Real Truth Online

Gingrich: Feel Free to Ask Questions, Probe and Judge My Extra-Marital Affairs, Just Not on National TV

2012-01-23T21:22:00.007-05:00

Apparently Gingrich feels it is perfectly OK to ask about his affairs and marriages, except when they are in the national spotlight. Then it’s not OK

by Larry Simons
January 23, 2021

Not only is it despicable that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich received thunderous applause [from a so-called “religious” South Carolina audience] at the opening of the GOP debate on January 19 after laying into CNN anchor John King for opening the debate with questions about his extramarital affairs, it was also quite hypocritical of Gingrich to do so.

Gingrich appeared on a radio program in March of 2011, two months before he announced his presidential bid for the 2012 election, and stated to talk show host Bryan Fischer that asking questions about his marriages and affairs is a perfectly legitimate thing to ask someone who is seeking to be the leader of the country.

Gingrich said:

“First of all, it’s legitimate to have those concerns. That anybody who would seek to be your leader and have a job with the power and the responsibility of the Presidency, you should feel free to ask any question and to probe and to render a judgement about the total person.”

watch the clip

He adds:

“I have not sought to excuse any of my behavior. I have said that it was wrong. That I had to seek forgiveness. I didn’t seek explanation, I sought forgiveness. And I think that’s the only way you can approach that, uh, with a sense of integrity.”

My oh my, what ten months can do to a person’s integrity.

Last Thursday night, CNN’s John King opened up the debate by asking about Gingrich’s extramarital affairs. It seems that ole’ Newt has long abandoned his stance that “you should feel free to ask any question and to probe and to render a judgement about the total person”.

King asked Gingrich specifically about the fact that one of the former Speaker’s ex-wives, Marianne, alleged that Gingrich proposed to make their marriage an “open marriage”. Just incase anyone does not know the meaning of the term, it is better known as “swinging”. This did not sit too well with Uncle Newtie.

Gingrich hammered King by saying:

“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.”

watch the clip

At this the “religious” South Carolina crowd erupted in thunderous applause. Oh but wait, Newtie. I thought it was “legitimate to have those concerns” and to “ask any question and to probe and to render a judgement about the total person”? I guess if there are millions of people watching, the rules change.

Gingrich then adds, “To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine”.

No, what is despicable is the fact that you are a flip-flopping hypocritical fraud Newtie. Two months before announcing to run for President, it was quite OK to ask about your extra-marital affairs, wasn’t it? But, once you get on a stage and millions of people are watching, then it is suddenly not OK to question your would-be leaders huh?

Gingrich claimed at the start of last Thursday’s GOP debate that the story is false. The problem with this is the fact that Gingrich admitted the story was true in 2007 during an interview with Focus on the Family. His ex-wife Marianne has stated it is true. Why would she lie? There is absolutely no motivation for her to make it up.

Gingrich is a true-blue scumbag. The people of South Carolina have God and religion stuck so far up their asses, that it has occupied the space where their brains should be. These fucksticks would invite O.J. Simpson to carve their Thanksgiving turkey if he simply claimed he found God.

Jon Stewart has a hilarious insight to this story as well

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Debate Audience Protests CNN Attempts To Exclude Ron Paul

2012-01-20T16:02:00.003-05:00

Crowd boos and jeers, demands Paul be allowed to answer

Steve Watson

PrisonPlanet.com
January 20, 2012

A remarkable scene unfolded during last night’s CNN hosted South Carolina debate when not once but twice, the audience had to intervene to ensure that Ron Paul be included in questions, as host John King [pictured, above] attempted to skip over the Congressman following answers from the other three candidates.

Even more remarkable was the fact that both times the questions were related to medical issues and Ron Paul is the only qualified doctor among all the candidates.

Between the sideshow of Newt Gingrich’s infidelity and yet more mudslinging and circus like back and forths between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, Ron Paul did his best to speak on real issues such as cutting foreign military spending, protecting the borders and the need to reform the government-run health care system.

However, when it came to two key questions it was left to the audience to remind the CNN anchors that Ron Paul was up on the stage and that voters wanted to hear him speak.

The first instance occurred when King somewhat reluctantly threw Ron Paul the question “would you repeal Obamacare?” following answers from the rest of the field.

To wild ironic cheering and whooping from the audience acknowledging that Ron Paul had finally been included in the question, the Congressman exclaimed “PHEW, I thought maybe you were prejudiced against doctors and the doctor that practiced medicine in the military or something!”

watch the footage:

The second instance of CNN completely ignoring Paul occurred when King attempted to switch subjects from the issue of abortion without asking for Ron Paul’s thoughts.

“All right, let’s take another question,” King said after hearing from the other three candidates only. “Let’s take a question now from social media…”

Only when the audience began to boo and jeer, asking for Ron Paul to be afforded the opportunity to answer, did King allow the Congressman to speak.

“…before we move on, you want in on this issue?” King said to Paul, “They want you in on this issue…” King added, addressing the audience.

“John, once again, it’s a medical subject. I’m a doctor,” Paul protested, drawing cheers from the crowd before giving his thoughts.

watch the footage:

The blatant attempt by King and CNN to bypass Ron Paul, represents yet another example of the mainstream media downplaying and sidelining the only real anti-establishment candidate.

With Rick Perry having dropped out earlier in the day, there were just four candidates left on stage, yet Ron Paul was STILL afforded significantly less speaking time than his GOP rivals.

However, Paul still gave a strong performance, topping all the post debate analysis polling.

Following the debate, Congressman Paul sent an email to his supporters regarding his debate showing.

“My debate performance tonight is already turning heads.” Paul wrote. “What the crowd saw tonight was my opponents savaging each other over and over in a desperate attempt to defend their Big Government records. Me? I wasn’t touched once. Because quite frankly, I can’t be. I’ve spent 30 years fighting against establishment politicians – like my opponents – to finally put an END to politics as usual.”

watch all of Ron Paul’s answers below:

Ron Paul is Booed for Suggesting “Golden Rule” Foreign Policy in South Carolina, a State Tied for First in Highest Church-Attendance

2012-01-17T13:12:00.002-05:00

South Carolina audience rejects “golden rule” foreign policy suggested by Ron Paul by booing him. Seems the pulpits in SC are spreading the gospel of “bomb the fuck out of your neighbor”

by Larry Simons
January 17, 2012

In last night’s FOX News debate, Newt Gingrich and went head-to-head with Ron Paul on the topic of what should be done to America’s enemies. As Newt was trying to make his point that killing Bin Laden was the right thing to do, he brought up Andrew Jackson’s early service in the Revolutionary War.

Gingrich said:

“[Jackson] was sabered by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life. Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear cut idea about America’s enemies…kill them.”

At these words, the so-called religious South Carolina crown erupted with applause and several people were seen putting their fists in the air as to say, “yeah…kill them!”.

Ron Paul is then allowed to speak and begins to utter very strange words to a so-called religious South Carolina crowd…a suggestion to adopt the golden rule when it comes to foreign policy.

Paul said:

“My point is, if another country does to us what we do to others, we’re not going to like it very much. I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in foreign policy.”

Here, a strange thing occurred. Right after Congressman Paul talks about a golden rule, the crown erupts with boos. That’s right, from the highest church-going state in America, South Carolina…boos for the golden rule. Wow. Then, within 20 seconds, the same crowd that just booed Ron Paul begins to cheer!

Paul continues:

“Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want have them do to us. So, we endlessly bomb these countries and then we wonder why they get upset with us? And yet, it continues on and on and on. This idea that we can’t debate foreign policy then all we have to do is start another war? I mean, it’s warmongering, building up for another war against Iran. People can’t wait to get into another war…this country doesn’t need another war, we need to quit the ones we’re in, we need to save the money and bring our troops home.”

At this, the crowd applauded. These South Carolinians are off their rocker. They boo the Biblical principle of the golden rule and applaud ending wars and bringing troops home.

A 2006 survey shows that South Carolina is tied for #1 for church attendance, yet Ron Paul is booed for suggesting that the United States develop a “golden rule” foreign policy. Why would the #1 church-attending state boo this?

The answer is clear: Religious people, above all others, make up the majority of those in this country who have the most warped concept of people in other countries and their different religions. It is Christians, above all, who want other religions wiped out and non-Christians bombarded with bombs. There is no other explanation for the reason why Ron Paul was booed about this issue than the one just provided.

watch the clip

RTO Destroys Blog Post Linking Ron Paul to White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis

2012-01-14T02:07:00.014-05:00

[above picture, Ron Paul, the "racist", with a black woman laughing]

Lie infested blog post is a litany of implicative, guilt-by-association propaganda jammed-packed with omissions, distortions and absolutely zero refutations. I debunk every single one

by Larry Simons
January 14, 2012

I ran across a blog page yesterday that included an article called, "Top 10 Racist Ron Paul Friends, Supporters". It is written by yet another anonymous blogger on the site CafeMom.com who goes by the name "Kissy". Not surprisingly, she does not allow free commenting to her stories. You have to become a member. Her profile on the site is also set on private. Shocker.

After I began belly-laughing at the title of the story, I immediately went into debunk mode, because I knew it would be as easy scratching an itch on my ass.

The story includes 10 people who range from white supremacists and Neo-Nazis to cold-blooded killers, in whom "Kissy" miraculously ties to Ron Paul.

Also not surprising, what I found absolutely hilarious about this page is the fact that the writer, after each person's synopsis of why they are either racist or a nut, fails to mention either why some of the beliefs held by the person are erroneous, or fails to mention how the individual's obvious toxic ideologies are connected to Ron Paul.

It does not even take an educated person to spot how poor this article is written in the standpoint of defending her claims. The article is nothing but omissions of proof of her claims, guilt-by-association accusations and implications of certain beliefs about historical events to be offensive without informing her readers why the belief she is condemning is offensive.

Let's get to them, shall we? I will post the names she mentions, and include her text in dark red [in italics] and then my response will follow.

1. Under Willis Carto she says:

"Willis Carto is a holocaust denier, Hitler admirer and a white supremacist. A former campaigner for segregationist candidate George Wallace, Carto founded the National Alliance with William Pierce, the author of the “Turner Diaries,” which is credited for inspiring Timothy McVeigh. Carto founded the Populist Party in 1984 and ran David Duke as a presidential candidate."

God knows what all of the above has to do with Ron Paul, the writer omits that.

"Carto also founded the American Free Press, which is labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), where Paul’s column runs."

I guess if the SLPC calls someone a hate group, that means they are. I have debunked them many times on my site.

"Paul has not sued Carto for running his column or explained how it wound up in a white supremacist publication."

Maybe he didn't know it was there????. What would the lawsuit be for?? Exactly what?

"The New York Times writes that Paul used the subscription list to a white supremacist publication of Carto’s to solicit donations."

Well, there you have it, the truth tellers NY Times have spoken! So it must be true!

Under Chuck Baldwin she says:

"Chuck Baldwin is a neo-Confederate New World Order conspiracy theorist who praises the confederacy and its leaders, Robert E. Lee andStonewall Jackson, and calls the Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression.”"

The writer fails to explain what exactly the bad thing is here. Baldwin is correct. The South was right. Notice how the writer does not refute it, but simply just lists the belief and its implication that it's erroneous??

The writer also omits the fact that one major belief among those who despise Lincoln is that Lincoln was a major racist who did not free one slave and wanted all blacks out of the country. That's fact. Lincoln's hero was Henry Clay, President and founder of the American Colonization Society, who wanted all blacks shipped to Liberia. Odd that Baldwin would be racist if he hates the racist Lincoln, huh?

"Baldwin writes a weekly column on the white supremacist site Vdare and is a proud supporter of American militia movements."

He writes it for the site or the site just posts his columns? Again, that is omitted. Also omitted is the fact the militias are permitted in our Constitution. We would not have established our country without militias. Why militias are bad...also omitted.

"Baldwin is also an Islamaphobe and homophobe."

The proof is omitted.

"Not only did Baldwin endorse Paul for president in 2007, but Paul returned the favor, endorsing Baldwin, who he calls his “friend,” for president in 2008."

Again, omitted is the fact that there is nothing wrong with this comment.

"While Paul was quick to criticize Michele Bachmann for her Islamaphobia, he has said nothing about Baldwin’s, the man he endorsed for president."

But where are the Islamaphobic statements? Omitted.

"Here are some choice quotes from Baldwin:

I believe homosexuality is moral perversion and deserves no special consideration under the law."

One does not have to be homophobic to believe this. This could be a person's moral belief completely independent of being "homophobic".

"I believe the South was right in the War Between the States, and I am not a racist."

Again, implied that this belief is wrong, yet the refutation of it is omitted. Baldwin is right, the South was right. They obeyed the Constitution.

"I believe there is a conspiracy by elitists within government and big business to steal America’s independence."

Again, another implication this is erroneous while the refutation is omitted.

"The Muslim religion has been a bloody, murderous religion since its inception."

This is true---but then again, all religions practically are. It's not an Islamaphobic statement.

Under Don Black she says:

"Don Black is a former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, a current member of the American Nazi Party, and the owner and operator of the white supremacist site Stormfront."

And?

"Black regularly organizes “money bombs” for Ron and Rand Paul and has even taken a picture with Ron Paul, who refused to return donations from Black and Stormfront even with the political tradition of not accepting donations from people who seem unfit."

Can Ron Paul control who endorses him? That means Ron Paul has the same beliefs as them?? Holy piss.

Ron Paul knew who Don Black was when posing for the picture? Is Ron Paul suppose to ask everyone before a photo is snapped, "Who are you and tell me everything you believe?" Insane.

Any proof that the money was donated under "STORMFRONT" rather than Don Black who RP may never have heard of? NOPE. NO proof. That is omitted.

"Black, who was sentenced to three years in jail for trying to overthrow the Caribbean country of Dominica in 1981, supports Paul through his Twitter account and on message boards for Stormfront."

What exactly is RP supposed to do about this? Assassinate the Twitter founder?

"Black told the New York Times that it was Paul’s newsletters that inspired him to be a supporter"

And? First of all no proof is out there that RP wrote them. Even if he did, is the writer suggesting that the source of inspiration should be the one charged with a crime? Then why did police not arrest and jail J.D. Salinger instead of Mark David Chapman for killing John Lennon? Chapman claims he was inspired by "The Catcher in the Rye".

Again...OMITTED.

Under Lew Rockwell she says:

"Lew Rockwell is a close friend and adviser of Paul’s who served as his congressional chief of staff between 1978 and 1982, worked as a paid consultant for Paul for more than 20 years, and was an editor and alleged ghost writer for his racist newsletters."

Proof? Omitted.

"Rockwell formed the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which Paul still has a close working relationship with."

This institute is about Austrian Economics! What is the implication about that? Where's the bad thing? OMITTED.

"The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is listed by the SPLC as a neo-Confederate organization. They also add that Rockwell said that the Civil War “transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order” and that the Civil Rights Movement was the “involuntary servitude” of (presumably white) business owners."

All true. Notice the writer fails to refute one word? [because they can't]

"Rockwell was listed as one of the racist League of the South’s founding members but denies membership."

Proof that it's racist? Omitted.

"Rockwell regularly posts articles on his website, attacking a New World Order conspiracy."

Again, the implication here is that this belief is wrong, but the refutation...omitted.

Under David Duke she says:

"David Duke is a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and candidate for Governor of Louisiana. Duke is also a New World Order conspiracy theorist who believes that Jews control the Federal Reserve."

Actually many do. Again, the implication that NWO conspiracy theories are bad...no refutation...it's omitted.

"On his website, Duke proudly boasts about the endorsements and kind words that Paul gave him in his newsletters and in turn endorses Paul for president"

Exactly how does this prove RP is racist?? Omitted.

Under Thomas DiLorenzo she says:

"Thomas DiLorenzo is another neo-Confederate who believes the South was right in the the civil war and that Abraham Lincoln was a wicked man who destroyed states’ rights."

They were, he was and he did. And once again, the writer does not refute this.

"DiLorenzo is listed as an affiliated scholar with the racist League of the South, which promotes segregation and a new southern secession."

Odd that DiLorenzo would be pro segregation when he devotes several chapters in his books to how racist Lincoln was. Odd for him to be racist whilst hating a racist. Hmmm.

"Paul invited DiLorenzo to testify before congress about the Federal Reserve and is close friends with Paul and works for the Ludwig Von Mises Instiute. Paul cited DiLorezno’s book when telling Tim Russert that the North should not have fought the Civil War."

Again, no mention at all of what is wrong with this, and zero refutation...zero. It's all just implication...devoid of refutation.

Under James Von Brunn she says: [This is the funniest yet]

"James Von Brunn was a white supremacist and anti-Semite who opened fired at the Holocaust museum, killing an African-American security guard. Von Brunn was an avid Paul supporter who posted a message on the Ron Paul Yahoo Group, saying, “HITLER’S WORST MISTAKE: HE DIDN’T GAS THE JEWS.”

Proof he was an avid RP supporter? The proof? OMITTED. Why would he say Hitler didn't gas the jews?? He DID!

"In 1983, Von Brunn was convicted of kidnapping members of the Federal Reserve Board, a common target of Paul’s, and was sentenced to six years in prison."

So he did this for Ron Paul, even though Paul has never said one, single solitary word about harming them? He only speaks of auditing them. I love how they use the phrase "target of Paul's" to create imagery to suggest RP would advocate Von Brunn's using force. Complete propagandised, psy-op bullshit.

Under William White she says:

"Bill White is a neo-Nazi who is a former member of of the neo-Nazi group the National Socialist Movement and founder of his own Nazi group, the National Socialist Worker’s Movement. He has called for the lynching of the Jena 6 and the assassination of NAACP leaders. White previously campaigned for Pat Buchanan and the Reform party. This year, White was convicted of threatening a juror but then freed by a judge who called the threats free speech. White is a former Ron Paul supporter who became disenfranchised with Paul, when a Paul spokesman called white supremacy “a small ideology.” Here is what White wrote about Paul on a popular white supremacist website:"

[the writer posts a long quote saying he has seen RP and his aides with members of stormfront and is mad that RP could call it a "small ideology]

What is hilarious about this is the writer basically answers their own question. The writer first admits White became upset at RP and White turns around and makes up claims that he has seen RP with these racist people.

