny that was a carbon copy of the British government.

To reject the act and the right of secession is to crave the exact same system of government of Great Britain [of 1775] which we separated from to form our country. Put quite simply, to reject the right of secession is un-American.

Naturally, in today’s political climate, any mention of rebellion or secession is deemed “terroristic”, “treasonous” and “dangerous” and most likely, anyone showing approval of government rebellion will be blamed for the next mass shooting. It’s obvious, from the words of our founders, that anyone attempting to make a connection between simply stating facts about our founding documents and mass shootings is attempting to silence those patriotic Americans who simply study and understand what this country was like between 1776 and 1865 [the year America really ended].

Olbermann is among a plethora of political hacks on TV who make their living on serving party over country. Why should they actually study and research what our founders really stood for? They get paid millions so they don’t have to. Media is government controlled. It is that same government that said we are treasonous, un-American enemy combatants 150 years ago [if we hold the belief that secession is an act of treason] as it is today indoctrinating school children to believe the Federal government is supreme over the States and that Lincoln was a great president. It is that same government bombarding us night and day through paid propagandists like Keith Olbermann telling us what the government wants us to believe; that is...if you believed him.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Dave Neiwert Claims Loughner Was Motivated by Politics, Yet One Link He Posts to Prove It Actually Debunks It

Neiwert posts a link to an ABC video, in which a friend of Loughner’s says he was obsessed with the film Zeitgeist, but the friend also says, “He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right”, but it was all political right, Neiwert?by Larry Simons
January 18, 2011

Liberal blogger Dave Neiwert is at it again. This time, instead of his traditional flat out lying to make his point, he ignores the words of a friend of Jared Loughner’s [the Tucson massacre shooter] even though those words were from the very same video from ABC News that he posted a link to in order to prove another unrelated point.

In his article, titled, “Sorry, right-wing talkers. Loughner's rampage was a clear act of political terrorism directed at a liberal 'government' target” [Jan. 17] on the site [ironically called Crooks and Liars], Neiwert posted this excerpt from an ABC news story:

“One of Loughner's friends, a fellow named Zach Osler, says that the internet movie Zeitgeist “poured gasoline on his fire” and had “a profound impact on Jared Loughner's mindset and how he views the world that he lives in.””

First of all, before I get to the main point, let me just add that Neiwert claims that “poured gasoline on his fire” were Osler’s words, despite the fact that in the video clip they were clearly the words of reporter Ashleigh Banfield, who was just saying they were Osler’s words.

The only thing Osler said on camera about the film Zeitgeist was, “I really think this Zeitgeist documentary had a profound impact upon Jared Loughner’s mindset and how he viewed the world that he lives in.” Big deal. It had a profound impact on my mindset too but absolutely nowhere in the film does it advocate or mention anything about violence, but Banfield wants everyone to think it does. Also, when did the words “profound impact” upon a person’s mindset automatically translate to “kill people”? "Schindlers List" had a profound impact on many people’s lives as well, but has it influenced anyone to murder millions of Jews?

Banfield says this about Zeitgeist:

It’s a documentary movement that rails on currency-based economics”. Huh?

Perhaps the best way to describe the film is the director’s [Peter Joseph] own words:

"…the understanding that human society is and has been controlled and manipulated for millennia through the ancient strategy of “divide and conquer”. Whether we are considering the Roman Empirical from 2000 years ago or the now falling American Empire, the tactic is the same - keep the people divided in order to maintain control. This isn’t a notion of conspiracy - it is pattern of social conditioning and human survival as contrived from the social system and the mechanisms inherent in this “social game” we have invented. The Market/Monetary System has put forward a “Social Darwinism” value which most of the world’s people now share. Community and Social Capital becomes secondary to selfish gain. This elitist value nearly removes the idea of people working together for the greater good and rather reinforces an “every man for himself” mentality. Hence, those in high positions of political and financial control operate with the same self-serving and manipulative attitude. This is natural to their world.

At any rate, it is my firm belief that the corrupt power establishment’s biggest fear is the coming together of collective human intent for the good of society as a whole. In other words, governments know they can continue corrupt, self-serving practices as long as they successfully divide their population across politically exaggerated lines using race, religion, class, sexuality and the like. It is a tool to separate such groups - and keep them separated. Again- this isn’t the result of some omnipotent, evil “elite” as some ignorantly claim. Rather, it is the natural, systemic result of the kind of social system we are maintaining. The power establishment has no face - there is no empirical “they”- it is an ever-rotating group of manifested mentalities which result as a direct consequence from the system we perpetuate.

In fact, the most important singular statement of the film’s narration, which defines the purpose of Zeitgeist: The Movie itself, is: 

“The social manipulation of society through the generation of fear and division has completely inhibited the culture. Religion, patriotism, race, wealth, class and every other form of arbitrary separatist identification and thus conceit has served to create a controlled population utterly malleable in the hands of the few. Divide and conquer is the motto... And as long as people continue to see themselves as separate from everything else they lend themselves to being completely enslaved.”

How in the world does the above synopsis of the Zeitgeist film influence someone to go on a shooting spree? It doesn’t. But assholes like Neiwert, Andy Ostroy and everyone at CNN and NBC wants you to think being anti-government [which even the founding fathers were] makes one go on rampages.

