Dave Neiwert attacks Jerome Corsi for linking the Fort Hood shooter with Obama and doesn’t debunk one word Corsi says

Neiwert’s response to Corsi’s story linking Nidal Malik Hasan to Obama: ad hominem attacks and diversion. Once again showcasing why Neiwert is a Fraudie nominee

by Larry Simons
November 7, 2009

Liberal blogger Dave Neiwert is up to his old tricks again: When he doesn’t like something someone says about Obama or anything else he supports, he simply just calls them nuts, denies that it is true, links to his own articles in an attempt to debunk his opponent and most importantly, does not debunk ONE WORD of the article he is condemning.

In his latest article at Crooks and Liars, Neiwert slams author Jerome Corsi for writing an article on the website World Net Daily entitled, “Shooter Advised Obama Transition”, in which Corsi claims that Nidal Malik Hasan, [the alleged gunman who killed 13 fellow soldiers and wounded 30 at the Fort Hood Army post in Killeen, Texas on Thursday] was a participant at a Homeland Security Policy Institute Presidential Transition Task Force.

The document that was published on May 19 titled, “Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009," lists Hasan’s name on page 29 under a list of Task Force Event participants, not as members of the Task Force.

[click to enlarge]


Hasan was attending the meetings as a member of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine faculty at George Washington University. Corsi says in his article that the deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University, Daniel Kaniewski, told him in a phone interview that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre.

Whether all this means anything is one thing. What does have meaning is the blatant dodge, deflect and ignore tactics used by liberal blogger Dave Neiwert in his Crooks and Liars article, “WND conspiracist’s bogus claim: Hasan advised Obama’s transition team”. In the article, Neiwert posts a captured screenshot of Corsi’s story from World Net Daily, a segment of Corsi’s story and a segment from a story from Media Matters, and immediately Neiwert goes straight into attack mode from that point on until the end of his story.

One thing you won’t find in Neiwert’s story; a refutation of Corsi’s story. The only part of Corsi’s story that should be called into question is the fact that Corsi appears to have misrepresented his story by the headline he chose. His headline was, “Shooter Advised Obama Transition”, but in Corsi’s article he says this:

“While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity.”

Then he says:

“Daniel Kaniewski, deputy director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University affirmed to WND in a telephone interview this morning that the Nidal Hasan listed as attending the meetings of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force was the same person as the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre.

Kaniewski said Hasan attended the meetings in his capacity as a member of the faculty of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, not as a member of the HSPI Presidential Task Force.”

Neiwert does have a point that Corsi’s headline and what is said in the story itself appear to be complete opposites, but one thing Neiwert does not do is offer any refutation of the fact that Hasan’s name does appear on the Task Force Event Participant list. The participants in the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force were apparently more important than just people who signed up to attend a few meetings; they were each mentioned by name in the HSPI Proceedings Report.

These participants were obviously not just the equivalent to people who gather around to hear a political speech. They were participants, not mere bystanders or observers. If this had happened under Bush and Hasan’s name was on some participants list that were connected to a Bush transition task force, not only would Neiwert have already written and posted five stories about it on Crooks and Liars, he would be calling Hasan a right wing extremist, a lone wolf assassin and linking him with Ron Paul, the Patriot/militia movement and calling him a terrorist.

Naturally, since Hasan was involved in a Presidential Task Force for Obama, he’s none of those things. In fact, if you even think anything negative of him, then you’re a kook. Here are the words Neiwert uses to describe Corsi: ‘Wingnut’, ‘conspiracy-meister’ and ‘extremist’.

After the Media Matters portion Neiwert posted, the next five paragraphs of his article are nothing but one long ad hominem attack on Corsi, not one word of it anything resembling a refutation.

