Ron Paul: Dollar Collapse Will Spur 2012 Presidential Run

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 13, 2010

Congressman Ron Paul has indicated that he will embark on a bid to become President in 2012 if the economic crisis worsens and leads to a dollar collapse, hinting for the first time that the Ron Paul Revolution, which was the grass roots precursor to the Tea Party, will once again be ignited as it was to such great fervor in 2008.

“Events can change quickly, and I believe sincerely we’re moving toward a much more major economic crisis. Depending on where we are on that might help me make that decision,” said Paul, who gave a speech to Tea Party enthusiasts in Richmond Virginia this past weekend.

The Congressman said that a further financial collapse was “95% likely… [because] right now the whole world is racing to beat their currencies because they think it’s going to help trade…But let me tell you, if the bombs started to fall on Iran, hold your hat, because that would be, I believe, the end of our dollar system. And we would have a real skirmish to find out what we’re going to replace this government with.”

Though Paul denied it had any connection with a White House bid, the Congressman is set to speak at the University of Iowa later this month, “An appearance many pundits have pegged as his first WH stump in the critical caucus state,” points out HotlineOnCall’s Lindsey Boerma.

Indeed, Paul will make three separate speeches in Iowa on October 29.

Political commentator and friend of Paul, New Jersey Star Ledger writer Paul Mulshine, is as certain as he can be that the Congressman will run.

“I’ve been covering him longer than any journalist I know…..I never bet more than a six-pack of beer on politics. But from Paul’s recent remarks, I’m willing to stake six cold ones on a bet that he’s running,” writes Mulshine, noting that Paul is in good physical shape for a man of 75 and is more energized than ever before.

Mulshine also points out that the field will be full of candidates who claim to be real conservatives but who in fact are liberal internationalists by the very nature of the policies they advocate – easy pickings for someone who has embraced true constitutional principles his entire life.

It looks like the field for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination is filled with candidates who espouse the essentially left-wing view that it is the role of the United States government to straighten out the politics of every country on Earth. So Paul is perfectly suited to be the sole candidate pushing the traditional conservative position against foreign entanglements.

Can you imagine the fun of pointing out real right-wing policies to a field full of liberal internationalists who don’t even know they’re liberal internationalists? I don’t think Paul can resist the opportunity to be on the debate stage listening to Newt Gingrich talk about how great Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were. Then there’s the chance to hear Sarah Palin tell us why we should be going to war over South Ossetia or some other obscure place she knows nothing about.

And then there’s the opportunity of debating Mitt Romney on the question of how the health-care plan he pioneered in Massachusetts differs from Obamacare. Hint: It doesn’t.

Looking back to the last election may provide us with a better indication of the timing. Paul announced his 2008 campaign in January 2007, suggesting that any announcement regarding 2012 is likely to be made in early 2011.

Whether or not it will sway his decision, there’s no doubt that the vast majority of Ron Paul’s supporters are eager for the Congressman to once again hit the campaign trail. A poll conducted on one fan site which attracted over 6,000 votes came out 92% in favor of Paul running in 2012.


The End of America: Movie
9/11 Visibility Website
The Exceptional Patriot: Dr. David Ray Griffin
The Exceptional Patriot: Naomi Wolf
The Exceptional Patriot: Charlie Sheen
The Exceptional Patriot: Ed Asner
The Exceptional Patriot: Jesse Ventura
Primitive Evil Resurrected in Bedford, Pennsylvania





Top Lists

First Amendment Ruling Destined to Kill Internet Free Speech

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
October 6, 2010

It now appears certain the Supreme Court will rule against the First Amendment. “The justices appeared inclined to set a limit to freedom of speech when ordinary citizens are targeted with especially personal and hurtful attacks. The First Amendment says the government may not restrict free speech, but it is less clear when it also shields speakers from private lawsuits,” reports the Los Angeles Times this afternoon.

If the Court rules against the First Amendment, it will not only effect demonstrations and public displays, but also curtail freedom of speech on the internet, as one Justice pointed out today.

The case now before the Court concerns the Phelps family from Topeka, Kansas, who have picketed military funerals and proclaimed that God is punishing America and its soldiers for its tolerance of homosexuality. The case reached the Court after a Maryland father of a Marine killed in Iraq sued the Phelps family for holding up signs near his funeral that said “Thank God for IEDs” and also for posting remarks on their website that accused Albert Snyder of having raised his son “to defy the Creator” and “serve the devil.” A Maryland court awarded Snyder $5 million in damages, but the award was subsequently thrown out on the grounds it violates the First Amendment.

The Los Angeles Times may claim that the First Amendment is unclear, but as former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black noted in in Rosenblatt v. Baer, the wording of the First Amendment makes it perfectly clear that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. It does not say freedom of speech shall be denied and held unlawful if it is distasteful and produces an emotional response.