Michael Moore makes anti-government films as well. Is anyone blaming Michael Moore? His last movie was about government greed [Capitalism: A Love Story--which was praised on Crooks and Liars, and months later a C & L writer posted this story, of Michael Moore saying, “'Waiting To See If People Rise Up - And If So, I'll Rise With Them'], but although people like Neiwert love to call Patriot/militia groups, conspiracy theorists and 9/11 truthers “fringe” groups, they love to portray them as having wide influence on people. Michael Moore’s movies are mainstream, distributed to thousands of theaters and seen by millions of people, but nope, his movies have no influence. It’s only the fringe 9/11 nutjob films that have any real influence, right Neiwert?

I am convinced the main reason Neiwert did not post the ABC news clip [as I did] is because in the very same clip Zach Osler says this:

“He [Loughner]did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right”.After all, Neiwert’s article is titled, “Sorry, right-wing talkers. Loughner's rampage was a clear act of political terrorism directed at a liberal 'government' target”. Mentioning Osler’s comment that Loughner ‘did not listen to political radio, was not left or right wing, nor did he take sides’ would not have meshed too well with Neiwert’s partisan vitriol. Posting the link to the video is pointless if 99% of those reading his article will not even bother click it and watch the video.

Despite Osler denying it was political, Neiwert still does not hesitate to say this:

“I hate to break it to these folks, but there is indeed an abundance of evidence that not only was Loughner's rampage a political act, it was an act of domestic terrorism committed by someone who had been unhinged by far-right conspiracy theories.”
Abundant evidence” huh? Yet, NO evidence from his best friend from the link YOU posted Neiwert, you lying fraud!

Here’s the video that Neiwert failed to post

Neiwert mentions an article by Michelle Goldberg of The Daily Beast, but when you click his link, it says, “Page not found”, so I found the article myself. In the article, titled, Zeitgeist, the documentary that may have shaped Jared Loughners worldview" [which also blames the film Loose Change], Goldberg says this:

“If you just watch the first third of Zeitgeist, you might think it comes from the left. It begins with an attack on Christianity, arguing that Jesus never existed, and that his legend derives entirely from pre-Christian cults of the sun. Calling Christianity “the fraud of the age,” it argues that the religion empowers those “who know the truth, but use the myth to manipulate and control societies.”

Ahhh, I see. When you think the movie is going to be “left-wing” because it begins attacking religion, that’s no big deal. That couldn’t possibly be a motivation, could it? After all, Giffords is Jewish and Jewish people don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God and Zeitgeist says Jesus never existed, but you’re right Goldberg, that couldn’t have been a motivation because that’s “left-wing”. Only when you find a “right-wing” view in the film do you say it motivated Loughner. I'm pissing my pants.

Ironically, the “9/11 is an inside job” stance is considered a “far-left” view and the Federal Reserve system not being a legitimate agency is FACT, not a conspiracy theory. Like I have said countless times before, it is the founding fathers that were against central banks and currency not being backed by gold. Not a “right-wing” view there, that’s straight from the Constitution.

Goldberg continues:

“The idea of control and manipulation is the movie’s real theme, knitting together its disparate parts. Zeitgeist's second-third rehashes classic 9/11 Truth theories that purport to show that the attacks were actually an inside job. This was done, the final section argues, at the behest of a banking cabal that has repeatedly goaded the United States into war in order to solidify its wealth and power. Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at the think tank Political Research Associates and one of the country’s foremost experts on right-wing movements, points out that Zeitgeist borrows liberally from the G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island, an “expose” of the Federal Reserve System popular with the John Birch Society, Alex Jones, and some Tea Party groups.”

Oh Jesus. Perhaps the best way to debunk this bullshit she calls “journalism” is to give you Peter Joseph’s [Zeitgeist director] response to him finding out that his films have been connected to the Tucson shootings:

“It has come to my attention that various mainstream news organizations are beginning to run an association between my 2007 performance piece/film, “Zeitgeist: The Movie” and the tragic murders conducted by an extremely troubled young man in Tucson, Arizona. They are also slowly beginning to bleed the obvious line between my 2007 documentary work, my film series as a whole and The Zeitgeist Movement, which I am the founder. Frankly, I find this isolating, growing association tremendously irresponsible on the part of ABC, NBC and their affiliates - further reflecting the disingenuous nature of the America Media Establishment today.

It appears to have begun with a comment on NBC news referencing my film along with other “influential” films as well, such as Richard Kelly's film “Donnie Darko” and then spreading to ABC News where it singled out "Zeitgeist: The Movie" and the Series itself, stating:

“Osler pointed to an online documentary series called "Zeitgeist" as a possible influence on the man. The series rails on currency-based economics. "I really think that this 'Zeitgeist' documentary had a profound impact on Jared's mindset and how he viewed that world that he lives in," Osler said.”

Let it be known that the former friend of Loughner, Zack Osler, who states the association on camera, is noted to have been out of contact with Loughner for two years. Yes, two years. So, the lack of integrity of ABC's reporting - to amplify a comment by a person who had not even been in contact with Loughner for such a long period of time - is truly poor, manipulative journalism. ABC goes on to imply that my film work was somehow an inspiration in real time even though, again, this testimony is based on interactions occurring two years prior. Needless to say, the disposition for such a horrible act of violence by anyone simply cannot be accurately assumed by behavior from 2 years prior, regardless.

