Thursday, June 23, 2011
FRAUD ALERT! Moron Blogger Suffers from Alex Jones Syndrome: Bitches About Being Banned When He Bans Others
by Larry Simons
June 23, 2011
In February, I introduced a fraudulent, secretive blogger who hides behind the moniker The Last Blog Left, who has not won a single argument with me to date. Frequently, in order to defend his stances on issues, he will re-post portions of my posts omitting my entire point from the re-posted text. He blatantly lies and make claims he never ever backs up with evidence. His motto should be: It’s true because I said it’s true.
One of his many colossal contradictory acts is, like Alex Jones, claiming that another website has been deleting his comments or has banned him completely, yet turns right around and deletes comments and bans others.
Most recently, on June 21, the asshole blogger said:
“I'm debating whether to ban you - I am really tired of your nonsense. Repeatedly warning you and doing nothing is dumb - I won't continue doing it.
I am holding off because I dislike banning people. And you do such a good job of discrediting your own position.”
Here is the screen shot of it.
He claims he “dislikes” banning people, although occurrences like the one above happen so often, it would take me a month to compile the screen shots of them. Equally as often are the postings of TLNL bitching and whining that he has been banned by others.
See for yourself here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. And these were just the stories that mentioned either being deleted or banned in the title. I had no time to look [nor wanted to] at every story to see if he huffed and puffed about it throughout the text.
This person is a nameless, faceless troll who does not deserve my time, let alone the hits he will receive courtesy of my 20,000-hits-a-year blog.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Maher is asked by Anderson Cooper which Republican he would vote for if he had to pick one of the seven in Monday’s New Hampshire debate. He chooses Ron Paul because “he's cut from a different cloth than the rest of those people, who are, of course, selling their souls to the corporate interests who back them”
by Larry Simons
June 16, 2011
On Tuesday night’s edition of Anderson Cooper 360°, Cooper chats with comedian Bill Maher of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher about Monday’s GOP debate in New Hampshire. Cooper asks Maher if, after watching the debate, his mind had changed about the Republican candidates in the race. Maher responds, “No. Of course it got even worse”, then added, “Republicanism has, it’s really become a religion. And when I say religion I mean they just have a series of baseless assertions that they cleave to, you know, and it’s like, if there was just one sane person in that room to give perspective, but there wasn’t”
Cooper then asks Maher which candidate he would vote for if he had to pick one of them. Maher responds:
“I would vote for Ron Paul if I had to pick. I mean Ron Paul is at least not a panderer. He’s sincere. He’s got the right ideas about getting our troops home.”
“And, you know, I like Ron Paul. I think he’s cut from a different cloth than the rest of those people, who are, of course, selling their souls to the corporate interests who back them, and who have just horrible, society-killing ideas about America and either don’t know what’s real or don’t care”
watch the clip
While I wholeheartedly agree with Maher that Ron Paul is by far the best choice of the current GOP candidates in the race [I would say, of anyone], I cannot ignore Maher’s blatant hypocrisy concerning his statement, “he’s [Ron Paul] cut from a different cloth than the rest of those people, who are, of course, selling their souls to the corporate interests who back them”.
While that statement couldn’t be more true, Maher’s hypocrisy lies in the fact that he appears to notice when GOP candidates sell their souls to the corporate interests that back them, but turns a blind eye to Democrats who have done the same thing [namely Obama]. I challenge anyone to find a single politician in Washington [Republican or Democrat] that has sold their soul to corporate interests more than Obama.
Ron Paul is one of very few politicians in Washington [Republican and Democrat combined] that has not sold their soul and who do not get funded by large corporations and special interest groups, but Maher makes it appear as if Ron Paul only stands out in that area among only Republicans.
While Maher should be commended by recognizing the major differences between Ron Paul and the other GOP hopefuls, one cannot help to wonder if this is Maher's way of suggesting he is living vicariously through Ron Paul at that very moment [on stage] when Paul is blasting other Republicans. As if Ron Paul is literally taking the words out of Maher’s mouth as Maher is watching these debates and throwing his shoe at the TV set.
Although I do not believe that Maher is being insincere when he says he likes Ron Paul, he fails to go the extra mile and take stands on Constitutional issues at all times. Maher is clearly a Democrat and a staunch liberal and does not hold liberal Democrats’ feet to the fire nearly as much as he should. Maher is a sellout himself, being that he takes pleasure in ridiculing 9/11 truthers and birthers, while not inviting them on his show in order to pacify the corporate interests that back Real Time with Bill Maher.