Gee, did it ever occur to the writer that White wrote these words to denegrate RP for calling his movement "small"???

Nahhhhh.

Under Richard Poplawski she says:

"Richard Poplawski is a neo-Nazi from Pittsburgh who regularly posted on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront. Poplawski would post videos of Ron Paul talking about FEMA camp conspiracy theories with Glenn Beck."

Why is this Ron Paul's fault? Looks like another J.D. Salinger/Mark David Chapman guilt-by-association tactic again. I guess the writer has never heard of the fact that the camps exist. Ask Oliver North, who wrote the plans for them. Look up "Rex 84" on wikipedia.

"Polawski was afraid of a government conspiracy to take away people’s guns and wound up killing three police officers who came to his house after his mother made a domestic dispute call."

What exactly does that have to do with RP? Nothing.

Under Jules Manson she says:

"Jules Manson was a failed politician from Carson, Calif. Mason was also a big Paul supporter who would write, “I may be an athiest, but Ron Paul is my God,” on Paul’s website. Manson would also write, “Assassinate that n*gger and his family of monkeys,” of President Barack Obama."

I would like to hear what Manson's reaction was to RP saying Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks are two of RP's heroes. Hmmm?? So, is the writer implying that if Manson uses the word "n*gger", he got it from RP? He may have got it from Mark Twain--he used the word in Tom Sawyer...why is no one blaming Mark Twain? No evidence RP ever used the word. Omitted.

"This is not guilty by association."

Are you fucking shitting me? This whole fucking page is guilt by association!

"Ron Paul has spread white supremacy on conspiracy theories for years in his newsletters."

The writer provides zero proof of this. Zero. NONE.

"The racism and conspiracy theories have driven some people to violence. Not only have Ron Paul’s racist supporters endorsed him and his views, he has endorsed them through his positions on the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement, without disavowing the support he gets from racists. This is guilt by racism."

By being correct about the Civil War and that Lincoln destroyed states' rights and acted as dictator and invaded the South over an issue [secession] that the Constitution permits??

And as far as the Civil Rights movement goes, the writer is just plain ignorant on this issue. Ron Paul is not against Civil Rights. He is against government regulating hate, because it can't be done.

This is best summed up by someone who posted a comment under Andy Ostroy's article in December 2011:

"The Civil Rights Act is a Federal law which says no private business can discriminate. Paul's and any libertarian or freedom-concerned citizen's stance is that this is a violation of the constitutional right of what the Federal government can do. Can the government tell McDonald's to stop selling french fries to children? Can the government tell a small business owner that they can't open a cigar shop because it's discriminatory towards people who don't smoke? The government has NO right to tell a private business what they can do with their business or who they serve. The free market will decide who survives and who doesn't. If you hate a business owner because they are racist, just don't be their customer. Removing the Civil Right Act will no more make people more racist than legalizing drugs will make all people drug addicts. Laws cannot make people less racist. Individuals decide that on their own.

What business owner in their right mind would refuse to serve a large portion of potential customers? It's in their self-interest to make as much money as possible, otherwise, their competitors will put them out of business. And with Yelp, everyone can find out about such prejudices faster."

The writer omits this as well.

There you have it. All 10 debunked.

This might just be one of the worst articles I have ever read. It has nothing to do with the fact that I just diagree with 99% of it. It is because the writer makes accusation after accusation with absolutely no shred of proof. It is a smorgasbord of omitted facts, implication and guilt-by-association garbage. She would be the worst lawyer that ever lived if she took this exact same article into a courtroom.

If this is the lengths that people have to go to in order to smear Ron Paul, then it is very clear that there are truly people out there that abhor the Constitution and the sovereignty of this country [and not to mention just plain 100% brutish].

Crooks and Liars Criticizes Ron Paul for Saying that Entitlements are Not Rights

2012-01-10T15:07:00.009-05:00

It just so happens, Ron Paul is correct, and once again the writers on Crooks and Liars do not understand the Constitution……shocker!

by Larry Simons
January 10, 2012

A Crooks and Liars writer, who just goes under the name “David” [another chickenshit afraid to post their actual full name], has once again, ironically, lied in a story posted on Sunday titled, “Ron Paul: 'Entitlements Are Not Rights'”. The story points out that during Sunday’s NBC debate, Ron Paul, when asked by Andy Hiller, “In your opinion, what services are Americans entitled to expect to get from government?”, Ron Paul responded:

“Entitlements are not rights. Rights mean you have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty, you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor.

“Earlier on here, there was a little discussion about gay rights. I, in a way, don't like to use those terms: gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, religious rights. There's only one type of right: It's a right to your liberty.”

Then he added: “No, they're not entitled. One group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else. And the basic problem here is, there's a lot of good intention to help poor people, but guess who gets the entitlements in Washington? The big guys, the rich people, they get the entitlements, the military-industrial complex, the banking system. Those are the entitlements we should be dealing with.”

“David” then resorts to referring his readers to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for the definition of the word “right”, which is “a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract”.

What “David” fails to grasp is the fact that this completely flies in the face of what the founders saw as a right. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano puts it brilliantly in his book, “It Is Dangerous to be Right, When the Government Is Wrong” when he says, “A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity.” These rights include “the right to life, the right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, the right to worship or not worship, the right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our property as we see fit and our right to be left alone”.

In other words, the government does not give us these things, so they cannot take them away.

Napolitano continues, “A right involves a sphere within which we are free to make our own decisions without any interference from the government, individuals or entities. If the government were to regulate any of our rights, we would lose our personhood. Rights ensure such a result will not happen”.

Social Security and Medicare are social programs provided by the government, therefore they, by definition, are not rights. Rights are not provided, so therefore rights cannot be taken away. They are, however, entitlements. They are entitlements because of the fact that [clarifying what I said above] American taxpayers actually pay into these programs so the government really is not providing the program, they are just regulating and micromanaging them.

The government does not even have the right to take our money away from us in order to pay for these programs. Our money is our property [something that cannot be taken away, but our government does anyway, violating our right to our property]. This is what Ron Paul meant when he said, “One group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else”. Exactly right. That is what the government is doing. They take our money out of our checks to pay for these social programs which may or may not benefit us, yet the government takes our money [our property] away from us anyway in order to take care of another group who needs it. The taxpayer is robbed of their money even if that particular taxpayer never needs the program itself in their lifetime. The founders would have been vehemently against this.

Basically, in short, if it can be taken away and regulated by an outside entity, it is not a right. Entitlements can be taken way.

Above, I also said that rights are “God given” [quoting Napolitano]. In reality, “rights” really are not a religious issue. Napolitano adds on this subject:

“Nor is…natural rights a uniquely religious concept. The only premise one need accept is that humans are created; it is immaterial whether it is by God or by nature.”

“Just as pregnancy exists no matter how it is explained, the different explanations of the source of Natural Rights, God or rational humanity, do not change human’ possession of Natural Rights upon our entering into existence”.

Ron Paul was correct. Entitlements and rights are not the same thing. An entitlement, whether we feel is our “right” to receive the entitlement, is something that is regulated, controlled or micromanaged by an outside entity, such as a government. A right is that which is ours independent of an outside entity. Nothing can control it, regulate it or micromanage it but ourselves.

“David” should start reading the words of John Locke and abandon Noah Webster.

Ron Paul Doubles Vote Tally, Captures Equal Number of Delegates As Romney & Santorum

2012-01-04T06:56:00.004-05:00

Paul runs establishment candidates close despite weeks of vitriolic smear attacks by corporate media

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
January 4, 2012

Ron Paul heads to New Hampshire having more than doubled his 2008 Iowa vote tally, secured an equal number of Republican delegates as Romney and Santorum, and is projected to beat Santorum into a strong second-placed finish in next week’s primary.

After weeks of intense and sustained smear attacks by the establishment media, during which Paul was labeled everything from “dangerous,” to “disgusting,” to “racist” and even called a “terrorist,” the Texan Congressman still managed to secure 26,219 votes compared to 11,841 votes in 2008 – finishing third behind Romney and Santorum.

Crucially, Paul has obtained an equal number of delegates to both Santorum and Romney – seven in total.

“Paul may actually be the real winner of the first Republican voting contest,” writes Grace Wyler. “That’s because Paul’s massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates — the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.”

In comparison to Ron Paul doubling his tally, Mitt Romney received marginally less votes than he did in 2008 despite the millions of dollars his campaign spent in the state. Indeed, as Michael Brendan Dougherty notes, “75 percent of Republican Caucus-goers want someone that isn’t Mitt Romney – a result that reflects polls nationwide.” Romney is also expected to perform poorly in the southern states, where his brand of big government isn’t welcomed.

Saying he was the recipient of “one of three tickets out of Iowa,” Paul noted that Rick Santorum’s surprise showing is highly unlikely to be replicated anywhere else, and that he and Romney were the top two going into next week’s primary.

Santorum received a blow on the eve of voting yesterday when his own nephew penned an op-ed warning that his uncle was “another big-government politician who supports the status quo,” urging people to vote for Ron Paul.

Although Romney is the clear frontrunner in New Hampshire, Paul is currently running a strong second according to the New York Times’s caucuses projection. Paul is forecast to take 19.1 per cent of the vote, with Santorum significantly behind with just 5.2 per cent of the projected vote.

Two recent polls out of New Hampshire also show Paul holding down a strong second-placed finish, with Santorum nowhere to be seen. Paul is also forecast for a 3rd place finish in South Carolina and Florida behind Gingrich and Romney.

“We’ve had success reintroducing some ideas Republicans have needed for a long time. And that is the conviction that freedom is popular,” Paul said in his speech last night. “Let’s go back to to this real old fashioned idea, this dangerous idea: let’s obey the Constitution,” he added, urging his supporters to press on to New Hampshire with renewed momentum.

My Top 10 Favorite Albums of 2011

2011-12-31T18:33:00.011-05:00

by Larry Simons
December 31, 2011

1. Fly from Here
[Yes]

2. Wonders of the Younger
[Plain White T's]

3. Happiness
[Hurts]

4. 15 Minutes
[Barry Manilow]

5. Science and Faith
[The Script]

6. Vice Verses
[Switchfoot]

7. Eclipse
[Journey]

8. Black & White
[The Maine]

9. Happiness Is the Road
[Fergie Frederiksen]

10. Cardiology
[Good Charlotte]

My Top 10 Favorite Songs of 2011

2011-12-31T17:19:00.014-05:00

by Larry Simons
December 31, 2011

Click title to hear song

1. The Man You Always Wanted Me to Be
[Yes]
from Fly from Here

2. Wonders of the Younger
[Plain White T's]
from Wonders of the Younger

3. Follow Your Heart
[Fergie Frederiksen]
from Happiness Is the Road

4. Love Waits for No One
[Fergie Frederiksen]
from Happiness Is the Road

5. Maybe This Time
[Stabilizers]
from Soundtrack: If Looks Could Kill

6. Fly from Here - Part I - We Can Fly
[Yes]
from Fly from Here

7. Illuminated
[Hurts]
from Happiness

8. Souvenirs
[Switchfoot]
from Vice Verses

9. Down
[Mat Kearney]
from Young Love

10. Saving Grace
[The Maine]
from Black & White

James Williams [Who Is Black] Says, “Ron Paul Came to My Rescue” in the 1970’s

2011-12-29T17:02:00.004-05:00

Man says Ron Paul attended to his sick wife in the early 70’s when no one else would help. Ron Paul did not even send them a bill. Odd thing for a “racist” to do, huh?

by Larry Simons
December 29, 2011

A new video showing a black man by the name of James Williams telling a story of the compassion of Ron Paul has hit the internet. Williams, of Matagorda County, Texas tells a true story of when his wife [who is white] had a complication with her pregnancy in 1972. He says no doctors would care for her or deliver the bi-racial baby. Williams says that even the hospital nurse called the police on Williams, claiming Williams was “harassing” her.

After Dr. Ron Paul was notified, he delivered the Williams’ stillborn baby. The Williams’ never received a hospital bill. This falls completely in line with the reputation Ron Paul had as a physician of “routinely lowering fees and working for free and refusing to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments” as wikipedia explains.

This story also flies in the face of the smear tactics used on Ron Paul that he is a “racist” because of racist newsletters published under his name in the 80’s and 90’s, which Paul has consistently denied writing.

Would a racist help a black man and his white wife deliver a baby and then not even send them a hospital bill for their services?

The mainstream media will dismiss this video and testimony as “partisan” or may even attempt to say Williams was just some paid actor hired by the Ron Paul campaign to give a false story. This begs the question: Would a black man [even if hired as an actor] sign on to do a video that is praising the actions of a racist, essentially implying they are not racist if they really are?

watch the video

Andy Ostroy is Blasted on the Huffington Post about His Lie-Infested Article on Ron Paul

2011-12-23T14:49:00.006-05:00

Majority of comments are pro-Ron Paul and nearly every comment that is jammed packed with substance is ignored by Ostroy, who chooses to only respond to the less substantive one-liners

by Larry Simons
December 23, 2011

On the popular liberal website The Huffington Post, the website that three-time Fraudie winner Andy Ostroy also writes for, Ostroy has taken a verbal beating from the majority of respondents to his article, “What Our Young Folks Need to Know About Ron Paul”, an article that is not only packed with false accusations that Ron Paul wrote racists comments in newsletters 20 years ago, but also is filled with lies like Ron Paul is a “Texan” [he was born and raised in Pittsburgh] and that he “doesn’t believe in the 1964 Civil Rights Act”.

I find it hilarious that just the average Joe Schmoe respondent puts Andy Ostroy, the so-called “political and pop culture analyst”, who has made appearances on TV and radio, in his place on basic facts like the role of government in civil rights.

I cannot put it any better than the actual posts themselves so I will just simply post just a few to showcase the barrage of pro-Ron Paul comments that have been posted under Ostroy’s story at HuffPo. I find it interesting as well that as I skimmed page after page of comments under his story, Ostroy seems to only respond to one-liners from certain people that while what they said in their post was relevant, it was usually less substantive than the majority of the posts that appeared.

Here are just a few of the posts with profound substance [which Ostroy ignored]. I bet it makes Ostroy’s blood boil that he does not control the comment thread on HuffPo. He enables comment moderation on his own site, making what I’m quite sure would be a carbon copy of what has taken place at HuffPo impossible.

Here are some of my favorite posts under Ostroy’s story at HuffPo. Enjoy.
[Like I said, these are only a few]

from mc1135

"Even if Ron Paul made these remarks, I'd take him over a president who's legalized indefinite detention of American citizens even if found innocent... A president who has assassinated American citizens with NO trial.

I mean, Ron Paul is being nailed to the wall for POSSIBLY writing some slightly off-color but mostly innocuous comments, yet we currently have a guy in office who's systematically dismantling the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A man who's reversed hundreds of years worth of Common law dating back to the Magna Carta up to and including Posse Comitatus.

In Barack Obama's America, we're ALL slaves, regardless of our skin color... So keep pretending these comments from a Ron Paul newsletter 22 years ago mean anything in comparison to the atrocities of the Dictator Obama."

from downtownny

"If Ron Paul did write these, and was not afraid to do so at the time, shouldn't there be at least one audio or video clip of him saying anything even remotely similar? If he had no problem writing that, he certainly wouldn't have a problem saying it. I think that the fact there is no evidence of Ron Paul ever saying anything like that is conclusive proof that these were not his writings and that it was an unfortunate case of him lending his name to other writers. Further, it is important to note that after Ron Paul discovered what was in these newsletters, he immediately changed the staff responsible for writing them. That right there shows that not only did he not write them, but he is adamantly against them (and his speeches and pro-black policies regarding civil liberties prove that as well)."

from treyday247

"I'm a black male and traditionally conservative democrat and I have heard ALL the things that these news letters say and guess what? I don't even care and am I still a ron paul supporter. Why? For one, I don't believe he wrote them or endorsed them like he says and it is inconsistent with his libertarian rhetoric but more importantly Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that actually vows to do something GOOD for the black community. What I am saying is that I would take a racist that sticks to his guns on his vow to end the wars aboard and the wars at home (war on drugs) than a BLACK PRESIDENT who has done nothing for the black community and I am not the only black person who feels that way."

from chichora123

"Racism is collectivist idea. It is fundamentally opposite to the Idea of Libertarianism. The central tenet of Libertarianism is the protection of individual’s rights. Nobody is allowed to violate anybody else's fundamental rights. Racism violates this basic principle of Libertarianism.

Ron Paul, who is a staunch Libertarian, is not a racist. Period.

Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about ending the disastrous war on drugs which disproportionately effects African Americans. Too often, silly minor violations result in sending young kids to Jails and they come back in to society as more hardened people. Besides, war on drugs is just about as successful as the prohibition was.

Ron paul is the only candidate defending the due rights of everybody including muslims who are put under the state sponsored suspicion because of the patriot act. Ron Paul is absolutely NOT A RACIST. End of discussion."

from AlfredE69

"I hold Obama accountable for extending the Patriot Act. I hold Obama accountable for harassing medical marijuana patients. I hold Obama accountable for trying to get out of the troop withdrawal agreement with Iraq. I hold Obama accountable for hiring Wall St insiders. I hold Obama accountable for starting a war with Libya.

Andy, would you support Obama's policies if a republican did the same?"

from The State

"If the racist claims were true and had substance, why didn't anyone running against Paul - where he won 12 times - use it to attack him or smear his campaign?

In 2008 when Paul was running for the GOP nomination, why did *NO* candidate running against him use it to attack him or smear his campaign?

If this material had substance:
- Why has Cain not used this to attack him or smear his campaign?
- Why has Romney not used this to attack him or smear his campaign?
- Why has Gingrich not used this to attack him or smear his campaign?
- Why has Bachman not used this to attack him or smear his campaign? She certainly has incentive after his comment about her "not liking Muslims" on the Jay Leno show.
- Why has Santorum/Huntsman not used this to attack him or smear his campaign?

Politicians will use whatever dirty laundry they can dig up on the other to win an election. They will attack and smear any other with the hyperbole ever escalating against the other when polls show they are losing.