When we reflect on the history of seemingly random violence or other forms of highly offensive, irrational, aberrant behavior, we see a common pattern of reaction from the public and media in their attempt to explain such extreme acts. Rather than deeply examining the Bio-Psycho-Social nature of human social development and the vast spectrum of influences that create and morph each of us in unique and sometimes detrimental ways, they take the easy way out. The first thing they do is simply ignore all modern scientific, social understandings of what generates human motivation in both positive and negative regard, for to do so can only call into question the social system itself and hence the “zeitgeist” (meaning: spirit/intellectual climate of the time/culture) at large.

Generally speaking, it is historically accurate to say that the Mainstream Media simply isn't in the business of challenging the Status Quo. The limits of debate are firmly set. Virtually all ideas, persons or groups who have succeeded in changing the world for the better, later to be hailed as heroes in the public mind, started out being condemned by those in the Mainstream Media who latch on to the dominant world view of the time. Even Martin Luther King Jr., a peaceful, loving, wonder of a man who contributed more to our social progress than likely any humanitarian in the US history, was followed by the CIA and publicly humiliated as a “Communist” which he even had to defend in front of a Congressional Committee. In fact, you can rest assured that if King were alive in the current paradigm today and seeking an equal form of justice - he would be given the name: “Terrorist”.

So, again, rather than taking the scientific view, the Mainstream Media often seeks out or implies one point of blame and runs with it. After all, it is much easier, presentable and more simplistic for the public to think that the troubling reality of seemingly random acts of mass murder is the result of a “singular influence” and hence the logic goes that if that one influence is removed, then the world will be back in balance. This gives the public a false resolve and position of focus in an otherwise ambiguous, complex world of social and biological influences. And as far as the scapegoat itself, very often any group, media or dataset that is counter-culture or even hints at wishing to challenge the status quo, is a magnet for such blame.

For example, musical groups of a counter-culture nature have been a favorite scapegoat for acts of murder/violence historically. In 1990, the rock band Judas Priest was actually taken to court for their “role” in the self-inflicted gunshot wounds in 1985 of 20-year old James Vance and 18-year old Raymond Belknap in Reno, Nevada. In 2008, the band Slipknot was publicly tied/blamed to a high-school murder in South Africa. Even the Beatles song “Helter-skelter” was associated to the murders incited by Charles Manson. It goes on and on... and, frankly, it's simply pathetic - avoiding the true nature of the problem - which is the Socio-Economic Environment itself.

Make no mistake: The Social System is to blame for the rampage of Jared Loughner – not some famous online documentary which is known as the most viewed documentary of all time in internet history. Are the other 200 million people who have seen the film also preparing for murder sprees? I think not.

In my new film: "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", I feature a prominent Harvard Criminal Psychologist by the name of Dr. James Gilligan who headed the Centre for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School for many years. In his life work of personally engaging the most dangerous, violent offenders the US system produces, he found some basic trends. The most common is the social issue of “shame”. Our socio-economic system inherently breeds social division and there is a natural demeaning of others generated as a result. It is a scientific fact that mass murderers and those who many just dismiss as “evil” today, are the product of years of being shamed, humiliated and demeaned. Their acts of violence is a reaction from these highly oppressive feelings and the real resolve to such acts can only come from removing the real source of such emotional hurt. You will notice that most other countries don't come close to the level of violence we see in the United States. The US is the capital of violence with 30-300 times more acts of violence than any other country. We have produced more serial killers in America than all other countries combined. Why? You will notice the Mainstream never asks this question.

If anyone would like to understand why more and more people in the modern world end up like Jared Loughner and why these patterns are only going to get worse as time goes on in this system, I suggest the book “Violence” by Harvard Criminal Psychologist Dr. Gilligan. In conclusion, let it be stated that the Zeitgeist Film Series is about critical thought regarding various social issues which challenge many erroneous notions held as fact in the modern culture. It also explicitly promotes non-violence, human unity and prosperous human development based on truth and science.”
Neiwert also repeats the lie I debunked in my very first article about the Tucson shootings when he said [my response after each in parenthesis]:

“We document 19 cases of extremist domestic-terror violence just in the past two and a half years; this does not even begin to take into account the litany of criminal violent threats against liberals in the past year.”

[I debunked 10 of them immediately on my story last week. Only 10 because I don’t know much about the other 9]

“-- Loughner self-identifies as a terrorist. (See the videos he left behind; in our version, the page in which he identifies himself as a "terrorist" is at the 1:00 mark).”

[So, why didn’t the FBI and at least the Pima County Sheriff’s Department do anything about him, especially since he had made threats to the Sheriff’s Department in the past?]

“ --He also clearly has adopted two strands of right-wing conspiracism: He believes that American currency is "phony" because it no longer is on the gold standard, and he believes Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theories about "mind control." The SPLC's Mark Potok has more on this.”

[The founding fathers say it’s phony too because they, except for Alexander Hamilton, did not want central banks. Do you read the Constitution, Neiwert? As for Alex Jones-esque conspiracy’re saying mind-control is a “theory”? That would be news to the CIA. I have debunked that fool Potok so many times, he’s not worthy of my time right now]

“--He had developed an unhealthy fixation on Giffords, but his hatred of her was largely political in nature and not personal.”

