Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Newt “I’ve had THREE wives” Gingrich Preaches to Others about Faith, Prayer and Using Judgement

Isn’t that like Archie Bunker preaching against bigotry?

by Larry Simons
October 19, 2011

Last night at the Republican debate, the topic of politics and religion came up. Newt Gingrich chimed in and said these words:

“There’s a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life, and I frankly would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgements, because then I’d wonder ‘where’s your judgements c-----how can you have judgement if you have no faith?’ And how can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?”

Are you serious Newt? This guy preaching to others about “faith affecting their judgement” is like if Hitler had preached to people on the evils of genocide or Archie Bunker preaching about the evils of bigotry [I’m glad I don’t work for ESPN].

It is well known that Gingrich had his first wife, Jackie, sign divorce papers while she was in the hospital undergoing her third surgery [to remove a tumor]. Gingrich cheated on his second wife, Marianne [whom he was also seeing when married to Jackie], with Callista Bisek [his current wife], a Congressional aide 23 years his junior.

What in the hell is Gingrich doing talking to anyone about Christian morality? How is he even accepted into the Catholic religion when he has been divorced twice?

It just goes to show you the severe perverseness of religion. For someone like Gingrich to claim that he should be trusted because he prays [when he has been married three times, cheated on two of the wives, and most likely the current one too, and then be accepted into a religion that abhors divorce] is at the very least the epitome of absurdity and should insult the intelligence of even the most simple-minded human being.

watch and laugh

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Pennsylvania Police Officer Threatens Ron Paul Supporter for Filming Him in Public

Nevermind that Philadelphia police Commissioner Charles Ramsey circulated a memo on September 23 stating that citizens have the right to record police and it is not illegal

by Larry Simons
October 18, 2011

Here we go, another incident of police officers thinking they are above the law and can arrest people for filming their misconduct.

On October 10, an Exton, Pennsylvania police officer approaches a Ron Paul supporter and tells him he must stay off a median because it is creating a blind spot for drivers. The man is apparently with a small group of Ron Paul supporters and holding up signs.

It is a reasonable request but the police officer engages in two big problems. First, his piss-poor bullying attitude creates an unprofessional back-and-forth incident with the citizen. Shortly after the incident begins, another person [apparently from the Ron Paul group] shows up with a camera and begins recording the incident.

The cop then claims he doesn’t know who Ron Paul is. Fair enough, but if the cop were intervening on these people because he dislikes Ron Paul and his supporters, would he admit he knew who Ron Paul was? Doubtful.

About 3 years ago, I had a similar incident of someone claiming they “didn’t know” who Ron Paul was. My landlord instructed me to take my Ron Paul sign out of the inside of my window because it was not permitted per the lease. But my lease stated this: The tenant agrees that no signs will be placed or painting done on or about the premises by the tenant or at the tenant’s direction without the prior, express and written consent of the landlord.

Obviously this rule was included in the lease to deter damage that might result from either the placing of a sign or painting in the house. But the landlord did allow pictures to be hung on walls, which created holes in the walls from the nails. My Ron Paul sign created no damage whatsoever. It was simply just sitting inside the windowsill held up with a few strips of scotch tape. The landlord said I had to remove it and that he “didn’t know” who Ron Paul was. Yeah, OK. Nice try.

The point is, cops and others in authority DO act on political ideology and I am 100% convinced they know exactly who these politicians are, even when they claim they do not.

The police officer’s second big problem was that, after he found out he was being filmed, he threatened the two young men with being locked up. Then the cop tells the cameraman that if he does not delete the film in front of him, he would go get his detectives and “when we come back, we’re going to have a problem.”

The cop stated the men needed his permission to film. When one of the men said, “Well, you’re a public officer”, the policeman blew up and said, “Walk. I’m telling you to walk right now.”

Turns out, the cop is violating his own police commissioner’s memorandum that was issued on September 23. Exton is just outside of Philadelphia, where the police commissioner there, Charles Ramsey, issued a memo just weeks ago for the purpose of correcting his officers on their notably corrupt conduct [The Philadelphia Police Dept. is one of the most corrupt in the nation].

The memo said that officers should reasonably anticipate and expect to be photographed, videotaped and/or be audibly recorded by members of the general public. Additionally, “officers have no authority to confiscate the recording devices” and should never intentionally damage or destroy them or delete images, the memo said. However, if an officer believes that the device contains evidence of a crime and fears that it may be destroyed, the officer can confiscate it without a warrant”.

It is not illegal to videotape a police officer, Ramsey said in a phone interview.

