Robin Gibb, singer-songwriter and co-founder of the Bee Gees, has died of colon and liver cancer at the age of 62. Bee Gees were one of the most successful acts in music history, amassing two #1 albums and nine #1 singles in the 1970’s, the height of their fame.
Sadly, Robin’s brother Maurice succumbed to the same hereditary condition and died in 2003 at age 53. Younger brother Andy [who was not a member of Bee Gees but also had success in music] died in 1988 of heart failure at age 30, leaving only Barry Gibb the surviving Gibb brother.
Robin had a very unique voice, showcasing his vocals on such big hits as “I Started A Joke”, “How Can You Mend A Broken Heart” and “Nights on Broadway”, among many others.
Joel Pollak [pictured above] states in article that Obama’s biography in 1991 booklet “does not contradict the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate”. What’s the purpose of the story then?
by Larry Simons
May 18, 2012
Yesterday, a breaking story by Breitbart.com hit the Internet that a 1991 promotional booklet put out by Obama’s then literary agency, Acton & Dystel, mentions in his biography that Obama was born in Kenya.
If true, this just may be the most damning evidence to date that Obama was not born in Hawaii and therefore not a natural born citizen of the United States as the Constitution requires. And of course, as anyone knows, this fact would make him ineligible to be President and make a score of birthers correct.
Two questions immediately came to mind as being crucial after I learned of this booklet. These questions require answers immediately.
1. Who gave Acton and Dystel this information used in Obama’s biography? [What was used as the source?]
2. Why, when this booklet came out in 1991, didn't Obama or his mother [who was still alive in 1991] object to the information in the biography? Why didn’t anyone [Obama, his mother or any family member] demand the information be corrected?
As I was reading Joel Pollak’s breaking story last night, I discovered one sentence of it that made no sense whatsoever. Pollak states, “The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.” Huh? If the information in the 1991 booklet [that Obama was born in Kenya] does not contradict the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, then what in the hell is the purpose of the story? Why is it breaking news?
Of course it contradicts Obama’s birth certificate! The birth certificate states that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and the 1991 booklet states he was born in Kenya. The last time I checked, Hawaii and Kenya were two completely different places. One of them makes Obama eligible to be President and the other does not. How is this not a contradiction?
Why is Pollak discrediting his own story by making that statement? Also odd is that, not only does Pollak make that statement, but nowhere else in his article does he explain why it is not contradictory.
Pollak calls the story an “exclusive”. How exclusive is it if the information in the booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate? I need this explained to me.
Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel. It also promotes Obama’s anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White–which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.
Obama’s biography in the booklet is as follows:
Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.
Ostroy conducts “interview” with a supposed Obama hater and condemns him for the very same circumventive behavior Ostroy has displayed when confronted by Real Truth Online on his own blog
by Larry Simons
May 15, 2012
Hypocrite and all-around spinster Andy Ostroy is back in full swing at his blog doing what he does best. Oh no, it’s not just lying. That would be commendable if it was just outright lying, because even the most passive inquirers could easily detect outright lying. Ostroy not only lies, but then tries to camouflage them by calling out others who do the exact same thing, implying that he would never participate in such chicanery.
This is actually a recognized defense mechanism called a Freudian Projection. It is 'where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people'. An example would be an angry person accusing another person of being angry to take attention away from the fact that the original subject is angry. This is Andy Ostroy in a nutshell.
Ostroy’s latest article is exactly that…another trip down hypocrite lane. Ostroy claims that he recently had a chat with an elderly blue-collar New Yorker about why he won’t be voting for Obama in November. He calls the guy “Dale” [apparently not his real name] and states that Dale is a life-long Democrat and definitely not a Republican.
I have so many issues with the entire format of this “interview”, I can’t even count them all. My first issue is how it begins. Ostroy starts by simply saying to Dale: “Still a Republican?” Who would begin an interview like that? Now, if Ostroy called this a “chat”, I would buy most of this dialogue. But Ostroy calls it specifically an “interview”. It would be like me interviewing Ostroy and my first words to him are “still a douchebag?”
