Tuesday, November 22, 2011

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

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: 1917 – 1963

by Larry Simons
November 22, 2011

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

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

Monday, November 21, 2011

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

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

by Larry Simons
November 21, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

“Four score and seven years ago”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Andy Ostroy: Ron Paul Deserves to Be Ignored

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

by Larry Simons
November 17, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[click to enlarge]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

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

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

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


by Larry Simons
November 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, November 10, 2011

CNBC Cans Debate Poll Because Ron Paul Was Leading

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

Steve Watson
November 10, 2011

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

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

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

Gamed Poll…So We Took It Down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the video (specific section at 7 mins):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, November 7, 2011

Billo Admits Lincoln Was Hated Even by the North, But Still Claims He Was the “Best President Ever”

Billo claims we “need Lincoln today”. Really? We need a bloody war in this country that will exterminate 6 million people [today’s equivalent to the casualty to population rate of the civil war] over an issue that could have been solved with no war and zero deaths?

by Larry Simons
November 7, 2011

In my busy-ness, I completely missed this one. Bill O’ Reilly appeared on The View on September 28 to plug his new book “Killing Lincoln”. I knew the book was out and honestly had no idea how Billo felt about Lincoln, but I had assumed that Billo was a huge part of the Lincoln cult and equated him with Jesus and Moses. I was right.

The most astonishing part of the interview came in Billo’s first words:

“I wrote the book for two reasons. Because number one, I’m really teed off that the public school system doesn’t teach history anymore and kids don’t know what they’re doing.”

I completely agreed with this, but for the exact opposite reason Billo said it. The fact is, the public schools are not teaching the real facts about Lincoln: that he was a brutal tyrant that completely destroyed the Constitution and states rights in order to “save the Union”.

Billo even admits, “Lincoln, the most hated man in America, the most hated man. The south hated him, a lot of people in the north hated him. Threats against him all day long. His wife was a loon, he’s got crazy stuff going on all around him, yet he persevered.”

watch in disgust

Naturally, Billo never mentions the reason why Lincoln was the most hated man. Ironically, the same reason he omits these reasons is the exact same reason the public schools fail to mention it: Because Lincoln was a ruthless dictator that resorted to 4 years of bloody war to “supposedly” end an issue [slavery] that he admitted he had no intention of interfering with in his first inaugural address and that he could have easily ended by compensated emancipation.

Does Billo mention these facts? Hell no. Either do the public schools. So, basically Billo is disgusted with the public schools for doing the exact same thing he fails to do: tell the truth about Lincoln.

Then, Billo made my ribs ache with uncontrollable laughter when he said:

“The second reason I wrote it is because we need Abraham Lincoln now in this country. We’re in trouble. This country’s in trouble. It’s on the decline. And we need a leader, a leader who’s going to put the country over himself, knock the ideology off and do what’s best for the country.”

So, let me get this straight. Billo admits the country is in trouble, so his answer to this is to want another Abraham Lincoln, a man who continually ignored the Constitution every single day of his 4 years as President, acted as dictator and suspended habeas corpus [something only Congress can do] for the entirety of his presidency, declined to solve a problem peacefully and allow states to secede from the Union [which is permitted in the Constitution], invaded other states by military force, murdering their citizens and pillaging their towns, issuing an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the United States, deporting a member of Congress because he had the nerve to disagree with Lincoln’s policies and dictatorial actions, shut down over 300 newspapers in the North and imprisoned many of their editors, cared nothing about the abolition of slavery because of his white supremacist views and who single-handedly obliterated states rights in 4 short years?

These are the very reasons, as Billo admitted, “the South hated him, a lot of northern people hated him”. But, just like the public school system [which Billo claims he is “teed off” at], Billo fails to mention the real, disturbing cold-hard facts about our 16th president.

Then Billo not only made my sides ache again, but contradicted himself when he said this:

“But if you read about Lincoln, and for what I have in here, you’ll know he was the best president ever. He is the gold standard for leadership.”

Really? How are we supposed to know he was the best president ever when Billo just admitted 90 seconds earlier that most people in his day didn’t know that? Did Billo not just say “the south hated him, a lot of people in the north hated him”?

Many uninformed people would not be taken back at the fact that the south hated Lincoln. After all, the uninformed believe the Civil War was about slavery and they believe since the south was not going to release their slaves and Lincoln wanted them free, that’s why the war began and hence the immense hatred for Lincoln. Naturally, this is all false, but you will not find the truth from Billo and you definitely will not find it in the public school system.

But, if Lincoln was the “best president ever”, why did many in the north hate Lincoln too, according to Billo? Isn’t it odd that Billo admits many in the north hated Lincoln, but he never says WHY?

Billo then admits, “the guy [Lincoln] was under fire every second, and yet he put his country first.”

If he was the “best president ever” why was he under fire, Billo? Maybe it was because he did not put his country first, but his own agenda [as I have outlined above]? Then after Whoopi Goldberg asks, “How do we find someone [president] that everybody likes?”, Billo admits again, “Well, everybody hated Lincoln”. Yet Billo never gives any reasons WHY. Because he knows if he actually told the truth and listed the reasons, everyone would wonder why Billo [or anyone else for that matter] would call Lincoln the “best president ever”.