Maher is 100% correct on one thing: the debate was a joke. Our country is in the middle of another Great Depression; families are losing their homes; unemployment is at near record levels; more Americans are on food stamps than at any other time in history; jobs are being lost by the thousands; we are bombing five countries and in the middle of three wars that is draining our money supply; soldiers are dying in three unconstitutional wars and we have to be subjected to such disgraceful and moronic questions like, “Conan or Leno?”, “Dancing with the Stars or American Idol?” Are you shitting me?
None of the candidates, except Ron Paul, talked about the real problems in this country. All we heard was two hours of the same old rehearsed crapola we hear every four years by rich pricks that do not care one iota about what it takes to get this country back to where it needs to be again.
Only one person, Ron Paul, talked about the real culprits surrounding the massive debt in this country, the Federal Reserve. Only Ron Paul talked about getting the troops home and the importance of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Only Ron Paul talked about sound monetary policy.
During the interview, Cooper asked Maher if he thought Michelle Bachman “did well” during the debate, in which Maher replied, “Of course not. She did well by what standard? Because she’s able to speak and complete sentences?” Despite that making me laugh out loud, Maher does not touch on the real reason that people like Bachman should be shunned and written off as the colossal hypocrites they are: She claims to be the Tea Party figurehead but yet voted for the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act, which actually strips Americans of their liberties, not protects them.
For the most part I like Bill Maher. I do not believe he is phony or insincere about who he praises or bashes, but he is a sellout, meaning he will praise or bash a person or an issue until his corporate bosses tell him not to. It is at that very moment Maher becomes the very people among the corporate-controlled GOP candidates that he criticized for “selling their souls to the corporate interests that back them”.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
by Larry Simons
June 7, 2011
Another of my favorite singers growing up in the 1970’s has passed away. Singer-songwriter, producer and multi-instrumentalist, Andrew Gold, has died at age 59 apparently from cancer. The singer died June 3 in his sleep, two months shy of his 6oth birthday.
Gold first gained notoriety in the early 70’s as a member of Linda Ronstadt’s band and played a key role in two of her biggest hits, “You’re No Good” and “When Will I Be Loved”. In 1977, Gold shot to stardom with the #7 hit “Lonely Boy” from his second solo album, “What’s Wrong with This Picture?”.
A year later, Gold enjoyed a top 25 hit “Thank You For Being A Friend”, which later gained additional success when a cover version was used as the theme for the hit show The Golden Girls.
Lesser known facts about Gold include he had a major hit in the UK titled, “Never Let Her Slip Away” in 1978 and that he, along with ex-10cc member Graham Gouldman, formed the group Wax in 1986 and released two singles, “Right Between the Eyes”  and “Bridge to Your Heart” .
Gold also sang the theme song to the hit sitcom Mad About You, titled “Final Frontier”.
I emailed Andrew Gold in 1999 and asked him if I could have his autograph if I mailed my address. He graciously responded with a “yes”. I received the autograph a few weeks later. It is shown in the photo above. It was the only autograph I ever received by request through email.
Here are some of Gold’s best songs
“Lonely Boy” 
“Thank You For Being A Friend” 
“Right Between the Eyes” [Wax, 1986]
Monday, June 6, 2011
Maher’s brilliant investigative research leads him to believe that Corsi is a kook just because Obama released his birth certificate [although it’s fake] before Corsi released his book
by Larry Simons
June 6, 2011
On Friday’s episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher did not waste time or the opportunity to ridicule Jerome Corsi’s new book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, Corsi himself and those who have purchased the book. Here is the dialogue of the segment:
“New rule: the publisher of the timely new best seller, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, must change its title to “I’m with Stupid”. And the people who buy this book…hey, if the President releases his birth certificate and you still buy a book called, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, it’s time for your children to call the hospice and have the nurse cut up your credit cards.”
watch the clip
It appears that Maher would be correct in assuming that if this issue simply boiled down to the fact that Corsi released a book asking for a birth certificate a full month after Obama released the birth certificate, it would be an open and shut case and Corsi would look like a babbling fool. Unfortunately for Maher, his birther research skills match those of his 9/11 research skills. Just as Maher insults and ridicules 9/11 truthers on his show, while failing to investigate it or invite anyone on his show to discuss it, he uses the same approach for birtherism.