Neiwert attacks Corsi’s books, “The Obama Nation”, “The Late Great U.S.A.”, his swift boat book and a book he did about the militia movement. What does all that have to do with Corsi’s story? Not a goddamned thing. How does mentioning Corsi’s past books refute him on the Hasan story? It doesn’t. It’s Neiwert’s way of saying, “Damn, I can’t refute a word of it [panic, panic, panic]….ohh, uh, by the way, Corsi’s books are crap, his associations are crap, he’s a liar and a kook, don’t believe Corsi, he’s a nutball.”

It’s the old tiresome “I can’t attack his facts, so I will attack HIM” tactic that I have seen all too often in my political journey. Notice Neiwert didn’t attempt to say, “Here’s why the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University is crap and false”. He can’t. They exist.

Notice Neiwert didn’t attempt to say, “The May 19 report entitled "Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009 is crap and made up”. He can’t. It’s real.

Notice that Neiwert didn’t attempt to say, “Hasan’s name isn’t really on that Task Force participants list”. He can’t. Hasan’s name is on it.

Neiwert didn’t have a choice but to rattle off the ad hominem attacks. He was in a corner; in panic mode. He didn’t have a refutation to offer his 12 readers, so it was time to attack, attack, attack.

Neiwert’s purpose is very clear: when someone goes on a shooting rampage, all Neiwert looks for is that the perpetrator believes some unpopular view or “theory” and bingo, they are a right wing extremist. It doesn’t matter to Neiwert how distant the connection is, or if there is a connection at all. If someone kills 15 people at a mall and it turns out they might have [at some point in their life] just heard of Alex Jones, they are a lone wolf, right wing extremist.

But Hasan can be a participant of a Presidential Task Force for the Obama transition, and to Neiwert, if you even say that out loud, let alone draw a connection from it, you are the world’s biggest kook.

Here is video showing Hasan at the Homeland Security Task Force conference

Real Truth turns 4 and announces this years official nominees for Fraud of the Year

Ostroy leads the pack

by Larry Simons
November 6, 2009

It was 4 years ago this week that my newsletter The Real Truth was started and 3 years ago yesterday [November 5] that my website launched. Thanks to all my loyal visitors and readers, and yes, thanks to provocateurs like Jas and The Last Name Left who make my mind sharper and solidify my views by claiming they know the truth, yet continually fail to debunk anything I post.

On another important note, the official nominees for the 2009 RTO Fraud of the Year award are in. Here are the nominees: (updated from my July post)

1. Andy Ostroy [liberal blogger, The Ostroy Report]

Once embraced here at RTO for his truthful columns and insights about the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and John McCain, liberal blogger Andy Ostroy shed his integrity and his soul on the night of November 4, 2008, when his Lord and savior, Barack Obama, became the 44th President of the United States.

Ideologies and defense mechanisms that Ostroy previously condemned Bush administration officials and Bush supporters for adopting quickly became Ostroy’s favored new style, transforming him, almost overnight, into the one of the biggest hypocrites and frauds in RTO history.

I have written 14 articles this year on Ostroy. Here are the reasons Ostroy is leading the race:

*For saying he wants to be black simply because Obama is black, but completely omitted mentioning anything about Obama’s character or qualifications. Also, for mentioning Martin Luther King, Jr. in the same article, completely omitting that King once said, "Let us not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character", thus contradicting himself by making the entire article the very type of stereotypical mindset that King condemned.

*For lying about posting all my comments on his blog and then continuing to delete my comments after he denied he was doing it

*For lying and saying I was violating Blogger.com’s posting rules and then not allowing a post I sent WITH Blogger.com’s rules attached to it proving him to be wrong

*For his Jekyll and Hyde flip-flopping on the Iraq war, supporting it now when under Bush he strongly opposed it

*For saying there was a woman who does his “screening” for him on his blog when the screener is really Ostroy (I proved it)

*For denying there was a financial depression under Obama despite continually saying there was under Bush

*For blaming the internet for “destroying the economy” when he wrote his story on a free website and doesn’t send a dime to Google CEO Eric E. Schmidt

*For saying that Obama is a “transcendent leader” even though Obama has continued/adopted over 15 Bush/Bush-like policies

*For saying the Holocaust museum shooter was a right-wing nut just because he was a white supremacist even though he hated McCain, both Bush’s and FOX News

*For vilifying and convicting Michael Jackson of his child molestation charges (despite being acquitted of them) a day after his death

*For saying that when Obama said “…the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting someone when there was already proof that they were in their own home” [when referring to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates in July] that he was using urban slang!