Why aren't they using it? Have the competing campaigns agreed with each other not to, unless it looks like Paul will win? A last ditched attempt to discredit Paul? What are the odds this is true? Slim to none. Just like the odds of the allegations being true."

from 7garments

"Our president recently signed legislation that gives him the right to issue an order to kill any American citizen, within the USA or abroad. No due process, no trial, no publicity. Our president regularly sends drones to kill "terrorists," who not infrequently turn out to be children collecting firewood or other innocents. But, somehow, you feel a great and urgent need to sound the alarm about the moral integrity of a presidential candidate who was tangentially associated 30 yrs ago with some politically incorrect throwaway advertising circulators."

from davidngo4415

"You lack the rational depth to understand why Ron Paul takes those positions on those specific laws. But I will take the time to explain them to you. (You don't have to agree, but at least understand his perspective clearly, instead of creating strawmen to attack)

The Civil Rights Act is a Federal law which says no private business can discriminate. Paul's and any libertarian or freedom-concerned citizen's stance is that this is a violation of the constitutional right of what the Federal government can do. Can the government tell McDonald's to stop selling french fries to children? Can the government tell a small business owner that they can't open a cigar shop because it's discriminatory towards people who don't smoke? The government has NO right to tell a private business what they can do with their business or who they serve. The free market will decide who survives and who doesn't. If you hate a business owner because they are racist, just don't be their customer. Removing the Civil Right Act will no more make people more racist than legalizing drugs will make all people drug addicts. Laws cannot make people less racist. Individuals decide that on their own.

What business owner in their right mind would refuse to serve a large portion of potential customers? It's in their self-interest to make as much money as possible, otherwise, their competitors will put them out of business. And with Yelp, everyone can find out about such prejudices faster."

He also says:

"Wow. You're incredibly condescending in this article. You think all of us young Ron Paul supporters haven't seen the racist charges he's gotten throughout the years? All of it points back to these newsletters that he has repeatedly said he repudiates and did not write. You think we all didn't look into this? We did. And we're not dropping him. Why? Not because of his single act of denial or repudiation. No. Because he has spent all of his life and all of his time in office defending the rights of EVERY individual. He is a politician of incredible principle and consistency. And NOTHING. NOTHING in his actions, his words, or his political record point to him being racist. if ANYTHING, he has done more for the fight of the individual and the oppressed minority than anyone else. Because he sees how the Drug War has affected lower income communities and how many african-americans are wrongfully imprisoned and kept down by the laws of our government.

Ron Paul is NOT a racist. And we all see that very clearly. We certainly aren't swayed by a weak argument like yours. Wish I could say it was even a good attempt. But you've just repeated the same old smear campaign Ron Paul has been dealing with every single election he's gone through. And he's won 12 times. Because people are smarter than you. We see through such lies and understand the character of such a man. Unlike the strawman you attacked."

from hess1745

"This is what I don't understand, how can Ron Paul be considered a racist when he calls for an end to the war on drugs, which by large is racially disproportionate and motivated. Why also does Ron Paul oppose racial profiling by TSA? I believe these two policies alone discredit the whole racist thoery."

I even chimed in and said this:

Larry43

"Its becoming very clear why Ostroy dislikes Ron Paul: he is the ONLY GOP candidate that has an actual chance of beating Obama. Until today, Ostroy has NEVER written ONE article on Ron Paul. Ostroy claims that RP has no chance and there should be no attention given to him, yet Ostroy just wrote a story attacking him [thus giving him attention] because the mainstream media is bringing up the newsletters--why? Because Ron Paul is surging in the polls! Thats why! Why wasn't this newsletter story important during Ron Paul's TWELVE election wins as Congressman? Why weren't they important when he won every single straw poll in 2008 and this time? Its because the story is BOGUS and no one [unless to attack for political purposes] believes this crap! If it was a REAL story and this REALLY was important to Ostroy, why hasn't he written about it BEFORE now???? This is a 20 year old story, and Ostroy is just NOW writing about it??? I guess Ostroy is soft on racism then!"

and I said:

"Andy, answer this: If I began a newsletter and called it "The Andy Ostroy Political Report" and your name was in HUGE letters and my stories talked about things that you abhor, would you ADMIT you wrote the things that I actually wrote? What if you didnt even know about the newsletter until 10 years later? Would you still fess up and admit you wrote the content? I would guess the answer would be a big "no" to both questions, right? You would go on TV and tell others you did not write the material and you would show your contempt for it right? Then tell me please, how would YOUR actions be any different than what Ron Paul has already done [MANY times now I might add]??"

Obviously many will say that the "Paul-ites" hijacked HuffPo and ambushed Ostroy. They, most likely, are the same imbeciles who call conspiracy theorists "kooks", yet they fully accept a conspiracy against Ostroy from the Ron Paul supporters.

Andy Ostroy Accuses Ron Paul of Racial Remarks while Admitting He May Not Have Written Them

2011-12-22T20:51:00.013-05:00

2011’s Fraudie Recipient Solidifies His Third Consecutive Win

by Larry Simons
December 22, 2011

Ostroy has done it. He has finally written his very first article on Ron Paul. Not surprisingly he has chosen to hop aboard the smear Ron Paul wagon and make miserable attempts to label Ron Paul a racist for 20 year old newsletters that Ron Paul has repeatedly denied writing and has condemned on numerous occasions.

It is becoming obvious, even to the likes of people like Ostroy, that Ron Paul has now emerged as a rock-solid threat to capturing the GOP nomination, so the mainstream media, along with liberal hacks like Ostroy, are pulling no punches in digging up whatever they can to make Ron Paul’s poll numbers drop. This is all they can come up with on Ron Paul: 20 year old newsletters that were not even written by Ron Paul. Hilarious.

In fact, Ostroy even admits this in his article. Ostroy writes:

“And as for whether he's the actual writer or not, the offensive comments were made in his newsletters under his byline.”

Just to point out how easy this is to do [create a newsletter and attach Ron Paul’s name to it], I have created the “Andy Ostroy Political Report”, complete with racial comments. I will attribute these very words to Andy Ostroy. Why? Well, because I can. Here is the first issue: [click to enlarge]

See? Easy to do. I created it in under 10 minutes.

Will Andy admit to making these racial comments posted by me in his very first political report newsletter? Probably not. Why? Because he didn’t write them? Well, that’s a fair reason. But, will we believe him? Ostroy expects Ron Paul to admit to words he never wrote or endorsed, but will Ostroy admit to uttering the words in his newly created newsletter [above]? If not, why?? After all, look at the newsletter. It has the name "ANDY OSTROY" in real big fucking letters. That alone confirms he wrote them, does it not??

Ostroy also lies in the article when he says:

“Paul is a 1950's era Texan who's on record saying he doesn't believe in the 1964 Civil Rights act.”

First, Ron Paul was not born in Texas. He did not move to Texas until he was 33 years old. So, he’s not a Texan. As far as the Civil Rights act, Ron Paul endorses civil rights. My goodness, he’s a libertarian! He has said over and over [only for it to fall on the deaf ears of liberals] that he does not favor the government legislating civil rights.

I posted this on Ostroy’s blog. Naturally Ostroy will not approve of the comments, so here they are:

“Ostroy, youre a liar. Ron Paul did not write the newsletters. As for your comment "Paul is a 1950's era Texan who's on record saying he doesn't believe in the 1964 Civil Rights act."---wrong AGAIN. He believes in civil rights, he just disagrees that its the GOVERNMENTS' job to interfere in that and force people to act civil. It's a moral issue, not a LEGAL one that the government should interfere in.

If a restaurant owner doesnt want to serve a black person, they should not forced to by some civil rights law. They have the right NOT to serve them, but they will feel the reprocussions of that act. They will lose business because they are racists, no doubt. Not the governments job to interfere in that. THAT is all Ron Paul is saying in that issue. Nothing more, nothing less.

You did not post ONE link or ONE source in your article that proves Ron Paul wrote those letters. All you did was post quotes and say Ron Paul wrote them. That's not journalism and it's not fact-checking. It's propaganda and you should be ashamed.”

Of course, Ostroy is not ashamed at all. You have to be human first.

CNN Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites

2011-12-22T20:01:00.003-05:00

So much for the “racist” smear

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 22, 2011

While the establishment media continues to hype a 15-year-old story concerning decades old newsletters as part of a dirty tricks campaign to smear Ron Paul as a racist, the latest CNN poll shows that Paul has the most support from non-whites out of all the Republican candidates.

The latest CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday finds that Congressman Paul scores highest amongst minorities when matched up against Barack Obama in a hypothetical election head to head.

Paul scores 25% of the vote amongst non-whites, whereas Romney polls at 20% and Gingrich gets 15%.

Ron Paul is clearly the most popular GOP contender amongst non-whites out of the entire field, suggesting that the “racist” smear, which was heavily pushed back in 2008, has had very little impact whatsoever on the views of those who presumably would be the most likely to be offended by it.

Indeed, it’s a remarkable coincidence that those who seem to be most offended by the non-controversy are well to do, white, establishment Republican cheerleaders, Paul’s foremost political adversaries.

The establishment media has predictably launched a second round of smear concerning the “racist newsletter” controversy that was first reported in 1996 and firmly debunked when it cropped up again in 2008.

Unsurprisingly, the hit piece was originated by a hardened anti-Paul neo-con who enjoys membership of the same shadowy billionaire-financed lobbying group as Paul’s election rival Newt Gingrich.

Paul has repeatedly pointed out that he had nothing to do with writing the offensive statements and didn’t even read them until years later, at which point he completely disowned the content.

The key piece of evidence, universally ignored by the race baiters, which proves Ron Paul’s stance was the exact opposite of that portrayed in some of the newsletters released under his name in the early 1990′s, relates to Martin Luther King.

The attack dogs have attempted to imply that Ron Paul either wrote or at least signed off on the characterization of civil rights hero King as a violent philanderer who “seduced underage girls and boys,” and that he criticized Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, which Paul’s newsletter (not written by Paul) labeled “hate whitey day”.

If this was Paul’s belief in the early 90′s then why, over a decade previously and then again in the early 80′s, did Paul vote to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday, the only time in history that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution?

Ron Paul has accepted responsibility for the newsletters, he did so no less than 15 years ago, but he has maintained the fact that he never wrote or approved what was written in them. His support for a day to honor Martin Luther King years before newsletters were written by other authors denigrating King, provides concrete evidence for this assertion.

Paul’s support for King back in the 70′s proves that the newsletters were written by other people and did not represent the views of Paul himself, debunking the entire farce for what it is – a craftily manufactured smear attack.

Ron Paul is the most popular Republican candidate amongst minorities because he seeks to end the war on drugs and the biased, racist court system it engenders that unfairly targets minorities.

The video below illustrates how Ron Paul’s policies are almost universally in the same spirit as Martin Luther King, and how minorities are resonating with his message of true liberty.

Real Truth Online’s 2011 Fraud of the Year: Andy Ostroy

2011-12-21T03:10:00.003-05:00

Snatches victory from Billo to capture a 3-peat

by Larry Simons
December 21, 2011

I did not want this. I really did not. I did not want liberal blogger Andy Ostroy to win his third straight Fraudie award in three years. I do write about others on my blog and I was trying to prevent anyone from thinking Ostroy only wins because he is all I write about. Not true. But, I could not ignore the fact that Ostroy’s fraudiness was just too overwhelming for the 3rd straight year.

To recap, here is why Ostroy is this year’s Fraudie recipient:

Andy’s journey to his third Fraudie began early, in January, when Ostroy exploited the Tucson, Arizona shootings, in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was nearly assassinated. Ostroy immediately blamed shooter Jared Loughner’s “right-wing” stances and by being influenced by right-wingers like Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin when he had absolutely zero evidence of this. Ostroy said:

“…are we to be so naive as to think that 22-year-old mass murderer Jared Loughner, who took his glock to that supermarket parking lot with the clear intent to assassinate Giffords, was not at all influenced by this steady stream of hate-speak from Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly and others? Or worse, have we become so dominated by political correctness that we fail so miserably to directly place blame where it so rightfully lies?”

Even almost a year later, evidence supporting Ostroy’s claims has still not surfaced. Naturally, this does not force Ostroy to remove his unproven words from his website.

Also, in January, Ostroy took only two days to produce a massive flip-flop in reference to Sarah Palin and her would-be influence in the Tucson shootings.

Ostroy blamed Palin for the shootings in his January 10 article. Two days later [in his January 12 article], he said this:

“To be sure, Jared Loughner did not go that parking lot Saturday with Palin's inflammatory rhetoric as his driver. He very likely never heard any of her speeches or seen her website. So to blame her directly is nothing more than partisan vitriol, no matter how much some may dislike her or condemn those words and actions.”

In the very same [Jan. 12] article, Ostroy ended the article with blaming her again, saying:

“Palin could've used the Tuscon tragedy as a mechanism to chart a new, more effective course for herself. Instead, her message to America is, 'My toxic rhetoric is here to stay. Deal with it.'”

Then, the very next day [Jan. 13], Ostroy removed blame from Palin again by saying:

“Palin was right about one thing: it's unfair and inaccurate to blame her toxic political rhetoric for the Tucson shooting.”

He could have won his third Fraudie just for that article alone…but, ahhh, there’s more.

In late January, Ostroy threw a hissy-fit that the Illinois Appellate Court actually upheld the law and omitted Mayoral hopeful Rahm Emanuel from the election ballot because Illinois law states Mayoral candidates must reside in the state of Illinois for a whole year prior to running.

Since then, Emanuel has become Mayor of Chicago because the elitists can have anything they want in this country, and that is just fine and dandy with Ostroy.

In May, after reports that Osama bin Laden had been killed [a complete bullshit story that liberals lapped up and asked for more], Ostroy wrote one of the most lie-infested articles about “what his death means to America”. The best way to truly understand why his article was complete bullshit is to just read my review of it.

One major flip-flop of his article were these two completely contradictory statements:

“It's ok to cheer and celebrate his [bin Laden’s] death. We killed our enemy before he could kill us.”

“Celebrating the death of anyone is not supposed to be something which causes elation and high-fives. We are supposed to be above that. Civility and the rule of law is what really makes America great.”

In August, Ostroy wrote an article in which he claimed he never “drank the Obama Kool-Aid” and never really put emphasis on the fact that Obama is black. My article showcases Ostroy’s repeated contradictory comments, as I compared Ostroy’s current comments with ones he made prior to Obama’s election.

My article also shows Ostroy’s colossal lies by proving that Ostroy did the very two aforementioned things he denied: “drinking the Obama Kool-Aid” and emphasizing his race.

The next articles I wrote on Ostroy showcase his disdain for Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

In November, I responded to a story Ostroy wrote on his blog on why he supports Jon Huntsman for the GOP nominee when he always finishes in the low three in nearly every poll, but ignores Ron Paul from any article he writes [when Ron Paul polls high].

Ostroy continually flat out omits mention of Ron Paul in his articles despite the Congressman’s high poll numbers, which, most of the time place him in the top 3. But other GOP candidates that Ostroy calls “crazy” like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, Ostroy writes article after article on.

So, one day on Ostroy’s blog I posed as someone named “Bob” and asked why he omits Ron Paul from his articles. Ostroy’s response?:

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

Yet Ostroy never, ever says why in any article he writes. He completely ignores Ron Paul and calls him crazy, yet never writes one article explaining why.

In December, Ostroy gave credit to Ron Paul for skipping a debate that was scheduled for Dec. 27 and moderated by Donald Trump [this debate has since been canceled]. At the end of his article, Ostroy writes:

“One thing's for sure: you know you've become a pathetic joke when Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry won't have anything to do with you.”

This implies Ron Paul is crazy and equates him with the real nut jobs Perry and Bachmann, in which Ostroy has written several articles on each, while he has still not written one about Ron Paul’s “craziness”.

I responded on his blog by saying this:

“This is exactly the only reason you use comment moderation. It is not because you get “mean and nasty” posts filled with vitriol, because the evidence shows that when your readers have said mean and nasty shit in the past about people you despise [Palin, Cheney, Bush...] you left the comments posted and were fine with it. It’s because of comments like this very one I’m typing…posts that expose how big of a fucking hypocritical fraud you are….posts that are impossible to refute and expose the fact that you can post lie after lie about Ron Paul and get away with it [because you're too chicken shit to confront facts like the one contained in this writing] that you enable moderation…and it’s the only reason.

Until you do an article exposing why you “think” Ron Paul is crazy, stop lumping him in with actual crazy people in which the evidence they are crazy could fill a fucking stadium. You despise people like Perry, Bachman, Gingrich and Santorum for all the right reasons, because they are babbling idiots that couldn’t even name the state they represent, let alone other states. But you despise Ron Paul for a completely different reason….because he is everything you wish Obama was! And that is the fucking truth.”

Naturally, my comment was not “approved” for posting because Ostroy is too afraid to confront his own hypocrisy. This is what frauds are made of, folks. Hence, a third Fraudie.

Now that Ostroy has won his third straight Fraudie award, I might consider renaming the award after Ostroy himself. The Ostroy Award? Doesn’t have the same ring to it, but I will not rule it out. Maybe after he wins number four? That could be next year. Let’s wait and see.

Andy Ostroy Lies About What Ron Paul Said About His Economic Roots

2011-12-13T00:14:00.004-05:00

Ostroy claims Ron Paul said he “grew up through the Depression”. A closer look reveals the Congressman did not actually say this

by Larry Simons
December 12, 2011

In Andy Ostroy’s latest article, “The GOP Candidates Do Monty Python's “Four Yorkshiremen” [Dec. 11], Ostroy writes about the moment during Saturday’s ABC Iowa debate when Diane Sawyer asks the candidates about a time in their lives when they had a personal financial strain.

Ostroy writes:

“But the most fun came at the end of the debate when the candidates were asked what financial sacrifices they had made in their lives. And as my friend Paul keenly observed, this is when the debate turned into Monty Python's hilarious "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch where a bunch of snooty aristocrats wax nostalgic about their difficult upbringings, trying to out-poor each other with one absurd claim after another.