Maher cannot be blamed solely for not inviting Corsi on to discuss why the book was released after Obama released his birth certificate in late April, because no one will have Corsi on their shows, even FOX news [and Corsi is a frequent guest there]. It is obvious why Obama gatekeepers refuse to have Corsi on their programs to discuss the book, but even news organizations like FOX news refuse to invite him on. No doubt because [and even Corsi has concurred] the White House will refuse access to the President if anyone gives Corsi’s book the light of day.
Maher [and his ilk] is too immersed in political bias to stoop so low as to investigate an issue that gets in the way of his allegiance to his party. If Maher had done any research whatsoever into why Corsi still released his book after the release of Obama’s birth certificate, he would have found out the following:
1. For 2 ½ years Obama failed to release a long-form birth certificate and as of January 2011, even the Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, did not know where it was. A reporter friend of Abercrombie’s, named Mike Evans, said that when he called Abercrombie’s office, they told him that the Governor had used his power to search records from all the hospitals where babies were delivered around the time of Obama’s birth and that “There is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii – absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii”.
2. In January 2011, former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams signed an affidavit swearing he was told by supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama, Jr. in Hawaii and that neither the Queens Medical Center or the Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their hospitals.
3. Corsi knew months in advance that Obama was planning to release a long-form birth certificate that as late as April 2011, did not exist. Corsi had informants inside the Hawaiian State government that warned him that Obama operatives were planning to plant and publicly release a forged birth certificate possibly in October of 2012 for an October surprise. The publication of Corsi’s book forced the White House to speed up the release of the birth certificate.
Listen to this interview from May 24 of Corsi talking to Alex Jones. Click here for the interview. You can hear Corsi’s segment at 2 hours, 8 minutes into it.
Bill Maher is not a journalist and not someone who is really interested in getting to the truth. He’s an entertainer and he knows [now] not to cross the line into deep controversy, being that he has already been fired once for his controversial statements.
If Maher has a sincere desire to get to the facts, why not invite Corsi on his show to discuss this? Maher has authors on his show every single week. Why is he ditching Corsi [like everyone else is]?
Gee, I wonder why.
Michelle Goldberg Blatantly Lies About Jerome Corsi’s New Book On Obama’s Ineligibility to Be President
Not only is she a big fat liar, but accuses Corsi of being racist when it is actually her that insults African Americans by her astonishing lack of understanding of the difference between the Natural Born Citizen clause and the 14th amendment
by Larry Simons
June 6, 2011
Author and Daily Beast contributor Michelle Goldberg is a colossal liar. Her May 31 article titled, “Why Birthers Won’t Die” [or maybe she meant to say “Birtherism”, unless she really wants people who do not believe Obama is eligible to be President to literally die] is chock full of lies, distortions, racist remarks and just plain stupidity.
In her article, she sets out to condemn and disprove author Jerome Corsi’s new book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President”, a book that debuted last week on the New York Times Bestseller list [and peaked] at #6. Instead, she not only proves that she has no understanding of Corsi’s points on the subject matter of Obama’s ineligibility to be President, but also has no understanding of the Constitution.
The first of her many colossal lies comes early in the article when she writes:
“If you read between the lines, Where's the Birth Certificate? doesn't just argue that Obama is ineligible to hold the office. It implies that all children of immigrants, and perhaps all people of color, are as well.”
The book does no such thing. Corsi makes very clear the point that any candidate is eligible for the presidency if they are a natural born citizen and meet all other requirements under the Constitution. Nowhere in the book does Corsi say, or even imply, that if a presidential candidate meets ALL requirements under the Constitution to be president, they still might not be eligible if they are the child of an immigrant or a person of color. This is simply what Goldberg wants her readers to believe Corsi says in the book.
“Much of Where's the Birth Certificate? rehashes old, debunked stories meant to cast doubt on Obama's birth in Hawaii.”
Corsi includes 125 exhibits in the center of the book, consisting of documents, articles and screen shots of web pages…none of which he made up. Here are two of the web pages that Corsi provides in his book as screen shots that “cast doubt on Obama’s birth in Hawaii”……which have never been debunked by the way. In fact, I do not even believe they have been discussed in the media…ever.
Here is a screen shot from the Sunday Standard, a publication in Kenya. This 2004 article is titled, “Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate”. [click both, below, to enlarge]
Here is a screen shot from the Nigerian Observer from 2008. The article states, “The Kenyan-born Senator will, however, face a stiff competition from his Republican counterpart, John McCain…”
Goldberg claims these Kenyan-born references have been debunked, but naturally, fails to provide evidence of it.