*For doing a complete 180 in his terminology usage about Obama in two articles just 79 days apart

*For saying that Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize

*For saying that America and Americans are in a better economic and sociological situation than we were a year ago

2. Barack “ObamaBush” Obama [President]

For promising Americans "change" and the complete opposite of what George W. Bush subjected us to, yet continuing well over 15 Bush policies including the Military Commissions Act and continuing the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

Also, for publically condeming waterboarding and admitting it is torture, yet not prosecuting anyone for them.

For continuing the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, sending more troops to these wars and continuing to fund them despite the fact that he continually promised to END them.

Also, for extending our troop presence to Pakistan and quite possibly, Iran in the near future.

3. Bill O’ Reilly [FOX News commentator]

For denying he had anything to do with influencing the killing of abortion doctor George Tiller, yet 3 years ago Billo implied [on his radio show] that he would like to kill Tiller himself.

For having no integrity and speaking at a rape victim luncheon [when he has blamed rape victims for their plights].

For sending out his producer-thugs to stalk women on their vacations and then lying about it.

4. Dave Neiwert [author and liberal blogger, Crooks and Liars]

For rarely citing any evidence outside of his own writings to back up the claims in his stories. His stories are 95% opinion, 1 % fact and 4% gobblygook.

Also, Neiwert, like the rest of his liberal buddies, loves to call other peoples' evidence "imaginary" when they cite mainstream sources as proof, yet considers himself the "sane" one when his sources are rants, opinions and links to his own writings.

5. Dave “the FRAUD” Willis [conservative minister, 2008 RTO Fraudie winner]

For saying he's "not down with neocon hijacking of the conservative movement", but then admits he supports big fat neocon and neocon-lover Pat Buchanon.

For condemning Al Franken and Jesse Ventura for winning elections in Minnesota over neocon and Bush-clone Norm Coleman. Remember Dave saying he hated neocons? Yet, he was pissed off that a neocon lost two elections [to Independent, Constitutionalist and Ron Paul supporter Jesse Ventura and to newcomer Al Franken---both men in which Dave "the FRAUD" Willis failed to mention anything negative about].

For condemning me and insisting my 9/11 views are "fictional", yet admitting that he loves a book titled, "Who Stole My Church?", which he admits is fictional but still calls it "realistic".

Also, I launched the new feature "This Week in Dave the Fraud" in March. That alone qualified Willis as a nominee.

Andy Ostroy assesses the first anniversary of the 2008 election. He just gets fraudier and fraudier

He even thinks the 2008 election was on November 1! But it gets worse...much worse

by Larry Simons
November 2, 2009

In our favorite fraudster’s latest love letter to Obama entitled, “One Year After Election Day: The Verdict on Obama”, Andy “the Fraud” Ostroy assesses what has changed since the 2008 election. Ostroy immediately begins his article in fraud fashion by strongly implying that the 2008 election was held on November 1, not the actual date, November 4. Then he begins his assessment of Obama.

Ostroy says:

“I'm not going to get into Iraq and Afghanistan, wars which Obama's inherited and which have raged on for for eight and six years respectively. There's no quick fix, and it's going to take him some time to sort out strategy and future direction. It's simply too early to judge him here.”

Perhaps the reason why Ostroy is “not going to get into Iraq and Afghanistan…”, is because of the fact that Obama constantly vowed to end these wars. It was one of his staples of the “change we can believe in”. In one of his many, many speeches on the campaign trail in 2008, Obama said this to his supporters in Charleston, WV, “Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting for the people of West Virginia. For what folks in this state have been spending on the Iraq war, we could be giving health care to nearly 450,000 of your neighbors, hiring nearly 30,000 new elementary school teachers, and making college more affordable for over 300,000 students. We could be fighting to put the American dream within reach for every American - by giving tax breaks to working families, offering relief to struggling homeowners, reversing President Bush's cuts to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and protecting Social Security today, tomorrow, and forever. That's what we could be doing instead of fighting this war.”