[There is no evidence that even if he did “hate” her as you claim, it was POLITICAL. She supports the 2nd amendment and is strong on border security….two issues Tea Partiers support, but you claim Loughner is pro-tea party]

“-- There was a powerful campaign of demonization directed at Giffords throughout the 2010 campaign, including but hardly limited to Sarah Palin's attack ads -- much of it featuring rhetoric condoning the idea of targeting Giffords with guns.”

[True, but do you have any proof Loughner even knew who Sarah Palin is? You just posted a link of his best friend saying it was NOT political and he didn’t take sides. Oh, that’s right, you left that part out!]

“--Giffords was a mainstream moderate Democrat -- a classic target of hatred from the conspiracist right, which despises real liberals but reserves its special venom for centrist Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.”

[That just might be the dumbest thing I have heard any liberal say since the shooting, and that includes the ramblings of Clarence Dupnik. That takes some doing!]

Neiwert hides behind words like Constitution, liberty and freedom when, in reality, it is these very things he has clearly established a hatred of. He will say anything to promote his views, even if it is resorting to sloppy and irresponsible journalism [showcased by omitting a major piece of information like the fact that Loughner was not political according to his best friend] in order to advance his allegiance to his political party.

Neiwert continually attempts to defend his articles with many links throughout his stories, but most [sometimes all] of his links revert right back to his very own stories! In other words, Neiwert is saying: I'm right because I said so.

Neiwert is a classic example of the "party over country" crowd. His undying love for his political party will not be separated, not by a love for his country and sure as hell not by facts.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Why Was Giffords' YouTube Account Subscribed to Jared Loughner’s YouTube Page?

by Larry Simons
January 15, 2011

I saw a story the other day that showed a man on a YouTube video who had filmed and posted footage of Giffords' Youtube page [her official congressional YouTube page]. On the bottom left of the page she had two subscriptions: Congressman Ike Skelton and, are you ready for this? Jared Loughner! As you know, a subscription on YouTube means that you are the one sending out the request to be your contact. A subscriber is someone who sends you the request to be their contact, and Loughner was listed as one of her two subscriptions.

Since then, Loughner's subscription has been removed. The man who made the video showing the congresswomans page posted his video on Jan 9. He filmed it after the shooting. How do we know this other than the fact that the man said in his video "yesterday's shooting"? Because how else would he know to even film the page showing Giffords' subscription to Loughner's page before we even knew Loughner's name and what he did?

Another way to know for sure that Loughner’s YouTube icon was on Giffords’ subscription section before the shooting is because after the shooting, Loughner was incarcerated, meaning he could not have accepted Giffords’ request to be her contact in a jail cell.

In no way am I trying to imply any deep connection between Giffords and Loughner. Giffords’ page is obviously ran by a Giffords staffer or friend, being that since the shooting her YouTube page has been accessed. So, please don’t post comments saying, “How insensitive of you to think Giffords would have anything to do with this and that she is connected to Loughner”. I am not implying this at all. I am simply asking why anyone at the Giffords camp made a request to Loughner’s YouTube page (Classitup10). I think it’s a valid thing to ask.

Video showing Loughner’s icon [of his YouTube page] on Giffords’ subscription list on her YouTube page

Commenters on a story at Talking Points Memo insist that Giffords/staffers were just looking at Loughner’s page, but to subscribe to a persons page the other party has to accept your request before the avatar appears on your page. You don’t have to subscribe to a page to view a page.

Giffords' YouTube page showing Loughner's icon on bottom left of page

Giffords' YouTube page after the removal of Loughner's icon

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Andy Ostroy: Palin Is To Blame for the Tucson Killings…No She’s Not…Yes She Is…No She’s Not...

Ostroy breaks his own flip-flop record: TWO days!

by Larry Simons
January 13, 2010

It seems our favorite liberal wingnut, Andy Ostroy, is determined to make it a 3-peat and walk home with 2011’s Fraudie award. He has accomplished a feat that I did not think even Bush or McCain would deliver. Taking only TWO days to flip flop.

Three days ago Ostroy wrote an article titled, "The Tucson Shooting: We Must Place Blame Where It Belongs" [January 10, 2011], in which he said this:

“There are those, like me, who seek to place the blame squarely where it's deserved: on the backs of right-wing hate-mongering radicals like Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.”

screen shot, incase he edits it

, in his article titled, "Palin Defiantly Feeds the Beast" [January 12, 2011], 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.”

screen shot, incase he edits it

If that colossal flip-flop [in record time, I might add] was not bad enough, in the very same article [at the end] he goes back to blaming her again, saying this:

“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.'”

To make matters worse, in TODAY’S article titled, “The Political Implosion of Sarah Palin” [January 13, 2011], he says this:

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

So, in essence, Ostroy is simply saying, “Blame her/it’s partisan vitriol to blame her/blame her/it’s unfair and inaccurate to blame her”

Jesus, my head is spinning from the winds of Hurricane Flip-flopia

To make matters even worse, Ostroy’s blog is nothing more than a litany of hate-filled toxic rhetoric from day one to the present day. Here are just a FEW examples of many, many, many I could list:

[Keep in mind, the following are just the TITLES of his articles]

April 1, 2005, “It’s Time To Take Down Tom Delay”. [Hmmm. “take down”? Take down in what way Andy? Injury? Murder?]