My next big issue with this interview is why the interview is only in written form. We live in the high-tech gadget-dominated 21st century of iPhones and cameras and audio recorders on every single cell phone in existence, and Ostroy couldn’t capture at least the audio of this “interview” for proof it was conducted? How did Ostroy write down Dale’s answers so fast during the discussion?
Most of the “interview” appears scripted, as if it was just simply written by Ostroy. I will give you examples. Here I post the entire “interview” with my interjections inserted.
AO: Still a Republican?
Dale: Never was one. I'm not a liberal either.
AO: Not a Republican? So, you'll be voting for Obama?
Dale: No
[Here Ostroy assumes that, just because one is not a Republican, the logical choice in November is Obama. Ostroy never offers a single reason why, even if one is a Democrat, people should automatically vote for the Democratic candidate. He fails to offer any reasons for this, presumably so Ostroy can accuse Dale of being a racist]
AO: Why not? Does that mean you're going to vote for Romney?
Dale: Let's just say I ain't voting for Obama.
AO: Can you tell me why?
Dale: I just don't care for him, that's all.
[Now, at this point, I agree that Dale should have given an answer as to why he wasn’t voting for Obama. But, I would argue that this is the very reason Ostroy chose Dale for this discussion. Because he knew Dale was elderly and not too bright on what is really going on. In other words, Dale was no challenge for Ostroy. Had Ostroy interviewed me, I would have rattled off about 20 reasons in under a minute…among them giving banks bailouts, continuing a multitude of Bush policies like torture and the continuation of the Military Commissions Act, not ending the wars he promised to end but starting new ones with Libya, assassinating American citizens, the unconstitutionality of health care, warrantless spying, his appointments of czars, re-distribution of wealth and questioning the authority of the Supreme Court...why no one should vote for Obama. That’s just to name a few. But never in a million years would Ostroy ever interview/debate with someone like me who really knows what’s happening. This is why I almost split a rib when I read Andy state, “Pretty scary stuff. What I saw in Dale was a truly visceral yet inexplicable disdain for Obama which he either couldn't or wouldn't honestly articulate. Unfortunately, people like Dale know absolutely nothing about the issues they discuss.” He’s right, Dale didn’t know much and that was to Ostroy’s advantage and why Ostroy posted the “interview”. Ostroy would not even HAVE, let alone POST an interview with me]
AO: But can you tell me why? Is there a specific policy you don't like?
Dale: It's just the whole thing. Let me ask you something. He was a cut-up in school. Bad marks. Took drugs, cocaine. He was a bad kid. How'd he get into Harvard?
AO: You've been listening to Sean Hannity I see.
Dale: I LOVE Sean Hannity!
AO: I guess that's the non-Republican in you. How about giving me something that relates to his presidency?
[I believe I just did above Andy, and if those issues I discussed above that are “relating to his presidency” would have been put to Ostroy, he would have avoided it like cancer]
Dale: I think he's been a very bad president and all he wants to do is turn America into a dictatorship.
AO: Really? That's a pretty hefty accusation. Can you give me an example of something he's done to warrant that?
[I can. The appointments of czars that report directly to Obama, his support of CISPA, which all but eviscerates free speech on the internet, and his totalitarian-like statements that put the President above the Supreme Court. There Andy, that was three]
Dale: Look, I'm not gonna get into all of this with you.
AO: So you'll drop a bomb like that but not give any substantive explanation for it?
Dale: He's been a disaster for the economy.
AO: Really. And why do you say that?
[Let me take this one Dale. His bailouts of the auto industry and banks and his continuation of wars he said he’d end, along with starting new ones. Those two things alone pretty much destroy an economy]
Dale: You're just trying to goad me into a debate with you and I'm not gonna do that.
AO: No, I'm simply trying to get you to back up your broad stroke accusations with substance, and you don't seem to be able to do that.
[This line looks very scripted. As if it was written just for this story. Does anyone believe Ostroy would use the words “I'm simply trying to get you to back up your broad stroke accusations with substance” in a discussion with a not so bright [as Ostroy has admitted] elderly man?]
Dale: Let's just say you and I disagree and leave it at that.
AO: I have no problem disagreeing with you, or you having different opinions about Obama or anything else. What we're doing here is having a conversation, not a debate, so why can't you simply just explain your positions?