Perry said he his house didn't have running water until he was six, and that his mother sewed his clothes until he went off to college. Gingrich said he was raised in an apartment above a gas station. Ron Paul told of growing up through the Depression. Michele Bachmann said she had to work at 13 because her single mom fell below the poverty line. Romney sheepishly admitted he hadn't been poor, but that his father had been.”

I found it odd that Ostroy includes a clip of the Monty Python sketch in his article, but omits a clip of this segment of the debate in which the candidates actually give their answers.

Here is the clip. Ron Paul’s answer is at 8:07 into it. Notice Ron Paul never states he “grew up through the Depression”

In fact, Congressman Paul admits that he was rather fortunate despite growing up in a poor family and a poor era. Ostroy also omits that when Ron Paul started his own private practice in 1968, he often lowered fees for patients and worked for free. Even today as a Congressman he refuses to sign up for the Congressional pensions that he is entitled to because he says it’s immoral. Yeah, a real elitist prick Ron Paul is!

I left this post on his blog. It will never see the light of day, so I include it here:

“Ron Paul never said he “grew up through the depression”. His exact words were, “I feel very fortunate because, although I was raised in a system, in a family that was rather poor, but we didn’t even know it. It was during the depression/WW II, we didn't have very much and I worked my way through college and that was a natural instinct because that's what you were supposed to do...”

“Raised in a system that was rather poor” is not the same as “growing up through the depression”. But why should facts matter to you?”

“Growing up through the Depression” would imply that Ron Paul was born in the time frame of around 1915-1920 and that he was literally “growing up” during the Depression years of 1929-1933. In fact, the Depression only lasted until roughly 1933, two years before Ron Paul was born. WWII began in 1939 and ended in 1945, so it becomes obvious that Ron Paul was simply lumping the two events [Great Depression/WWII or 1929-1945] together.

He is right actually. The Depression/WW II era lasted from 1929-1945. Ron Paul was born in 1935. He was 10 years old in 1945. So, Ron Paul is correct when he stated that he was raised in a poor system. Nothing Ron Paul said was exaggerated or inflated to imply that his humble beginnings were better than they actually were.

So, what’s Ostroy’s problem? Simple: Ostroy loves lumping Ron Paul in with the rest of these elitist goons so he can marginalize his campaign, whilst at the same time continually supporting elitist and Wall Street-funded Obama.

Doesn’t get more hypocritical than that, folks.

Happy Birthday Grandpa

2011-12-12T07:07:00.005-05:00

Laverne Isaac Brendle [1918-1955]

by Larry Simons
December 12, 2011

Today would have been my grandfather’s 93rd birthday. He was taken away from his wife and six children in 1955 at the age of 36. He was a PFC United States Marine and was on board the USS Astoria CL-90 while it sailed in the Pacific after the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He was a devoted family man and loved his country. He was a talented illustrator and did illustration work for the government.

My grandpa developed myelogenous leukemia, roughly nine years after the bombings, in 1954. It is certain his leukemia was the direct result of the radiation from the bombs. Even wikipedia states, "The only well-described risk factor for CML [chronic myelogenous leukemia] is exposure to ionizing radiation; for example, increased rates of CML were seen in people exposed to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

The government never took responsibility for this and never compensated any member of his family after his death.

Some would say God had a reason for taking him so young, but my grandmother, who died in 2008, never learned of that reason. Thanks, God.

My grandfather loved his country and gave his life for it, and the government turned its back on him. To the government, my grandfather was just an expendable pawn used for their military agenda. The government has pretended he never existed and has forgotten him, but my family and me never will.

Thank you grandpa and happy birthday.

Andy Ostroy Gives Ron Paul Credit for Skipping Trump’s Debate, But Still Ends Up Calling Him Crazy

2011-12-10T19:02:00.003-05:00

Equates Ron Paul with buffoons Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann

by Larry Simons
December 10, 2011

As the announcement of this years’ Fraudie award inches ever so closer, our favorite liberal wingnut Andy Ostroy is putting forth his last minute efforts to snatch his third straight statue. In his latest article, “Donald Trump’s Irrelevance Must Be Killing Him” [Dec.9], Ostroy writes a four paragraph bashfest about Donald Trump and the Newsmax debate he is scheduled to moderate on December 27. Everyone, except Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, has decided to skip the debate.

Ostroy gives credit to Ron Paul, as well as Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, for turning down participating in the debate. Ostroy ends the article by saying:

“One thing's for sure: you know you've become a pathetic joke when Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry won't have anything to do with you.”

This is not the first time Ostroy has either implied or flat out stated that Ron Paul is “crazy”. When I posted a comment on his comment-moderated blog on his November 14 article asking why he omits Ron Paul from his articles, he stated, “I ignore Ron Paul because..well...he deserves to be. He's as serious a contender as you...” Yet, while Ostroy claims Ron Paul deserves to be ignored and calls him “crazy”, he never explains why he writes so many other articles about the real nitwits in the race like Perry, Bachmann and Santorum, but never writes any on Congressman Paul.

Ostroy should love Ron Paul. Ostroy has repeatedly condemned the wars we are in [well, that is before Obama continued them], while Paul has been consistently opposed to the wars as well. Ostroy has repeatedly condemned neocons like Bush and Cheney, which Paul also condemns and has been engaged in fiery arguments with other GOP candidates in the last 2 elections [McCain, Giuliani, Perry and Santorum].

So, why is Ostroy [and others like him] so opposed to strong supporters of the Constitution like Ron Paul? Simple: because if Ostroy and his ilk support Ron Paul they would be, 1. Forced to admit they strongly favor a GOP candidate [which they could never bring themselves to do], 2. Faced with showcasing their colossal hypocrisy in once condemning wars and the foreign policy under Bush, then tolerating the same wars [and additional ones] and foreign policy under Obama, then turning around and supporting Ron Paul who is condemning Obama’s administration, which is a continuation of the Bush presidency, and 3. Forced to admit that, if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination, Obama would lose in 2012.

So, these three things is what requires people like Ostroy to label Ron Paul crazy and lump him in with the other actual crazy people, while never writing articles explaining in detail why he is “crazy”. They know Ron Paul is the only real threat to an Obama loss in 2012.

I posted this under Ostroy’s story. He will never approve the comment and allow it to be posted, so I am sharing it with you here:

“There you go again Andy, bashing Ron Paul again, equating him with Bachman and Perry, when Ron Paul has not done or said one fucking crazy thing to merit being lumped in with these two retarded turds—unless you call wanting to end all wars and bring all troops home, ending the Federal Reserve and returning to the Constitution “crazy”.

I find it quite funny that you have done article after article about Perry and Bachmann, detailing how batshit crazy and stupid they are [and rightfully so], whilst you continue to call Ron Paul crazy but you have not written ONE article about his “crazy” views….not fucking one!

This is exactly the only reason you use comment moderation. It is not because you get “mean and nasty” posts filled with vitriol, because the evidence shows that when your readers have said mean and nasty shit in the past about people you despise [Palin, Cheney, Bush...] you left the comments posted and were fine with it. It’s because of comments like this very one I’m typing…posts that expose how big of a fucking hypocritical fraud you are….posts that are impossible to refute and expose the fact that you can post lie after lie about Ron Paul and get away with it [because you're too chicken shit to confront facts like the one contained in this writing] that you enable moderation…and it’s the only reason.

Until you do an article exposing why you “think” Ron Paul is crazy, stop lumping him in with actual crazy people in which the evidence they are crazy could fill a fucking stadium. You despise people like Perry, Bachman, Gingrich and Santorum for all the right reasons, because they are babbling idiots that couldn’t even name the state they represent, let alone other states. But you despise Ron Paul for a completely different reason….because he is everything you wish Obama was! And that is the fucking truth.

This will be yet another post you won’t approve of and not post because you’re a chicken shit fraud that would piss your pants if you ever had to confront any post that is the least bit challenging.

Doesn’t it bother you even in the least bit that you keep bashing someone that you never ever ever ever write and article about? That doesn’t bother you, even as an amateur writer? Do you have a journalistic conscience at all Andy? Or is your conscience non-existent [like your articles on Ron Paul]??"

Worthy of a Fraudie 3-peat? Wait and see.

Billo Is Back with “War on Christmas 2011”. Does His Insanity Ever Cease? Answer: No

2011-12-08T08:58:00.008-05:00

FOX News “saves” Christmas in Fort Worth, Texas by lying…O’ Reilly-style: Doctoring video tapes to omit and distort facts

by Larry Simons
December 8, 2011

Thank God for Bill O’ Reilly. Seriously, what would we do without him every single year at Christmas time? If not for him, America would be completely unaware that every year at Christmas, there is about a dozen people in the entire country [yes, about 12 people out of 300 million] trying to ban the word “Christmas” from the English lexicon and the nation's department stores. We must stop these bastards! Oh, wait, we don’t have to. Billo is fighting this injustice for us. Thank you…thank you Bill O’ Reilly for saving Christmas for the 15th year in a row [really the 8th].

Last week, Billo used his Pinheads and Patriots segment [calling it Pinheads in Toyland] to point out, yet again, that two people in America [that Billo calls “secular progressives”, despite the fact that no one knows what the fuck this even means] hate the word “Christmas” and are making attempts to “diminish the national holiday”.

I have documented in the past how insane Billo is by proving these attempts, although in some cases real, are rare at best. In last week’s segment Billo lies by saying, “You may remember a few years ago some companies actually ordered their employees not to say [Merry Christmas]”. In 2006, Billo claimed the spokeswoman for Crate and Barrel said their employees were ordered to not say Merry Christmas. It’s a lie. I wrote this in 2006:

“I guess little facts don’t matter to Billo, like the fact that the spokeswoman was asked if employees there were required to say Merry Christmas to customers. She said no, they weren‘t required. They could if they wanted to. Crate and Barrel didn‘t think it was any of their business to tell their employees what they could or couldn‘t say. Again, more SPIN from the NO FACT zone. From the above statements, it’s clear that Miss Kahn’s meaning behind, "we’re not going to say Merry Christmas" was a general comment suggesting that employees of Crate & Barrel would not seek to offend their wide variety of clientele by exclusively saying "Merry Christmas". It was a business decision and is something that is clearly understood by ANYONE, except for Bill O’Reilly and his Neo-con wanna-be followers. Also unimportant to O’ LIEly, the FACT that Crate & Barrel’s own website has the word "Christmas" all over the place. Under the "SHOP" icon, there is a link titled "Christmas". There is a Christmas browse section. On that page you can search for Christmas Entertaining or Christmas Decorating! How dare those secular progressives try to disguise their "REAL" agenda under the term "CHRISTMAS"!”

I wrote this in 2008:

“First of all, there was never any evidence that companies ordered their employees not to say ‘Merry Christmas’. In fact, one of the stores in the big national ‘conspiracy’ was Crate & Barrel. C & B spokeswoman Betty Kahn said none of the employees and C & B were told not to say it. They had the liberty to say it or not to. I personally spoke with Betty Kahn on the phone in November of 2006 and she told me this. She told me that neither FOX News nor Billo’s minions had even contacted her store.”

Billo then shifts to talking about a Fort Worth, Texas school district spokesman named Clint Bond, who stated last week that the school district in Fort Worth has to be concerned for the people who don’t see Santa Claus as the icon for the Christmas season. Billo showed a clip of Bond saying these exact words:

“We have students and parents who don’t see Santa Claus as the icon for this time of year, so we have to be concerned about what their feelings are.”

Billo then says, “As soon as we began calling down to Fort Worth, the tone changed. Here’s Mr. Bond today”.

Billo then shows a clip of Clint Bond saying this:

“The district cannot endorse, or promote or foster any particular religious belief or doctrine. So, what we’re saying on our, in our policy about seasonal celebrations is basically use common sense, You know, any of the current icons that are out there like Santa Claus or Christmas trees or snow flakes or any of those other icons we all use are fine for the classroom.”

What Billo fails to mention [because it would shatter the illusion he wants to convey to his audience of zombies: that a call from FOX NEWS made the Fort Worth school district completely change their policy!] is that during the second clip in which I quoted above, where Bond says, “any of the current icons that are out there like Santa Claus or Christmas trees or snow flakes or any of those other icons we all use are fine for the classroom”, Bond is talking about PICTURES of Santa, Christmas trees, snowflakes in the classroom. But, in the first clip Bond is talking about Santa [a physical human Santa] actually appearing in the classroom.

How do I know this? Because in this article Superintendent Walter Dansby says this:

“Santa Claus is welcome to visit our schools. He can be in the lobby. He can be in the cafeteria. He can be in the auditorium. He can be in the school, outside the school, around the school. But he cannot visit the classroom while the teacher is teaching.”

It's painfully obvious what Billo did here. He purposely played a video clip of Bond making a negative comment about Santa Claus [“We have students and parents who don’t see Santa Claus as the icon for this time of year, so we have to be concerned about what their feelings are.”] when Billo had to know that Bond was simply making a generalized comment about how some children and parents feel about Santa in order to convey to people why the Fort Worth school board made the decision to now allow a physical human Santa [as opposed to pictures of Santa] into the classroom during class time.

So, Billo plays the first clip of Bond saying, “We have students and parents who don’t see Santa Claus as the icon for this time of year, so we have to be concerned about what their feelings are”, then plays the second clip of Bond saying, “any of the current icons that are out there like Santa Claus or Christmas trees or snow flakes or any of those other icons we all use are fine for the classroom” so he can say FOX News made the difference with a phone call!

In the very same story, here, in which Bond utters the quote [above that says “We have students and parents who don’t see Santa Claus as the icon for this time of year, so we have to be concerned about what their feelings are”] that Billo showed in the first clip, Bond also says this:

“We’re not against Santa Claus. We invite Santa Claus into all of our schools provided the principal can work that out before school starts, after school. The message that has unfortunately gotten out there, that we are against Santa Claus or holiday parties, is not really accurate," Bond said. "The reality is Fort Worth ISD is not against Santa Claus. We’re not against the Easter Bunny, we’re not against the Great Pumpkin or any holiday icon. In fact, I’m wearing a Santa Claus tie at the moment.”

Billo omits this. Hmmmmm. We all know why. It’s because if Billo uses this quote in the very first clip he played of Bond, then obviously Billo could not attempt to deceive the goons that watch him every night that FOX NEWS was responsible for the Fort Worth school district “changing” their policy!!

Of course, FOX News did no such thing. Bond and the Fort Worth school district never had anything against Santa Claus, as I proved [above]. Their policy is that Santa, a real life human being dressed like Santa, is not allowed in the classroom WHILE CLASS IS IN SESSION. Photos of Santa are allowed, and an actual human Santa is allowed in any other part of the school at ANY time.

But Billo OMITS this, doesn’t he?? Of course he does! How else could the Grinch police [FOX News] claim they are saving Christmas if not to lie by omissions and distortions of the facts??

Watch Billo lie by omitting and distorting [if you must]

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

2011-11-22T22:01:00.001-05:00

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: 1917 – 1963

by Larry Simons
November 22, 2011

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

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

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

2011-11-21T23:51:00.002-05:00

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

by Larry Simons
November 21, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

“Four score and seven years ago”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Ostroy: Ron Paul Deserves to Be Ignored

2011-11-17T15:27:00.008-05:00

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

by Larry Simons
November 17, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ostroy responded:

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

click to enlarge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-11-15T11:57:00.004-05:00

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

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentary

by Larry Simons
November 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

CNBC Cans Debate Poll Because Ron Paul Was Leading

2011-11-10T19:46:00.004-05:00

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

Steve Watson
PrisonPlanet.com
November 10, 2011

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

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

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

Gamed Poll…So We Took It Down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the video (specific section at 7 mins):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-11-07T17:52:00.007-05:00

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

by Larry Simons
November 7, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

watch in disgust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real Truth Online Turns 6!

2011-11-05T15:43:00.005-04:00

by Larry Simons
November 5, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Contenders for the 2011 Fraud of the Year Award

2011-11-03T17:35:00.006-04:00

by Larry Simons
November 3, 2011

Could Ostroy make it a 3-peat?

Could BillO win his first?

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

Find out next month.

1. Andy Ostroy

2. Bill O' Reilly

3. Alex Jones

4. Dave Neiwert

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

2011-11-02T20:32:00.005-04:00

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

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 2, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-10-19T19:12:00.003-04:00

Isn’t that like Archie Bunker preaching against bigotry?

by Larry Simons
October 19, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

watch and laugh

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

2011-10-18T01:26:00.003-04:00

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

by Larry Simons
October 18, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

watch the video

Study Confirms Establishment is Terrified of Ron Paul

2011-10-17T19:24:00.004-04:00

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

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 17, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-10-12T04:13:00.005-04:00

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

by Larry Simons
October 12, 2011

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

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

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

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

Cain responded [and lied]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the proof [click to enlarge]

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

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

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

watch Herman Cain lie at 9:10 into the clip

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

2011-10-09T19:21:00.009-04:00

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

by Larry Simons
October 9, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

TLNL said this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen.

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

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

His answer:

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

See for yourself

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

I received no answer.

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

This moron is batshit crazy.

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

2011-10-02T18:36:00.003-04:00

There is something very wrong with this picture

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 2, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Something is very wrong with this picture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former Speechwriter and Geopolitical Analyst Says Saudi Arabia Involved In 9/11 Attacks

2011-09-23T16:20:00.001-04:00

Lloyds of London Suing Saudi Arabia for Funding 9/11 Attacks

by Larry Simons
September 23, 2011

Former speechwriter and geopolitical analyst Craig Hulet appeared on Coast to Coast with George Noory and revealed that insurance company Lloyd’s of London is suing Saudi Arabia government for funding the 9/11 attacks. Hulet revealed that George W. Bush personally intervened and made sure this information would not be made public.

Hulet also pointed out that one of the best pieces of evidence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction was the fact that the United States deployed ground troops to Iraq. He said we would have never deployed ground troops if Saddam had WMD’s because he would have used them against us as a result.