February 14, 2006, “Cheney’s Days Are Numbered” [What exactly do you mean here Andy? Planning on killing Cheney?]

February 15, 2006, “Cheney’s Got A Gun” [This is re-written words to “Janie’s Got a Gun” making fun of the Cheney shooting incident. Yes, Ostroy is mocking a very serious shooting]

July 4, 2006, “Washing Post’s Dana Priest Bitch-slaps Bill Bennett. It Was a Beautiful Thing to Watch” [violence was beautiful to watch Andy? No violent vitriol from the LEFT, huh?]

October 12, 2006, Bush Predicts GOP Victories in November. If That Isn’t The Kiss of Death for Republicans, What Is?" [Hmmmm. “Kiss of DEATH for Republicans? You want Republicans DEAD Andy? ]

October 9, 2006, “Sean Hannity is a Big, Fat Lying Hypocritical Repuglican Blowhard” [Ahhhh, no hateful vitriol from the left. Move along...nothing to see here]

July 28, 2007, “The Right Wing Media’s Hillary-Bashing Heats Up” [Posted on this story is a picture of Hillary Clinton with a giant machine gun with bullets strapped over her shoulder and a caption above saying “take no prisoners tour". At the bottom of the picture it says "Rambabe: Conservative Body Count"]

Here is a screen shot of his story incase he tries the ole edit-aroo!

May 31, 2009, "Message to Republicans: Attacking Sotomayor is Another Nail in Your Coffin". [Hmmm. Coffin? You wish them DEAD Andy?]

November 9, 2009, "F**K You Sean Hannity!" [Nope. No hateful rhetoric here!]

These are only a few. I was only browsing TITLES and not even checking every month!

Ostroy constantly called the Bush administration “Busheviks” and called Republicans “Repugs”, so for Ostroy to claim that violent and hateful rhetoric ONLY comes from the right is a massive lie, as I have just demonstrated.

Good job Andy, you’re starting off 2011 with a bang [oh no, did I say “bang”? Has that word been outlawed yet?]

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Media Ignores Many Left Wing Beliefs, Ideologies and Influences of Shooter Jared Lee Loughner

Even people who knew him called him “liberal” and “left wing” on Twitter entries

by Larry Simons
January 11, 2011

First and foremost, let me begin this post by expressing my deepest, heart-felt sympathies to the families who lost loved ones and of those who were injured in Saturday’s mass shooting spree in Tucson, Arizona. At a political event outside of a supermarket on Saturday, a psychopathic nut opened fire and killed six people in an attempt to assassinate Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

This post is not meant to, in any way, shape or form, exploit the injured and dead of Saturday’s shooting, but it is meant to make things perfectly clear about certain facts pertaining to Jared Lee Loughner, the deranged nut who is charged with these crimes.

Almost immediately since Saturday [even before they knew who the shooter was], the blogs and media, predictably, have been attempting to associate Loughner with Constitutionalists, conservatives, gun owners, libertarians and the Tea Party movement. In fact, practically the exact opposite is the case. We are learning that many of the ideologies and influences of Loughner are actually considered in the range from leftist to far left.

The NY Post mentioned that Giffords’ father, Spencer, was asked if his daughter had any enemies, in which he stated, “Yeah. The whole Tea Party”, despite the fact that [Congresswoman] Giffords was a strong supporter of the second amendment and tighter border security, two key issues that Tea Partiers also support.

Others like Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva suggests that anger at the government will automatically translate to assassination of public officials. He says, “[When] you stoke these flames, and you go to public meetings and you scream at the elected officials, you threaten them – you make us expendable you make us part of the cannon fodder. For a while, you’ve been feeding this hatred, this division… you feed it, you encourage it…. Something’s going to happen. People are feeding this monster…. Some of the extreme right wing has made demonization of elected officials their priority..”

Perhaps no one has painted a more vivid picture of obliterating anti-government speech than Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik when he said, “When you look at unbalanced people, how they are, uh, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.”

watch the clip

In an interview with FOX News’ Megan Kelly, Dupnik was asked by Kelly if he had any reason to believe that Loughner was taking in information or was any way influenced by the vitriol and the rhetoric that he refers to [namely anti-government rhetoric], in which Dupnik responds:

“If your question is specific, I have to be specific and say I don’t have that information yet. The investigation is it it’s very initial phases. But my belief, and I’ve been watching what’s been going on in this country for the last 75 years and I’ve been a police officer for over 50 years. There’s no doubt in my mind when a number of people night and day try to inflame the public, that there’s going to be some consequences from doing that and I think it’s irresponsible to do that.”Kelly responds, “It sounds like you’re being very honest that that’s just your speculation and that’s not anything that’s fact based at this point.”

Dupnik says, “That’s my opinion, period.”

After Kelly asked him why he is not focused primarily on facts, Dupnik says:

“Well, I think it’s more than just a political spin. I’m not sure that it really has anything to do with politics. I grew up in a country that was totally different from the country that we have today. We didn’t have this kind of nonsense going on, and it used to be that politicians from different parties could sit down, forget about their ideology and work on the countries problems.”

watch the clip

I find it interesting that Dupnik insists that “there’s no doubt" in his mind Loughner was influenced by anti-government rhetoric seconds after he just said that he didn’t have the information yet [on whether Loughner was inspired by political vitriol and anti-government rhetoric].