“Cameras are everywhere. [Officers] need to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner. If someone wants to videotape, they have the right to do so”, Ramsey added.

Exactly. If there is no misconduct or unlawful act on the officer’s part, why would he feel the need to threaten anyone recording him?

watch the video

Monday, October 17, 2011

Study Confirms Establishment is Terrified of Ron Paul

Figures prove Texan Congressman given least news coverage out of all Republican candidates

Paul Joseph Watson
October 17, 2011

A new study by Pew Research Center confirms that the establishment is terrified of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign gaining momentum – figures show that despite his top tier showing in national polls, the Texan Congressman has received the least media coverage out of all the Republican candidates.

“Ron Paul loyalists have been vindicated. After months of observations that the mainstream media was ignoring the libertarian standard-bearer, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism shows just that: the Texas Congressman, who has consistently polled in the high single digits — Real Clear Politics’s aggregate poll currently has him at 8 percent — has received the least overall coverage of any candidate. From May 2 to October 9, Paul appeared as the “primary newsmaker in only 2% of all election stories,” reports the Atlantic Wire’s John Hudson.

The figures, compiled from a list of 52 of the top mainstream news sources encompassing newspapers, cable news, and broadcast television, show that even the likes of Tom Pawlenty, who quit his candidacy last month due to lack of support, and John Huntsman, have received significantly more mainstream press coverage than Paul.

It’s not just news coverage where Paul has been deliberately sidelined. A scientific study undertaken by the University of Minnesota also shows that Paul has been given the least speaking time out of all the candidates during the Republican debates so far.

Indeed, Mitt Romney has enjoyed more than double the amount of time afforded to Ron Paul over the course of the last three debates.

Of course, this only confirms what we already knew after CNN talking heads admitted there was a media policy to deliberately ignore Ron Paul, even after he placed second in the influential Ames straw poll back in August.

These figures really bring to the fore how the establishment is terrified of Ron Paul’s campaign gaining traction. Paul routinely wins straw polls and habitually places second, third or fourth in national polls. He is a top tier candidate despite being almost completely ignored by the mainstream media. Imagine what his numbers would be if he was given merely double the amount of attention he currently receives, which still would barely touch that afforded to the likes of Romney or Perry.

If Ron Paul was allowed to compete on a level playing field, he would trounce all the other candidates and go on to defeat Obama by a landslide. Polls show that Paul would already narrowly defeat Obama in a hypothetical run-off despite the media campaign to blacklist him.

These statistics once again highlight how grass roots alternative media organizations need to pick up the baton and preach Ron Paul’s message of liberty to the general public, because they’re not even going to be informed of Ron Paul’s existence by the corporate media, never mind what his campaign stands for.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Herman Cain Lies In His Response to Ron Paul’s Questioning Him on the Federal Reserve

Cain claims he did not call Ron Paul supporters “ignorant” [Cain said "stupid"] about their questioning him on the Fed. Claims Ron Paul found it “on the internet”, implying it was just someone’s made up story on some blog. In reality, the source of Cain’s “stupid” comment is from his own book!

by Larry Simons
October 12, 2011

Last night at the Republican debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, former Godfathers Pizza CEO Herman Cain blatantly lied on national television during a question and answer portion where each candidate was given the opportunity to ask one of the other 7 candidates a question.

Ron Paul’s question was directed at Herman Cain. Paul said this:

“Since the Federal Reserve is the engine of inflation, creates the business cycle, produces our recessions and our depressions, the Federal Reserve is obviously a very important issue. And fortunately tonight we have a former director of the Federal Reserve at Kansas City, so I have a question for Mr. Cain.

Mr. Cain, in the past you’ve been rather critical of any of us who would want to audit the Fed. You said, you’ve used pretty strong terms, that uh, we were ignorant and that we didn’t know what we were doing, and therefore, there was no need for an audit anyway because if you had one, you’re not going to find out everything, because everybody knows everything about the Fed. But now that we have found and we’ve gotten an audit, we have found out an awful lot on how special businesses get bailed out. Wall Street, the banks and special companies, foreign governments. And you said that you advised those of us who were concerned and you belittled, you’d say “Call up the Federal Reserve and just ask them”. Do you still stick by this, that this is frivolous or do you think it’s very important? 64% of the American people want a full audit of the Fed on a regular basis.”

Cain responded [and lied]:

“First of all, you have misquoted me. I did not call you, or any of your people “ignorant”, I don’t know where that came from.” [Paul interjects “I’ll get it for you”, during Cain’s response]

Cain continues, “Alright, now, so, you gotta be careful of the stuff that you get off the internet, because that’s just not something I have said.”