“An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment,” Black opined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other framers were products of the Age of Enlightenment and as such believed in the power of reason and the search for truth. They considered freedom of expression and inquiry essential to the process of debate and discovery required for the maintenance of liberty and a republic.

In the American Colonies, people were convicted of seditious libel for speaking or writing against the King of England and his agents. In response, the Founders created the First Amendment and made it the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. In the not too distant past, the Court ruled that political speech was what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.

According to one libertarian thinker of the period, a citizen had the right to “say everything which his passions suggest; he may employ all his time, and all his talents… to do so, in speaking against the government matters that are false, scandalous and malicious,” and yet he should be “safe within the sanctuary of the press.” Speech was considered beyond the reach of criminal sanctions. Only “overt acts” were punishable.

Snyder v. Phelps does not concern overt acts. It focuses on “outrageous” speech that is claimed to have caused “severe emotional distress.”

In 1964 in the New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that civil liability for speech may violate the First Amendment due to the fact the threat of massive damages tends to dampen the exercise of free speech. From 1880 onward, state courts have treated constitutional free expression guarantees as constraining civil liability. No longer.

Congress provided the enemies of free speech and the First Amendment an ally when it confirmed Elena Kagan to sit on the bench. In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (Emphasis added.)

As noted by the Los Angeles Times, the Supremes earlier today “sounded sympathetic” to rolling back the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

Moreover, Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted that the court’s ruling will have an impact on the internet, since it tests whether vicious personal attacks can lead to lawsuits.

If the Supremes rule that First Amendment no longer protects controversial and even emotionally hurtful speech, the internet will no longer be an open forum for the free expression of opinions and ideas.

How many bloggers and journalists in the alternative media have pockets deep enough to defend against politicians and public figures who may claim “severe emotional distress” in response to criticism?


The End of America: Movie
9/11 Visibility Website
The Exceptional Patriot: Dr. David Ray Griffin
The Exceptional Patriot: Naomi Wolf
The Exceptional Patriot: Charlie Sheen
The Exceptional Patriot: Ed Asner
The Exceptional Patriot: Jesse Ventura
Primitive Evil Resurrected in Bedford, Pennsylvania





Top Lists

Bill Gates says vaccines can help reduce world population

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
October 1, 2010

In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.”



Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number — P (for People) — might be reduced. He says:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

You can watch this yourself at:

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…

Reducing the world population through vaccines

This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.

So what does it mean when Bill Gates says “if we do a really great job on new vaccines… we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent?”

Clearly, this statement implies that vaccines are a method of population reduction. So is “health care,” which all NaturalNews readers already know to be more of a “sick care” system that actually harms more people than it helps.

Perhaps that’s the whole point of it. Given that vaccines technology help almost no one from a scientific point of view (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…), it raises the question: For what purpose are vaccines being so heavily pushed in the first place?

Bill Gates seems to be saying that one of the primary purposes is to reduce the global population as a mechanism by which we can reduce CO2 emissions. Once again, watch the video yourself to hear him say it in his own words:

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…

How can vaccines actually be used to reduce world population?

Let’s conduct a mental experiment on this issue. If vaccines are to be used to reduce world population, they obviously need to be accepted by the majority of the people. Otherwise the population reduction effort wouldn’t be very effective.

And in order for them to be accepted by the majority of the people, they obviously can’t just kill people outright. If everybody started dropping dead within 24 hours of receiving the flu shot, the danger of vaccines would become obvious rather quickly and the vaccines would be recalled.

Thus, if vaccines are to be used as an effective population reduction effort, there are really only three ways in which they might theoretically be “effective” from the point of view of those who wish to reduce world population:

#1) They might kill people slowly in a way that’s unnoticeable, taking effect over perhaps 10 – 30 years by accelerating degenerative diseases.

#2) They might reduce fertility and therefore dramatically lower birth rates around the world, thereby reducing the world population over successive generations. This “soft kill” method might seem more acceptable to scientists who want to see the world population fall but don’t quite have the stomach to outright kill people with conventional medicine. There is already evidence that vaccines may promote miscarriages (http://www.naturalnews.com/027512_v…).

#3) They might increase the death rate from a future pandemic. Theoretically, widespread vaccination efforts could be followed by a deliberate release of a highly virulent flu strain with a high fatality rate. This “bioweapon” approach could kill millions of people whose immune systems have been weakened by previous vaccine injections.

This is a known side effect of some vaccines, by the way. A study documenting this was published in PLoS. Read the story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028538_s…

Here’s the study title and citation: Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus?

Viboud C, Simonsen L (2010) Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? PLoS Med 7(4): e1000259. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000259

The short answer is yes, seasonal flu vaccines do cause increased susceptibility to the H1N1 pandemic virus. In other words, seasonal flu vaccines could set up the population for a “hard kill” pandemic that could wipe out a significant portion of the global population (perhaps 10 to 15 percent, as Bill Gates suggested).