Equally hilarious was Dupnik saying, “Well, I think it’s more than just a political spin. I’m not sure that it really has anything to do with politics” then proceeds to make it a political issue by saying, “it used to be that politicians from different parties could sit down, forget about their ideology and work on the countries problems”.

Perhaps the most bizarre statement from Dupnik was this: “I grew up in a country that was totally different from the country that we have today. We didn’t have this kind of nonsense going on”. Hmmmm…did he take a time machine from 1959 and go straight to 1970 and completely miss the 1960’s? Where was he when both Kennedy’s, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Metger Evers and Malcolm X were all assassinated? Brilliantly, Megan Kelly does not miss the chance of mentioning a few of these names to the Sheriff, of which he has no response. [Also, Dupnik was 18 years old when four Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire in the House of Representatives on March 1, 1954, injuring five representatives who were among the 240 reps of the 83rd congress debating the immigration bill. But, Dupnik is right, that kind of nonsense didn't happen in his day....only what he conveniently remembers...which is nothing.]

On Saturday night, on a special presentation of Countdown during his Special Comment, Keith Olbermann praised Sheriff Dupnik for his above comments while not missing a chance to blame Loughner’s actions on the Tea Party and every conservative he could think of while completely omitting from his speech the fact that just two days before the shootings in Arizona, the Daily Kos posted this story [now removed] by someone named BoyBlue entitled, “My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now dead to me!” The Congresswoman BoyBlue is referring to? Gabrielle Giffords.

Here are the screen shots of the story. [click to enlarge, as well as all remaining pictures]

The Daily Kos also ran a story posted by Markos Moulitsas himself in June of 2008 where he said these words:

“Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can't save their jobs, they'll pay more attention to those who can.”

Right above this quote was a list of “targeted” Democrats who voted for the 2008 FISA bill. Giffords name was one of 43 blue dog democrats whose names were highlighted for “added emphasis”.

Olbermann also omitted the fact that Barack Obama said on June 14, 2008 at a Philadelphia fundraiser [to Republicans]: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”. Here’s the screen shot of the original Wall Street Journal story posted on the left wing Huffington Post website.

Had a conservative, gun owning libertarian said this, they would not only be mentioning it every 6 seconds on MSNBC and CNN, and not only would it be on every liberal blog you can name, but they would be tar-and-feathering the one who said it and hanging them on a flag pole by his ballsack. Since Obama said it, no big deal…move along, nothing to see here. We would also be hearing “He didn’t mean that LITERALLY, get real.”Here is a clip of Obama telling his supporters on Sept. 17, 2008 to “argue” with their political opponents and “get in their face”. Again, if there were a clip of a libertarian gun owner saying these words, they would be charged right along with Loughner as a co-conspirator of his crime. Since Obama said it, no big deal….move along, nothing to see here.

This brings us to the ramblings, yet again, of Mark Potok, of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Saturday night. Like clockwork, Potok wastes no time lumping Loughner in with the “conspiracy theorist/patriot movement/white supremacy” group because that’s his job.

watch the clip

Potok mentions Loughner’s YouTube page, in which Loughner lists his favorite books, but only mentions Ayn Rand’s We the Living, while completely ignoring the fact that Hitler’s Mein Kempf and The Communist Manifesto are among his faves. It’s quite clear why Potok would purposely refrain from mentioning these books, because they were written by socialists and mentioning them would have obliterated his point that Loughner is “right wing”. The Wizard of Oz and Peter Pan are also on Loughner’s favorite book list. Does this mean that Potok believes children all around the world who have read these two books are prone to assassinate politicians in public?

Loughner's YouTube page

Potok attempts to connect Loughner to conspiracy theorist David Icke by mentioning that Loughner posted that he studied “conscience dreaming” in college on his YouTube page. Potok says that term should be “conscious dreaming” and insists that Icke [which Potok pronounces “Icky”] practices conscious dreaming despite there being no mention of that term nowhere on Icke’s website or wikipedia page.

Potok also says that another “sign” that Loughner was part of the “radical right” was his “idea of the only legitimate currency being backed by gold and silver”. Potok calls this a “core idea of the radical right”, despite the fact that it was a core idea of the framers of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 10 says this:

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

According to Mark Potok, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be prone to assassinating political officials. They get no nuttier than Mark Potok.

Then, we have our favorite liberal wingnuts Dave Neiwert and Andy Ostroy to add their exploitation to the mix.

Neiwert, in his latest article, without any facts whatsoever to link Loughner to “right wing extremism”, the Patriot movement or government hatred, immediately links Loughner to the right wing by saying that the Giffords shooting makes “19 total cases of domestic-terrorism inspired by right-wing extremism in the past couple of years”.

Neiwert cites 18 incidents of “supposed” right-wing acts of domestic terrorism in the past 2-½ years. Most of his list are incidents that seemingly had nothing to do with right-wing extremism. Four of the incidents appear to be grounded in racism against President Obama. Neiwert has never made a conclusive link between white supremacists and right-wing extremists.