Cain is right. Cain did not use the word “ignorant”. He used the word “stupid” [in reference to the questioning he receives from “so-called Ron Paul supporters” at Cain’s speaking events], which is actually more demeaning than the word “ignorant” [whereas "ignorant" means "unlearned", but "stupid" means "foolish" and "senseless"]. How does he know they were Ron Paul supporters?

Cain also implies to Congressmen Paul that he [Paul] got this information from some made up story on a blog on the internet when he said, “you gotta be careful of the stuff that you get off the internet”. In reality, the website The Daily Caller ran a story on September 27 about this very same issue [which is most likely where Congressmen Paul saw it] because the site had obtained an advance copy of Herman Cain’s book “This Is Herman Cain” [which went on sale October 4] in which Cain had a few choice words for Ron Paul supporters.

In the book, Cain claims that Paul’s campaign “sends one of its ‘Paulites’ everywhere I show up”. Even if Cain’s conspiracy theory is true, so? What is Cain afraid of?

Also in the book, Cain writes, “I get the same stupid question at almost every one of these events. I know it’s a deliberate strategy. How can a person randomly show up at a hundred events and ask the same stupid question to try to nail me on the Federal Reserve? It’s really becoming annoying more than anything else.”

Here's the proof [click to enlarge]

The people Cain refers to are asking questions about the Federal Reserve. Why should this bother Cain since he was the chairman of the Kansas City Fed 15 years ago? Cain also writes in his book that Ron Paul supporters are “threatened by me” and are “trying to destroy me on the fact that I was once affiliated with” the Federal Reserve.

No, Mr. Cain, you were not “affiliated” with it. You were the chairman. That’s like saying Ben Bernanke is “affiliated” with the Fed in Washington D.C.

Congressman Paul promised Cain he would “get it [the answer] for him” [where Cain called his supporters stupid]. Ron Paul only needs to ask Cain for a copy of his own book for the evidence.

watch Herman Cain lie at 9:10 into the clip

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Moron Blogger Says the Holocaust Jews Would Have Been Committing A Crime if They Rose Up Against Hitler

The Jew-hater also states that if these Jews would have risen up against Hitler, Hitler would have been obeying the law if he had killed them for it

by Larry Simons
October 9, 2011

I have had a plethora of arguments with a fucknut known as “The Last Name Left” [he is too cowardly to give his real name] for more than a year now, but nothing this asshat has said in the past comes close to the monumental anti-Semitism and just plain bile he has spewed from his lying lips this time.

On October 3, this fraud posted words of Mike Rivero making comments about revolution. Rivero posted, “It is simple. Revolution equals a better life. Continued servitude to Wall Street DC equals….continued servitude to Wall Street DC. Any questions?”

TLNL calls this sedition and a crime, despite the fact that Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence these words:

“..whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Rivero’s crime? Echoing the words of one of the greatest Americans that ever lived. Oh my, shame on Rivero.

Then TLNL left quotes US Law concerning sedition/overthrow of government. It matters not to this buffoon that despite it being US law, it violates several rights outlined in the Bill of Rights including, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. The Constitution is the supreme law in the United States. That means it trumps US law.

TLNL said this:

“If you think the founding fathers weren't intent on making sedition a crime after winning the revolution then you're a fool.”

John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which many, including his Vice President Thomas Jefferson, criticized as unconstitutional. It eventually led to the demise of the Federalist party. It was eventually deemed unconstitutional by the House Judiciary Committee.

What TLNL fails to realize or comprehend is, is that, despite the Alien and Sedition Acts being highly unconstitutional, there was at least one justification for it [though it does not outweigh the unconstitutionality of it]: The country was much different during the Adams administration than today. The country in 1798 was not the monotheistic entity known as the "United States" then. Each state was sovereign and everyone highly believed in states rights. The government was not the highly centralized, protectionist form of government we have today. In 1798 the federal government served the people, not the other way around.

So, Adams was quite petrified that, just 20 short years after the formation of this country, people would begin to pledge allegiances to other countries. Adams had to know his signing the Alien and Sedition Acts was highly unconstitutional, so it had to be out of fear and panic that drove him to make unlawful one of the most basic rights the founders adopted. Despite all these vast differences between 1798 and today's world, it was still deemed unconstitutional even then. This is how devoted to liberty our founders were.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano puts it brilliantly in his book, It Is Dangerous To Be Right, When The Government Is Wrong, when he states:

“As the Alien and Sedition Acts show, no government, not even one comprised of the Founders who sought to safeguard our natural rights, can be trusted to permit robust freedom of speech. How could members of the same generation, indeed in some instances the same persons, who wrote, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” enact a law that abridged it?”


