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