That was then, this is now. Yes, the billions and billions of dollars being spent on this war could do wonders for our country and our own citizens. Obama promised he would end this war so that Americans would no longer suffer. Fat chance. Nine months later and we are still knee deep in blood, death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was just announced that October 2009 has been the bloodiest month in the entire 8 year Afghanistan war. Congrats Mr. Obama, you just accomplished something in which even Bush can’t boast. Oh yes, we did get change all right.

“No quick fix”, Ostroy says. To quote Congressman Ron Paul, “We went in just like that, we can come home just like that.” Why do brain dead imbeciles think our withdrawal has to be careful, planned and a long process? “It’s going to take him [Obama] some time to sort out strategy and future direction?” How much time does it possibly take to say, “bring them home?”

Here’s the part that made me laugh out loud: Ostroy says:

“But let's take a look at the economy. When Obama's predecessor George W. Bush took office in 2001, unemployment was at a respectable 4.2%. When he left office, it had nearly doubled to 7.6%. It stands now at 9.8%. Former president Bill Clinton left Bush with a $281-billion budget surplus, yet Bush left Obama with a $1.2-trillion deficit. The deficit is now $1.4-trillion. The national debt handed to Bush in 2001 was $5.7-trillion, and grew to $10.6-trillion by the time he left in 2008. It's currently $11.9-trillion. What does this all mean? A couple of things: first it says that Obama's economy has not materially worsened since he took office, especially as compared to the bashing it got under Bush. Next, and more importantly, it proves that Obama's $787-billion stimulus plan worked.”

Oh really? It worked? The stimulus plan was supposed to CREATE jobs, not make them disappear. Ostroy just admitted in the same paragraph that since Obama took office in January, unemployment rose from 7.6% under Bush to [now] 9.8%. If the stimulus plan was meant to CREATE jobs [and it was], then how did unemployment rise?

Obama has only been in office for 9 months. If we prorate the increases in unemployment, the national debt and the deficit under Obama, then after 4 years in office [at the current pace], unemployment under Obama will reach 18.6%, the national debt will hit 17.1 trillion and the deficit will reach 2.2 trillion. Naturally, fraudamopolous Ostroy conveniently leaves this out.

Ostroy’s fourth paragraph, from start to finish, is complete unverified, unsourced and undocumented OPINION. Ostroy states:

“Let's not forget where we were last year at this time. The proverbial sky was falling. America's financial system was on the verge of collapse, a crisis not seen since the Great Depression. There was an unprecedented global economic meltdown, and for the first time in 75 years Americans contemplated withdrawing their money from banks for fear of widespread default. Credit froze, borrowing ceased, and all economic activity stopped. One year later there's appreciable GDP growth, businesses are optimistic, earnings are up, inventories are down, orders are rising, credit is flowing, borrowing has resumed and stock markets have rallied. And, monthly job losses have gone down from an average 750,000 when Bush left office to the low-mid 200's. On the economy, it's pretty safe to say that Obama and his policies have been highly effective.”

No links, no sources, no quotes, no evidence that anything stated [above] is anything near fact. Ostroy simply just says it. According to Ostroy, if he just says it, it’s TRUE! He mentions that monthly job losses have gone down from an average of 750,000 when Bush left office to now in the low-mid 200’s.

What Ostroy does not tell you is that that does not mean that jobs are being created. They are still being lost. That’s why unemployment is still rising under Obama [which Ostroy did mention above]. Saying that monthly job losses are going down is like saying there’s less starving people every month in third world countries than one year ago, but if they are given a few crackers to eat, they can’t be called starving anymore. It’s like Ostroy is bragging because Americans have to work the shittiest, most shameful and undignified jobs just so they can call themselves “employed”. Great work Obama!