A good example of the point I am making is holocaust museum shooter James von Brunn [who happens to be one of the 18 examples Neiwert lists] who supposedly was “right wing” and a white supremacist. Nevermind the fact that Neiwert NOT ONCE mentioned in ANY of his stories that von Brunn hated both Bush’s, McCain and FOX News and that the FOX News affiliate in Washington DC was his next target.

Neiwert mentions an unidentified man who walked into a Jacksonville mosque in May of 2010 and set it on fire, also setting off a pipe bomb. In the article that he links to, nowhere does it mention the man was “right wing” or how anyone would even know what his political views were since he is UNIDENTIFIED.

Neiwert mentions tax protester Joe Stack who flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas in February of 2010, but fails to mention that “right wing” Joe Stack was a DEMOCRAT and quoted socialist Karl Marx in hs suicide note.

Neiwert mentions Scott Roeder, the man who assassinated abortion doctor George Tiller in May of 2009. No mention by Neiwert on how he knows Roeder was “right wing” or even had a political agenda. It was not possible that Roeder killed Tiller because he was pissed off about abortions? Not that this would justify it. In fact, I wrote about this story and condemned O’ Reilly for possibly fueling the murders. You don’t have to be right wing or a follower of O’ Reilly to be angry about abortion. Case-in-point….I, myself, abhor Bill O’ Reilly and I am not right wing, but I still oppose abortion. Case closed.

Neiwert mentions Pittsburgh cop killer Richard Poplawski, who killed 3 cops in April of 2009. Again no mention of what makes a white supremacist “right wing” [as I debunked in the James von Brunn incident].

Neiwert mentions Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell, who wounded two officers in March of 2010, but once again fails to mention that he was a registered DEMOCRAT.Neiwert’s remaining examples may very well be tied to right-wing extremists, I have no idea. I don’t have much knowledge of those incidents, but I just explained away 10 of them very quickly. I am sure if I spent more time investigating the lesser-known incidents, I am sure I would find more evidence that Neiwert is sensationalizing these incidents and that would make him an even bigger lying sack of shit than I have already proven him to be.

Neiwert calls the Giffords shooting the “19th case of domestic terrorism by right-wing extremism” when we still do not have any idea what the reason is behind the Arizona shootings. It could be anything. It could be the fact that Loughner is a known anti-semite [because he obviously loves Hitler] and he acted out because Giffords is Jewish. My point is: we don’t know the reasons yet, and that is why people like Sheriff Dupnik and Dave Neiwert need to shut their gigantic pieholes until we have FACTS. Until then, these fucktards are exploiting the deaths of six people [including a 6-year-old]. I bet that makes those bastards real proud!

Fucktard Andy Ostroy is another who exploits the tragedy to make a cheap political point. He immediately blames O’ Reilly, Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity and Glenn Beck for hateful rhetoric when his own site is filled with the exact same hateful rhetoric. I don’t have time to post it all.

Ostroy says this:

“Is it not fair or accurate then to connect the dots to these reckless rabble-rousers and put the blood of the Tuscon victims on their hands? Given the political rantings on his website and in YouTube videos, 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?”

Ostroy knows this? He has proof Loughner was influenced by the aforementioned people? Do the people listed say inflammatory things on occasion? Of course they do, but so do liberals. Remember Chris Matthews saying he wished Rush Limbaugh would die from a CO2 pellet to the head? Does Ostroy mention this? Hell no.

Here are Matthews’ words and the clip [from October 13, 2009]:

“You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we'll be there to watch. I think he's Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?"

Of course Ostroy doesn’t mention this. It would destroy his agenda and his exploitation of the Arizona tragedy by telling his 3 readers that LEFT wing people spew vitriol too.

Also, it makes no sense that Loughner would be a rock-solid right-winger when Giffords advocated right-wing issues like border security and gun rights. It has also been revealed in the last 24 hours that Loughner was into the occult, idolized fake human skulls and dressed like the grim reaper. Odd behavior for a right-wing conservative.

A photo was recently taken [below] of Loughner’s back yard showing the human skull shrine.

Also, others who knew Loughner tweeted on Saturday and said he was “left wing” and “liberal”. Tweeter “antderosa” said this on Twitter on Saturday:

As I knew him, he was left-wing, quite liberal & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy

“lakarune” said this:

I haven’t seen him since ’07. Then he was left-wing

The bottom line is this: Vitriol and hate speech comes from both sides of the political fence. For one side to demonize the other without facts and without a pure and sincere desire to know what was at the very heart of these crimes is dangerous, unprofessional and downright despicable.

Olbermann, Potok, Neiwert, Dupnik, Ostroy and any other asshole that immediately jumped on board the exploitation train should be immediately fired and on their knees begging for forgiveness for taking a real tragedy [that resulted in real dead people] and turning it into a cheap political soundbyte to advance their political agendas.

Real Truth Online wishes speedy recoveries for Congresswoman Giffords as well as the remaining injured. We wish comfort and peace of mind to the families that lost their loved ones.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Billo’s Evidence There’s A God? The Fact That There Are Tides!