“But the book also claims that even if Obama was born in the United States, he still might not be a "natural-born citizen" because of his father's foreign citizenship, which would make him ineligible for the presidency.”
Here is where Goldberg displays that she is unaware of the distinction between a “citizen” of the United States and “natural born citizen” of the United States. The founders were crystal clear that one has to be a “natural born” citizen to be eligible for the presidency, which holds very distinctive requirements: Reside in the U.S. at least 14 years, be at least 35 years old and be a natural born citizen.
Also, it is clear that the founders never intended a dual citizen to be a natural born citizen. A person who has dual citizenship may have loyalties to another country in addition to loyalties to the United States. The founders required potential presidential candidates to place their loyalty solely with the United States. Barack Obama’s father [B. Obama, Sr.] was born in Kenya in 1936 and in 1961 [the year Obama Jr. was born] Kenya was a commonwealth country of Great Britain, making Obama, Sr. a British subject. The British Nationality Act of 1948 states in Part II, Section 5:
“Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”
Barack Obama, Jr. was born “after the commencement of this act” [in 1961]. That means Obama “shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent of his father if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”
Obama, Sr. never became an American citizen. At best, Obama Jr. was a dual citizen at the time of his birth in Hawaii in 1961. This is exactly why the founders required that those running for president be “natural born citizens” as opposed to simply “U.S. citizens”. The founders did not want any potential president to have dual citizenship and therefore have loyalties to another country.
In fact, because Obama was a British subject at the time of his birth, it is irrelevant whether or not he was born in Hawaii. His birth in Hawaii does not supercede the fact the he was a British subject at birth. Nothing would change this fact. Nothing Obama would/could do later would change the fact that he was a British subject at birth. The framers of the Constitution were very clear that the requirement they established for presidential eligibility, to be natural born, only applies AT THE TIME OF BIRTH.
The fact that he was a British subject at birth in and of itself makes Obama ineligible to be President. Nothing else matters. A birth certificate doesn’t matter. Being born in Hawaii doesn’t matter. In fact, this may be the only problem I have with Corsi’s book: His book is titled, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, as if Obama having a genuine birth certificate matters. It doesn’t. Obama was a British subject at his birth. End of story.
“To make this argument, Corsi dredges up a constitutional theory popular in white supremacist and anti-immigrant circles, making an invidious distinction between those granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment and those who were citizens under the Constitution as originally written.”
Complete bullshit, and Goldberg knows it. What Goldberg is doing here, is attempting to convey to her readers that citizenship granted under the 14th amendment and “natural born citizenship” should even be spoken in the same breath. Corsi is never referring to ordinary native born citizenship when he makes his case for Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Corsi is speaking about “natural born” citizenship, which is a subset of citizen. There is a very distinctive difference between being “natural born” and being simply a native born citizen [born within the U.S.]. If there were no difference at all, there would have been no point or relevance in the founders to use the specific term “natural born”. All they would have been required to say was, “All U.S. citizens are eligible to be President”.
“Corsi's ideas about a lesser sort of 14th Amendment citizenship have deep roots on the far right. Ratified in 1868, the amendment banished the whites-only version of citizenship affirmed in the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.”
Then she cites the text of Section 1 of the 14th amendment, which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Goldberg has completely lost her mind. First of all, not only does she imply that Corsi is even referring to the 14th amendment in his book concerning Obama [he’s not, because the 14th amendment was passed to include black people as American citizens in lieu of the Dred Scott decision of 1857 which held that blacks could not be U.S. citizens. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “natural born” citizens], but she implies that the 14th amendment nullifies Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution which states:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The two portions of the Constitution are night and day. Where one is referring to presidential eligibility requirements, the other refers to general U.S. citizenship of anyone that is either born in the United States or goes through the naturalization process. But, Goldberg wants us to believe that the 14th amendment, which speaks of general U.S. citizenship, nullifies Article 2, Section 1, which speaks of presidential eligibility requirements. Holy shitballs. And they call birthers crazy? Whew!
Goldberg continues [and here is where her insanity peaks]:
“But Corsi's ideas about the 14th Amendment, if taken seriously, wouldn't just affect the children of immigrants—they could disqualify all black people from the presidency. "Obama defenders who want to define him as a natural-born citizen because he is native-born and a citizen under the 14th Amendment are engaged in an effort to redefine Article 2, Section 1, away from its original natural law meaning," Corsi writes. The original meaning, of course, did not encompass black people. That's why we needed the 14th Amendment in the first place.”