Ostroy’s last paragraph made my ribs hurt as well. He writes:

“Nine months after taking the oath of office, while it's still way too early to label his presidency a success or failure, it is fair to conclude that he's definitely on the right track, and as far as the economy is concerned, he's brought America back from the dead. For that he deserves credit. On the foreign stage, given all that Bush left him, he also deserves a little more time to intelligently assess strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan. We've already had eight years of catastrophic military ineptitude. It's actually quite refreshing to have a president who's carefully weighing all options before committing troops to battle. But these are definitely now his wars to wage and/or end, and time is running out on his honeymoon. He needs to formulate a plan, and soon.”

Way too early to label that he’s a failure? Wasn’t nine months the same amount of time Bush served before 9-11, in which nearly every Democrat blamed Bush for 9-11? I just happen to agree with them on that, I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Ostroy claiming that nine months is too early to deem a President a failure.

He’s [Obama] brought America back from the dead? And your evidence for that is that unsubstantiated and unverified fourth paragraph in which you just spoke fake facts into existence? Obama “needs time” to assess Iraq and Afghanistan? I thought he wanted the wars OVER? How much assessment does “come home now” take? “Committing troops to battle?” He vowed he would END the wars Andy! How does that involved “committing troops to battle?”

I’m awfully glad to see that during the last nine months of Obama’s presidency, people like Ostroy can call that a “honeymoon”. Meanwhile, since January 20, 2009, over 4,000 Iraq and Afghanistan troops, as well as Afghan and Iraqi citizens have been blown to bits and their lives have ended….forever, and Ostroy calls this a honeymoon.

What Ostroy completely leaves out is how much like Bush Obama really is. Habeas Corpus still suspended, the Military Commissions Act still in effect, still no trials and representation for detainees, still massive secrecy among his administration, two wars still going strong, banks still being bailed out and rewarded for failure, etc… etc…etc….

It’s completely astonishing how political party and affiliation can blind people. All Bush had to do was morph himself into a younger half-black Democrat, and the Democrats turn into hypocritical, soul-selling FRAUDS.

Ron Paul Questions Why Obama Daughters Haven’t Taken Swine Flu Vaccine

Despite declaring national emergency in response to H1N1 outbreak, President refuses to allow his own children to be inoculated with controversial shot

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 27, 2009

Congressman Ron Paul has questioned why, despite his efforts to encourage the general public to get vaccinated against the H1N1 virus, President Barack Obama has refused to allow his own daughters to take the swine flu shot.

Despite the fact that Obama on Friday declared a national emergency in response to the H1N1 outbreak, he apparently doesn’t deem it enough of a threat to have his two daughters vaccinated against the virus.

Such double standards have led media pundits to call for Obama to get his daughters vaccinated on live television, in an effort to encourage American parents to do the same for their kids. The swine flu vaccination program, which was initially intended to be a “mass” inoculation covering the entire population, has been rejected by a majority of Americans who harbor deep suspicions about dangerous additives contained in the vaccine such as mercury and squalene.

In a Campaign For Liberty video message, former Presidential candidate Ron Paul labeled the vaccination program a “failure,” and slammed Obama for failing to follow the same advice he gave to the nation.

“It’s interesting to note that the President’s children have not gotten their shots and the explanation for this is it hasn’t been available to them – now that’s a little bit hard to buy when you think that probably anything the President wants can be available for their children,” said Paul, adding, “So in a way he’s made his decision not to give his children these inoculations – so if he has freedom of choice on this, I would like to make sure that all the American people have the same amount of freedom of choice.”

Others have echoed similar sentiments. “Surely if there is a national emergency and if the President and First Lady of the United States wanted flu shots for their daughters, they could get them. It is certainly connected to our national security right? I mean the president needs to have his wits about him 24/7 not worrying over sick children. Could this instead be yet another case of “do as I say, not as I do” from the Obama administration?” writes Cathryn Friar.