Listen to the interview

FOX News.com Kills Link to Poll Showing Ron Paul As Clear Winner of Last Night’s Debate

2011-09-23T15:28:00.004-04:00

Link takes you to a blank page

by Larry Simons
September 23, 2011

Although Congressman Ron Paul was allowed virtually no time to speak last night, he still emerged as the winner of last night’s debate on a FOX News.com poll. But when you click the link “Who Won the Debate?” on the YouDecide archive page that displayed the poll originally, a blank white page comes up that says, “No content item selected” in the upper left hand corner of the screen. This link takes you directly there.

I wonder if the reason behind the killed link is because before the link was killed, Ron Paul had nearly 40% of the vote, making him the clear winner. Here is a screen shot of the poll obtained by PrisonPlanet after the poll had reached over 70,000 votes.

Here is a screen shot of what you see now when you click the link

This may be a glitch and it may be restored later on, but for now, it is being blocked for some reason.

Here is Ron Paul highlights at last night’s debate

Lifestyles of the Religious Nutball: Pat Robertson Endorses Divorcing Spouse If They Get Alzheimer’s Disease

2011-09-18T04:44:00.003-04:00

Christian fucknut Robertson adds to his long list of insane comments. And in doing so, repudiates the words of Jesus

by Larry Simons
September 18, 2011

On the September 13 telecast of The 700 Club, braindead Christian fucktard Pat Robertson, all too famous for his history of cruel and insane comments, added to that long list with yet another comment that should have been followed by a group of mental health officials walking onto the set of the show and placing Robertson in his much needed straight jacket.

A question was read on the air from a viewer that said his friend’s wife suffers from Alzheimer’s disease and that his wife doesn’t recognize him anymore. He said his friend was bitter at God for allowing his wife to be in that condition and that he has started seeing another woman. The viewer said his friend thinks he should be allowed to see other women because his wife, as he knew her, is gone.

Here was Robertson’s advice:

“That is a terribly hard thing. It is…I hate Alzheimer’s. It is one of the most awful things, because here is the loved one, this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years, and suddenly that person is gone. They’re gone. They are gone…I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her.”

“Somebody” looking after her? You mean, like a husband? The kind of husband who will profess to love her “for better or worse”, “in sickness and in health” and “’til death do us part”? Someone like that? Aw wait, she already has a husband Robertson, you worthless, pathetic excuse for a human being.

watch the scumbag in action

Robertson’s co-host even brought up the fact that the vow you take is “for better or for worse”. Robertson’s response?:

“If you respect that vow, you say ’til death do us part.’ This is a kind of death.”

A “kind” of death? You mean, even though the person’s heart is still beating and they are breathing and they are not dead? I didn't realize there were several meanings for death in that vow.

The most mind-numbing aspect to this whole statement [other than the fact that Robertson is a bona fide and certified asshole] is that Robertson cannot even bring himself to suggest to the reader that even if his friend gets lonely and needs companionship, that it would be [even if not 100% OK, but at the very least] justified if he has a girlfriend on the side while still caring for his wife. No, not Robertson. Instead he suggests that the man completely abandon his wife and divorce her, leaving the job to ANOTHER PERSON.

Interestingly enough, Robertson, in suggesting divorce from and abandonment of the wife [the Alzheimer’s victim], is repudiating the very words of Jesus in Ephesians 5:25, which states:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”

Apparently, Robertson doesn’t think too highly of the Apostle Paul’s words and doesn’t really believe Christ loved the church. Or, it could be the fact that it is really Robertson's mind that is gone. Or, it could be the fact that Pat Robertson has a neurological disorder [required to believe the Bible in the first place] and he is about two more insensitive and horrendous comments away from the rubber room.

I go with all three.

Another Reason I Love Barry Manilow: He Supports Ron Paul

2011-09-16T08:43:00.007-04:00

Manilow calls Congressman Paul “solid” and that he agrees with just about everything he says

by Larry Simons
September 16, 2011

Reporter for The Daily Caller, Nicholas Ballasy, stopped Grammy award-winning singer-songwriter Barry Manilow in Washington D.C. yesterday to ask him a few questions about his visit. Manilow was on Capital Hill speaking about atrial fibrillation, a heart disease that affects over 2 million Americans, including Manilow, who has fought the disease for 15 years.

Ballasy then asked Manilow about his support of Ron Paul in 2007. Manilow contributed to Ron Paul’s campaign then and still supports him now.

“I like him. I like what he says, I do. I like what he says. I think he’s solid,” said Manilow, who confirmed to The Daily Caller in an interview at the Capitol on Thursday that he contributed to Paul’s last campaign for president.

“I agree with just about everything he says. What can I tell you?” the 68-year-old Manilow added.

watch the clip

Al Gore: 24 Hours Of Bullshit

2011-09-14T18:00:00.006-04:00

Gore himself is a living example of how global warming alarmism is built on hypocrisy and pseudo-science

Paul Joseph Watson
& Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
September 14, 2011

Al Gore is set to launch his 24 Hours of Reality propaganda blitz this evening in a desperate effort to reverse increasing skepticism towards global warming alarmism – but the jig is up – Gore himself is a living example of how climate change hysteria is built on a platform of greed, hypocrisy and faulty pseudo-science.

Polls show that increasing numbers of Americans are not falling for the hocus pocus of man-made global warming, which is unsurprising given that Gore – one of its leading proponents – lives a lifestyle completely at odds with his own dogma.

Gore’s insistence that he is walking the walk, not just talking the talk, doesn’t seem to extend to his own private life in the context of energy conservation and CO2 emissions. While lecturing the world about reducing CO2 emissions and saving energy, Gore’s own mansion uses 20 times the energy of the average American home.

In February 2007, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research revealed that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours. These figures were not disputed by Gore.

“If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn’t care,” said the Center’s president, Drew Johnson. “But he tells other people how to live and he’s not following his own rules.”

As the leading luminary of the global warming movement, you would expect Al Gore to live up to the standards he lectures everyone else about, particularly in relation to population control. Gore recently called on women to access “fertility management” (abortion) in order to stabilize global population.

However, Gore has four children of his own, who presumably enjoy the luxury of his $8.8 million seaside mansion in Montecito, California (absent any worries about rising sea levels).

Gore is set to become the first “carbon billionaire”, but he offsets his multiple-times the average power consumption by purchasing carbon credits ….bought largely from his own company, Generation Investment Management.

Aside from Gore’s own hypocritical lifestyle, the science behind man-made global warming is also being increasingly discredited, which is precisely why the former vice-president feels the need to reinforce the myth of anthropogenic climate change, particularly as a mere 24% of Americans think he is an expert on the subject.

“Gore is completely wrong when he tells us that the science of climate change is settled. If his “Climate Reality Project” actually did promote climate realism, he would tell us that the science is in a period of negative discovery — the more we learn, the more we realize we do not understand about this, arguably the most complex science ever tackled. Rather than “remove the doubt,” as Gore says, we need to recognize the doubt,” writes Tom Harris.

But that dogma is being contested by more and more reputable scientists who are finally speaking out in an organized fashion. For example, on August 29, a blockbuster science document was published that totally refutes Gore and Ban — the Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Coauthored by a team of scientists recruited and led by climate experts Dr. Craig Idso, Professor Robert Carter, and Professor Fred Singer, the NIPCC shows that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas controls. In other words, the science being relied upon by governments worldwide to create multi-billion dollar climate policies is almost certainly wrong.

Consider extreme weather, the main topic of 24 Hours of Reality. Gore promotes the concept that greenhouse gas-induced global warming is leading to increasingly severe weather. But this defies logic. If the world warms due to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, temperatures at high latitudes are forecast to rise most, reducing the difference between arctic and tropical temperatures. Since this differential drives weather, we should see weaker midlatitude cyclones in a warmer world, and so less extremes in weather, not more.

Gore’s emotional appeal in his film that predicates on the ludicrous notion that polar bears are not strong swimmers and will drown because of melting polar ice caps has been vehemently discredited by new figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which show, “That the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs,’” it read.

In addition, catastrophic sea level rises attributed to man-made CO2 emissions, a claim repeatedly invoked by Gore, have also failed to live up to their hype in recent times. Data recorded over the last several years clearly indicates that sea level rises have slowed down and are now flat.

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, never mind a 24-hour TV bore-athon, cannot put the global warming myth back together again. Gore’s 24 hours of bullshit will only serve to exemplify the flailing desperation of climate change doomsayers as their dire proclamations are increasingly proven laughable by mother nature herself.

Santorum Exploits 9/11 Tragedy by Repeating Bush’s Lie That America Was Attacked Because Muslims “Hate our Freedoms”

2011-09-13T09:45:00.006-04:00

Ron Paul gets booed for simply speaking the truth as to why we were attacked on 9/11

by Larry Simons
September 13, 2011

In yesterday’s Tea Party debate in Florida, the issue of 9/11 and national security came up. Texas Congressman Ron Paul chimed in and gave his typical response, that we should cut military spending, bring the troops home and stop being the policemen of the world.

Neocon and Christian nut Rick Santorum was called on to respond to Congressmen Paul. Santorum mentioned that Ron Paul had a post on his website on Sunday that had blamed the United States for the September 11, 2001 attacks. In his Guiliani-esque manner, never to miss a chance to exploit 9/11 for his personal gain, especially since the 10th anniversary of 9/11 was just the day prior, Santorum said this to Paul:

“You said that it was our actions that brought about the actions of 9/11. Now, Congressman Paul, that is irresponsible….someone who is running for the President of the United States in the Republican Party, should not be parroting what Osama bin Laden said on 9/11. We are not being attacked, and we were not attacked because of our actions. We were attacked….because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadist. And they want to kill us because of who we are and what we stand for. We stand for American exceptionalism. We stand for freedom and opportunity for everybody around the world.”

Thank you George W. Giuliani.

Not only is Santorum flat out lying and regurgitating a decade-old debunked issue, but he is exploiting the 9/11 tragedy by lying to the American people just one day after the 10th anniversary of the attacks.

Congressman Paul responded in the midst of being booed. The booing was without a doubt a direct result from the fact that 9/11 is heavily on the minds of the Florida crowd since it was a day after the 10th anniversary of the attacks. Santorum knew that, and wanted to seize the opportunity to exploit that fact so bad, he did so with a colossal lie.

Santorum knew that since it was a day after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, all he had to do was spew the buzz words: freedom, 9/11 and Bin Laden, and the Jeb Bush-loving Florida crowd would erupt with thunderous applause and boo anyone who thought otherwise.

Paul responded:

“As long as this country follows that idea, we’re going to be under a lot of danger. This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit, they have been explicit and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment and you have been bombing…[crowd boos]…I didn’t say that, I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing. At the same time, we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, there’s some problem.”

It turns out that Ron Paul is correct. In a 1998 interview conducted by ABC’s John Miller, Bin Laden said these words:

“The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target.”

To the question asked by Miller [to bin Laden]:

You've been painted in America as a terrorist leader. To your followers, you are a hero. How do you see yourself?

Osama said this:

“As I have said, we are not interested in what America says. We do not care. We view ourselves and our brothers like everyone else. Allah created us to worship Him and to follow in his footsteps and to be guided by His Book. I am one of the servants of Allah and I obey his orders. Among those is the order to fight for the word of Allah ... and to fight until the Americans are driven out of all the Islamic countries.”

Does that sound like Osama has ever sat around giving a two-cent shit that Americans are FREE?

One idiot blogger is so desperate to distort and twist Ron Paul’s words, that she deliberately lied and said when Ron Paul said “I didn’t say that” after the boos started, he was denying what he just said. I posted this on her blog, and naturally it was deleted.

You said:

"The audience was right to boo Paul’s follow-up….especially on the remark about the Palestinians. Ron Paul immediately said, when he heard the boos, “I didn’t say that.” Oh yes, you did say that, Congressman Paul."

Paul wasn't denying that HE said something by saying, "I didn't say that". He is clearly speaking the words of bin Laden prior to the boos, and when the crowd booed, he is simply saying, "I didn't say that" [in other words, he is saying "these aren't MY words", they are bin Laden's]. Anyone can clearly understand that. But you, like Santorum, LIE on your blog and make it appear as if Ron Paul is denying his own words. He's not. He's saying those aren't HIS words, they're bin Laden's. Now, will you make the correction or leave the LIE posted?

It truly amazes me that even after 10 years since 9/11, people still believe this monstrous lie that Muslims “hate us for our freedoms”. It’s long-debunked and just plain moronic. If this was true, why did it take them 225 years [between 1776 and 2001] to discover we are free and prosperous? The World Trade Center had been around since 1971. We weren’t free and prosperous in 1971?

Rick Santorum is a lying, neocon Christian lunatic. His own state of Pennsylvania didn’t even want him re-elected in 2006, what makes him believe anyone wants him as President?

To illustrate the intellect of this Floridian audience, below is a clip during the health care questioning of last night’s debate of Wolf Blitzer asking Ron Paul a hypothetical question. Blitzer asks Ron Paul what he would do if a healthy 30-year-old man who made a good living decided not to buy health care because he was healthy, but then all of a sudden became ill and really needed the health care. Blitzer then asked, “Should society just let him die?”

The crowd erupted with applause and you can hear several people say “Yeah!”. Ron Paul disagreed with the cheering audience and said simply that it’s not the government’s responsibility and that when he practiced medicine in the early 1960’s, the community and churches took care of the sick and Dr. Paul personally never turned anyone away.

This Florida crowd of mindless barbarians would do otherwise, as indicated in the below clip. They cheer the idea of letting an uninsured man die. This alone makes me happy they booed Ron Paul.

Keep in mind, these audience members were the same lunatics who booed Ron Paul when he gave the real reason we were attacked on 9/11. Apparently, these people aren't real Tea Party members; they are members of the Insane Tea Party that was hijacked by their nutty leaders, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman.

watch the clip

10 Lies Enshrined by H.Res. 391 to “Never Forget” 9/11

2011-09-11T14:21:00.002-04:00

Activist Post
September 11, 2011

The official version of the events of 9/11 are deemed written in stone according to a new 5-page House Resolution (pdf) which was passed to Never Forget 9/11. The intention is great, in theory. However, the facts are completely warped.

Enumerated below is a summary of the points of the Resolution, with links providing outright refutation, or questions surrounding such statements.
Whereas,

1. The fourth plane was prevented from being used as a weapon against America by brave passengers: While this narrative is emotionally compelling, the facts of flight 93 remain open for debate. For starters, there are too many inconsistencies with the notion that cell phone calls could have been made from the plane that day. Thus, this storyline seems immediately debunked considering the faulty source of supposed communication. Most likely the plane was shot down, as Donald Rumsfeld said on video. The size of the debris field also indicated a break-up prior to impact.

2. The attacks destroyed both towers of the World Trade Center, as well as adjacent buildings: This seems to acknowledge Building 7 — a building that was not mentioned by the 9-11 Commission report. Building 7 was undeniably a controlled demolition, never having been hit by a plane. WTC lease-owner Larry Silverstein is even on video admitting to the planned demolition.

3. The attacks targeted symbols of America’s success and were intended to assail its noble principles, values and freedoms: Since 9/11, the United States has grossly assailed its own principles, values, and freedoms in the reaction to the attacks through preemptive wars, torture, removal of Habeas Corpus, and all of the atrocities to freedom that the PATRIOT Act and the Department of Homeland Security have inflicted. The current principles don’t seem so noble when your child is being fondled by the TSA.

4. Memorials have been constructed to honor the victims of these attacks and to pay tribute to the heroic action of those who have served our communities and our country: First responders who risked their lives were first deceived about the air quality by the EPA, made to fight and beg for sufficient health care, run through a terror watch list, and have been denied a place at 10th Anniversary Ceremony, which is supposedly being given to honor courage and resolve. Quite a tribute!

5. 10 years after 9/11, 2001, the U.S. continues to fight terrorists and other extremists: All major terror groups, and their actions — most notably Al Qaeda — have in fact been supported by the U.S. government, while the anti-terror apparatus now ignores even its own justification by turning it on average, law-abiding, peaceful Americans. Are we supposed to honor that this misguided war continues with no end in sight?

6. Numerous laws have been enacted to assist victims of terrorism, combat terrorism at home and abroad, and support members of the Armed Forces: The American government lied them into wars of aggression, allowed private insurers to steal death benefits from the families of veterans, and demonized returning veterans as potential terrorists. Bravo!

7. To express gratitude to the efforts of personnel involved in the removal of Osama bin Laden: Bin Laden had been dead 9 times over before the staged hoax of his “removal.” His initial training and funding provably came from the CIA, and the FBI could never provide evidence of his involvement in the September 11th attacks. At this point, who cares about bin Laden anyway? He seems to be just one of the many puppets being used to continue the phony War on Terror.

8. The terrorist attacks that have occurred around the world since 9/11/01 remind us of the hateful inhumanity of terrorism: Excellent point, so long as the Western-backed NATO “humanitarian missions” are included as terrorist attacks being referred to.

9. The Nation is indebted to all personnel serving in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan in advancement of national interests: The interests served are actually global corporate interests, not American interests, as they have provably weakened America financially and morally.

10. Thousands of families have lost loved ones in the defense of freedom and liberty against the tyranny of terror and not diminished the pain caused by the senseless loss of 3,000 persons killed on 9/11/01: They were not the only ones. Mass tyrannical invasions and drone strikes have killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions more around the world. It’s true that freedom fighters, defending their homeland from outside invasion, have been tortured and maimed. Wait, who’s defending freedom and liberty, and who is initiating violence and tyranny?

This Resolution is an appalling attempt to convince the nation to lie to itself, despite polls which continue to show that a majority of Americans think we overreacted, overspent and weakened ourselves through the War on Terror. This proposal by Eric Cantor wishes to enshrine a false view of both history and the present . . . and set it in stone for the future. How can America hope to reverse the race downhill to tyranny and infamy without analyzing facts? We need to voice our outrage over this despicable cover-up and propagandizing of a national tragedy — that tragedy being 9/11 AND the decade of worldwide oppression that has followed. Indeed, let us never forget.

