Monday, December 24, 2012

Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence



by Ron Paul
December 24, 2012

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place.  Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control.  This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well intentioned.  Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented.  But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don't obey laws.  

The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence.  If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, we’re told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped.

While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I don’t agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence.  Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets.  We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws.

Let’s not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality.  The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home.  U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of which are children, albeit, of a different color.

Obviously I don’t want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting, but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence.

Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches?  We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders.  This is the world of government provided "security," a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse.  School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.

Do we really believe government can provide total security?  Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence?  Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place.  Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives.  We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Government role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety.

Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, or the Department of Homeland Security.  Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

James Dobson Says the Connecticut Shooting Is God's Judgement Upon America Because of Abortion and Gay Marriage


So God murders six and seven year olds in retaliation for the murders of unborn babies? OK, makes sense...only if you're a colossal mental case like Dobson

by Larry Simons
December 18, 2012

When I said in my 2012 Fraud of the Year winner posting on Monday that "rest assured that more tales of lunacy from the religious will be coming soon and with full force. If it is one thing that can be guaranteed in this life, that is there is no shortage of religious loons and their insane rants", I didn't think the insanity would rear its head so quickly. Fortunately, James Dobson doesn't disappoint.

Radio host and Christian whackjob James Dobson has single-handedly made sense of the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut last Friday, which claimed the lives of 20 six and seven year old children. According to Dobson, these beautiful innocent children were gunned down by a deranged lunatic because God is allowing judgement to fall upon America because of gay marriage and abortion.

Dobson said this:

"I mean millions of people have decided that God doesn’t exist, or he’s irrelevant to me and we have killed fifty-four million babies and the institution of marriage is right on the verge of a complete redefinition. Believe me, that is going to have consequences too.

And a lot of these things are happening around us, and somebody is going to get mad at me for saying what I am about to say right now, but I am going to give you my honest opinion: I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us. I think that’s what’s going on."


I cannot even begin to imagine the degree of cognitive deterioration that is required for a human being to not only speak these words, but to think them. This alone proves that Christians are mentally ill and they believe the god they worship is a vindictive, monstrous barbarian. This means that if Dobson's conclusion is true, God is unjust and not omniscient, as many Christians believe.

Where am I wrong on this? Dobson is saying that the practice of abortion and gay marriage in this country has angered God so much that he has chosen to send his judgement upon us in the form of slaughtering elementary schoolchildren. How is this just? How is this all-wise? What sense does it make to Dobson and his ilk that God would retaliate for the murders of unborn babies by murdering 20 six and seven year old children?

That only proves that God is not just, because a just God would bestow his judgement on the United States Supreme Court for the practice of abortion and on state lawmakers for the practice of gay marriage, not innocent schoolchildren. It proves that God is not all-wise, because an omniscient God would know the difference between government lawmakers and schoolchildren.

If James Dobson's god is in the business of murdering innocent schoolchildren for the sins of our government lawmakers, then Dobson can take his evil, deranged and sadistic god and shove him up his ass.

As far as I'm concerned, Dobson has earned his portion of this year's Fraudie for being one of this year's religious loons.

Listen to this sick fuck

Monday, December 17, 2012

Turn to God After the Connecticut School Shooting? Why? He Allowed It to Happen!


FOX News nuts suggest the shooting "might" not have happened if prayer was still in school. Every second of this segment made me want to vomit

by Larry Simons
December 17, 2012

Leave it to the crazies at FOX News to exploit the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, in which a gunman killed 20 children on Friday, by suggesting that the reason why tragedies like this happen is because people just don't have God. Today on FOX and Friends, Mike Huckabee joined the three stooges [Steve Doocy, Gretchen Carlson and Brian Kilmeade] and went on a disgusting rant about why, in the wake of these shootings, it's time to turn to God.

Huckabee said, "I think it's a common human reaction when all of our human answers have failed. That's when we, maybe finally recognize that we really need God."

Really Mike? You mean, it's time we turn to the one almighty powerful being in the entire universe that could have actually intervened during the shooting and stopped it? This same god, the one who could have done anything [since he has unlimited power] to stop the shooter from even getting to the school? The one who could have made sure the shooter didn't wake up that day by striking him dead in his sleep? The one who could have made sure the shooter didn't get access to the guns by making them disappear by simply just saying the word? The one who could have made the car not start, disabling the shooter from driving to the school? You mean, that God Mike?

watch, if you must


Then Huckabee flip flops and says, "I’m not suggesting by any stretch that if we had prayer in schools regularly as we once did that this wouldn’t have happened...but, we’ve created an atmosphere in this country where they only time you want to invoke God’s name is after the tragedy.”

Ahhh, but wait a second Mike, that's not what you said on Friday. You directly blamed the fact that these tragedies in schools occur because prayer has been removed from schools. Shall I remind of you of your words just three days ago?

Huckabee said on Friday [just hours after the shooting, I might add]:

We ask why there’s violence in our schools but we’ve systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage? Because we’ve made it a place where we do not want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability. That we’re not just going to have to be accountable to the police, if they catch us, but we stand one day before a holy God in judgment.”

watch Huckabee say this in utter disbelief


The above was Huckabee's response to Neil Cavuto asking, "How could God let this happen?" After citing the statement above, Huckabee says this, "When people say, ‘Why did god let it happen?’ You know, God wasn’t armed. He didn’t go to the school. But God will be there in the form of a lot people with hugs and therapy and a lot of ways in which he will be involved in the aftermath."

God may not have been armed Mike, but God sure as hell could have stopped it, since he is, ya know, as you believe, "all powerful". What's the use in being an all-powerful being if you can't intervene and prevent the deaths of 20 children who are being slaughtered in the most horrific way imaginable? And this is the entity you want to turn to? How mad could a person possibly be to turn to the one all-powerful being who had the ability to stop it? And what does that say for an "all-powerful" being that he allowed this massacre to happen while possessing the power in which to prevent it?

If Huckabee himself was about to be gunned down on the street and I witnessed the shooter approach him and I had the ability to prevent the murder and did not, would everyone around me turn to me for comfort? Would Huckabee's family approach me with open arms and put their trust and faith in me? If they are sane human beings, of course they would not. But for some strange demented reason, we are to do this to God after a tragedy? Can any sane person tell me why?

"God will be there in the form of a lot people with hugs and therapy and a lot of ways in which he will be involved in the aftermath"? Gee thanks God. Thanks for showing up now after the carnage is over. If you would have just showed up 2 hours earlier, there would be nothing and no one for you to "comfort" because there would be 20 children still alive.

Huckabee fails miserably to explain the direct connection between prayer being removed from schools and school shootings. Does Huckabee really expect anyone to believe that the deranged nutjobs who shoot up schools give a fuck that the public school system removed prayer?

In fact, Christians would have to be almost as deranged as the shooters themselves to believe that school shootings are the direct result of the removal of prayer from schools. Here is a short list of reasons why:

1. If Christians believe that school shootings in general is God's punishment for the removal of prayer, they would have to believe that God is both unjust and very cruel. Unjust for punishing the wrong party, for it is not the faculty, staff and students who removed prayer, but the Supreme Court. Cruel for the obvious reason. Why would a loving God send shooters into a school to kill children when they had nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision? Of course, it wouldn't be the first time God used an agent to slaughter children. Read 2 Kings 2:23-24.

2. If Christians believe that the shooter himself is unleashing his rampage upon the school because of the removal of prayer from schools, not only would that be ridiculous but since Christians like Mike Huckabee believe there is a direct connection between school shootings and the removal of prayer from schools, his ilk would have to believe that the shooters in these cases are acting as God's agent, therefore establishing a colossal contradiction in that God's agent is committing murder in order to inflict vengeance upon an entity that removed a biblical statute.

3. It would be more of an embarrassment for Christians to believe that school prayer would lead to an increase in morality, only to have a nut come inside and fire away. For what would their reaction be if school prayer was reinstated in schools and while during a prayer, another sick bastard entered the school with guns blazing and killed more teachers and students? Could atheists and agnostics then claim that it was prayer that motivated the shooting? If not, why? I think Christians should be pleased that prayer has been removed from schools. This way, it would be less problematic for them to explain to people why a group of teachers and students just got massacred right after they held hands while praying to God.

Going back to today's FOX and Friends segment, Huckabee then says, "...we’ve created an atmosphere in this country where they only time you want to invoke God’s name is after the tragedy." I agree Mike. My suggestion is that we do not invoke God's name ever, especially after a tragedy. After the tragedy is when it makes the least sense. God could have stopped it. He didn't. Why turn to him after that? Case closed.

Ironically, Huckabee's complaint that "we only invoke God's name after a tragedy" was hypocritical to say the least, for this was exactly what these four buffoons were doing during this segment!

A teary-eyed Gretchen Carlson then said, "It was so wonderful to know that if you are a person of faith, that you have a lot of questions why, but you have something to hold onto". Huh? What is this "something" she is referring to that people of faith hold onto? It should make the least sense to people of faith that 20 children were gunned down for no apparent reason. Why can't these religious buffoons just be honest and shout out loud, "There is no reason this happened! It makes no sense! I'm angry because God could have stopped this and he did not! Faith is meaningless!"

Huckabee then responds by saying something in which I still need a translator to understand. He says:

"I heard it once said Gretchen, and I think it's a very applicable statement. That, even if you're a believer, you still hit bottom, but at least you find out that it is solid at the bottom". Huh??? What in the fuck does that even mean? How can it be applicable when it has no meaning?

This segment was a combination of disbelief, insanity and disgust. Huckabee ended the segment by stating that there is no hope for anyone who doesn't believe in a life beyond this life. It was absolutely disgusting to watch these four shitheads turn this tragedy into a sermon and invoking God's name after a tragedy, after hypocritically criticizing those who invoke God's name after a tragedy.

Real Truth Online's 2012 Fraud of the Year: The Religious Nutball


Clockwise from upper left:  Creflo Dollar, Bill O' Reilly, Joel Osteen, John Hagee, David H. Willis, Mark Wolford, David Barton, Pat Robertson

Ostroy avoids what would have been a mind-blowing 4-in-a-row, but just could not overcome the religious loons of 2012

by Larry Simons
December 17, 2012

They say there's a first for everything. For the first time, since its inception in 2008, the Fraudie award does not go to an individual person, but to a band of religious loons. They seemed to have crawled out of the woodwork in 2012, and the lunacy that I exposed was enough for this team of religious frauds to capture this year's prestigious Fraudie.

Religious nuts [particularly Christians] have always been a fun and easy target here at Real Truth Online and they seemed to have come out in full swing in 2012. They simply could not be ignored this year. They deserved to be rewarded for their collective insanity.

It all began in February with a glimmer of hope here at RTO, when David "I'm all about the truth" Willis appeared to have ended his hiatus on his blog and posted a story in which he stated that one receives salvation at the very moment of baptism, when in fact the Bible lists many requirements for salvation: believing, baptism, faith in Jesus' death, works, etc....the list goes on and on.

Of course, Willis knows what precisely needs to be accomplished for salvation being that he has a direct line to God and does not have to worry about misinterpreting the Bible, because God himself just tells Willis during their daily conversations. My hope that Willis would resurrect his blog was laid to rest eventually because this was Willis' final post. I then had to put my trust in other religious loons to keep my blog fresh with new examples of insanity. Happily, they did not disappoint.

In April, I exposed known religious fraud Joel Osteen for telling Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that being gay is a sin and that Mormons actually follow the Bible. Naturally, Osteen failed to tell Wallace that God wouldn't be a perfect or all-powerful God for creating the desire within human beings to choose to do something that God abhors so much, homosexuality.

Osteen also conveniently omitted from his discussion with Wallace that why, if he believes that Mormons follow Christ, Mormon founder Joseph Smith needed to create his own Bible. Was it because the regular Bible wasn't good enough? Osteen believes that the only requirement to be a follower of Christ is to say "I love Jesus". What would be the point in their being 27 books of the New Testament if this was the only requirement? If this was God's only requirement for man to be his disciple, God could have fit that on a Post-It note.

In June, I wrote a story on two religious buffoons. One, a complete nut and the other a hypocritical fraud. Respectively, these two individuals are Mark Wolford, who died from handling a deadly snake, per being instructed to by the Bible, and Creflo Dollar who abused his daughter per both of his daughters' testimony.

Wolford was simply following biblical instruction by handling deadly snakes. In Mark 16:17-18, it states, “And these signs will follow those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

This passage alone should be solid proof that the Bible is false. Wolford obviously believed in Jesus, yet he handled a snake, as the passage instructs, and it, in fact, did hurt him...by killing him. Supporters of the Mark passage will argue that Wolford did not have enough faith. I argue that this kind of response indicates that religious people are loons who should be rounded up and admitted to mental institutions.

Creflo Dollar may not handle snakes, but on June 8, 2012, according to the testimony of both of his daughters, he attacked his 15-year-old daughter by choking her, throwing her to the ground and beating her with his shoe. The most disturbing aspect to this story is the fact that his congregation simply did not believe Dollar could do such a horrific thing and continued to support him. It all goes to prove that religious nuts come in all shapes and sizes.

In September I reported, in my second of two stories on religious fraud Joel Osteen, that Osteen admitted sexual orientation is not a choice, contrary to what most of the Christian community holds true. Osteen, obviously admitting this inadvertently when he stated that his own sexual orientation was not his choice, told a CNN panel, "I know I have not chosen to be straight, I feel like that's who I am. I don't understand all those issues so, you know, I try to stick on the issues I do understand. I know this: I'm for everybody, I'm not for pushing people down. ... I don't know were the fine line is, but I do try to stay in my lane."

Stands to reason that if a heterosexual like Osteen does not choose his sexual orientation, then neither does the homosexual. It is the only conclusion to come to unless religious loons believe God has different rules for different people. If that was not hypocritical enough, Osteen had the audacity to not only admit that although sexual orientation is not one's choice, homosexuals will still be condemned by God anyway, despite not having the capacity to choose their own sexual orientation. Does it get any nuttier than this? Answer: No.

In late September I reported the story of religious fraud David Barton, whose book on Thomas Jefferson was withdrawn from publication by Thomas Nelson, the largest Christian publisher. Why? Because even the Christian community came forward and denounced Barton's book as blatantly inaccurate. Some of Barton's inaccuracies concerning Jefferson included half-truths, which were purposely meant to deceive.

An example of this attempted deception was included in one of his chapters titled, "Lie 3: Thomas Jefferson Wrote His Own Bible and Edited Out the Things He Didn't Agree With". Here, Barton includes a truth, that Jefferson edited out portions of the Bible in a project he worked on. The lies are the facts that Jefferson did not write his own Bible, nor were the edited portions of this Bible parts that Jefferson "did not agree with." Jefferson constructed his own version of the Bible using a razor to cut out portions of the gospels from various bibles to make a continuous narrative of Jesus' life while omitting everything supernatural.

Barton's technique in this book was to make false claims, then attempt to prove the false claims are false so that it appeared as if Barton refuted  a "lie". This is not even my opinion. Barton's own publisher validates my assessment better than anyone could have possibly done, by ending publication of Barton's pack of lies.

In October I told my faithful readers of religious wingnut John Hagee's revision of Civil War history. Hagee appeared on fellow wingnut Glenn Beck's internet program and said that Lincoln should be credited with ending the Civil War because of the day of prayer he announced on April 30, 1863, two years before the war actually ended.

If this is true [which it's not], not only is God very slow to answer prayers, but attributing the end of the Civil War because of a call to prayer two years before the actual end to the war is the equivalent of claiming that World War II ended on September 2, 1945 because of FDR's opening prayer before his declaration of war on December 8, 1941.

Nevermind that Lincoln could have ended the war anytime he wanted to or that it was he who started the war to begin with. Facts like these do not matter to religious loons like Hagee, who never miss an opportunity to deify St. Lincoln one more time.

Last month I brought to you the latest in the long list of reprehensible comments made by brain-damaged religious fucktwat Pat Robertson. It does not get any nuttier than the likes of this ancient glob of sludge.

On his program The 700 Club, Robertson made the false and irresponsible statement that atheists are miserable people and they want everyone else to be miserable at Christmas. Robertson is one of a small band of loons that come out of the woodwork every Christmas and claim that not only are the atheists trying to take Christmas away from religious people, but that atheists have nothing to celebrate or be happy about during the holidays.

Of course, the sane and thinking community knows this is utter bullshit. What Robertson really means is that atheists do not celebrate the birth of Jesus, and anyone who does not celebrate Jesus' birth, according to Robertson and his ilk, should be shipped off to a communist country or better yet for Robertson, shot dead and buried 25 feet under.

It is actually the atheists who, in my opinion, would be more humanitarian-centered and concerned for their fellow man, because they possess no judgement of people or have holier-than-thou attitudes. This is, no doubt, why there is less crime committed among atheists as opposed to the skyrocketing homicide rate among the religious.

And last but not least, it wouldn't be the holiday season without the annual declaration from the Mayor of Wingnuttia, Bill O' Reilly, that there is a "war on Christmas". We here at RTO have covered the seasonal declaration from FOX News's #1 propagandist on many occasions, but this year in particular, O' Reilly was showcased on our site for additional [and some might say nuttier] reasons.

In addition to O' Reilly's insane assertions that there is a "war on Christmas" [because there are two or three isolated incidents across the country every year of a few individuals that want to call a Christmas tree a "holiday" tree], it appears that O' Reilly does not know even basic facts about the religion he defends and claims to follow, Christianity.

Oddly, Billo does not even know that Christianity is a religion.  On the November 28 telecast of The O' Reilly Factor, Billo was schooled by the President of the American Atheists, David Silverman, on the fact that Christianity is indeed a religion. O' Reilly claimed it is not a religion, but a philosophy. In the same interview, Billo referred to the Methodist denomination as a religion, showcasing to his senior citizen audience that not only is Billo an idiot on basic facts like whether Christianity is a religion, but has no clue the difference between a religion and a sect of Christianity [he called Roman Catholicism a religion too, which of course is another sect of Christianity].

As if this ass beating was not enough for Billo, on the November 30 telecast of The Factor, O' Reilly had on Ben Stein [otherwise known as Jew Ben Stein, an admitted Jew who acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God]. It does not get any funnier than that, folks. During this segment Stein claimed that atheists are bitter, angry people, yet just two days before this telecast, Billo was the one who became so upset at atheist David Silverman, that Billo used the Lord's name in vain when he said in frustration "Jesus Christ", and then attempted to blow off that he had just done so.

The icing on the cake came on the December 3 telecast of The Factor when Billo had Father Jonathan Morris on the program to discuss the "war on Christmas". At the end of the segment, Morris verified atheist David Silverman's correct statement that Christianity is in fact a religion. Not surprisingly, Billo had no time left in his segment to talk about that, but Billo did admit that Christianity is a religion [in my opinion, only to not look like the colossal fucknut he is in front of a clergyman].

The point is, the atheist was right and Billo was wrong. It does not get any better than Billo to be proven wrong about his religion from a clergyman who is validating the facts from an atheist.

There you have it, eight nutjobs who share the prestigious Fraudie award for 2012. It was well-deserved and long overdue. But, rest assured that more tales of lunacy from the religious will be coming soon and with full force. If it is one thing that can be guaranteed in this life, that is there is no shortage of religious loons and their insane rants. We will be watching and listening with great anticipation.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Jon Stewart Exposes Absurdity of the Nonexistent "War on Christmas"


Comedian brings sanity and reality to a tiresome annual non-issue

by Larry Simons
December 4, 2012

On Monday's telecast of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the Emmy winning host exposed the absurdity of the likes of Bill O' Reilly and FOX News for their annual reporting of a nonexistent event that has become the bedrock of the FOX News holiday season: the "War on Christmas".

Stewart was a breath of fresh air as he delivered the segment using the complete opposite approach of O' Reilly: dealing only in reality and sanity. To the zombies at FOX News, Stewart had this message for their continual exaggerated stories of Christmas persecution, "For whatever annoying, local, ticky-tack Christmas-abolishing story you and your merry band of persecution-seeking researchers can scour the wires to turn up, the rest of us can't swing a dead elf without knocking over an inflatable snow globe or a giant blinking candy cane. For God's sakes, FOX News themselves is located in midtown Manhattan, the epicenter for all that is godless, secular, gay, Jew-ey and hell-bound. And yet, even here, all around your studio, it looks like Santa's balls exploded".

Stewart then reminds thinking mankind that Christmas is just one day, like any other birthday, and then, Stewart adds, "it seeped into the night before Christmas, the eve if you will. It still wasn't enough. There's a war on Christmas? Has anyone told Thanksgiving? This year, Black Friday, aka Christmas's opening bell, got moved back a day to Black Thursday, or as we used to call it, Thanksgiving. Christmas is so big now, it's eating other holidays".

Stewart adds, "Do atheists land an occasional blow? I guess", then proceeds to tell his viewers just how immense Christmas really is. Stewart continues, "For God's sakes, there are radio stations that play nothing but Christmas carols, stores that sell nothing but Christmas decorations all year long. There's a TV channel devoted to a yule log. There's old-timey traditional Christmas programming ["A Christmas Story"], really old-timey Dickensian Christmas special programming ["A Christmas Carol"], new-timey Hey Hey Hey urban Christmas specials [Fat Albert], Mormon Christmas specials [Donny & Marie], country-western Christmas specials, Chipmunk Christmas specials, Otter Christmas specials, Bear Christmas specials, Cat Christmas specials, large-headed child Christmas [Peanuts], gay Christmas [Clay Aiken], Jewish Christmas [Neil Diamond], Christmas underwater [Sponge Bob], Christmas from the future [Jetsons], prehistoric Christmas [Flinstones]. That's right. There's a Christmas special celebrating Jesus' birth thousands of years before the birth of Jesus!".

This was one of the funniest segments that Jon has ever done. Watch




Stewart shows a clip from the telecast of The O' Reilly Factor where Billo told atheist David Silverman that Christianity is not a religion [but a "philosophy"]. Stewart says, "You just handed that atheist another thing he can't fucking believe!".

Not only did Billo embarrass himself by saying on a nationwide telecast that Christianity is not a religion, but was again embarrassed on Monday night when Father Jonathan Morris appeared on The Factor and told Billo that Christianity is indeed a religion.

In other words, David Silverman, the atheist, was right. It does not get any better than an atheist schooling Billo on religion and it being validated by a priest right on Billo's own show.

Fortunately for Billo, it was the end of his segment and he "had no time to debate it then", but did admit it was a religion to Father Morris. After referring to Christianity as a philosophy right in front of Father Morris, Morris says, "the religion of Christianity". To save face, Billo responds, "It's a religion, but it's a philosophy that is being administered by different religions".

WTF? Christianity is administered by different RELIGIONS? I believe Billo means "by different denominations/sects" of Christianity. No other religion has the same philosophy of Christianity. Billo has no clue whatsoever the difference between a religion and a denomination. What a fucktwat.

Below clip: Billo admitting to Father Morris that Christianity is a religion [only because he is trying to avoid looking like a colossal fucktard in front of a religious leader]

Watch at 6:36 into the clip


Saturday, December 1, 2012

"War on Christmas" 2012: It's Official: Bill O' Reilly and Ben Stein are Nuts



Jew Ben Stein proclaims "[Christmas] is a holiday marking the birth of a man, we'll call him the Son of God, who said 'Peace on Earth and on Earth goodwill to men. What could possibly be wrong in celebrating the ideas of a person who said something like that?" Other than the fact that Stein is a Jew and doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God? Absolutely nothing

by Larry Simons
December 1, 2012

On Friday's episode of The O' Reilly Factor, Billo continues his noble fight against the atheists who, only in Billo's mind, appear to be on a mission from hell to eviscerate Christmas from the face of the Earth. O' Reilly invites Jew Ben Stein on, in my opinion, for one reason only: to make the point that, even though one is not a Christian, they can still celebrate Christmas and have a joyous time during the holidays.

There would be nothing wrong with Stein sharing his "I'm a Jew and I love Christmas" rant if there was, in fact, actual atheists that existed and hated the Christmas holiday so much, they were on a crusade to put an end to it. This could not be further from the truth, and even O' Reilly knows it.

This segment between O' Reilly and Jew Ben Stein was so hilarious, it was like watching an old comedy bit of Martin and Lewis or Laurel and Hardy [and yes, I am calling Ben Stein "Jew Ben Stein" for the obvious reason. I am by no means poking fun at his religion. I am merely pointing out how cute it is listening to a Jew describe Jesus as the Son of God and how great he was when the entire cornerstone of Judaism is that the Messiah has not come yet. Priceless].

The first hilarious part was that after hearing O' Reilly go on and on for years about how he despises the term "Happy Holidays" rather than his preferred term "Merry Christmas", Jew Ben Stein says this:

"It's a Christmas holiday. It's a Christian holiday. It's not a 'holiday' holiday. It's not an atheist holiday. It's a Christian holiday". Jew Ben Stein just spoke 22 words and the word "holiday" was six of those words. Almost 1/4 of the words he just spoke was the word "holiday". I didn't see Billo oppose this. But when others, especially atheists, use the word, they are angry, miserable people who want to destroy Christmas.

Jew Ben Stein then says this, "It's [Christmas] a holiday marking the birth of a man, we'll call him the Son of God, who said 'Peace on Earth and on Earth goodwill to men. What could possibly be wrong in celebrating the ideas of a person who said something like that?" Absolutely nothing, unless of course you're a Jew [like Jew Ben Stein] who believes that this man [Jesus] is really not the person he claimed to be [the Son of God] because the Messiah has not come to Earth yet [as Jews believe]. Or, if you are an atheist, who doesn't believe in God period, which would negate believing in a human manifestation of God.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with celebrating the ideas of peace on Earth and goodwill to men, but what O' Reilly and Jew Ben Stein fail to grasp is that it is perfectly OK to reject the fact that these ideas originated in the Bible or that Jesus even exists. The Jews reject Jesus being the son of God, why doesn't Stein? He's a Jew!

The hilarity continues...

O' Reilly then says, "Jesus of Nazareth was the most influential human being who has ever lived. That's beyond any doubt". Jew Ben Stein responds, "I don't doubt it". OK. I guess there is nothing wrong with a Jew admitting Jesus was the most influential person who ever lived, but you would think at some point in the dialogue between O' Reilly and Stein, Stein would mention at least once that Jews do not believe the Messiah has come yet!

A Jew could agree that Jesus was influential without compromising their beliefs, but at some point you would think they would wonder why he was influential [you know, since, in their eyes, he wasn't the Son of God]. My ribs were aching from laughter during this entire dialogue.

O' Reilly then asks Jew Ben Stein why the "secular progressives" are trying to get the government to rescind Christmas as a federal holiday. Odd that he asks this when just a few nights ago, David Silverman, president of American Atheists, explained why. Because of the fact the government is supposed to exercise neutrality when it comes to religion. Making Christmas a federal holiday is not exercising neutrality.

Jew Ben Stein replies, "There are a lot of angry, bitter people out there. They've got to attack something, so they attack Christmas. I don't consider them well in the head". Yet over the past 10 or 11 years, when Billo began his ridiculous war on Christmas bullshit, I have never seen one "angry, bitter" person on O' Reilly's show expressing their disdain with Christmas. Not one. David Silverman was not angry at all. In fact, Billo got so angry and infuriated with Silverman, it was O' Reilly [the "Christian"] who took the Lord's name in vain and mumbled "Jesus Christ" during the interview. Who are the real angry ones?

Jew Ben Stein continues, "I think a lot of it is just plain anger. I think there are a lot of people out there that are angry, and they're angry at whatever is the predominant symbol. They're angry at anything that reminds them of tradition. They're angry at anything that doesn't make themselves the center of attention. Uh, there are just a lot of angry people out there and they go after the Prince of Peace" [in which Jew Ben Stein does not believe is the son of God, by the way].

Who are these angry people? Where are they? If there are these scores of angry, bitter people as Stein claims, it should be real fucking easy to find one and bring them on the show. It would even be easier to videotape one. But, not once in 11 years have we seen anyone that fits the description of what these two twits claim exists.

Then Billo mentions the interview he did the night before with Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee and admits that Chafee was not angry. Billo is the one angry. He is angry at Governor Chafee because Chafee has chosen to continue what previous governors have done and call their Christmas trees "holiday" trees. Billo then claims that if Governor Chafee would just call it a "Christmas" tree, that would make people come into their state and buy things and get their poor economy going again.

WTF? Billo fails miserably to explain to anyone how, if Lincoln Chafee called holiday trees "Christmas" trees, that would help Rhode Island's poor economy. How does the naming of a tree help a state's economy? Billo explains, "I'm trying to get in mind of Lincoln Chafee. That even if he's a SP warrior and he's offended by the word 'Christmas' in front of a tree, he would want to get the tree up and have everybody celebrate Christmas so his economy would be better. I'm not saying that's the right reason".

In other words, Billo is saying that even if the naming of a tree [calling it a "Christmas" tree rather than a "holiday" tree] would boom a state's economy [and it wouldn't], then if for no other reason, Chafee should call it a Christmas tree so his state could get more money. In other words, Chafee should go against his principles and sell-out just for a buck. Lord knows that O' Reilly knows a thing or two about selling out for a buck, and he is angry that others refuse to.

This segment was a perfect mixture of comedy, lunacy and disinformation. Watch, laugh and shake your head in disbelief

Friday, November 30, 2012

Spielberg’s Upside-Down History: The Myth of Lincoln and the Thirteenth Amendment



by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
November 30, 2012

"Armies of scholars, meticulously investigating every aspect of [Lincoln’s] life, have failed to find a single act of racial bigotry on his part."

~ Doris Kearns-Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, p. 207.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . . . I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race."

~ Abraham Lincoln, First Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Ottawa, Illinois, Sept. 18, 1858, in The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol.3, pp. 145-146.

Steven Spielberg’s new movie, Lincoln, is said to be based on several chapters of the book Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns-Goodwin, who was a consultant to Spielberg. The main theme of the movie is how clever, manipulative, conniving, scheming, lying, and underhanded Lincoln supposedly was in using his "political skills" to get the Thirteenth Amendment that legally ended slavery through the U.S. House of Representatives in the last months of his life. This entire story is what Lerone Bennett, Jr. the longtime executive editor of Ebony magazine and author of Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, calls a "pleasant fiction." It never happened.

It never happened according to the foremost authority on Lincoln among mainstream Lincoln scholars, Harvard University Professor David H. Donald, the recipient of several Pulitzer prizes for his historical writings, including a biography of Lincoln. David Donald is the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time who began writing award-winning books on the subject in the early 1960s. On page 545 of his magnus opus, Lincoln, Donald notes that Lincoln did discuss the Thirteenth Amendment with two members of Congress – James M. Ashley of Ohio and James S. Rollins of Missouri. But if he used "means of persuading congressmen to vote for the Thirteeth Amendment," the theme of the Spielberg movie, "his actions are not recorded. Conclusions about the President’s role rested on gossip . . ."

Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that even one Democratic member of Congress changed his vote on the Thirteenth Amendment (which had previously been defeated) because of Lincoln’s actions. Donald documents that Lincoln was told that some New Jersey Democrats could possibly be persuaded to vote for the amendment "if he could persuade [Senator] Charles Sumner to drop a bill to regulate the Camden & Amboy [New Jersey] Railroad, but he declined to intervene" (emphasis added). "One New Jersey Democrat," writes David Donald, "well known as a lobbyist for the Camden & Amboy, who had voted against the amendment in July, did abstain in the final vote, but it cannot be proved that Lincoln influenced his change" (emphasis added). Thus, according to the foremost authority on Lincoln, there is no evidence at all that Lincoln influenced even a single vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, in complete contradiction of the writings of the confessed plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin and Steven Spielberg’s movie (See my review of Goodwin’s book, entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").

Lincoln’s First Thirteenth Amendment Gambit

There is no evidence that Lincoln provided any significant assistance in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the House of Representatives in 1865, but there is evidence of his effectiveness in getting an earlier Thirteenth Amendment through the House and the Senate in 1861. This proposed amendment was known as the "Corwin Amendment," named after Ohio Republican Congressman Thomas Corwin. It had passed both the Republican-controlled House and the Republican-dominated U.S. Senate on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, and was sent to the states for ratification by Lincoln himself.

The Corwin Amendment would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. It read as follows:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State,, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

"Person held to service" is how the Constitutional Convention referred to slaves, and "domestic institutions" referred to slavery. Lincoln announced to the world that he endorsed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address:

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution – which amendment, however, I have not seen – has passed Congress to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service . . . . [H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable" (emphasis added).

Believing that slavery was already constitutional, Lincoln had "no objection" to enshrining it explicitly in the text of the U.S. Constitution on the day that he took office. He then sent a letter to the governor of each state transmitting the approved amendment for what he hoped would be ratification and noting that his predecessor, President James Buchanan, had also endorsed it.

Lincoln played a much larger role in getting this first Thirteenth Amendment through Congress than merely endorsing it in his first inaugural address and in his letter to the governors. Even Doris Kearns-Goodwin knows this! On page 296 of Team of Rivals she explained how it was Lincoln who, after being elected but before the inauguration, instructed New York Senator William Seward, who would become his secretary of state, to get the amendment through the U.S. Senate. He also instructed Seward to get a federal law passed that would repeal the personal liberty laws in some of the Northern states that were used by those states to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which Lincoln strongly supported. (The Fugitive Slave Act forced Northerners to hunt down runaway slaves and return them to their owners).

As Goodwin writes: "He [Lincoln] instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield [Illinois]. The first resolved that ‘the Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states.’" The second proposal was that "All state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law be repealed."

So, go and see Spielberg’s Lincoln movie if you must, but keep in mind that it is just another left-wing Hollywood fantasy.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Dipshit Bill O'Reilly: Christianity is Not A Religion



"War On" Christmas is back in full swing in 2012. It begins with O' Reilly claiming that Christianity is not a religion, but a philosophy

by Larry Simons
November 29, 2012

Last night on The O' Reilly Factor, Billo starts off a segment by claiming there is a "Christmas controversy". What Billo fails to mention is that this "controversy" is only happening in one place....inside his own head. O' Reilly brings on the President of the American Atheists, David Silverman, to discuss why atheists appear to be behind a crusade to take down public Christmas displays.

Billo begins by asking why Silverman and his group are "messing around" with Christmas. Silverman explains [in the first of many attempts to get it through Billo's head] that they are simply trying to prevent the government from preferring one religion over another.

Billo, in his ever-present insanity, asks Silverman, "What religion is involved with Christmas?" Silverman explains, "Christianity" [At this point, a collective 'duh-duhhhh' can be heard across the country].

BIllo then speaks one of the biggest lies of his 16-year Fox News career, "That's not a religion, that's a philosophy." After I was done laughing at Billo's immense stupidity, I went to the computer and performed a task that was as easy as finding out the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 or that the Titanic sank in 1912: I found that Christianity is indeed a religion.

Any website you look up or dictionary you browse will describe Christianity as a religion. The site religionfacts.com says this, "Christianity was founded in the early 1st century AD, with the teaching, miracles, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Today it is the largest religion in the world, with around 2 billion followers." This is just one of a never-ending list of sources that will state this very same fact.

Not only do all modern definitions of religion indicate that Christianity is constituted as one, but all definitions from early church fathers do as well. In an article from the American Atheists website, Public Relations director Teresa MacBain explains:

"The Augsburg Confession (1530) states, “that … one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us.” Article 30 of the Belgic Confession (1561) insists that the church leaders are in
place so “that by these means true religion may be preserved.” The Westminster Confession (1646) instructs, “in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto [the Scriptures].”  Finally, consider the London Baptist Confession (1689) stating their goal, “to manifest our consent … in all the fundamental articles of the Christian Religion.”  Mr. O’Reilly’s argument that Christianity is not a religion proves that he has not done his homework."

Christianity has enjoyed tax free status for years because it is a religion. If O' Reilly feels so strongly about Christianity not being a religion [but a "philosophy"], would he easily agree that Christian churches should lose tax exempt status?

O' Reilly displays more insanity shortly after declaring that Christianity is not a religion when he says this:

"If the government were saying that the Methodist religion deserves a special place in the public square, I would be on your side."

Here Billo calls a denomination of Christianity [Methodist] a RELIGION, but the entire religion itself he calls a philosophy and not a religion! The insanity doesn't stop there.

Billo then lists what he believes to be actual religions. Billo states, "Roman Catholicism is a religion. Judaism is a religion..." Silverman immediately refutes Billo by stating these are actually sects of Christianity. In reality, O' Reilly and Silverman are both right in claiming Judaism is both a religion and a sect of Christianity. While Jews acknowledge the Old Testament as the true teaching of God, they do not acknowledge the New Testament. Likewise, while they do not follow the religion of Christianity, they follow the same god in which Christians claim Jesus is the human manifestation. Roman Catholicism however, is clearly not a religion, but a denomination/sect of the Christian Church. Why is it that atheists and agnostics know more about this shit than Christians do?

The point of this argument is, however, that Silverman is attempting to explain to O' Reilly that his organization's goal is to stop the government from abandoning religious neutrality and demonstrate equality like the Constitution states it should. Silverman then explains that the Constitution says precisely this.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

O' Reilly still clings to his ridiculous notion that Christianity is NOT a religion, but a philosophy. Silverman brilliantly responds, "So you wouldn't have a problem then with the government of the United States establishing atheism, because that's also a philosophy?" Billo then focuses on his usage of the word "establishing" and completely diverts away from Silverman's point and ignores his question.

Then, as if more insanity is needed or required, Billo gets schooled on the meaning of the term "winter solstice", a term that Billo brings into the debate. Billo refers to "winter solstice" as a "holiday". Silverman refutes this too and correctly defines it as "a celestial event", in which Billo [in unambiguous defeat] utters the words that every good Christian person would utter. Billo says, "Jesus Christ" completely outside of the context of the conversation, meaning he was taking the Lord's name in vain. Model Christian behavior there, Billo!

Billo then states that a "Christmas tree" is a secular symbol, but fails to explain why it is not a contradiction for Christians to incorporate a secular symbol in their christian celebration of Christ's birth. Silverman's point of the government picking sides is brilliantly made again when he [Silverman] explains that the usage of term "Christ" in "Christmas tree" is showcasing the government's stamp of approval, which, according to the Constitution, they ought not be doing.

Billo, in extreme panic, to say anything to change the subject because he is getting his ass handed to him on a platter by Silverman, inadvertently shouts out, "Christmas is a federal holiday". Not a very good thing to say to someone who is trying to get the government to be fair concerning religion! Where are the federal holidays for all other religions?

Then, just when I thought the hilarity was over, Billo says the most hilarious thing I have ever heard him spew from his giant lying trap. Billo calls Silverman and his organization a "merry band of fascists".

At this point my ribs are hurting from laughter because not only is Silverman trying to make the point that the government should treat all religions equal and not take sides, but Silverman is the only one in the debate who is denouncing having other people's views [religions] forced upon him by the likes of Billo and the federal government. If anyone in the debate was on the brink of fascistic behavior, it was O' Reilly!

Silverman then had to defend himself against O' Reilly's false accusation that his organization wants Christmas trees removed from the public. This is false, and O' Reilly knows it. Silverman and the American Atheists want there to be neutrality. In other words, if the government endorses Christian symbols, they must endorse them from all religions; if they don't endorse one religion, they must not endorse any. A 2nd grader could understand Silverman's point. Then again, look who Silverman is talking to.

This was a sight to see. This might very well be the biggest ass beating in O' Reilly's sell-out "journalistic" career.

watch Silverman tear O' Reilly a new ass

Monday, November 26, 2012

Fucknut Pat Robertson: Atheists Are Miserable at Christmas, So They Want You to Be Miserable



The withering fossil also claims "They [Atheists] want to steal your holiday away"

by Larry Simons
November 26, 2012

Yesterday on the 700 Club, Christian relic Pat Robertson rose from the primordial ashes once again to discharge yet another irresponsible and abhorrent comment, the only kind he knows how to utter.

Robertson said this:

"Its, well, Christmas all over again. The Grinch is trying to steal our holiday. It’s been so beautiful, the nation comes together, we sing Christmas carols, we give gifts to each other, we have lighted trees, and it’s just a beautiful thing. Atheists don’t like our happiness, they don’t want you to be happy, they want you to be miserable. They’re miserable, so they want you to be miserable. So they want to steal your holiday away from you."

watch the clip, if for no other reason but to see for yourself that he actually said this


In true Bill O' Reilly fashion, Robertson claims that Christmas is once again threatened by...well, anyone they dislike. This time, it's those damned atheists. You know, those who sit around all day planning evil deeds and conspiring how they will stop Christmas from coming. Because after all, that's what atheists do. They hate Christmas so much, they are actually all gathered together as we speak plotting how they will stop Christmas shoppers from shopping, purchasing trees and decorating them, singing Christmas carols, entering places of worship and showing love to their family members.

We all know this will take a massive effort by the atheists. It will also take a lot of time. The atheists just might have to take some time off from doing what they usually do: Worshipping Satan, burning crosses, reading Mein Kampf and kidnapping and molesting your children. Yes, that's right, those atheists must be stopped, and thank God for prophets like Pat Robertson who warn us of these barbaric dregs of humanity.

All sarcasm aside, I must conclude that it is now official: Pat Robertson must be taken away and placed inside a mental institution with its doors locked, and the key needs to be melted down and inserted inside Robertsons' skull right next to the three or four steel plates that already rest there.

Not only is his comment one of the most asinine comments that can be uttered by a human being let alone someone who calls himself "godly", but imagine if you will the level of sheer stupidity that is required for a person to actually believe that, although atheists obviously do not celebrate Christ during this season, they are "miserable" and want everyone else to be miserable.

It is inconceivable to imagine the level of arrogance it takes to literally believe that atheists have nothing to celebrate and no reason to be happy during the Christmas season. The audacity of this archaic Christian prick to even imply that anyone who is not a Christian is unhappy, miserable and has no reason to celebrate during the holiday season brings compassionless inhumanity to a new low, even for Robertson.

The unbelievable irony here is that atheists and agnostics are not the ones sitting around with nothing better to do with their time than to emit detestable comments like this about religious people. It is usually the ones whose job it is to practice refraining from these types of comments who are the very ones speaking them.

If any groups of people are more joyous during the holiday season, it would most likely be atheists and agnostics, for these people are more humanitarian-centered than that of the religious. Religious people tend to be more dependent on an invisible ghost in the sky, looking down on them in judgement of whether they are doing their religious duty of heaping judgement upon others [case-in-point: Robertson's behavior]. Atheists and agnostics do not possess holier-than-thou attitudes toward their fellow man. They treat others like human beings. This is why there is less crime committed by atheists and agnostics as opposed to the unsurprisingly high homicidal rate of the religious. But Robertson wants you to believe it is just the opposite.

Robertson wants us to believe he and every other Christian is a resident of Whoville and atheists and agnostics are the Grinches; unhappy, miserable and wanting to steal everyone's fun. Even if that were the truth in Robertson's mind, there would be one act the residents of Whoville exhibited that he and most Christians would not imitate: forgiving and accepting those who stole from them.

I do not say this about too many people, but I wish Pat Robertson would rid us all of his company and depart this mortal coil before he makes another vile and heartless comment. If Robertson actually went an entire day without spewing a reprehensible comment, now that would be a Christmas miracle.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Lincoln’s Greatest Failure




(Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery)

by Thomas DiLorenzo
November 15, 2012

"Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war . . . . How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans when the hatred lingered for 100 years."

~ Ron Paul to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2007

The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).

In fact, as Bennett shows, it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years. The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielberg’s Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").

And who is David H. Donald, cited by Bennett as his authority? He is a longtime Harvard University historian, Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer, and the preeminent mainstream Lincoln scholar of our time. One would think that Goodwin would have considered his work, being a Harvard graduate (in political science) herself.

The theme of the Spielberg movie is the subtitle of Goodwin’s book: "The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." Nothing gets a leftist’s legs tingling more than someone who is very, very good at the methods of political theft, plunder, subterfuge, and bullying. Goodwin the court historian has devoted her life to writing hagiographies of the worst of the worst political bullies – FDR, Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedys, and Lincoln. (It was her book on the Kennedys that got her in trouble and forced her to admit plagiarizing dozens of paragraphs, and paying a six-figure sum to the victim of her plagiarism. That got her kicked off the Pulitzer prize committee and PBS, but only for a very short while).

Lincoln’s "political genius" is grossly overblown in Goodwin’s book. In addition the book, like virtually all other books on the subject, completely misses the point. If Lincoln was such a political genius, he should have used his "genius" to end slavery in the way the British, French, Spaniards, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and all the Northern states in the U.S. did in the nineteenth century, namely, peacefully. Instead, the slaves were used as political pawns in a war that resulted in the death of some 800,000 Americans according to the latest, revised estimates of Civil War deaths that has come to be accepted by the history profession. To this number should be added tens of thousands of Southern civilians. Standardizing for today’s population, that would be the equivalent of more than 8 million dead Americans, with more than double that number maimed for life.

Lincoln the "political genius" thanked his naval commander Gustavus Fox for helping him maneuver/trick the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter, where no one was hurt let alone killed. This, Lincoln believed, gave him the "right" to ignore the constitutional definition of treason (Article 3, Section 3) as levying war upon the states, and levy war upon the (Southern) states in order to "prove," once and for all, that the American union was NOT voluntary, and NOT based on the principle of consent of the governed, as Jefferson declared in the Declaration of Independence. The main purpose of the war was to destroy the Jeffersonian states’ rights vision of government and replace it with the Hamiltonian vision of a highly centralized, dictatorial executive state that would pursue a domestic policy of mercantilism (the Federalist/Whig/Republican Party platform of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and a national bank to finance it all) and a foreign policy of empire and imperialism. The purpose – and result – of the war was to consolidate all political power in Washington, D.C. and to render all states, North and South, as mere appendages of their masters and overseers in Washington. This of course is exactly what happened after the war and it happened by design, not coincidence.

A real statesman, as opposed to a monstrous, egomaniacal patronage politician like Abe Lincoln, would have made use of the decades-long world history of peaceful emancipation if his main purpose was to end slavery. Of course, Lincoln always insisted that that was in no way his purpose. He stated this very clearly in his first inaugural address, in which he even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from EVER interfering with Southern slavery. He – and the U.S. Congress – declared repeatedly that the purpose of the war was to "save the union," but of course the war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers.

Jim Powell’s book, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery, provides chapter and verse of how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans.

The story of how Great Britain ended slavery peacefully is the highlight of Powell’s book. There were once as many as 15,000 slaves in England herself, along with hundreds of thousands throughout the British empire. The British abolitionists combined religion, politics, publicity campaigns, legislation, and the legal system to end slavery there just two decades prior to the American "Civil War."

Great credit is given to the British statesman and member of the House of Commons, William Wilberforce. After organizing an educational campaign to convince British society that slavery was immoral and barbaric, Wilberforce succeeded in getting a Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833, and within seven years some 800,000 slaves were freed. Tax dollars were used to purchase the freedom of the slaves, which eliminated the only source of opposition to emancipation, wealthy slave owners. It was expensive, but as Powell notes, nothing in the world is more expensive than war.

Powell also writes of how there was tremendous opposition to ending slavery in the Northern states in the U.S, especially Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, where violent mobs wrecked abolitionist printing presses; a New Hampshire school that educated black children was dragged into a swamp by oxen; free blacks were prohibited from residing in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, and Oregon; abolitionist "agitators" in Northern states were whipped; and orphanages for black children were burned to the ground in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, Northern state abolitionists persevered and ended slavery there peacefully. There were no violent and enormously destructive "wars of emancipation" in New York or New England.

Cuba, Brazil, and the Congo also ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century by real statesmen in those countries. But not in the United States. "Some people have objected that the United States couldn’t have bought the freedom of all the slaves, because that would have cost too much," Powell writes. "But buying the freedom of the slaves was not more expensive than war. Nothing is more costly than war!" In fact, the North’s financial costs of war alone would have been enough to purchase the freedom of all the slaves, and then ended slavery legally and constitutionally.

It is a myth that Lincoln toiled mightily in his last days to get a reluctant Congress to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, as portrayed in the Spielberg movie. What he did spend his time on was micromanaging the waging of total war on Southern civilians, who he always considered to be American citizens, since he denied the legitimacy of secession. More importantly, as documented by historians Phillip Magness and Sebastion Page in their book, Colonization After Emancipation, Lincoln spent many long days at the end of his life communicating with foreign governments and plotting with William Seward, among others, to "colonize" all of "the Africans," as he called them, out of the United States once the war was over.

President Obama: It's Perfectly OK to Attack the United States



Did he say these exact words? Well, no. But what he did say is its equivalent 

by Larry Simons
November 20, 2012

During President Obama's visit to Thailand on Sunday, Obama was asked about the current situation with Israel's strikes on Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Naturally, as with nearly all American leaders, Obama gave his full support for Israel in their battle. Obama's response, whether inadvertent or not, was quite interesting when you take into account the foreign policy of the United States.

Obama said:

"Let's understand what the precipitating event here that's causing the current crisis and that was an ever-escalating number of missiles that were landing not just in Israeli territory but in areas that are populated, and there's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders,” Obama said at press conference in Thailand at the start of a three-nation tour in Asia.

...So we are fully supportive of Israel's right to defend itself from missiles landing on people's homes and workplaces and potentially killing civilians.

...Israel has every right to expect that it does not have missiles fired into its territory."

Interesting. So, in other words, because the United States repeatedly rains missiles down on Pakistan and Yemen, it stands to reason that Pakistan and Yemen [or any other country in the world we bomb] have every right to defend themselves as well. Obama is basically sending the message to all countries of the world in which the United States uses as continuous target practice, "It is your right to strike back at the United States when we attack you". Where am I wrong?

OK, so he did not say those exact words. Is not the end result exactly the same? If I told someone that I only liked white people, would I have to actually utter the words that I did not like any other race? Is not the end result the same? Of course it is.

Obama, knowingly or not, has openly admitted the absurdity of the foreign policy of the United States. We call those who fight back in countries we [the U.S.A.] bomb "terrorists" and get angered that those who attack us call themselves "freedom fighters". But, when it is Israel being attacked, they are given the stamp of approval by our President. Israelites can't be terrorists....nahhhhh, not them! After all, they are God's people, right?

Listen to Obama openly admit that America's foreign policy [we get to attack other countries, but they cannot strike back] is complete and utter bullshit


Wednesday, November 14, 2012

In Praise of Price Gouging



by Ron Paul
November 12, 2012

As the northeastern United States continues to recover from Hurricane Sandy, we hear the usual outcry against individuals and companies who dare to charge market prices for goods such as gasoline. The normal market response of rising prices in the wake of a natural disaster and resulting supply disruptions is redefined as “price gouging.” The government claims that price gouging is the charging of ruinous or exploitative prices for goods in short supply in the wake of a disaster and is a heinous crime  But does this reflect economic reality, or merely political posturing to capitalize on raw emotions?

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the supply of gasoline was greatly disrupted. Many gas stations were unable to pump gas due to a lack of electricity, thus greatly reducing the supply.  At the same time demand for gasoline spiked due to the widespread use of generators. Because gas stations were forbidden from raising their prices to meet the increased demand, miles-long lines developed and stations were forced to start limiting the amount of gasoline that individuals could purchase. New Jersey gas stations began to look like Soviet grocery stores.

Had gas stations been allowed to raise their prices to reflect the increased demand for gasoline, only those most in need of gasoline would have purchased gas, while everyone would have economized on their existing supply. But because prices remained lower than they should have been, no one sought to conserve gas.  Low prices signaled that gas was in abundant supply, while reality was exactly the opposite, and only those fortunate enough to be at the front of gas lines were able to purchase gas before it sold out.  Not surprisingly, a thriving black market developed, with gas offered for up to $20 per gallon.

With price controls in effect, supply shortages were exacerbated.  If prices had been allowed to increase to market levels, the profit opportunity would have brought in new supplies from outside the region.  As supplies increased, prices gradually would have decreased as supply and demand returned to equilibrium. But with price controls in effect, what company would want to deal with the hassle of shipping gas to a disaster-stricken area with downed power lines and flooded highways when the same profit could be made elsewhere?  So instead of gas shipments flooding into the disaster zones, what little gas supply is left is rapidly sold and consumed.

Governments fail to understand that prices are not just random numbers. Prices perform an important role in providing information, coordinating supply and demand, and enabling economic calculation. When government interferes with the price mechanism, economic calamity ensues. Price controls on gasoline led to the infamous gas lines of the 1970s, yet politicians today repeat those same failed mistakes. Instituting price caps at a below-market price will always lead to shortages. No act of any legislature can reverse the laws of supply and demand.

History shows us that the quickest path to economic recovery is to abolish all price controls. If governments really want to aid recovery, they would abolish their “price-gouging” legislation and allow the free market to function.

Commentary
by Larry Simons

I agree and disagree with Ron Paul's usage of the word "gouging". He is correct in using the term in its literal sense. It is used pejoratively to describe when a seller prices goods at a much higher price than the fair market price. Prices should have risen after Sandy hit the east coast, but they did not due to state laws that are in place to prevent price gouging. The irony of these laws is the fact that they were enacted to preserve order and prevent hoarding. As we clearly have seen in New Jersey and New York, these laws did not prevent either.

Gouging has a negative connotation, and rightly so, because it is the exercise of raising prices for the sole purpose of profit. What Congressman Paul is arguing is that, in the case of Sandy, price increases would have weeded out the consumers with the greatest need for gas from the ones who were buying it to hoard it out of panic, or didn't really need as much as they bought. Writer Selwyn Duke puts in brilliantly in his article, when he states, "would you rather have gas available at $7 a gallon or no gas available at $3.50 a gallon?"

The free market will work itself. If consumers are charged $7 a gallon for gas and they need gas badly, they will buy it. If they think it is too expensive and opt not to buy it, they can choose not to. Or they might think long and hard about how much they need and only buy a small amount to get them by. That would be the desired purpose of rising prices: conservation. But it is not just all about how the consumer feels about it or how much they opt to purchase. The price increases also reflect the extra costs and the risk of the suppliers entering disaster-stricken areas. 

Some, like Bill O' Reilly, criticize Ron Paul for the title of his article alone, without ever considering the Congressman's reasons for it. Price controls in New Jersey have resulted in long lines, long waits, hoarding and ultimately a shortage in gas. Ron Paul's way would have eliminated long lines and hoarding completely and would have allowed the supply to remain long enough for a greater supply to arrive.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

All 50 States Have Petitions Going to Secede from Union



by Larry Simons
November 13, 2012

In the wake of last week's election, all 50 states in the union have filed petitions to secede. This could be a sign of massive voter fraud, or that supporters of Romney and other party candidates have taken the loss so hard, this may have been their only way of coping with it.

The petitions to secede need 25,000 signatures in a 30-day period in order for them to require an official response from the Obama administration.

Mike Krumboltz, writer for Yahoo news said this, "Of course, this is mostly a symbolic gesture. The odds of the American government granting any state permission to go its own way are on par with winning the lottery while getting hit by a meteor while seeing Bigfoot while finding gluten-free pizza that tastes like the real thing."

What Krumboltz [as well as most Americans] does not understand is, the states are sovereign according to our Constitution and do not need permission from the Federal government to secede. Many like Krumboltz also believe that the Constitution does not permit secession or that it is treason. They couldn't be more wrong.

The states have the rights of nullification and secession. How on Earth can the Federal government be more powerful than the states when the states created the federal government? The tenth amendment states that powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states. There were very few powers originally delegated to the Federal government, only 17 to be exact. It has only been through the passage of time and by the actions of big government Presidents like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR that the Federal government has grown to the colossal monster it has become.

Monday, November 12, 2012

My Favorite Veterans

by Larry Simons
November 12, 2012

Veterans Day was yesterday. I have always had a strong support for the military, mainly because many of my family members served in the military. Here are a few of them, in no particular order. I thank all military personnel for their service, especially the ones in my family.

My grandfather, Laverne Isaac Brendle (1918-1955). Served in the Marine Corps from 1943-1945 in the Pacific during WWII. This photo was taken August 6, 1945, the day the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.


















My father, Richard Lee Simons, Sr. (1940-    ) Served in the Marine Corps from 1956-1960.

















My stepfather, William Craig Garde (1935-2010). Served in the Navy from 1952-1956 during the Korean War. 



Friday, November 9, 2012

Jesse Ventura Puts Whackjob David Icke In His Place on 'Conspiracy Theory'



Icke deflects, dodges and ignores every attempt by Ventura to get to the truth of the Reptilian/human hybrid issue

by Larry Simons
November 9, 2012

Season 3 of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura began on Wednesday after a year delay [it should have began in late 2011] due to Ventura filing a lawsuit against the TSA and his refusing to fly after an incident with them.

Episode 1 covered the belief or theory that some world leaders are really shape-shifting reptilian lizards who are planning a takeover of the world. This topic is great for an episode of The X Files but attempting to pass it off as reality is lunacy to say the least. Ventura feels the same way, which is why at the end of the episode a feud broke out between Ventura and conspiracy writer David Icke.

Ventura simply wanted evidence, in which Icke replied, "They operate outside of the visible light.." Icke then explained that "not everything that exists, exists within visible light". He likened his belief in reptilians being unable to be seen to radio waves that travel through the air yet cannot be seen. He omitted, of course, that science has proven the existence of radio waves, whereas nothing has proved Icke's nutball lizard people theory.

Instead of simply just answer Ventura's questions, Icke chose to invite Ventura to watch his lectures and read his books. Later in the interview, Ventura accused Icke of being in his racket for money. The show reported that Icke brings in nearly 2 million dollars a year from his books, DVD's, his website and his speaking engagements. So, it's obvious that someone who rakes in that much cash, yet fails to provide answers when confronted is a colossal fraud.

Icke also believes in a New World Order and the Bilderberg Group, two things in which an abundance of evidence does exist. The problem with Icke's involvement in this lizard people bullshit is the very fact that he holds other views in which tangible evidence does exist, and whether Icke realizes it or not [or cares], many will connect David Icke with those among us who hold views that are valid because Icke also embraces those views. In other words, guilt by association. If someone like Alex Jones or myself starts talking about the Bilderberg Group, people might then think we believe in lizard people as well. As Alex Jones tells Ventura in the clip below, "it discredits the things we can prove because it can't be proven."

Another major issue with Icke's nutty belief in reptilian people is the fact that his belief in reptilians clothed in a human outer shell requires one to accept that mankind is powerless and can do nothing about beings from another planet who are running planet Earth. In other words, we can do nothing about it so we might as well accept it. Icke might disagree with that and suggest to people that we can do something about it: Be informed, and to be informed, you have to pay David Icke for his books, DVD's, website membership and his speaking engagements.

It would make more sense to me that David Icke himself is a reptilian from another planet, sent to Earth to spread this nutty bullshit to divert mankind away from how insane it is in order to deceive us into believing they don't exist.

watch the clip