Paul compared Obama’s hypocrisy to politicians who lobby for the virtues of public education yet in every instance educate their own children privately.

“The biggest champions of public education make sure their kids never get public education, they always get private education where there’s a lot better choices than the kind of system they’re promoting,” said the Congressman.

Obama certainly isn’t stupid enough to inject his own kids with the same toxic soup that he encourages the idiot public to receive, and will probably be keen on getting access to the special additive-free swine flu shots produced by Baxter International that have been made available for the elite.

As Spiegel Online reported earlier this month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and government ministers received a mercury and squalene-free H1N1 vaccine. “The Vakzin [vaccine] does not contain disputed additives — contrary to the vaccine for the remainder of the population,” reported the newspaper. Soldiers in the German army were also given the adjuvant-free vaccine.

Employees of the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany also received the “green” inoculation after their president Johannes Löwer labeled the vaccine a greater threat than the virus itself.
Löwer’s comment came after German lung specialist Wolfgang Wodarg said the vaccine increases the risk of cancer. The nutrient solution for the vaccine consists of cancerous cells from animals.

In the video update, Congressman Paul also warned that Obama’s emergency declaration on Friday was part of a plan to condition people to accept the notion of government as protector and coerce the public into complying with whatever they say, including forced quarantines.

Watch the Ron Paul clip below


Don Imus’ wife tells Sean Hannity that Obama should get his kids’ vaccinated on live TV

Prison Planet once again boo-hooing about censorship of Alex Jones despite their continued censorship of Real Truth Online

Prison Planet attacks Facebook for censoring links to Alex Jones’ latest movie while they still censor RTO and who knows how many others

by Larry Simons
October 23, 2009

Once again, Prison Planet is up to their old tricks: complaining about being censored, then censoring others only to go right back and continue to complain about being censored. Prison Planet writer and webmaster Paul Joseph Watson [pictured above] seems to still be practicing the golden rule from the hypocrisy playbook: Act perplexed that others are not doing unto you what you would have them do to you, then do unto them the very same deed you were perplexed about, then act perplexed that they are not doing unto you what you would have them do unto you all over again.

Watson condemns social networking website Facebook for blocking links to Alex Jones’ new film Fall of the Republic. Prison Planet has often condemned others such as YouTube for censoring or deleting altogether Alex Jones YouTube pages, Ron Paul videos and the most recent ‘Joker’ videos from a contest Alex Jones started early this year.

Watson has a point. After all, this is America where free speech is not only a first amendment right, but is also one of the staples that makes our country great. You should be able to post anything you want on a website as long as it is not violating a law, threatening someone with violence, posting a person’s personal information [like address and phone number] or blatantly spreading false information about something or someone.

I violated none of the aforementioned common sense rules when I exposed Prison Planet in September for censoring my comments after they ran a story of a fake interview actor Charlie Sheen had with Barack Obama. Prison Planet didn’t just stop at that. They also deleted all 21 articles I had written for them from December 2007 to September 2009. They did that in order to block any access to my site from their site, I’m assuming to prevent anyone from coming to my site and reading the truth about how they censor websites as well.

In Watson’s latest story of the Facebook censorship. He posts evidence of the Facebook censorship by way of a YouTube video.


I also posted evidence of how Prison Planet censors commenting on their site in a story I did, here, in late September


Just today I posted a comment on Watson’s Facebook story. It immediately appeared posted on the comment thread so I captured a screen shot of it. When I refreshed my screen moments later, it was gone.

Here is the proof. Notice the comment by “DomenK” above my post


After I refreshed the screen and my comment was gone, a new comment appeared underneath “DomenK”, clearly exposing the fact that my comment had either been deleted, or systematically ejected because of my blocked IP address.


Not only is any story Prison Planet does on censorship from this point on profoundly hypocritical and discredited, but I find it interesting that they find it unbelievable that other entities like Facebook would censor them, especially since Watson admits in his latest article that Facebook appears to be pro-Obama.