Andy Ostroy Deletes My Comments on His YouTube Page

2011-09-09T16:47:00.006-04:00

This is not shocking of course. It’s just additional evidence that I get deleted by Ostroy when he claims I use “hateful speech” and “vitriol”, which the evidence shows I do not

by Larry Simons
September 9, 2011

Our favorite liberal wingnut Andy Ostroy is up to his old tricks again; deleting comments that are not “vicious” or “hateful”. As if Ostroy needed more mediums to show that he is a colossal fraud, he now has a YouTube page in which he now displays his fraudiness in video form [oh boy!].

Unlike his own website, in which he screens comments with comment moderation enabled, his YouTube page allows comments [for now]. So, I thought, what a good way to finally let others see that Ostroy is one big fraud-a-mopolous.

It only took two days for me to post comments and for Ostroy to delete them from his page.

Here is a screen shot of a comment I posted where I include my website and invite people to come to my site and read all about the liberal Bill O’ Reilly [Ostroy]. Notice the comment directly below my comment by another YouTube user that says, “Hillary is the most extraordinary woman ever!” It was posted two hours before my comment.

[click to enlarge]

Two days later, Ostroy deleted my comment, along with 3 other comments I posted that I did not save the screen shots of. You can see here that my comment was deleted [My comment in the above screen shot is removed but the “Hillary is the most extraordinary woman ever!” post is still there. I added a new comment today, pointing out my comments were deleted].

It is plain to see, Ostroy is a colossal fraud and the fact that popular mainstream websites like the Huffington Post and mainstream news outlets like MSNBC and FOX have him on their TV programs and internet programs and pay him as a contributor shows that the corporate-controlled media has no interest in the truth.

Ron Paul Annihilates So-Called "Top Tier" in MSNBC Online Poll

2011-09-08T16:59:00.004-04:00

After a near 180,000 votes, Ron Paul wins online poll by 70,000 votes [40 percentage points]

by Larry Simons
September 8, 2011

Ron Paul has dominated the MSNBC online poll, by destroying all other GOP candidates by gaining a whopping 98,000 votes in a poll in which [so far] over 180,000 votes have been tallied.

The so-called "top tier" by the corporate-controlled mainstream media: Romney, Perry and Bachman combined only received just under 55,000 votes, while Congressman Paul raked in nearly 98,000 votes. Romney, Perry and Bachman came in 2nd, 3rd and 7th in the poll respectively.

Second place was Mitt Romney, gaining a mere 28,000 votes, which Paul surpassed by a staggering 70,000 votes. In fact, Paul received more votes than ALL SEVEN REMAINING CANDIDATES. Paul received 98,000 votes, while ALL OTHERS COMBINED received just under 82,000 votes [Paul STILL winning by 16,000 votes].

[click to enlarge]

This won't matter to the bought-and-paid-for-media establishment. They will still continue their complete blackout of Ron Paul as if he doesn't even exist, let alone dominate polls.

Pictures Show Perry Physically Intimidating Ron Paul

2011-09-08T16:26:00.004-04:00

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
September 8, 2011

Alex Jones Comment: Ron Paul’s campaign needs to make a public statement on this incident. Perry’s thuggish behavior is identical to how he confronted me in a Mexican restaurant several years ago.

Pictures taken during a commercial break in last night’s GOP debate at the Reagan Presidential Library document how Texas Governor Rick Perry attempted to physically intimidate Congressman Ron Paul, prompting Paul’s security to intervene.

Photographs published by the AP and Reuters show a stern looking Perry holding Paul’s wrist and waving a finger in his face. [pictured above]

Reports by Fox News and International Business Times state that during the break Perry “walked up to Paul’s podium, physically grabbed Paul’s wrist, and pointed at Paul’s face with his other hand.”

A third man, said to be Paul’s security guard, is seen approaching the podium in the picture.

Another photo shows Perry with arms outstretched, leaning in towards Paul engaging in what may be considered lively conversation to say the least. Some Paul supporters have suggested that the shot shows that Perry physically forced Paul away from his own podium during the commercial.

The two candidates were situated directly next to each other during the firey televised debate.

Before the exchange took place, Paul and Perry locked horns in a sharp exchange of words, with the Congressman calling out Perry on his support for ‘HillaryCare’ and his issuance of an executive order to forcibly vaccinate 12-year-old girls against HPV.

Ron Paul’s latest campaign ad, which ran during the debate commercials, also targeted Perry, exposing his previous record as a Democrat and his intimate links to Al Gore’s 1988 Presidential campaign.

The images clearly indicate that Perry tried to physically intimidate the Congressman. The two campaigns have been asked to clarify what actually occurred during the exchange.

Here are Ron Paul highlights from last night's debate. What could have sparked Perry's thuggish behavior is what Ron Paul says at 3:02 and 5:26 in the below clip

31 Questions Christians Can’t Answer

2011-09-01T17:57:00.008-04:00

Josh McDowell’s “Answers to Tough Questions” Is A Joke. These Are the REAL Tough Questions

by Larry Simons
September 1, 2011

With much help from Vincent Bugliosi’s book Divinity of Doubt: The God Question and from a few questions I threw in myself, here is a list of [in my opinion] impossible questions for Christians to answer. They are in no particular order of importance. They are just random questions that I am sure every Christian would ignore.

1. Why hasn’t God intervened on the tyrants throughout history to prevent far worse atrocities than in the Old Testament days in which he did intervene?

2. If God were all-powerful, why wouldn’t he create humans who could appreciate good without having evil to compare it with?

3. If God were all-perfect and all-powerful, why would he do such a poor job and create such an imperfect world with its deadly earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc?

4. If God is all-perfect, how could he, and why would he create such extremely imperfect human beings to occupy this world?

5. Why would God need 122 “constants” to provide life on Earth?
(“constants” are precise scientific conditions in which if altered slightly [like the Earth being just 1% closer to the sun], life on Earth would cease)

6. If God could create the universe by the wave of his hand or the utterance of a command, why not make Earth dependent on nothing to sustain life?

7. Why did Moses write in the third person in the first five books of the Old Testament?

8. How could Moses write about his own death [and beyond] in Deuteronomy 34:10-11?

9. If God is all-knowing, why did God ask Adam where he was and whether he had eaten fruit in Genesis?
(If the answer to this question is “so God could test Adam’s integrity”, why would God not have already known this since he is all-knowing and knows the hearts of man?)

10. Why did God create mankind at all if in Genesis God said he was sorry he created them?

11. Why did God create human beings to have a sinful nature?

12. If God is all-just, how can he possibly punish mankind for what Adam did?

13. If God is all-just, why does he punish/kill massive amounts of people throughout the Bible for the sins of one?

Examples:

*God murdered 70,000 Israelites by inflicting them with disease because one man, David, conducted a census

*God punished Egypt with 10 plagues, which included murdering all male first-born babies because God had a vendetta against Pharaoh [whose heart was hardened by God so that Pharaoh could not release the Israelites even if he wanted to]

*God puts all of mankind to death because of Adam’s sin

14. Why did God feel the need to show mankind his love? And why does he need love returned from sinful, wretched mankind?

15. Why was Jesus’ death on the cross the ONLY way sins could be forgiven?

16. Why can’t God just wave his hand and destroy the devil?

17. How infinite can Jesus’ love be if for those who reject him as being their savior, he consigns them to an everlasting hell?

18. If God is so good, why does he put all of us to death?

19. How can a human being believe he has the capacity to love an imponderable, dream-like abstraction such as God more than his own wife and children?

20. Where did Satan get the power to tempt us into all of our sins?

21. If God chooses to allow the devil to continue to exist, knowing he is going to tempt us into sin, isn’t God making the devil his agent?

22. How can God be good when he nearly always turns down the praying party when they need him the most?

23. Why do people pray to God after a tragedy like 9/11 or Katrina when they are praying to the party that caused or allowed it?

24. If faith in God is worth anything, shouldn’t he want us to reach him through our reason rather than unthinkingly through blind faith?

25. Why did the prophet Isaiah [in Isaiah 7:14], in his foretelling of the birth of Jesus, use the Hebrew word “almah”, which means “young woman” and not use the word “betulah”, which means “virgin”, when describing Jesus’ mother?

26. Why did God contradict himself in Genesis by creating the sun and moon on the fourth day [Gen. 1: 16-19] to provide light during the day and night when he already created light for the day and night on the first day [Gen. 1: 3-5]?

27. If God is all-knowing, why did he not know until the very moment in which Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Isaac that Abraham feared God?

28. Why does the Bible say, “God is love” [1 John 4:8], “love is not jealous” [1 Corinthians 13: 4] and “God is jealous” [Exodus 20:5]? [Deductive reasoning makes it impossible for all three verses to be true simultaneously].

29. Why did God make Noah build a Titanic-sized boat when God could have simply spoken a boat into existence?

30. According to Noah’s genealogy in Genesis chapter 5, Noah’s grandfather, Methuselah, died the exact same year of the flood. Was Methuselah killed in the flood? If so, why would Noah be so faithful to a god that murdered his grandfather? Was Methuselah evil [to therefore to have been included in the evil population God killed in the flood]?

31. Why is it that God is allowed to possess a characteristic [jealousy, in Deut. 4:24 and Exodus 20:5] that the Bible itself denounces in Proverbs 27:4 and 14:30?

Jon Stewart Destroys the Media and Establishment for Ignoring Ron Paul

2011-08-16T15:56:00.007-04:00

Stewart hands the media's asses to them on a plate for ignoring Ron Paul [who came in 2nd place at Iowa straw poll] but acknowledging John Huntsman and Rick Santorum, who both had less votes than Tim Pawlenty [who dropped out of the race]

by Larry Simons
August 16, 2011

The Ron Paul segment of the clip begins at 4:36

Stewart showed a still [below]of the Iowa straw poll results showing that Bachmann only beat Ron Paul by 152 votes.

Santorum did not even get half of the votes Congressman Paul received. John Huntsman received a mind-blowing 69 votes to earn him dead last in the poll. This did not stop media outlets from mentioning Huntsman as a contender.

This blew Stewart away, and prompted him to say this:

"John Huntsman? Huntsman got 69 votes! If all of John Huntsman's supporters met at the same Ames, Iowa Quiznos, the fire marshall would say, "Yeah, that's fine, no problem. There's still some tables open in the back." Huntsman was the only Mormon running in the straw poll [because Romney did not participate in it] and he came in second amongst Mormons."

Stewart then says, "How did libertarian Ron Paul become the 13th floor in a hotel? He is tea party patient zero. All that small government grass roots business, he planted that grass. These other folks, they're just moral majorities in a tri-cornered hat. Ron Paul's the real deal."

Ostroy ADMITS Obama is Weak and A Failure, and Claims He Never Drank the Obama “Kool-Aid”

2011-08-16T02:49:00.005-04:00

But the evidence proves that not only did Ostroy drink the Kool-Aid, he was crashing through walls screaming “Oh yeahhhh”

by Larry Simons
August 16, 2011

It’s been awhile since we had fun with our favorite liberal hypocrite, Andy Ostroy. I will admit I’m a tad behind things, but I’m trying to catch up. This article is in response to Ostroy’s August 9 article titled, “Change I Never Believed In”, in which he starts off by heavily implying that Obama’s failures on many issues are not his fault [but the result of him lacking the ruthlessness of the Republican party], then proceeds to just openly admit that he is weak and not a leader.

One might think this is admirable of Ostroy, to admit his Lord and Savior has weaknesses and can’t lead, so I will give credit where credit is due and say, “Hats off to you Andy, you admit Obama’s failures. Good job”.

Now the fun part: Sorting out the lies and hypocritical remarks of our favorite liberal wingnut [which is the real purpose of my article].

My first issue comes right off the bat: his title: “Change I Never Believed In”. Ostroy proceeds to write six paragraphs in which he basically admits there has been no change under Obama. Well, of course. No change is never the translation of anyone’s definition of “change”, so his title actually fits. He just omits those very words, that “Obama has brought no change”.

Ostroy admits in his first paragraph that “unlike millions of other Democrats, I am neither disappointed or surprised by his [Obama's] political failings”. So, Ostroy is neither disappointed or surprised, but he still keeps his loyalties to Obama and the Democratic party? Why? This is rock-solid evidence of just how brainwashed Americans are into showing blind allegiance to their political party: When they even admit they are not disappointed or surprised by the failure of the party and candidate they voted for, they remain obedient to party over country.

Ostroy continues:

“It's easy to understand Obama's appeal in 2008. He was indeed exceptionally bright, a master campaigner and fundraiser, and able to move tens of thousands of his progressive disciples, moderates and independents through rousing, messianic oratory. But I never drank the Kool-Aid, and had heated battles with many friends who couldn't understand how I didn't "get" Obama's second-coming status.”

Really?

The following pre-election articles by Ostroy shows that not only did he drink the Kool-Aid, but he could have beaten out J.J. Evans as their spokesman:

“Holy Shit, What An Amazing Week for Barack Obama” [5/16/08]

“Why Obama Must Become President” [6/30/08]

“Oh-bama!” [8/28/08]

In the article “Oh-bama!”, Ostroy said this:

“Call me Michelle Obama, but I feel damned proud of my country right now. Damned proud of my party. As someone who's pushing 50 soon, I've witnessed over the years the depths of ignorance and intense racial bigotry that America's been steeped in for so long. Though he still has a major hurdle to climb in actually winning the presidency, our nation has truly entered a new era. It was nothing short of biblical to see Obama, that shining embodiment of the American dream, stand before 75,000 loyalists in Invesco Field a brilliant, passionate black man receiving his party's nomination. Our country will never be the same again. As Obama said, "all across America something is stirring." I literally was moved to tears.

Obama not only gave us the soaring rhetoric he's become famous for, he also presented compelling specifics into his policies for health care, the economy, jobs, taxes, the auto industry, education, energy, Iraq, terrorism, diplomacy and national security. He even tackled abortion, guns, gay marriage and immigration. He was, to be sure, inspirational, charismatic and transcendent. But more importantly, especially at this critical point in his dogfight with the Republicans' presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain, he was extremely forceful, tough and the fighter he needs to be.”

Nope. No evidence of Kool-Aid consumption there. None at all.

Back to the recent article. Here’s the excerpt that nearly made my chin hit the floor:

“And while I was thrilled that a black man could come so close to the Oval Office and ultimately win the election for the first time in history, I didn't get caught up in the whole liberal guilt trip. What I personally hoped for for America was that the best candidate win, not the darkest.”

Really? So, Obama’s race was never really something you put emphasis on, Andy?

From “Oh-bama!” [8/28/08]

“It was nothing short of biblical to see Obama, that shining embodiment of the American dream, stand before 75,000 loyalists in Invesco Field a brilliant, passionate black man receiving his party's nomination.”

From “Why Obama Must Become President” [6/30/08]

“He's a 46-year young black man from a broken, racially-mixed family.”

“It's the perfect opportunity for Americans to shatter racial divides and elect a black president, someone who, after eight miserable years of George W. Bush, speaks to their bread-and-butter issues.”

From “I Want to Be Black” [1/21/09]

[Doesn’t the title alone make my point?]

“And now, with our newly sworn-in President Barack Obama, blacks own the White House too and have become the welcome new face of politics.”

“Jump to 2009 and we have a 46-year-old black man named Barack Hussein Obama elected president while iconic symbols of black culture past and present--Beyonce, Usher, Stevie Wonder and Aretha Franklin to name a few--perform for our new leader on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.”

From “President Barack Hussein Obama. America’s Shining Moment” [11/5/08]

“Together, they were the embodiment of the American dream. The quintessential thriving, successful, happy American family. A First-Family that truly inspires. And they're black.”

“I often wondered during my teens, 20's, 30's and even into my 40's whether we'd ever get to that day in America when we could put our prejudice aside and look beyond color to elect a black president. To have a black First Family. To have little black children running mischievously through the Oval Office in that same way we saw little John F. Kennedy Jr. peering out from under his dad's desk.”

From “You Want Real Change America: Choose the Black Democrat” [9/12/08]

The title alone is sufficient.

Nahhhh, Andy wasn’t focused on Obama’s color at all. I never counted, but I think he actually uses the word “black” more than “president”.

This was rib-tickling as well. Ostroy continues:

“Obama's also caved on the economy, on gay marriage, on the Bush tax cuts, on Guantanamo, on Afghanistan and on debt ceiling/deficit reduction bill. And we still have 14-million people out of work with a 9.1% unemployment rate. What happened to jobs, jobs, jobs? Where's the jobs bill?”

Here is Ostroy praising Obama for all of this in 2009.

Here he is a year later [2010], saying this:

“Obama desperately tried to convince the studio [at his Daily Show appearance in October, 2010] and home audience that his administration, given the Bushevik shitstorm it inherited, has done a pretty good job, especially with the economy, jobs and health care. I don't disagree. It/he has brought the nation back from the precipice of disaster.”

And to top it off, Ostroy not only admits Bush, Cheney and Rove were better leaders than Obama [I could show you countless articles of Ostroy’s where he practically equates Obama’s leadership to Jesus Christ’s] but he admits that even leading people in a bad direction is still leadership.

“Obama simply seems neutered, unlike his predecessor. Like him or not, look what Bush was able to do to further his conservative agenda. He didn't care what anyone thought..not voters, the media, Democrats or members of his own party. He, Cheney and Rove saw their vision through, whether it was right or wrong or good for the country. The point is, they acted. They led. Where's Obama's leadership?”

So, leading the country to ruin still makes you a leader in Ostroy’s eyes? Why is he against Republicans then? Good Lord.

I cannot read Ostroy’s articles anymore without getting some colossal migraine headache. He’s like an out-of-control elevator. Constantly up, down, up, down. Even he has no clue what he is saying. If you remove the lies, contradictions and hypocritical remarks, all that is left to his articles is his name and the date.

If one does not closely monitor his writings like I do, it would be understandable to think Ostroy actually holds his party’s feet to the fire and criticizes them when it is merited. But, one just cannot get past the river of hypocrisy and flat-out lying that flows from his hypocritical, lying lips.

Ron Paul Vs GOP Warmongers: Congressman Romps To Victory In Iowa Debate

2011-08-12T16:50:00.005-04:00

Paul is the only candidate who will end ceaseless foreign invasions

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
August 12, 2011

Ron Paul emerged the clear winner of last night’s FOX News GOP debate according to a poll of Fox viewers and even according to analysis in the Washington Post, as the congressman cemented the fact that he is the only hope America has of ending its involvement in multiple costly and damaging wars across the globe.