[Actually Ostroy believes no such thing. I can’t count how many posts of mine were not approved for posting on Andy’s blog. Of course, Ostroy says the reason for that was because my words were “hateful” and filled with “vitriol”. Interesting, because if that were true, Ostroy could have used this to his advantage and gained support from his 5 or 6 readers]
Dale: He's ruing the economy, that's all.
AO: And you're basing this on statistics, leading indicators like GDP?
Dale: No
AO: Job growth? Consumer confidence?
Dale: No
AO: Wall Street gains?
Dale: No
AO: Recoveries in the auto, banking, retail sectors?
Dale: No
AO: So what you're saying then is that actual facts about the economy since Obama took office don't really matter to you. You just make sweeping criticisms but don't care if the facts don't support them. Yeah, I'd say you're voting for Romney.
[I got this too Dale. Well, Andy, I can base it on Obama requesting 84 billion dollars to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan two and a half months into his term. For starting a new war with Libya and for bailing out banks. Obama is not creating new jobs. This is just an outright lie. But that’s the whole point. It’s easy for Ostroy to lie to an elderly man who doesn’t know a whole lot. Like I said, he would not dare attempt to debate RTO]
After I read this completely conjured up “interview” that, no doubt, came from Andy Ostroy’s head, I left these comments:
“Andy, this interview looks eerily similar to the many times I posted on your site asking you basically the same questions on how Obama is any different than Bush. Of course, you would always strike back and say that Im using vitriol and never answering anything I ask, and most times NOT posting the comment. (It's the same reason you enable comment moderation, you simply want to avoid answering anything hard---like this guy you interviewed).
I'm wrong you say? OK, then go to my site www.realtruthonline.blogspot.com---and read my articles on you and refute them on your site. Copy and paste portions of my articles on you, and simply refute them. You won't be able to...this is precisely the same reason you won't approve of this comment to be posted and why you moderate comments. Scared of the facts. I'm wrong? Prove it!! Do what I asked you to do!”
“And another thing...how do we know this interview actually took place? We live in the age of it being incredibly easy to record audio and video and you couldn’t film it, at least the audio of it? This interview looks very scripted, as if it was just written by you. Doesn't look like an actual dialogue that took place. So why couldn't it be recorded? Ehhh?”
Ostroy did not approve the posts despite the fact that there was no hate speech or vitriol [as he often loves to attribute to my comments]. It was just blunt facts [something Ostroy avoids like kryptonite]. Ironically, in not approving the comments I posted, Ostroy becomes the very same human being he claims Dale is in the made-up interview…someone who avoids facts and does not address valid questions with simple answers.
On top of all the hypocrisy showcased by Ostroy, he once again plays the race card, accusing anyone who opposes Obama of it being about race [without proof, of course]. No one has exploited Obama’s race more than Andy Ostroy himself; hence lies more Freudian Projection: Since Ostroy may be the real racist here, accuse others of racism to take the attention from the real culprit.
Says Mormonism Is “Not Traditional Orthodox Christianity” As If It’s Just a Little Different Than Christianity
by Larry Simons
April 30, 2012
Televangelist Joel Osteen, minister of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, and his wife Victoria were guests on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Wallace asks Osteen, “Is being gay a sin?”. Osteen replied:
“I believe that the scripture says that being gay is a sin. You know, every time I say that, Chris, I get people saying, 'You're a gay hater and you're a gay basher.' I'm not. I don't dislike anybody. Gays are some of the nicest, kindest, most loving people in the world. But my faith is based on what I believe the scripture says, and that's the way I read the scripture.”
I would have asked Osteen, “If being gay is a sin, why did a perfect God create man with such an imperfect element like the desire to be sexually attracted to members of their own sex?”
I’m almost positive Osteen would have danced around that question, resulting in never giving an answer.
If Osteen would have answered and said, “Well, man has free will”, I would have fired back that there is evidence in the Bible that man does not have free will.