Earth to Goldberg: Corsi is NOT saying the 14th amendment bars ANYONE from the presidency! Corsi is simply saying that people who call Obama a NATURAL BORN citizen [which you MUST be to become President] when he is only a U.S. citizen [defined as being either born within the U.S. OR born to American parents] are attempting to rewrite Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution to now mean the only requirement to be eligible for the presidency is just to be a U.S. citizen . For Christ’s sake, a first grader could understand that!
Corsi is clearly admitting in the above quote that Obama IS native born AND a U.S. citizen, but he is not a NATURAL BORN citizen, which you must be to be eligible for the presidency. How could Corsi’s views bar children of immigrants or black people from the presidency unless they did not meet the eligibility requirements stated by the founders under Article 2, Section 1? The 14th amendment has nothing to do with presidential eligibility requirements, but that simple fact does not stop Goldberg’s racist exploitation of immigrant offspring and black people, does it?
Goldberg’s racist rant seems to be nothing more than a clear case of Freudian Projection [where one hides their own feelings about something only to ascribe them, or project them, to someone else]. Obviously Goldberg is the real racist here and to hide behind it, she accuses Corsi of being racist, where no racism exists on his part.
Two comments left under Goldberg’s article capture my view perfectly.
“So basically what this author is claiming is that article 2 section 1 of constitution is meaningless. Ms. Goldberg claims that the 14th amendment nullified that part of the constitution. My question is, where in the 14th amendment does it change the requirement from "natural born" citizen to simply citizen in order to be president? Why would the drafters of the constitution use the specific qualification of "natural born" citizen when listing the requirements to be eligible to hold the office of president if they meant for all citizens to be eligible? The definition of "natural born" was understood by the drafters to mean a person whose parents are BOTH citizens of the nation. I defy anyone to prove differently. The "natural born" qualification was put in place to prevent the possibility of someone with dual loyalties (as Obama has with Kenya) from being the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
I beg the author of this racist article to explain how adhering to article 2 section 1 of the constitution could disqualify any black person, whose parents are both U.S. citizens, from running for or holding the presidency. Come on Michelle Goldberg, explain what logic (or lack there of) lead you to that brilliant conclusion. The constant cries of racism the progressives are engaged in has only succeeded in diminishing the impact of the accusation to less than zero. Especially where Obama is concerned. They seem to forget that Obama is 1/2 white”
Another comment sums this issue up brilliantly.
“IQ al Rassooli” states:
“Of course - with great (but extremely subtle) irony it is Michelle Goldberg and NOT Jerome Corsi who is expressing racial bias.
For Corsi race does not come into it - he really couldn't care less what colour (if indeed any) Obama is, has or claims. Instead Corsi is concerned only with specific well researched and carefully expressed technical arguments concerning legal and constitutional matters and of course truth verses lies and misinformation.
By stark contrast Goldberg (presumably being yet another self-loathing white person desperate to endlessly prove his "politically correct" lack of racial bias) introduces the completely irrelevant topic of race where it was not previously even considered by Corsi. Goldberg states that "The original meaning, of course, did not encompass black people" and whilst there may be a grain of truth in that it is erased by the fact that the original meaning (and still current) of Article 2, Section 1 (clause 5, incidentally) doesn't encompass white people either! It simply makes clear that one of a tiny number of crucial qualifications for a person (irrespective of race or gender or any other factors) to be considered eligible to become the president is that he (or she) should at least be a "natural born" citizen. This is not asking too much and it most certainly does NOT exclude black people; anyone who is born on US soil becomes a "native born" citizen and anyone born to TWO parents who are BOTH American citizens (by virtue of their own place of birth or any other qualifying reason) at the time of birth can be a "Natural Born" citizen (provided a number of other perfectly reasonable conditions are also met, such as that they do not for any reason have dual nationality at the time of their birth).
The "natural born" qualification is a very specific technicality that rarely has any importance EXCEPT if you'd like to run for the White House, therefore few people have generally given it any thought prior to Obama (and his army of supporters) trying to run rings round (and blow holes through) the constitution they should instead be diligently and tirelessly defending. Most people (especially Obama's supports) are confused about the subtle difference between "natural" and "native".”
I couldn’t have said it better.
Here is a clip of Dr. Corsi on WSAU News/Talk Radio 550 on May 19, where he humiliates one of the radio hosts about the 14th amendment. It is found at 8:56 into the clip