Conveniently, their deaths could be blamed on the pandemic, thereby diverting blame from those who were really responsible for the plot. As yet another beneficial side effect for the global population killers, the widespread deaths could be used as a fear tool to urge more people to get vaccinated yet again, and the entire cycle could be repeated until world population was brought down to whatever manageable level was desired… all in the name of health care!

The more people around the world are vaccinated before the release of the “hard kill” pandemic virus, the more powerful the effect of this approach.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into vaccine programs targeting people all over the world. One such program is researching the development of “sweat-triggered vaccines” that could use specially-coated nano-materials to deliver vaccines to people without using injections.

More interestingly, his foundation has also invested millions in sterilization technologies that have been called a “temporary castration” solution. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028887_v…)

It seems that the actions of the Gates foundation are entirely consistent with the formula for CO2 reduction that Bill Gates eluded to in his TED conference speech: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

By reducing birth rates (through sterilization technologies) and increasing vaccine penetration throughout the world population (by using sweat-triggered nano-vaccines), his stated goal of reducing the world population by 10 to 15 percent could be reached within just a few years.

Who will be left alive? The smart people

The interesting thing about all this is that this campaign to reduce global population through vaccines will obviously not impact people who consciously avoid vaccines. And those people, by and large, tend to be the more intelligent, capable people who actually have an improved ability to move human civilization forward with thoughtful consideration.

I can only imagine that those people designing this vaccine-induced population control measure might be sitting around a table chuckling to themselves and saying, “It’s only the stupid people that are going to be killed off anyway, so this is actually helping the future of humankind!” (Their words, not mine.)

In a weird world government kind of way, this effort might actually be based on some distorted vision of philanthropy where some of the most powerful people in the world quite literally believe the way to save humanity is to kill off as many of the gullible people as possible. Vaccines are, in effect, an “evil genius” kind of way to conduct an IQ test on the population at large: If you go get vaccinated every flu season, you’re not too bright and probably don’t engage the kind of strong mental faculties that humanity will no doubt need if it is to face a future where it is now all but obvious we are not alone in the universe.

If humanity is to save itself from its own destruction and compete as an uplifted species in our universe, killing off the least intelligent members of society (or making them infertile) may appear to the world controllers to be a perfectly reasonable approach. I disagree with that approach, but it may be precisely what they are thinking.

In any case, choosing to receive a seasonal flu shot is undoubtedly an admission that you have failed some sort of universal IQ test, whether or not this is the intention of world influencers such as Bill Gates. More importantly, it is also a betrayal of your own biology, because it indicates you don’t believe in the ability of your own immune system to protect you even from mild infections.

Perhaps the world vaccine conspirators figure that if people are willing to betray themselves anyway, it’s not much different for governments and institutions to betray them as well. In other words, if you don’t even care enough about your own health to take care of your health, why should any government care about protecting your health, either?

As you ponder this, also consider something else: The U.S. is going broke due to sick-care costs which are rising dramatically under the new federal health care reform guidelines. Can you guess the fastest and easiest way to reduce those health care costs? If you guessed, “unleash a hard-kill pandemic that takes out a significant portion of the weak or sick people” then you guessed right. Sadly, killing off those most vulnerable to sickness could save the U.S. government literally billions of dollars in sick-care expenditures. Plus, it would save Social Security yet more billions by avoiding ongoing monthly payouts. (Again, I am completely against such an approach because I value human life, but I also know we live in a world where the people in charge have little or no respect for human life and will readily sacrifice human lives to achieve their aims.)

As far as Bill Gates goes, consider his statement in the context of what we’ve discussed here: “The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

It suddenly seems to make a lot of sense when you understand that reducing the population reduces CO2 emissions, and using more vaccines on more people increases the death rate of the population.

My advice? Try to avoid being among those 10 to 15 percent who get culled through global vaccine programs. You will not only save your life, you’ll also pass the “universal IQ test” which determines whether you’re smart enough to know that injecting your body with chemicals and viral fragments in order to stop “seasonal flu” is a foolish endeavor.

Be healthy and wise, and you’ll survive the world depopulation effort that victimizes conventional thinkers who don’t have the intelligence to question what they’re being told to do by their own corrupt governments.


The End of America: Movie
9/11 Visibility Website
The Exceptional Patriot: Dr. David Ray Griffin
The Exceptional Patriot: Naomi Wolf
The Exceptional Patriot: Charlie Sheen
The Exceptional Patriot: Ed Asner
The Exceptional Patriot: Jesse Ventura
Primitive Evil Resurrected in Bedford, Pennsylvania





Top Lists