Watson says, “Facebook has been staunchly pro-Obama since his election, even offering an ‘Obama skin’ page design that the company bragged was used by hundreds of thousands of people.” So, Watson, why is it shocking that they censored Jones’ links?

If they are pro-Obama and someone is posting links to an anti-Obama film, well, of course they would censor! Such behavior may be understandable, but at the very least it is fraudulent. Likewise, it may be understandable for Prison Planet to ban me for the exposés I have done about Alex Jones in the past 2 months, but [especially for them] it is very fraudulent, since Prison Planet has always been a defender of free speech, liberty and proclaiming that people should NOT be banned for simply telling the truth.

What makes Prison Planet complete frauds in my in particular case is the fact that I hold many of the same views they advocate on their site. Yet when I disagree with them on one particular issue, they not only censor my comments but delete every single story I have ever written for them.

To prove that I have not harbored the exact same behavior as Prison Planet in retaliation of their blatant hypocrisy in censoring me, I have even posted several of Paul Watson's stories on my site since my fued with them over this censorship issue. Why did I post them? Because they were good stories and it was the truth. My motivation for posting them was not to prove I am a better man than Paul Watson and Alex Jones, but because I posted them, proves I am a better man than Paul Watson and Alex Jones. My site is not about any one man. It's not about Alex Jones. It's not about Ron Paul. It's about the truth....regardless of where the source is.

I am 100% certain the main reason Watson is exposing Facebook about their censorship of Alex Jones’ movie, besides it being anti-free speech, is because Watson would probably argue that the people who run Facebook did not debunk one thing in Jones’ film. Watson would probably argue that the lack of refutation of Jones’ film on the part of Facebook is an admittance that the content is true and cannot be debunked.

This is exactly what Prison Planet did to me. They blocked me from commenting on their stories and deleted every article I had posted on their site, and they did all of that without offering ONE refutation of my stories on any of their sites. How is Prison Planet any different than Facebook?

Actually, Facebook is different than Prison Planet. Paul Watson even admitted it in his story. Watson says, “It is important to stress that this does not occur for all versions of Fall Of The Republic posted on Facebook. For example, the link posted at the top of http://www.facebook.com/FallOfTheRepublic can still be shared. However, if it is a policy for Facebook to block links to this film, then we can expect more different versions to be censored in future.”

So, in other words, Facebook did not completely censor everything. Prison Planet, on the other hand, did completely delete every story of mine from their site and has banned me completely from posting comments.

So, Facebook is different from Prison Planet. Facebook still allows unfavorable content on their site!

Planning on making coffee naked in your own kitchen? Not in America, pal!

Virginia man is arrested for being naked in his own house

by Larry Simons
October 21, 2009

29-year-old Springfield, Virginia resident, Eric Williamson, decided to wake up Monday morning, walk downstairs and, like many Americans, have a few cups of morning joe. But, probably unlike many Americans, Williamson strolled into his kitchen feeling an unfamiliar breeze on his ass and nutsack.

He was naked.

No big deal, right? After all, it was 5:30 in the morning, he was alone, the house was mostly dark and it was still dark outside. Not a big deal to let Mr. Happy dangle in the open air and freeball, one would assume.

One would assume wrong.

Apparently, Williamson just happened to be enjoying 'naked coffee time' at the very same time one of his neighbors was taking her daily 5:30 a.m. stroll with her 7-year-old son. Needless to say, the neighbor walked by the house, saw Williamson through his window and learned the ‘bare’ facts; that in 2009, people have the audacity to walk around naked in their own houses.

Naturally, like any concerned citizen would do, she immediately called the police. God knows if she hadn’t, this could have caused an irreversible chain reaction where hundreds…thousands…hell, even millions of Americans would have followed suit and simultaneously disrobed while enjoying their coffee [or bacon and eggs for that matter], causing the planets to realign, forcing the new disciples of nudedom to take over the world.