Paul was in his element at the Iowa debate and delivered the most comprehensible and impassioned performance seen at any of the debates thus far.

Every other candidate in attendance attempted to scramble over their rivals to lead the charge for the military industrial complex, while Paul stuck firmly to his anti-war principles, demanding that US troops be brought home with immediate effect.

During a heated back and forth with Rick Santorum regarding a potential conflict with Iran, Paul showed true statesman qualities, arguing that merely slapping sanctions on the country and refusing to even entertain the idea of negotiating with the Iranian leadership would lead directly to conflict further down the line.

“They have no evidence that they are working on a weapon,” Paul said. “At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. What is so terribly bad about this? Countries you put sanctions on, you are more likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade, stay out of their internal business. Do not get involved in these wars and bring our troops home.” The Congressman added.

When Santorum insisted that Iran had “killed more American men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan than the Iraqis and Afghans have,” Paul urged the American people to see through such examples of war propaganda.

When Santorum added that Iran had been “at war with us since 1979″, Paul countered that it was the meddling of the CIA in Iran in the 1950s that had directly caused such “blowback”.

“The senator is wrong on his history,” Paul urged. “We’ve been at war in Iran for a lot longer than ’79. We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the Shah. The reaction, the blow-back came in 1979, it’s been going on and on because we just plain don’t mind our own business. That’s our problem!” The Congressman asserted as the crowd in attendance erupted into riotous applause and cheering.

“Iran is a threat because they have some militants there, but believe me they are all around the world, and they are not a whole lot different than others.” The Congressman added. “Iran does not have an air force that can come here, they can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves.” Paul said as he fended off constant attempts by Santorum to interrupt him with authority.

“They are building up this case just like we did in Iraq, build up the war propaganda. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, and ‘they had nuclear weapons and we had to go in’, I’m sure you supported that war as well,” said Paul, directing his words toward the former Senator.

In the stand out moment of the entire evening, a clearly emotional Ron Paul almost burst out of the screen as he boomed into the microphone “It’s time we quit this. IT’S TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WE’RE SPENDING ON THESE WARS!”

In other particular highlight, Paul schooled phony tea party wannabe candidate Michele Bachmann on the rule of law after Bachmann defended the gulags at Guantanamo Bay and insisted that accused “terrorists” have no rights whatsoever under the American justice system.

“I thought our courts recognized that you have to be tried,” Paul responded.

“This administration has already accepted the position that when you assume someone is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination – even American citizens, that affects all of us eventually, you don’t want to translate our rule of law into mob rule.” Paul hit back.

As the accompanying screenshot illustrates, Fox viewers watching online overwhelmingly declared Paul the winner of the debate.

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post concurred, noting “Amid whispers that Paul could perform better than expected in the Ames Straw Poll on Saturday, he was at the center of the conversation for the entire second hour of the debate.”

“…he had the best chance he has ever enjoyed to air his views.” Cillizza concluded.

Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic succinctly explains why Paul’s performance last night resonated with the American people and had the establishment reacting as if they were sucking on lemons:

“To me, the most off-putting moment perpetrated by the moderators was when Ron Paul was shouting about wanting to end foreign wars. Chris Wallace and Bret Baier mugged for the camera, as if to signal their mutual embarrassment that a candidate would get earnestly upset and passionate. That unhinged Ron Paul, getting all angry and losing his cool again. And in the game of national politics, it is unusual for pols to show normal human emotion. But for someone like Paul, who doesn’t regard our foreign wars as part of “politics as game” — who very earnestly believes that they’re resulting in needless death, destruction, and trillions of dollars squandered — it isn’t at all bizarre to get a bit passionate talking about war of all subjects.

Note too that we’re talking about a presidential primary debate, where grown men and women say the most absurd things in the course of pandering to voters. It is damning indeed that someone passionately staking out an unpopular position against foreign wars is all but laughed at for doing so, whereas the moderators react to all manner of political theater with straight faces. It’s almost as if the implications of Paul’s critique is too awful for Wallace and Baier to take seriously, so they dismiss it as a mental defense mechanism. No wonder we keep entering wars.”

My Review of “Divinity of Doubt” by Vincent Bugliosi

2011-08-12T07:15:00.012-04:00

Few minor problems interspersed in a sea of profound, irrefutable points and excellent questions that Christians have refused to answer [and will continue refusing to] describes Bugliosi’s latest work

by Larry Simons
August 12, 2011

It is no secret to anyone who knows me that I consider former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi not just one of my favorite authors, but high on my list of all time most common sense critical thinkers of our day. Like me, Bugliosi is a devout and unapologetic agnostic when it comes to a belief in a higher power, specifically the Christian God of the bible.

I have just finished reading his latest masterpiece, Divinity of Doubt: The God Question, and I must say it is by far one of the most profound books on religion I have ever read. Not just because I agree with most of Bugliosi’s points and agree with the questions he puts to Christians, but because I cannot see how anyone can disagree with his points and questions [no doubt Christians will claim they disagree by default, because Bugliosi criticizes their religion and beliefs, but will this translate to an actual refutation of Bugliosi’s points? Don’t hold your breath]. They are irrefutable, and not just in my opinion. I will give you multiple examples in this review [well, this is more like a sneak preview/”highlights” of the book than it is a review].

Since I only had a few minor issues with the book, I will begin with those.

Maybe the strongest disagreement I had with Bugliosi is his assertion in Chapter 7 [“Genesis”] that he claims that there is a contradiction in Genesis chapter 1 where it says God created man and woman on the sixth day after every other form of life, but in chapter 2 it says Adam was the first form of life created. I disagree that this is a contradiction because when I looked at the actual text of the passage reference he provided [Genesis 2: 19-20] it says this:

“Now the Lord God had formed out of all the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air”.

Bugliosi’s error here is that although he is probably correctly interpreting Genesis chapters 1 and 2 in chronological order [beasts and birds created first, then Adam], the fact that God mentions Adam first in chapter 2, then the beasts and birds [in that order] does not mean the bible is saying Adam was created first [before beasts and birds]. Bugliosi completely ignores the word “had” in the above verse. The word had indicates that the writer of Genesis is making a back reference to what had already been created, thus no contradiction. Maybe this was not Bugliosi’s error. Maybe the version he used did not include the word "had".

But, this is a minor issue and does not come anywhere near shattering Bugliosi’s credibility on the hundreds of excellent points he makes about the bible and God.

Another issue I had with Bugliosi is his several references to Abraham Lincoln, as if Lincoln is someone to be admired or even quoted. In fact, in chapter 16 [page 219] he uses the often quoted Lincoln quote “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time…”. Problem is Lincoln never said this according to Professors Paul F. Boller, Jr. and John George in their book They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes and Misleading Attributions.

Another issue I had was in chapter 12 [his chapter on the silliness of the Catholic church]. Bugliosi starts off by making a very good point about the fact that Isaiah’s use of the word [in Isaiah 7:14 where it prophesizes about Jesus’ birth] that describes the mother of a child “almah” [meaning, “young woman”] was changed in Septuagint [the 3rd century translation of the Hebrew into Greek] to the word “parthenos” [meaning “young woman” or “virgin”], it somehow became known as only “virgin” in modern Greek. The correct Hebrew word that Isaiah should have used if describing a “virgin” would have been “betulah”. Bugliosi makes a very good point that if Jesus was really born to a virgin, why didn’t Isaiah use the CORRECT Hebrew word [betulah] for “virgin”?

My issue comes when Bugliosi says this:

“Does that mean that Jesus couldn’t nonetheless be the messiah? No, since the term messiah in Judaism simply means a savior sent by God to deliver his people, the Jews, from suffering and injustice. But it does mean that if his birth was not a virgin birth, then he was the son of a mortal man and woman [here, presumably, Mary and Joseph] and by definition not the Son of God.”

My problem with this comes with the fact that nowhere in Christianity does it teach that Mary and Joseph were immortal. The position of Christianity is that Mary was chosen because she was the most godly and most favored by God, not because she was immortal. I do know that Catholicism attributes divinity to Mary, and this is why they are fools, but nowhere in Protestantism does it claim Mary and Joseph were immortal [or wouldn’t they still be alive?]

These were minor issues. Now, let’s move on to the highlights of the book.

In chapter 3 [“The Christian God Cannot Exist”] he raises these important issues:

After asking why God refused to help the 6 million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust, he says:

“If God, per Old Testament, could intervene and inflict the many horrendous plagues on the innocent people of Egypt to get their pharaoh to let Moses lead his people out of Egypt to the promised land of Canaan, why is it that he hasn’t lifted his hand to impose his will on the tyrants of history to end their unspeakable crimes against humanity, crimes much worse, and involving much greater numbers of people, than the slavery that pharaoh was imposing on the Jews?”

In this same chapter, Bugliosi also points out something I had never realized: that there is no biblical support for the age-old concept of free will. I had always believed/assumed there was. Bugliosi not only asserts there is not, but proves it with several bible passages.

Here are a few:

Romans 9:18 “God chooses to make some people refuse to listen”

Exodus 4:21, 7:3 “I will make Pharaoh stubborn so he will not let the people go”

Isaiah 63:17 “Why, Lord, dost thou cause us to stray from they ways?”

Romans 11:32 “God consigns all men to disobedience so he may have mercy on them”

Often in the book, Bugliosi is just plain humorous immediately after making a very interesting or profound point, such as:

“What do these horrible deaths [of the bubonic plague] have to do with the victims’ exrcise of free will? Do you know what Christians say to this? These horrors are caused by Satan. Or, get this. Some actually say these horrors resulted because God, after creating the universe, somehow became weak and powerless to prevent them. My, my. When does the silliness end when it comes to Christianity? Answer: It doesn’t.”

Interesting points in chapter 6 [“The Intelligence of Intelligent Design and First Cause”] are as follows:

Bugliosi mentions that several Christian authors speak of examples of “constants”. You’ve heard these before, when Christians attempt to prove God’s existence by saying things like, “If the sun was 1% closer to the Earth, we’d all burn up and if the sun was 1% farther away, we’d all freeze” [thus proving intelligent design]. Bugliosi says that the Christian authors he mentions say there are 122 of these “constants”. Bugliosi brilliantly dismisses these “constants” by saying this:

“If God, per Christianity, is all-powerful and all-intelligent and can bring about whatever he pleases, why in the world would he create this incredibly complex system of 122 constants to provide life on earth? You mean he couldn’t create an earth that was self-sustaining and relied on none of these things? That he’s not, after all, all-powerful and without limitation? Remember, supposedly he can do anything and nothing is beyond him. (“Nothing is impossible with God” [Luke 1:37].) The fact that there ARE 122 constants out there [any of which, if deviated from in the smallest way, would cause our life on earth to cease] is, to me, very powerful circumstantial evidence not that it was God who created all these constants, but just the opposite, that not one of them has anything to do with the Christian God of people’s imagination.”

Bugliosi goes on to describe his views on what he calls the strongest argument for the existence of God: the argument of first cause. He closes the chapter by saying that the arguments on both sides of the first cause issue are good, but that there is no direct evidence or persuasive circumstantial evidence on either side. He says the mystery of the existence of God will never be solved, therefore the only intelligent position to take is agnosticism.

In chapter 7 [“Genesis”] Bugliosi makes a great point about the fact that there is no evidence that Moses authored any of the first 5 books of the Old Testament [which nearly all Christians believe he has], unless Moses is speaking in the third person [“the Lord said to Moses”].

Bugliosi says that there is no way Moses could have authored the fifth book, Deuteronomy, unless by some miracle Moses could have jotted down his own death [since Deuteronomy mentions Moses’ death in Chapter 34, verse 10-11 saying, “Since then, no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses”]. Awfully hard for Moses to not only write about his own death, but the fact that there there were no prophets in Israel like Moses after his death? How would Moses know that?

Bugliosi makes a very strong point about the fact that in Genesis 1:3, God has already created light to separate day and night. It says, “Let there be light, and there was light”. This was the first day. Then, in verse 14-18, he creates the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. This begs the question, “What was the light source on the first day?” Most, if not all, Christians will say, “the light was God himself”, but that argument falls on its face when you consider the wording in verse 1, “Let there be light”. If the light was God himself, it would have not been required to be spoken into existence by the commandment, “Let there be light”. Where am I wrong? It was an excellent point by Bugliosi.

Another excellent point by Bugliosi is when he wonders about God’s supposed all-knowing ability when he mentions in Genesis 3:8 that Adam and Eve hide from God and God asks Adam, “Where are you?”. Then God asks Adam if he has eaten the fruit he had commanded Adam not to eat. Bugliosi says, “God, all-knowing, didn’t know whether Adam had eaten the fruit”. Great point.

Even if Christians want to say that God only asked where Adam was and if he had eaten the fruit to test Adam’s integrity [to see if he’d tell the truth], that argument still fails when one considers that God is not only supposed to be all-knowing, but he is supposed to know the future. Since God supposedly knows the future, wouldn’t God already know that Adam would or would not tell the truth? It’s just so silly, this book of Genesis.

Bugliosi makes the same point about God not knowing whether the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were evil [Genesis 18:20-21] and not knowing beforehand that Abraham would pass the test and attempt to kill his own son [Genesis22:1-12]. He says this:

“I don’t get it, Is God admitting he’s not God? Or did God, at some point after Genesis, develop the ability to be all-knowing? Apparently not. After Genesis, he’s still pulling into gas stations asking for directions”. He makes the point that later in Exodus, God tells the Jews in Egypt to smear blood on their front doors so he’ll know not to kill the occupants. Why wouldn’t God know this without blood being on the doors?

Bugliosi points out God saying in Genesis 6:7 that he was “grieved that I have made them [mankind]”, so Bugliosi asks, “But if God is omniscient, which includes having foreknowledge, why did he create them in the first place?"

Good question.

In chapter 8 [“Born-again Christians and Their Remarkable Beliefs”], Bugliosi presents yet another interesting point on the issue of being “born-again”. He mentions the famous dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus. He says, “When Jesus himself tried to explain to Nicodemus, a learned Jewish elder, the whole concept of being born-again and how being born-again was necessary for salvation, Nicodemus, totally perplexed by the obvious craziness of it all, asked Jesus, “What do you mean?”, causing Jesus to respond, “You are a respected Jewish teacher and yet you don’t understand these things?” [John 3:10]” Bugliosi then adds, “Why doesn’t any religious writer go on to point out that if a respected Jewish teacher couldn’t understand this metaphysical absurdity, with Jesus Christ himself as his teacher, how can God expect the average human being to be able to?”

In chapter 9 [“Jesus Died for Whom and for What?”], Bugliosi makes another great point that apparently murdering Jesus is worse than just not believing in him as the Son of God. He says, “Jesus, on the cross, said, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:24). If Jesus could forgive those who murdered him, how can he not forgive those who commit the infinitely lesser sin of not believing he is the Son of God and their savior, instead of condemning those to hell (Mark 16:16)”

Bugliosi also wonders, as agnostic Bill Maher does, why God just doesn’t defeat the devil. He says, “Since God is all-powerful, why wouldn’t he just wave his hand and destroy the devil? Why would he permit his son to be nailed on the cross to do so? God is supposed to be all-intelligent, is he not?”

Bugliosi mentions in chapter 11 [“The Many Absurdities of Christianity”] a litany of biblical contradictions. Here are just a few:

Genesis 6:6 God is sorry he made the human race the way he did
James 1:17 God “never changes”

Exodus 33:11 God speaks to Moses “face to face”
John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God”

Jeremiah 17:4 God’s anger lasts “forever”
Psalm 30:5 His anger lasts “but a moment”

Psalm 25:8 We are told the Lord is all-good
Isaiah 45:7 the Lord says, “I create woe”

James 5:11 We are told the Lord is merciful
Deuteronomy 7:16 he instructs Moses to “show no mercy” to the enemies of the Israelites

Proverbs 8:17 the Lord says, “Everyone who seeks me finds me”
Proverbs 1:38 the Lord says that for those who had rejected him, they will thereafter “seek me but not find me”

John 3:13 It is written “No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, the Son of Man”
2 Kings 2:11 “Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind”

Proverbs 3:13 says “Happy is the man who finds wisdom”
Ecclesiastes 1:18 says “The greater one’s wisdom, the greater the grief. To increase knowledge only increases sorrow”

Bugliosi then in chapter 11 proceeds to inform us that the Old Testament God is far different than the New Testament one. The former was monstrous and vindictive, while the latter was compassionate and forgiving.

Here are just a few of the monstrous acts of the Old Testament God [according to Bugliosi] inflicts on mankind

1. Sending a flood to destroy all mankind, except for 8 people

2. God orders Moses to kill 24,000 Israelites for idolatry and sleeping with Midianite women [Numbers 25:1-9]

3. Sending Moses later to kill all Midianite men, women and children [Numbers 31:2-3, 7, 9-10, 15-18]

4. Sending Joshua to slaughter all 31 kings and all the people in those kingdoms for being hostile to the Israelites [Joshua 10:1-43]

5. Sending Saul to kill the entire Amalekite nation—men, women, children, babies, etc for opposing Israel [1 Samuel 15:2-3]

6. Sending two bears to rip to shreds 42 young boys to pieces after his prophet Elisha sent a curse on the boys for…are you ready for this? Calling Elisha a “baldhead”. My god, what sinners!! I also imagine this story is not a favorite with youth groups in churches around the world.

7. God sending 10 plagues on the Egyptian people because God was upset at one person, their pharaoh for holding Jewish people as slaves in Egypt. One of the plagues was murdering all the first born children of every family in Egypt. [Exodus 7-12] Nice guy this God is.

In chapter 13 [“If God Is All-Good, Why Does He Put All of Us to Death?”], Bugliosi questions why if God is so good, why do all humans have to face physical death. Of course it says in the Bible why people die [because of sin], but Bugliosi wants to know what the connection is [between sin and death].

Bugliosi makes an interesting point as to why Christians go to churches/funeral homes to celebrate and praise God in the wake of someone’s death, when it was God who took that person’s life.