The biggest example of that is in Exodus 8-10 where God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so Pharaoh would not release the Israelites from slavery, whereas God gleefully [through his loving nature] casts ten horrible plagues onto the people of Egypt, showcasing that God is neither all-just [in that he punished all of Egypt for the actions of one man, in whom whose heart God controlled...remember, the heart that God hardened?], nor is he all-knowing [in that God did not possess the future knowledge that Pharaoh would not be persuaded to release the Israelites until the tenth plague...the killing of all first born male babies...another example of God not being all-just].
Again, Osteen would have been speechless. One main reason Osteen may have not answered these questions might be because of the fact that Osteen neither possesses a degree, nor does he have any higher level of religious training than two years of college. He never even went to seminary. These facts alone, I have no doubt, explain the next portion of dialogue between Osteen and Wallace.
Wallace then asks, “Are Mormons, like Mitt Romney, true Christians?”
Osteen’s response:
“I believe they're followers of Christ. I don't believe that Mormonism is traditional orthodox Christianity. I realize there's differences there, but I go back to when I hear Mitt Romney and some of my Mormon friends say, 'I love Jesus. He's my savior. I believe he was raised from the dead. They follow the teachings of the Bible. I believe they are followers of Christ and that they're my brothers. And I'm not looking to exclude them and, you know, push them out.”
They follow the Bible? Really Joel? Is that why Mormons believe that black people are cursed? Is that why Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are spirit brothers? Is that why they believe that Jesus actually came to the Americas after his resurrection? Is that why Mormons believe they can be baptized for dead people? Brigham Young, Mormonism’s second leader, rejected the Bible’s teaching that Jesus’ blood covers ALL sins. That is taken from Young’s own writings.
Why do I [the agnostic] know more about this shit than Osteen does?
Most Christians call Mormonism a cult and reject it completely. What I find quite striking is the fact that so many Mormon doctrines have changed throughout the years. This begs the question: How can there be so many changes in doctrines and teachings if there is supposed to be no change in God? Why would even one doctrine change if God is unchanging? Yet, Osteen wants us to believe that Mormonism is essentially Christian.
The Mormon Church at some point over the years taught the practice of polygamy. It taught that God was a man. They taught that God and Adam are the same being. They believed that black people are cursed and are from Cain’s seed. I could go on and on. Osteen believes this is the same as Christianity? Holy shitballs.
I will admit that both religions share one common bond other than both have heard the name Jesus Christ. Both are religions that are steeped in plagiarism. The Mormons copied the Bible, and the Bible copied many sources like The Egyptian book of the Dead and is rooted in Astrology.
Like many religious loons on TV and in society, Joel Osteen is a complete fraud. Not only for his assertion that Christianity and Mormonism have few differences, but because Osteen has no formal training, which is why he always has this “all things to all people” attitude when he is being interviewed.
He said almost the same thing about homosexuality to Piers Morgan in January 2011. Osteen said:
“Yes, I've always believed, Piers, the scriptures show that homosexuality is a sin. But I'm not one of those who is out there to bash homosexuals and tell them that they're terrible people and all of that. I mean, there are other sins in the Bible, too. And I think sometimes the church—and I don't mean this critically—but we focus on one issue or two issues, and there's plenty of other ones. So I don't believe that homosexuality is God's best for a person's life—sin means to miss the mark.”
Yeah, let’s not step on anyone’s feet Joel. I mean, according to scripture, God reduced two cities [Sodom and Gomorrah] to dust over the practice of homosexuality, but you’re right….it’s no big whoop to God. Back then, he really got pissed at gay people and would level cities because of it. Now, God is different. Homosexuality to God now is no worse than spitting on the sidewalk.
Oh, wait. I thought God doesn’t change? Why isn’t God leveling cities now? I will tell you why. Because the Bible is no more a reality than Humpty Dumpty and Jack and the Beanstalk. In fact, I find that very ironic. Why don’t Christians believe that Jack in the Beanstalk is a real event? It is just as absurd as a talking snake, a man inside a big fish for three days or a 500 year old man building a Titanic-sized boat without nails and a hammer. Yet some fables are believed and some are not.
Constitutional expert Judge Andrew Napolitano says he fears that the president is skirting “dangerously close to totalitarianism” with his recent questioning of the authority of the Supreme Court to conduct a review of ObamaCare.