Obviously, the female neighbor would not let that happen, so she called the Fairfax County Police to the scene immediately. Who cares if they are too busy responding to drug dealers, murderers or bank robbers? This is a naked man in his own house we’re talking about here! Priorities, people…priorities!

“Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me” , Williamson said. Good point. Isn’t anyone wondering why a woman is milling around at 5:30 a.m. with her 7-year-old son looking in people’s windows?

Doesn't an incident like this fall within the same rule of thumb that if you don't like what is on a certain channel, you simply just click to another one? If you don't like looking at a nude man inside of his own house, look at another house that has it's lights off inside! Look at a fucking tree. Look at the sidewalk. Look at the stars. Look at a street sign. Look at anything except the naked man's scrotum if it offends you so much! Or just walk away! If I was the cop that arrived on the scene, my first question to the woman would have been, "Why didn't you just keep walking or simply just not look?"

Fairfax County Police officers arrested Williamson for indecent exposure because they believe that he actually wanted the public to see him in the nude. Wouldn’t Williamson have increased the chances of him being seen if he had been outside of his house, or if the sun had come up and there was a larger number of people around? Since it was dark, how did he even know there was anyone walking around outside?

If Williamson is convicted on the misdemeanor charge, he will face up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Trial lawyer Dickson Young says that the Virginia statute requires an intentional display of ones private parts in order for someone to be convicted of indecent exposure. This would exclude an individual accidentally, occasionally or inadvertently displaying ones private area.

Young also said that in order for Williamson to be convicted of a crime, the police and the state would have to prove that Williamson knew the neighbors were outside the house when Williamson was inside naked.

It sure is good to know that there are police officers still willing to ‘crack’ cases like this. One thing baffles me. Why didn’t the neighbor just turn the other cheek?

watch the clip

Alex Jones interviews David Ray Griffin

Griffin talks with Alex about his new book on the collapse of WTC 7 and the farce that was the National Geographic Channel 9/11 hit piece

by Larry Simons
October 20,2009

Danish Prime Minister Knew WTC Would Collapse

Giuliani received the same warning – victims and firefighters inside the tower did not
　
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 16, 2009

During a recent interview on Danish television, the former Prime Minister of Denmark admitted that he received a message 5 to 10 minutes beforehand telling him that the south tower of the World Trade Center was going to collapse, prompting questions as to why the victims and rescue personnel inside the building didn’t get the same warning.

Poul Nyrup Rasmussen told Denmark’s largest broadcast television network, The Danish Broadcasting Corporation, that before he walked into his office to hold a security meeting on the morning of 9/11, he got advance knowledge of the south tower’s imminent collapse.

"I am told that the first tower has completely collapsed….I received a message 5-10 minutes before it physically happened saying there was impending danger the tower would collapse so I knew disaster was coming" said Rasmussen.

Rasmussen added that the imminent collapse of the building was confirmed as soon as he entered his office.

The Danish Prime Minister was not the only high-level official to receive advance knowledge that the World Trade Center was going to collapse.

During an interview on 9/11 with ABC News’ Peter Jennings, then New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani stated, "I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."

In the eight years since the attacks, Giuliani has failed to explain how and why he received advance knowledge of this unprecedented event and why that same warning was not passed on to those inside the towers, who had been told to remain in their offices via loudspeaker after the first plane struck at 8:46am.

"Some people — it’s not clear how many — returned to their offices after announcements on the building’s emergency loudspeaker system said that it was safe to stay in the south tower," reported USA Today under the sub headline "announcements caused deaths," adding that to some this sounded like an order to return, not an option.

The fact that officials knew the tower was about to collapse as much as 10 minutes before it fell was completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission. If that same warning had been transmitted to those inside the towers who still had the capability to get out, hundreds of lives could have been saved.

Add to this the fact that the collapse of a steel building that was purposefully built to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner without collapsing through fire damage was a completely unprecedented event, and the notion that the 9/11 Commission wouldn’t even question these advance warnings sounds alarm bells and provides yet another reason why a new investigation is needed.

Watch the two clips below.