Billo then says, “Lincoln kept this country together for the fear force of his personality [whatever that means] . No Billo, Lincoln obliterated states rights and “kept the country together” by military force by means of invading armies that plundered and pillaged entire cities and by murdering innocent civilians. Lincoln resided over the deaths of nearly three-fourths of a million people just to outlaw something our founding documents permit: secession.

So, to correct Billo, you could say that Lincoln kept this country together through fear and by force. In other words, he destroyed the country in order to save it. The only thing that Lincoln saved is the centralized federal system [wanted so badly by his idol Henry Clay] and the myth that the sovereign states are the servant to the federal government.

Billo should be delighted with the public school system. The public schools teach that Lincoln “saved the Union” and “freed the slaves” and that he was a “great president”. The public schools have created more Lincoln cultists [like Billo] than the hundreds upon hundreds of books that deify “saint Lincoln” have done. Why is Billo at odds with this?

It is because Billo, like most brainwashed stooges in the country, is a confused, mind-controlled Lincoln cultist who openly admits that Lincoln was hated by even the north, but at the same time calls him our greatest president….but never says why.

If Billo ever told the public the real facts about Lincoln, he knows he would be run out of his job on a rail. 10 million dollar yearly salaries make you do the damndest things. Being a sell-out over who Lincoln really was is just one in a long list.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Real Truth Online Turns 6!

by Larry Simons
November 5, 2011

Six years ago today I began my then weekly, later bi-weekly newsletter The Real Truth. A year later I stopped doing the newsletter and I converted exclusively to this blog.

We have come a long way in six years. From having articles published on Prison Planet to later having this site banned by them for exposing the truth of their hypocrisy over certain issues. Some would consider being banned a negative incident. Here at RTO, we consider it a testament of integrity and having a rock-solid commitment to the truth.

We have also been the sole cause of forcing some blogs into completely rebooting their format [Laura Wolf blog], ending their blogs [Dave Willis], deleting our stories in order to not allowing access to this blog [so others can see the hypocrisy of their own blog] [Prison Planet] and to continually enable comment moderation [Ostroy, Last Name Left].

I realize I have not posted a lot of articles lately. I have been pretty busy. I promise it is no indication that the blog is dying a slow death. It will remain and get better than ever. Stay faithful.

Here is a look at some of our past headers for the site

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Contenders for the 2011 Fraud of the Year Award

by Larry Simons
November 3, 2011

Could Ostroy make it a 3-peat?

Could BillO win his first?

Could often RTO-supported Alex Jones win, thus further validating RTO's integrity and commitment to the truth?

Find out next month.

1. Andy Ostroy

2. Bill O' Reilly

3. Alex Jones

4. Dave Neiwert

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

‘Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’ Actually Validates Them

Daily Mail in laughable hit piece that claims weakening of ‘exterior beams’ caused WTC 7 collapse

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 2, 2011

In perhaps one of the weakest and downright laughable 9/11 hit pieces ever published, the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper, not noted for its commitment to accuracy, presents old footage as new to make the ludicrous claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to “exterior” damage caused by fires.

The Mail article claims the video was recently released via a FOIA request and represents new footage, yet virtually identical footage has been available for years, as well as high quality photographs which depict the same scene showing World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, shortly before its collapse in the late afternoon of 9/11.

The story, written by Meghan Keneally [pictured above], claims that the “unseen” footage “kills the conspiracy theories” surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 as it shows the building being “consumed by fire”.

According to Keneally, the clip proves that “Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center.” Presumably, she means the twin towers of the World Trade Center which had already collapsed into rubble eight hours before WTC 7 imploded.

In reality, the footage shows nothing that we didn’t already know – specifically that the building was not “consumed by fire,” as has happened in the case of numerous other modern buildings which did not collapse despite being ravaged by flames at every level.

The video clip only serves to confirm the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were relatively limited and by no means had “consumed” the building. The fires were nowhere near powerful enough to threaten the structural integrity of a 47-story building.

However, this is by no means the most ludicrous aspect of the Mail hit piece. Keneally goes on to bizarrely claim that the footage proves how “the building’s exterior frame could no longer withstand the high temperatures,” and how the “buckling” of these “exterior metal beams,” “led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.”

Yes you read that correctly – Keneally is claiming that the structural integrity of modern buildings – the part that prevents them from collapsing – rests on “exterior metal beams”.

If you knew that a building was supported by its “exterior” beams you wouldn’t even dare go inside. The building would never even be approved for construction in the first place.

According to Keneally, the footage shows “how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government’s 9/11 Commission investigation,” which is a strange argument to make considering the fact that the 9/11 Commission didn’t even investigate the collapse of WTC 7.

In accusing “conspiracy theorists” of inventing “wild claims” to substantiate their explanations, Keneally has dreamt up the wildest claim yet – that the structural integrity of modern buildings rests on their exterior beams and window frames.

One wonders how such a ham-fisted and inadequate story, which comes across like it was written by a child for a school essay, can make it past the editorial board and into the pages of a major national newspaper.

As we have documented, WTC 7 was a structurally reinforced building that was designed to have floors removed without collapsing.

In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7, NIST claimed that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.

NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.

If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?

NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.

We are actually being asked to believe the impossible – that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.

The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified

Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.

“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”

The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of the building is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across less than a quarter of its total floor space.

NIST also claims that the building only fell at 40% free fall speed, as if this isn’t suspicious in itself. Remember that this 47-story behemoth took just 7 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.