Apparently Billo has never heard of the MOON!
by Larry Simons
January 7, 2011

On Tuesday’s The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo wanted to get to the bottom of the massive billboard conspiracy to eliminate religion that [in his mind] is sweeping America. Billo invited the main conspirator, David Silverman, to sit and have a chat about why Billo believes religion is real and Silverman believes it is a scam. Billo asks Silverman why he is insulting religious people with his atheism billboards.

Silverman, who is the president of the organization American Atheists and who is also responsible for several atheist billboards to be seen [in New Jersey and Alabama] explained to Billo that the main reason for the billboards is to lure atheists from churches [Silverman believes that most religious people deep down know religion is a scam and are really atheists].

I personally do not believe religious people sitting in pews every week are closet atheists. That’s why they are so nutty, because they really believe what they are being told! If Silverman really believes they are closet atheists, then they are really not “gullible” as he claims to Billo they are. They would be smart people who are wasting their time in church every Sunday. My take is, if they are really atheists, yet go to church every week, that actually would make them stupid!

watch the clip

Silverman explains to Billo that he believes it is not the fault of the [religious] people who have been misled by religion, but rather the blame lies with the religious leaders. Silverman then tells Billo that even Billo is an atheist.

SILVERMAN: Everybody knows religion is a scam. The only news here is that people are saying it.
BILLO: Everybody knows? I don’t know, Mr. Silverman.
SILVERMAN: Yes you do.
BILLO: No, I don’t. I gotta tell you that.
SILVERMAN: You sit here and you’re skeptical every day and then you go to church and you get on your knees…..
BILLO: Correct.
SILVERMAN: ….and you pray to an invisible man in the sky, and you don’t think that’s a scam?
BILLO: No, I don’t and I’ll tell you why. I’ll tell you why it’s not a scam in my opinion. Alright?
BILLO: Tide goes in. Tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in….
SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out? [Looking profoundly confused, as he should]
BILLO: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out Mr. Silverman. It always comes in….
SILVERMAN: Ahh, maybe it’s Thor on top of Mt. Olympus who’s making the tides go in and out.
BILLO: No, no, but you can’t explain that. You can’t explain it.

I can explain it Billo. Look real close now, Billo. Are you ready? You looking? Paying attention? OK Billo, here’s the answer……

See Billo…easily explained. You can even read about how tides are caused here. My confusion is why Silverman failed to mention the moon and sun. Now, if you want to make the case that God created the moon and sun, fine, feel free Billo, but saying “tide goes in, tide goes out” as if that alone proves the existence of God makes you look like the buffoon you have always been. My personal belief is that Billo and Silverman both are nutballs for establishing a conclusive belief on something no one can possibly know.

Nevertheless, Billo’s stupidity was enough to win him the gold in Worst Person on Countdown.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Ron Paul Talks 2012 Presidential Run: “I am Involved In A Revolution”

All other potential candidates represent the status quo

Steve Watson
January 4, 2011

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has once again spoke of a potential Presidential campaign for 2012, declaring that is is very seriously considering running, given that all other potential candidates from both parties do not represent any real change.

The Congressman appeared alongside his son, Senator elect Rand Paul on CNN’s Anderson Copper 360 show.

The Congressman again described the odds of such a development as 50/50, but supporters will take great encouragement from his words:

“People ask me if I think about it a lot and I do because I get asked it all the time. But yes. I am giving it very serious consideration, and I know all the pros and cons.” the Congressman said.

“I do listen to many supporters that seem to be so sincere and interested in what I’ve been doing over the many years. They have responded to the monetary issues and the policy issues and the personal liberty issues.” Paul added.

“Because the young people are responding and giving the encouragement, I am really thinking very seriously about it, but at this time I cannot give an answer.” he told viewers.

When asked who Paul believed would be his most formidable challenger if he ran again, the Congressman noted:

“I would consider everyone of them a pretty big challenge because I am involved in a revolution, I want revolutionary ideas, I want to return our country to the original roots of individual liberty.”

“Everyone that I know of, Republican and Democrat, in many ways they represent the Status Quo.” Paul continued.

“They don’t get excited about the Federal Reserve, they don’t get excited about bringing troops home from Japan, they don’t get excited about reducing the government by 50, 60 or 70 percent, and letting college kids get out of social security. No, they would all fit the position of the status quo, and the supporters I have know that we’re talking about something quite different.”

The two Dr Pauls also discussed cutting military spending and ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq:

“I’d come home from Iraq, Afghanistan, the middle east, Germany, Korea, Japan. You could have a transition period for some of these entitlement problems we have at home, I want to get rid of those too, but I would start with all this overseas spending.” Ron Paul stated.

Responding to comments made by Vice President Biden that the US will fully withdraw from Afghanistan within three years, the Congressman did not mince words:

“It should happen right now, it’s not going to happen then, they’re always telling us that. They are not going to leave Iraq – why would they be building all these military bases and building billion dollar embassies in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq? They have no intention on leaving and the people know that – that’s why they hate our guts, that’s why they are disgusted and that’s why we’re bankrupt.” the Congressman urged.

“War is the health of the state. Anyone who wants small government – conservatives, constitutionalists and libertarians – if they want small government they have to understand that war is the health of the state. When you have war you can justify just about anything.” he added.

The Congressman and the Senator elect also spoke about how they are preparing for the convening of the 112th Congress this week.

Watch the interview below: