Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Davy Jones: 1945 - 2012

by Larry Simons
February 29, 2012

I was never a huge Monkees fan but I never disliked them. They were a band that literally formed through a newspaper ad recruiting four Los Angeles locals to star in a newly created TV show. They went on to have four #1 albums and three #1 singles. Not bad for a band that only had a four-year original run.

Davy Jones was the youngest of the group and the only Englishman. His voice was very distinctive and he supplied the vocals for one of their biggest hits “Daydream Believer”.

Jones died today at the age of 66 at his home in Florida. Below is a short tribute.

Daydream Believer with The Monkees

And who could forget his appearance on The Brady Bunch
singing “Girl” to a giddy Marcia Brady?

Saturday, February 25, 2012

He’s Baaaaaaaack. Dave “I’m All About the Truth” Willis Resurrects His Blog (The One He Shut Down Because of Me)

2008’s Fraudie winner comes back after more than a year with more brain farts

by Larry Simons
February 25, 2012

Dave “I’m all about the truth” Willis [the man who once liked Alex Jones until I began bashing religion and then began a crusade against 9/11 truth because of it, also this blog’s first Fraudie winner in 2008] is back after 15 months of silence on his blog.

Just when I thought I had to retire my feature “This Week in Dave the Fraud” for good, it appears I might be able to extend its life a bit longer. Willis resurrected his blog in December 2011 and has posted three entries since then.

His latest post talks about baptism. He says this:

“I've noticed what I call the "Goldilocks Method" being employed by preacher-pastor-minister types. This is actually a very effective way of making a point. You simply paint two extremes and then position your view as in the middle. For example: Some people think baptism saves you even before you have faith! Others think baptism is merely a symbol. The Bible teaches that baptism is when God saves me by grace through my faith in the gospel.”

So much for the teaching that Jesus’ death alone is all that is needed for salvation. And thus, this is one of a long list of contradictions in the Bible. The Bible says countless times that Jesus’ death was needed for our salvation [to erase/forgive sins]. In other passages it says we must be baptized. In other passages it says we need faith to be saved. In one passage [Mark 16:16] it says we have to believe and be baptized for salvation.

Good God almighty. How many things have to happen for a person to be saved? I’m shocked that paddling a canoe across the Atlantic isn’t included in this long list of requirements.

The college that me and Dave attended together heavily emphasized baptism for salvation. But, what if you can’t be baptized? What if you’re a paraplegic? What if you’re on your deathbed? Does this sick God actually expect a man to be immersed underwater in these conditions to be saved? And what if he physically cannot do it? He spends eternity in hell for the audacity of being a cripple or being minutes from death? Insanity I tell you…insanity!

In the long list of requirements for salvation, which is more important? Which outweighs the other? Is it Jesus’ death? Is it baptism? Faith? Confession? Belief? Dave “I’m all about the truth” Willis claims that the Bible says “baptism is when God saves me by grace through my faith in the gospel.”

What did Jesus die for then? If one can be saved “by grace through faith in the gospel”, then exactly where does Jesus’ death play a part? Here’s another mind-blower: If one is “saved by grace”, does that not mean that no act is required for this? Doesn’t grace mean we do not deserve a kind act but we get it anyway? If this is the case [that we receive a kind act without deserving it], then why would any work we do be required of God in order for us to obtain a reward from God?

And if we do carry out the good work/requirement [i.e. baptism, faith, belief, confession], does that not mean then that we do deserve it [for carrying out the good work]?

It just makes no sense and it is all just so silly. It's madness I tell you...madness. Nonetheless, I am glad to see Dave back. Maybe he will enter the race once again this year for the Fraudie. I'm not holding my breath.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Dave Mustaine Endorses Rick Santorum, Which Completely Flies In the Face of His Association with Alex Jones

Why does Alex Jones schmooze with celebrities that claim they embrace his political stances, while at the same time support politicians and ideologies that Jones condemns?

by Larry Simons
February 15, 2012

It was announced today that guitarist and lead vocalist for the band Megadeth, Dave Mustaine, is throwing his support to Republican Rick Santorum for President. Even if ones knowledge were limited about Santorum and Mustaine, this endorsement would seem logical. Both men claim to be born again Christians and both men hate homosexuals with a passion, so it seems fitting.

The problem comes from the fact that Alex Jones has had Mustaine on his radio show on several occasions. Mustaine admits that Jones’ films [like Endgame] have influenced his political ideologies greatly. He even titled one of Megadeth’s albums “Endgame” because of Jones’ film. He has even credited Jones as being the one that has introduced him to the New World Order and globalists pushing for a one-world government.

The obvious problem is, Santorum is one of the elite globalists Alex Jones so often warns about. Of course, this is not the first time Jones has schmoozed with a celebrity that openly supported someone that Jones condemns on a regular basis. In 2009, Charlie Sheen admitted he voted for Obama in a much-publicized promo on Jones’ sites called Letter to the President, in which Sheen prepared 20 questions to ask Obama regarding 9/11.

Did it matter to Jones that Sheen admitted he voted for a politician that Jones condemns and has made several films about? Of course not. All that mattered to Jones was the fact that he got to schmooze with a celebrity in order to promote his website and generate revenue for it.

Now, Dave Mustaine, one of Jones’ regular guests, is openly supporting Rick Santorum, another politics-as-usual big government Washington insider who Alex Jones despises. And I personally do think Jones really does despise him. But it is not about what Jones despises or does not despise; it is about what Jones loves, and he loves celebrities more than defending his political ideologies.

Mustaine has even admitted voting for George W. Bush in 2004 because he stated then that John Kerry would have ruined the country. If Mustaine were sincere about Alex Jones being a big influence on him, he would realize that Bush and Kerry are distant cousins and that both were Bonesman and it wouldn’t have mattered who was elected.

Mustaine recently said that he respects Santorum because of Santorum’s recent suspension of his campaign to be with his sick daughter. Really? Is he joking? Why would an act that any decent father would do translate to that qualifying them for President of the United States?

Mustaine is yet another example of someone who holds political party over country. He even admitted recently that no matter who the GOP nominee was, he would vote for them over Obama. He stated, “I can't bear to watch what's happened to our great country. Everybody's got their head in the sand. Everybody in the industry is like, 'Oh, Obama's doing such a great job...' I dont think so. Not from what I see.” Hmmm, if he did not feel this way during the Bush administration, then Mustaine’s head was in the sand.

What can you expect from someone who believes the Bible is literally true? That they make a sound, logical choice of which candidate they endorse based on facts?

Naturally, there is no mention of Mustaine’s endorsement of Santorum on any of Jones’s sites. Does that surprise anyone?

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Dave Neiwert Plays the Guilt-by-Association Card Again. This Time Uses Ron Paul as His Target

Neiwert fails to even get basic facts right, like the identity of ex-IRS agent Joe Banister [calls him "Floyd" Banister and says he was ex-FBI], so how can he believed about anything else?

by Larry Simons
February 9, 2012

Wingnut liberal and douche Dave Neiwert is at it again: playing his typical game of guilt-by-association while linking to articles written by himself as his proof that he is correct about his claims. In his latest article, he denounces a movement called “sovereign citizens” for which he claims [parroting the FBI] poses a bigger threat to law enforcement officials than any other group, and praises the FBI for calling attention to them this week.

The article is brief but nowhere in the article does it draw a direct link between people who call themselves “sovereign citizens” and those who actually demonstrate violence toward law enforcement officials [nor does it prove the connection].

The article states:

“These extremists, sometimes known as "sovereign citizens," believe they can live outside any type of government authority, FBI agents said at a news conference.

The extremists may refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations and believe the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard.

Routine encounters with police can turn violent "at the drop of a hat," said Stuart McArthur, deputy assistant director in the FBI's counterterrorism division.”

Notice how there is no proof provided in this excerpt as to how the FBI draws a link between people who turn violent “at the drop of a hat” and those who “refuse to pay taxes, defy government environmental regulations”. Absolutely none whatsoever.

The article continues:

“In May 2010, two West Memphis, Arkansas, police officers were shot and killed in an argument that developed after they pulled over a "sovereign citizen" in traffic.

Last year, an extremist in Texas opened fire on a police officer during a traffic stop. The officer was not hit.”

Any proof the person pulled over was a “sovereign citizen”? The article does not say. Any proof the extremist in Texas was a “sovereign citizen”? Where is the proof they were even extremist? Omitted.

Then we get to the entire point of Neiwert’s article: The fact that a big gathering of “sovereign citizens” will assemble at an upcoming conference in Irvine, California and that…..are you ready?…..Ron Paul is scheduled as a keynote speaker at the conference! Noooo!

Neiwert’s guilt-by-association attempt is clear: “Sovereign citizens” are people who are a major threat to society because they are against government mandates like paying taxes. Any anti-government person is violent, angry and dangerous. Therefore, sovereign citizens are violent, angry and dangerous people. Ron Paul is going to speak to sovereign citizens. Therefore, Ron Paul is violent, angry and dangerous.

It is nothing more than an analogy that any third grader would use when arguing with another third grader, and it is, without doubt and question, the most pitiful example of responsible journalism one could imagine.

Am I denying there are not angry and dangerous people who are anti-government? Not at all. Am I denying that some of these people kill law enforcement officials in their bitter disgust with the U.S. government? Not at all. Am I denying that there have already been examples of angry, violent anti-government people who have not already killed law enforcement officials [including “sovereign citizens”]? No! Not at all. But for people like Neiwert to issue an across-the-board proclamation that every single anti-government person is violent, angry and dangerous is nothing but absurdity at its finest.

The reality is, that for every person who is angry at our government to the point of carrying out murder to law enforcement officials, there are probably 100,000 who are angry at our government but are law-abiding peaceful citizens who are not dangerous and would not think of committing murder [on anyone]. Neiwert and his ilk would have us all believe that if an individual thinks federal taxes are unconstitutional and that the Federal Reserve is a non-governmental agency, they either have already killed a law enforcement official or capable of it. Absurd.

Neiwert also has a big problem with the word “Patriot”. Here, he makes the connection that if one uses the word “patriot”, they must be connected to the Patriot movement.

Neiwert writes:

“And in case there was any confusion about the political orientation of the gathering, they announce up front that this is a Patriot Movement event:

[then he proceeds to quote from the Freedom Law School website]

"Here at Freedom Law School we want to connect Patriots. If you want to attend, but are worried about the cost of a room, no worries! Freedom Law School will get you in contact with other Patriots attending so you can work out splitting the cost of a room."

Nowhere in that excerpt does it mention a Patriot movement. I only see the word “patriot”. In the warped mind of Neiwert, the word “patriot” should be on the government’s blacklist.

I guess in Neiwert’s mind, Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth are members of the Patriot movement as well, for continually saying the word “patriots” during the Super Bowl.

To make matters even worse for Neiwert, he fails to get even basic facts correct [failing to spend an additional ten seconds on research and investigation]. In his article, he mentions that Ron Paul will be sharing the stage at the conference with a “Floyd” Banister, who Neiwert claims is “an ex-FBI agent who now makes a very profitable living on the Patriot chicken-dinner circuit”.

Two things makes this one sentence of Neiwert’s undeniable proof that he is a colossal fraud and is not to be taken seriously on anything he writes about:

First, the man who is appearing at the Irvine conference is Joe Banister, not “Floyd” Bannister [the major league pitcher]. Secondly, Joe Banister did not work with the FBI, he worked with the IRS. Neiwert even includes a link to the Southern Poverty Law Center site that shows Joe Banister’s picture and the fact that he was with the IRS, not FBI. That still does not deter Neiwert from getting a basic piece of information [that a pre-school child could have got right] flat wrong.

How is Neiwert to be taken seriously if he gets basic information [that only requires about ten more seconds of research] painfully wrong?

[proof Neiwert can't get basic facts right and that he wrote "Floyd" Banister instead of Joe Banister and that he was with the IRS, not FBI. I included it incase he edits it later and makes the correction. Click to enlarge]

Where is his proof that sovereign citizens kill law enforcement officials? Where is the proof that it was sovereign citizens who actually committed the murders in Texas and Arkansas? Where is the proof that Ron Paul is violent just because he is speaking at their conference?

There is none. None whatsoever. This article is just one in a long list of articles [some of which I have debunked with ease] that makes one guilty by their association with a particular group, and then fails to make the case for the groups’ guilt in the first place.