Appearing on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” show Wednesday, the Judge warned that Obama was systematically flouting the system of checks and balances established by the founding fathers.
“A few months ago he was saying the Congress doesn’t count. The Congress doesn’t mean anything. I am going to rule by decree and by administrative regulation.” Napolitano said.
“Now he’s basically saying the Supreme Court doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what they think. They can’t review our legislation. That would leave just him as the only branch of government standing.”
“I think he has some problems with understanding the Constitution or accepting limitations on his power.” the Judge added.
During a speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with Vice President Joe Biden in February, Obama said “Whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe and I, we’re going to act,” adding “In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving.”
Earlier this week Obama appeared to challenge the “unelected” Supreme Court not to take an “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” step of overturning his health reform law.
“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.
The president then stated “…for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” he said. “Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
In essence, Obama appears to be making the case that the Constitution is outdated because it allows for “an unelected group of people” to make judicial decisions.
Judge Napolitano points out that this is an extreme view for anyone to take, let alone a president.
“There are equal branches of the government, but with respect to what the law means and what the Constitution means, the court is superior to the president.” Napolitano noted.
“No president in modern times has questioned their authority.”
“This is an extreme view of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, one that has not been articulated since Andrew Jackson.” The Judge urged.
Comment under an Obama story says [they] “hope and pray someone with a barrett 50 cal will do the entire world a favor and blow his head off before it is too late”. Comment has been up since the morning of March 21. Secret Service notified
by Larry Simons March 21, 2012
Today Prison Planet posted a story titled, “Obama Chides ‘Birthers’ While Media Spikes Ayers Bombshell”, written by Paul Watson [who is also webmaster of the site]. A comment threatening President Obama with death was posted under the story [and left there by the website moderators]. The commentor, who goes by “Spymyeys”, wrote the following:
“I know it is very hard to do, but please, take the time to stare into Obamma’s eyes and tell me, what do you see there?
If he is not satan himself, then it is one of the worst demons that hell has ever spawned. I can only hope & pray (haha) that someone with a barrett 50 cal will do the entire world a favor and blow his head off before it is too late.”
Even if he was kidding, which I doubt, it is still a federal crime to threaten any United States President with death, whether saying you want to do it or you hope someone else does. The comment was left at 1:33pm Pacific Time, and after 3 hours it still remains. For some reason, comments always show a three hour difference. When I posted a comment on the site yesterday, it showed a time that was three hours before the time I posted it.
I immediately called the Secret Service and reported this. They wanted to know the website and under which story it was posted. I gave them a detailed instruction on how to find its location. The woman on the phone thanked me and we hung up.
Here is the link and screen shot incase it is deleted later [click to enlarge]
I do not blame Prison Planet for the comment being posted. That, they cannot control. What they can control is how quick they remove it or how long they leave it remain posted. Three hours is way too long to come to any other conclusion other than that Prison Planet advocates death threats against Obama. Period.
UPDATE:
I find it very interesting that I just now posted a comment under my screen name on PP "Bob43" and it is now awaiting moderation. See for yourself:
Most likely, it will not be approved, because it exposes the blatant hypocrisy and fraudulent behavior of Jones & Co. BUT, even more interesting is the fact that since I now have proof that comments await moderation on Prison Planet, it is even more incriminating for Prison Planet that they allowed the Obama death threat to be posted.
I now withdrawal my above comment where I said I don't blame PP for the comment being posted. Since I now have proof that comments are moderated and await approval, PP is guilty of advocating the Obama death threat. PP endorses death threats made to United States presidents. For this very reason the staff at Prison Planet should be arrested.
80-year-old comedian Dick Gregory claims a “friend” told him to leave NYC on September 10, 2001. Who is this “friend”? Why doesn’t Gregory name the “friend”? Why did Alex Jones not ask him who it was?
by Larry Simons March 21, 2012
On Monday, Alex Jones invited comedian and civil rights activist Dick Gregory [above, left] onto his radio program to discuss a story that is quite bizarre [to say the least]. Gregory told Alex Jones that on the night of September 10, 2001, while Gregory was in New York City, he called his wife to ask her what hotel she had him booked at [his wife apparently handled his lodging arrangements for him].