He says:

“There are three realities your literary and mental skills will never, if you believe in the Christian God, permit you to get around. First, God killed your loved one. Second, no one ever blames him for it and curses him. And third, by the mere fact alone that Christians then proceed to take the body of their loved one to God’s home and say the final goodbye to him or her there, they are by definition honoring the Lord for his handiwork.”

In chapter 14 [What’s So Great Up There In Heaven?”], Bugliosi asks why would anyone want to spend eternity with a monstrous, vindictive God? When answering what most Christians would say to God being monstrous in the Old Testament, which is “Well, that was the God of the Old Testament”, Bugliosi says, “What in the world does that mean? That the God of the Old Testament is dead? When did he die?”

Bugliosi then mentions that Jesus said that we must love him more than our own family. In Matthew, Jesus says that if anyone loves their father or mother more than Jesus, they are not worthy of being His. Bugliosi says that God/Jesus is obviously not perfect since he is so vain. Good point. Bugliosi then adds, “Why does God want or need or love? Why is it necessary? Doesn’t need imply absence? How can God be absent of anything?” Later he asks, “Can you really love not only a total abstraction [God], but one your fear greatly, more than you love your own wife, husband, son or daughter?” More great points.

Bugliosi points out another characteristic of God that should make him imperfect: jealousy. Deuteronomy 4:24 states that God “…is a jealous God”. Bugliosi adds, “God is actually jealous? Jealous of whom? You? Me? Danny DeVito?” Then he adds, “Christians find no problem at all with ascribing traits to God, whom they worship as being all-perfect, that they would vigorously denounce as very bad in their fellow man, such as being vindictive, cruel, vain, jealous, deliberately mysterious, and unwilling to lift a hand to prevent harm to another human being”.

In chapter 15 [“A Brief Descent Into Hell”], Bugliosi makes another great point. He says, “Isn’t the idea of the Christian hell of everlasting punishment completely incompatible with a God whom Christians believe to be “full of mercy” [James 5;11]?" He says Christians say “no” because God loves justice. Then he adds, “But if God is just and loves justice, justice connotes proportion---an eye for an eye…The very definition of justice is to give one his due. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Bugliosi makes another great point. He says [Since the devil, lucifer, is a creation of God], “Where in the world did Satan, the devil, thereafter get the unbelievable power to even compete on the same playing field as God?” He then says the bible seems to only mention that the devil tempts us to do evil, but in terms of directly causing evil, “the bible, believe it or not, seems to blame God”. Then he cites 3 bible verses to prove it:

Amos 3:6 “If evil befalls a city, has not the Lord caused it?”

Isaiah 45:7 “I make well-being and create woe. I, the Lord, do all these things”

Lamentations 3:38 “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?”

Bugliosi adds that the bible does not even mention where Satan acquired all his power. As Bill Maher stated in his movie Religulous, Bugliosi agrees, “Why doesn’t he [God] get rid of the devil altogether?" He closes the chapter with this question:

“If God chooses to allow the devil to continue to exist, knowing he’s going to tempt us into sin, isn’t God thereby making the devil his agent?”

In chapter 16 [“Praying to A Tree Trunk”], Bugliosi makes an interesting point concerning prayer. He says that if people pray and get what they prayed for and that alone causes them to think that God has the power to answer prayers, then they must simultaneously conclude that God ignores [therefore not a good God] millions of prayers of those who need him the most [Holocaust victims, AIDS victims, etc.].

Bugliosi asks why God ignore prayers for peace. He also asks, “Why isn’t this type of behavior [continually praying for things that never transpire] considered to be clinically psychotic?”

He adds that since God causes [or at least allows them to happen] events like Katrina and 9/11, why do people flock to churches after events like these and pray to him? He says, “Hasn’t God already shown by what he did or allowed to happen to these people that he couldn’t possibly care less about them? So why are people praying to him?”

In chapter 19 [“The Sense and Morality of Agnosticism”], Bugliosi poses another very good question. He writes, “If in using the mind he [God] gave us to reason with, we come to the erroneous conclusion that he does not exist, if God is a reasonable God, why would he forever punish us for our innocent lack of belief?”

The adds, “If God demands us to sacrifice our reason, which has been described as the highest attribute of man, to be with him, shouldn’t our reason tell us he is not worth our time?”

I realize this was an incredibly long venture into the book, but believe it or not, what I included here did not even scratch the service of the plethora of excellent questions and points Bugliosi makes. It was a book I could not put down because there was a thought-provoking nugget on every single page.

Christians will have no use for this book for several reasons:

1. It tells the truth about their unbelievably asinine beliefs
2. It prompts independent thought and reason
3. It attacks and refutes their beliefs [astonishingly in some points, using the Bible itself to do so]
4. It raises countless unanswerable questions

The book was fascinating and a must-read for any independent thinker and anyone in search of the truth.

My Favorite Agnostic: Vincent Bugliosi

2011-08-07T08:54:00.001-04:00

Radio interview with “Divinity of Doubt” author Vincent Bugliosi

by Larry Simons
August 7, 2011

I will admit I was late posting this interview. It was posted on YouTube 11 days ago but the interview is from May 10, 2011. Host Barry Lynn interviews former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi on his new book “Divinity of Doubt”.

I am currently reading the book and I promise I will post a full review of the book when I am done.

So far, I only have minor issues with some things Bugliosi covers, but he overwhelmingly makes up for it by making many excellent points. I will cover this later in my review.

Listen to the interview

Billo Says Believers In Jesus Don’t Commit Mass Murder. Do They Sexually Harass Interns and Scream Obscenities while Taping Programs?

2011-07-31T23:40:00.001-04:00

Either Jesus loves obscenities and sexual harassment, or Billo is no believer in Jesus

by Larry Simons
July 31, 2011

In the wake of Bill O’ Reilly’s now famous “no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder” crapola [which I refuted with ease], I decided to investigate to see what exactly “believing in Jesus” deters people from doing.

Apparently, Billo believes one major thing that "believing in Jesus" keeps people from doing is committing mass murder. Billo claims the Norway Christian terrorist Anders Breivik by no means cannot be a Christian because a Christian would not commit mass murder. Well, I have already shown that even God himself can't refrain from mass murder, and he created Jesus!

Billo insists that Breivik is not a Christian and there is no evidence he is one [despite the fact that he claims he's a Christian and wrote a 1,500 page Christian manifesto and posted it online].

Billo has made it clear over the years that he believes in Jesus. Naturally, one would assume that since Billo believes in Jesus, he lives a flawless, exemplary lifestyle.

Billo said this to Atheist Richard Dawkins in 2009 on The O’ Reilly Factor:

“Science doesn’t advance the human condition in any moralistic way, and Jesus did, see? My thesis is: That if everybody followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, that we’d have peace on Earth, uh, love your brother, everybody’d love one another, and we’d almost be an idealic civilization. Now, am I 100% sure that Jesus is God, no, but I choose to believe that because the man was so extraordinary in what he did in his 33 years on Earth…”

watch the clip [Billo loses this debate, by the way]

If Jesus is powerful enough to instill “peace on Earth”, then why is he not powerful enough to stop Bill O’ Reilly from sexually harassing former FOX News intern Andrea Mackris in 2004? O' Reilly said these words to Mackris:

"You would basically be in the shower and then I would come in and I'd join you and you would have your back to me and I would take that little loofa thing and kinda soap up your back...rub it all over you, get you to relax, hot water...and um...you know, you'd feel the tension drain out of you and uh you still would be with your back to me then I would kinda put my arm - it's one of those mitts, those loofa mitts you know, so I got my hands in it...and I would put it around front, kinda rub your tummy a little bit with it, and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard...'cause I like that and you have really spectacular boobs.

So anyway, I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda kissing your neck from behind...and then I would take the other hand with the falafel [sic] thing and I'd put it on your pussy but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business..."

Does Jesus allow that, Billo?

Does Jesus also allow fits of rage where you spew out obscenities at the teleprompter/producer of a show you're taping?

Here's Billo [circa 1991] on Inside Edition going nuts and screaming "Fuck it! We'll do it live!"..."Fucking thing sucks!". Two statements that I'm quite sure Jesus shouted on a continual basis [I always welcome an excuse to show this clip]

My point is clear. Billo attempted to make the point that Anders Breivik cannot possibly be a Christian because Christians do not commit mass murder [although quite a few have...including God]. Using Billo's warped logic, since Billo believes in Jesus and sexually harassed his former intern by wanting to rub her tits and pussy with a loofa and a falafel [a food from the Middle East] and spewed obscenities at his Inside Edition camera guy, that means Jesus finds these behaviors acceptable, right? What am I missing?

If Billo is going to use believing in Jesus as a deterrent to committing sins [no matter how disturbing...murder, profanity, sexual inappropriateness, etc], then either Jesus allows mass murder or Billo is not a believer in Jesus.

Billo simply cannot have it both ways.

Bill O’ Lielly: No One Believing In Jesus Commits Mass Murder. Oh Realllllllllyyyy?

2011-07-30T01:03:00.019-04:00

In fact, the mass killings of Hitler, Pol Pot and Josef Stalin pale in comparison to the Christian slaughterers

by Larry Simons
July 30, 2011

On Tuesday’s telecast of The O’ Reilly Factor, Billo may have let one of his biggest lies to date slip from his lying lips. As he began to tell his audience of mindless slugs about that awful liberal media bias in reporting that Anders Behring Breivik (the loon that murdered a total of 76 people [8 in a bombing of government buildings in Oslo, and 68 people at a youth camp on the island of Utøya] on July 22) is a right-wing Christian, Billo said this:

“Breivik is not a Christian. That’s impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.”

Did Billo just say no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder? I believe he did, and he said it in a serious tone with a straight face.

Let me list just a few of the all-time Christian mass murderers.

1. God himself/ Jesus

The Bible says in Genesis 7:11-24 that God sent a great flood to Earth and instructed Noah to build an ark in order to save his family [apparently, the only righteous ones left on Earth]. In vs. 20-23 the Bible says this:

“The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.”

In other words, God himself is the biggest mass murderer in history. He wiped out the entire Earth’s population except for 8 people and a shitload of animals. Christians will defend this and suggest God did this to cleanse the Earth and wipe out the sinful people and start anew.

Doesn’t matter. Death is death. I added Jesus’s name above because the Bible says numerous times that Jesus is God. Christians do not believe that Jesus’s existence began with his birth in the manger in Bethlehem, but that he has always existed. If Jesus has always existed, that means Jesus was around during the great flood, giving him the title of mass murderer as well, since Jesus is God.

If wiping out the entire Earth’s population [sparing only 8] is not mass murder, I challenge anyone to tell me exactly what they call it. Surprisngly, I do not believe God is a mass murderer in this particular example because I do not believe in the ridiculous and insulting Noah/flood story. It might just be the most ridiculous story/event in the entire Bible. It’s more tragic that human beings actually believe this complete nonsense than it is that God allegedly snuffed out the entire population of the Earth.

God apparently omitted an 11th commandment: Thou shall not name call. We see that God even murders over petty things, like name-calling. In 2 Kings 2:23-24, it states:

“From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you baldhead!” they said. “Go on up, you baldhead!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.”

God not only sent two bears to rip 42 people to shreds for calling one of his prophets a “Baldhead”, but they were fucking kids! Exactly which commandment did they violate? Why would God have 42 KIDS slaughtered for such a petty incident? I will tell you why: Because God is a mass murderer and he is infatuated with death and torment. Oh no? Let us take a trip down “God loves death” lane, shall we?

Leviticus 20:9 states:

“If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death”

Deuteronomy 22:20-25 states:

“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.”

Leviticus 20:13 states:

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Leviticus 24:13-14 states:

“Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.”

These are just a FEW. There are hundreds of passages like this in the Bible.

Let’s not forget how God handled the fact that Pharaoh kept the Israelites in bondage and used them as slaves in Egypt. God sends Moses and Aaron to free their people and sends down 10 plagues onto the people of Egypt [because of the actions of one, Pharaoh, I might add…real fair this God is].

What is mind-boggling is the fact that God tells Moses and Aaron that he has hardened Pharaoh’s heart [so apparently, even if Pharaoh wanted to release the people, he is prevented to do so because God hardened his heart]. Finally, God sends his last plague: killing all first born children including Pharaoh’s first born, which finally makes Pharaoh release the Israelites.

This just might be the second silliest story in the Bible. If God is all knowing, why didn’t he know that sending nine plagues would do absolutely nothing, but he would get a winner on his tenth? Why didn’t he send the 10th plague first? If he is all-just, why did he punish ALL of Egypt for the actions of one man? If he is all-powerful, why didn’t God just speak the words “you are free” to the Israelites and it came to pass, in the same manner that speaking the Earth, sun and all the planets into existence made them all appear? Are Christians telling me that God can speak the entire universe into existence with ease, but freeing a huge group of people is where his powers cease? It’s just too ridiculous to believe.

Also, keep in mind that several times throughout Exodus 7-12, God states that the reason for the plagues, misery and death to the Egyptians is so God can “multiply his wonders and miraculous signs”. Hmmmm, I thought God loved us? How wonderful it must have been for God to heap misery, destruction and death upon people he claims he loves, then hardens Pharaoh’s heart so that there is no way possible for him to do the very thing God wants him to do [although God supposedly knows the future and knows Pharaoh will NOT do it] then murders all first born children in Egypt because God wants his miraculous wonders to be multiplied? Insanity! Insanity! Insanity!

2. Moses

In Numbers 25: 1-9, God instructs Moses to kill 24,000 Israelites for sleeping with the women of the Midianites [who opposed Israel] and for worshipping their gods [the Baal of Poer]. It pissed God off, so he resorted to what he does best…kill.

3. Joshua

In Joshua chapters 10, 11 and 12, God orders Joshua to slaughter a total of 31 kings and everyone else within these 31 kingdoms, which he did.

4. Saul

This is an interesting story. God instructs King Saul to go slaughter the Amalekites for being an enemy of Israel. King Saul follows God’s order of death and wipes out pretty much everything. But, Saul’s big boo-boo was killing everyone except Agag [the Amalekite king] and also sparing sheep, cattle, calves and lambs [how dare Saul show just a smidge of compassion and not kill EVERYONE!]. God is so pissed off that Saul does not slaughter Agag and the animals that he takes away Saul’s kingship. In fact, it states in 1 Samuel 15:11 that Saul's sparing of Agag “grieved “ God. Oh, I’m sure it did piss off God the slaughterer.

To please God, Samuel kills Agag right after Saul states to Samuel that “surely the bitterness of death is past”. The bitterness would be past to regular, thinking compassionate human beings, but to God, who wants nearly every living thing slaughtered on almost a constant basis in the Bible, the bitterness, anger and his vengeful nature are not so quick to make a disappearing act.

5. Crusaders

...of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries who killed….well, anyone who wasn’t exactly like they were and believed exactly what they believed.

These are just 5, but the list goes on and on. Yes, I realize the Bible characters in the list above were all from the Old Testament and therefore not officially “believers in Jesus”. Keep in mind two things: Christians hold the view that Jesus has always existed and that Jesus is God. The characters [above] actually knowing the name “Jesus” is irrelevant. It is the exact same God that ordained the aforementioned mass murderers.

Never has Billo been so easily debunked.

Cenk Uyger gives a pretty comical analysis of O’ Liar’s crapola in the clip below

Jon Stewart has a hilarious bit on Billo as well

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

UPDATE:

Bill Maher chimed in on this specific issue [O' Reilly claiming no Christians commit mass murder] on his show Real Time with Bill Maher last night. Watch the clip

Naturally, one of Maher's guests, Margaret Hoover [of FOX News] claimed that Anders Breivik does not qualify as a "Christian terrorist" because he is not affiliated with a global terrorist network. Oh big fucking deal. So, now you have to be a member of a terrorist organization to commit a terrorist act?

Many people that FOX News have dubbed "Muslim terrorists" were not affiliated with a global terrorist network either, as Maher points out to Hoover [namely, for one, the Fort Hood shooter]. Naturally, that does not matter to people like Hoover. What matters is if the perpetrator's skin is brown and/or they don't practice Christianity.

Maher also adds other Christian mass murderers to the list: The Ku Klux Klan, Tim McVeigh and the Inquisition. All excellent examples. Many, if not all, Christians will argue that nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus instruct their followers to kill [but it does not in the Koran either]. Although I agree that there is no command or commission per se laid out by God/Jesus to commit murder, as I have already included above, there are many examples [almost exclusively in the Old Testament] of God ordering his servants/prophets to kill massive amounts of people...and his servants carried out those acts.

Do all Christians naively believe that there will never ever be some people along the way who will be influenced by these events in the Bible where God has specifically instructed his servants/prophets to slaughter hundreds/thousands of people and use that as a justification for gunning down doctors at abortion clinics or wiping out all their co-workers?

Whether Christians believe these things will never happen is irrelevant, because these real life incidents have already happened. And they will continue to happen, because although the number of Christians who would actually get violent and commit mass murder are a fringe portion of the Christian membership, no one can deny that their influence to commit those acts exists on the pages of the Bible [primarily in the form of the monstrous, compassionless, ruthless, death-obsessed God of the Old Testament, whose #1 hobby was mass murder].

I will give you a realistic example of the point I just made. How can Christians defend their religion and condemn Anders Breivik's horrible act of gunning down 68 people at a youth camp in Norway when there is a specific Bible passage/story [that I mentioned above] of God himself sending two bears to tear apart 42 young kids in the book of 2 Kings for the unbelievably petty act of calling Elisha a "baldhead"?

If Breivik told the police after his despicable act that he killed these 68 people because they called him names, how could a Christian condemn his act if God himself had 42 young kids mauled to death in the Bible? Do you see my point? How can a Christian justify God's act and condemn Breivik's act [if Breivik used name-calling as his excuse, which he did not. But for the sake of my argument, how would a Christian answer that question]?

It all boils down to the fact that Breivik is a nut who has profound mental issues. His heinous acts were simply an outward expression of the mental breakdown and neurological disorder that is required to accept the Bible as the truth in the first place.