Then, TLNL goes into waters in which he cannot escape. After saying Thomas Jefferson would be a criminal in today’s society, I asked him this:

“Would it have been considered SEDITION for the people to overthrow Hitler, although he was committing atrocities???”

His answer:

“It would be a crime, under German/Nazi law. Hitler would have had anyone engaged in the least bit of sedition put to death.”

See for yourself

I asked why he hated Hitler if he believes the Jews, had they rebelled, would have been committing a crime and why he hated Hitler if he would have been obeying the law by murdering Jews for sedition.

I received no answer.

One side of his mouth, he is against anti-Semitism and Hitler. On the other side, he would have supported Hitler in exterminating anyone who openly rebelled against him [thus saving their lives].

This moron is batshit crazy.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call For Totalitarian Government, Re-Election Of Obama

There is something very wrong with this picture

Paul Joseph Watson
October 2, 2011

Despite their honest intentions, many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are being suckered into a trap and calling for the very “solutions” that are part of the financial elite’s agenda to torpedo the American middle class – higher taxes and more big government.

Watch the clip below in which journalist Adam Kokesh talks to Occupy Wall Street protesters.

The ignorance displayed in this interviews knows no bounds. These protesters just don’t get it. They are calling for the government to use force to impose their ideas, all in the name of bringing down corporations who they don’t realize have completely bought off government regulators. Corporations and government enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship – getting one to regulate the other is asinine and only hurts smaller businesses who are legitimately trying to compete in a free market economy that barely exists.

The zeal for totalitarian government amongst some of the “protesters” is shocking. One sign being carried around read, “A government is an entity which holds the monopolistic right to initiate force,” which seems a little ironic when protesters complain about being physically assaulted by police in the same breath.

One woman interviewed by Kokesh also announces her intention to help Obama to capture a second term. How can a self-proclaimed Occupy Wall Street protester simultaneously support the man whose 2008 campaign was bankrolled by Wall Street, whose 2012 campaign is reliant on Wall Street to an even greater extent, and whose cabinet was filled with Wall Street operatives?

Something is very wrong with this picture.

The usual suspects, mega-rich foundations and elitists, behind the young radicals have also started to emerge – George Soros, The Ruckus Society, the Tides Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

“The belated crusade against Wall Street is even more pathetic as it is coordinated by groups who wouldn’t exist without men like Soros, who made their money from deals that make the Street look sparkling clean. It’s class warfare as a cynical jab at the populist center, the people who mutter to themselves that the Street is full of crooks and so is Congress,” writes Daniel Greenfield.

The thousands of Americans currently expressing their disgust at Wall Street and the bankers who have ruined the economy to the detriment of the poor and middle class should be commended for getting off their hind ends and doing something, unlike the millions who will continue to watch American Idol, drink beer and laugh in ignorance as the country is flushed down the toilet. It should also be added that there is a sprinkling of “End the Fed” demonstrators who truly understand the root cause of the problem.

However, the fact that the majority of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are advocating “solutions” which the very elite they claim to be protesting against also want should set alarm bells ringing.

The official Occupy Wall Street website vehemently supports Obama’s tax agenda, again in the deluded belief that Obama, the ultimate Wall Street puppet, genuinely wants to go after big corporations who use loopholes to avoid paying income tax.

In calling for higher taxes on the middle class, the protesters are mimicking the likes of billionaire Warren Buffet. The top corporations pay virtually zero income tax because of loopholes that they have crafted in league with bought off government regulators. Obama’s tax hikes will only impact genuine middle class businesses and middle class Americans earning over $200,000 – with the rate of inflation as it is this can hardly be described as the “super rich”.

As Anthony Wile writes, the protesters are being completely misdirected by their socialist/communist leaders. The real center of financial control is the Federal Reserve and the city of London, and yet ideologue Michael Moore said earlier this week that “ending capitalism” was more important than dealing with the Fed.

Wiles notes that the protesters seem obsessed with those who conduct financial transactions, not those who actually run global central banks, the real string pullers.

“To get at the root of the problem, one should be protesting, say, in London’s City where central banking originated. Or protesting in front of the Federal Reserve in Washington DC. These are real seats of power. But the shadowy and excessively powerful and wealthy individuals who have created the modern economic system are quite satisfied no doubt to have Wall Street take the blame. It suits their purposes,” writes Wiles.

“It is too bad that the Occupy Wall Street movement seems to be obscuring the larger issues by apparently blaming the private (transactional) sector in entirety for what has occurred in the past few years.”