Gregory’s wife said to him, “You’re not. You’re friend called me and told me to tell you don’t spend the night in New York tonight”.
At hearing this, Gregory immediately took a train to Washington D.C. that very night. After arriving he called his friend and asked how he knew Gregory was in NYC. His friend said, “We picked you up on the satellite brother”. The next day, after watching the attacks unfold on TV, Gregory called his friend who told him, “You owe me one”.
This very brief account triggers a score of questions. Here is the list I compiled myself [within about 10 minutes]:
1. Who was this friend of Gregory’s that apparently had inside information as to the events of the next day?
2. Since Gregory obviously believed his friend and trusted him [to leave NYC], why did his friend not have enough inside information to tell Gregory not to go to Washington D.C. either, since that was the other major attack location on 9/11?
3. Gregory [during the Jones interview] says his home is in D.C. So, apparently that was the purpose of going to D.C. [to come home], but why would his friend have the inside information to know what was going down in NYC the next day, but have no clue about D.C. to inform Gregory to not come home and also offer to get his family out of D.C.?
4. Why can’t Gregory name who his friend is?
5. If his “friend” knew of the impending attack, wouldn’t his friend be complicit in at least the foreknowledge of the attacks?
6. Wouldn’t Gregory also be complicit in the attacks for not disclosing his friend’s name?
7. Why would Gregory immediately come home for simply being told “don’t spend the night in NYC”?
8. Why didn’t Gregory ask his friend WHY he was not to spend the night in NYC?
9. Paul Watson’s story on this mentions the fact that there had been reports of other high profile people warned to either leave NYC the night before or not to come. Watson lists people like top Pentagon officials and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. Question: Why is Dick Gregory considered high profile? Why warn HIM? Who, besides his wife and the "mystery friend", knew he was still alive?
10. What in the holy piss does Gregory mean by claiming his friend told him, after being asked by Gregory how his friend knew he was in NYC, “We picked you up on the satellite, brother?”
11. Why hasn’t Gregory, at any given time during coming home on 9/10/01 and now, asked his friend how he knew something bad was going to happen?
12. Why didn’t Alex Jones ask Gregory any of the questions in this list?
13. Since Gregory's friend knew he was in NYC because he could "pick him up on satellite", why couldn't this friend reach Gregory first rather than depend on his wife to relay the message?
14. Isn't it ironic that Gregory looks like a black Bin Laden? [this was satirical]
This whole story is just plain bullshit and it is yet another embarrassment to Jones & Co. at Prison Planet and Infowars.
I find it very interesting that since the day of 9/11 to present day, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been vilified [and rightfully so] by 9/11 truth about making a comment to Peter Jennings on the air about Giuliani's claim that someone told him the first tower was going to come down before it actually collapsed. Since that day, it has been assumed that Giuliani’s silence on this issue is an indicator that he knows inside information about the collapse of the towers.
Isn’t it odd that Dick Gregory admits practically the same thing to Alex Jones [that someone informed him of inside information] and not one peep is heard from Jones about how the friend knew or who the friend even is?
The reason why is abundantly clear: Dick Gregory is a conspiracy theorist who criticizes the government on many levels. He is to be commended for his unwillingness to bow to the status quo and his questioning of the government. But this is why Alex Jones leaves Dick Gregory alone and refuses to grill him over the exact same issue he has hammered Giuliani for.
Gregory has inside information [so he claims] and Jones asks him nothing about it. But if anyone else that Jones deems is connected to 9/11 has similar inside information, they are a traitor. Why? Because they do not schmooze with Alex Jones, that’s why.
Do not misunderstand my stance; Is Giuliani a piece of shit? Of course he is. But until Jones puts his celebrity pals through the exact same trial by fire, he will be and remain an embarrassment to 9/11 truth and to the entire profession of journalism.
I posted my two cents about this on Prison Planet [screen shot below]. I went by the name “Bob43”, so as not to spark suspicion that my comment was associated with RTO. Let’s see if it remains or gets the axe. [click to enlarge]
Here is the interview. 9/11 comments are at 18-minute mark
