Is America On the Verge of a Soviet-Style Collapse? Ron Paul Says Yes, and That’s a Good Thing

Ron Paul: Collapse Of The USA A Good Thing What?!

And get this…Ron Paul says this in all in the name of the “promotion” of the U.S. Constitution…that’s right…because he wants to be a proponent of the U.S. Constitution the USA must collapse. What?!The fantasy of every PaulBot is quite a dangerous fantasy it is no different from the fantasies of your overt run of the mill Leftists and Communists whom desire for a Socialist Revolution within the United States as the “solution” for the economic crisis.

Ron Paul’s followers literally live in a cartoon world just like their Leftist/Communist counterparts…some of these Leftists like Naomi Wolf even endorse Ron Paul on top of that to make matters worse and also the Kremlin-run Russia Today also endorses Ron Paul as well.How is this a reasonable solution for the economic mess that the USA is in and the rest of the world is also in? Ron Paul and his crazy PaulBots have provided NO SOLUTIONS at all to the economic mess and instead they go out in a zombie-like formation like some badly written horror film demanding that their causes be implemented or else…and just like their Leftist and Communist counterparts it’s going to end in a big disaster that WOULD collapse the USA and give it that extra push to do so.The PaulBots and their leader Ron Paul will be no different than the effect of what Obama and his ObamaBots are already doing…in fact they might just make things a thousand times worse…

CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby

CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby
Oath Keepers ^ | October 11, 2010 | Stewart Rhodes

Posted on Monday, October 11, 2010 2:03:09 PM by Sopater

There has been some confusion about this case, leading some commentators to believe that the reference to John Irish’s “association” with Oath Keepers was in some other document, rather than in the affidavit relied on by the Court’s Order. Alex Jones’ site, in an effort to protect the privacy of the family, posted excerpts from two different documents, leading some to question where the reference actually was.

To clear that up, below you will find an embedded PDF which contains the full (though redacted) versions of the following documents: the two Petitions (one pertaining to each parent), the Court’s Ex Parte Order, the Affidavit of Dana Bickford which was attached, the Motion for Change of Venue, and lastly, the Notice to Accused Parent, explaining the legal process. We have highlighted in yellow all text where the Petitions or the Court Order refers to the Affidavit which contains reference to Oath Keepers.

By looking at the below documents, you will be able to see from the two Petitions, the Order, and Affidavit item #7, in that order, that:

1. Both Petitions state: “7. Details or Details or facts of abuse/neglect (attach separate sheet if necessary): See affidavit filed with the Concord Family Court.”

2. The Court’s Ex Parte Order states:

“Findings of Fact:

There is reasonable cause to believe that the child is in such circumstances or surroundings as would present an imminent danger to the child’s health or life, which require the immediate placement of the child for the following reasons:

See attached affidavit”

Thus, the Court’s Order does, in fact, refer to, and adopt all of the reasons given in the Affidavit as being the reasons for the order.

3. The Attached Affidavit, referenced by the Petitions and adopted by the Court as its findings of fact, includes, at #7: “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the, “Oath Keepers,” and had purchased several different types of weapons, including a rifle, handgun and taser.”

This is how all such petitions are done. The same goes for a restraining order. The petition is supported by affidavit laying out the reasons, and then if the judge finds those reasons sufficient, he or she issues the order. Such orders always rely on the affidavit attached to the petition. And in this case, the Order explicitly states that the reasons in support are listed in the “attached affidavit.”

We have posted these documents with the permission of both parents, but we redacted (blacked out) all the personal information and allegations that do not pertain to Oath Keepers or gun ownership. This was done in part to respect the privacy of the family, including the kids. It is out of such concerns that family court proceedings are usually closed to the public and I think it would be improper to post the entirety of the affidavit for the same reason. If the parents choose to post a non-redacted version, they can do it themselves (we left in their address because they have given that information out in several interviews, asking for donations to their defense fund),

More to the point, we also blacked out the parts unrelated to Oath Keepers and to gun ownership because my focus in this case is on the illegitimate listing of a father’s political affiliations and his gun ownership as a reason to take his daughter away from him and also away from her mother. That the Court relied on an affidavit that explicitly lists the father’s association with Oath Keepers to issue that order makes it important to all ten thousand dues paying members of Oath Keepers (many of them current serving police and military), and also makes it important to the estimated thirty thousand people (and growing) who have “associated” with Oath Keepers in the past, or still do, on several social media sites, such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, on our email alert list, in the comments section of our main site, in our free state forums, or in person at our many meetings across the country, and the many additional tens of thousands who have “associated” with us at various rallies, summits, and forums across the nation.

This use of a father’s political association and his gun ownership is also important to many other Americans who don’t even associate with Oath Keepers because what happens in this case can impact the free speech and association rights of all of us, across the nation, of whatever political or social orientation. And that is why we must stand firm, now.

The declinists win

If anyone still doubted that America‘s foreign policy is in crisis, the appointment Friday of Thomas Donilon to be our new national-security adviser should be final proof.Set aside the fact that Donilon served as in-house counsel at Fannie Mae, the epicenter of the subprime-mortgage mess and subsequent financial meltdown — something any other administration would see as evidence of less than stellar judgment.

Set aside the reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said Donilon’s appointment would be a “disaster” or that Donilon fought hard against our military’s strategy for winning in Afghanistan — although that seems precisely why Obama now wants him in the White House.Even set aside the fact that Donilon’s mentor is our buffoon-in-chief, Vice President Joe Biden.The fact that such a lightweight now occupies the single most important job for shaping the future of American power, short of the presidency itself, shows that the administration sees national security as a relatively minor priority compared to, say, currying favor with the Muslim world or running down allies like Britain and Israel.Some background is in order.

Excerpt

What Libertarians Misunderstand

Recently, in a piece about the dangers inherent in libertarianism, I pointed out that libertarians, by applying their live-and-let-live philosophy to the moral sphere as well as the governmental, do nothing to maintain the societal moral framework that enables people to govern themselves from within and that ensures that Big Brother won’t have to do so from without. I recommend you read the piece.

Not surprisingly, this provoked some angry responses and fallacious counter-arguments. This article is my response to them.I will start with the one thing that characterizes libertarians as much as anything else:

a misunderstanding about the nature of law.

To illustrate the point, consider the commentary of “End the Fed,” a “devout libertarian” who posted under my first piece. He wrote,I don’t spend a lot of time dwelling on whether people should smoke crack or have abortions. My choice is drug free. My choice is not to have abortions. And if you want to do those things, I won’t criticize or judge you.I simply accept the fact that those things exist whether I want them to or not.

OK, now imagine if I said,…

Excerpt

Warning to Glenn Beck: Don’t Drink Diet Coke…

- Prison Planet.com – http://www.prisonplanet.com -

Warning to Glenn Beck: Don’t Drink Diet Coke

Posted By admin On October 11, 2010 @ 5:21 am In Featured Stories | 14 Comments

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
October 11, 2010

UPDATE: We are receiving reports that while Glenn Beck was out of town for medical treatment, his fill in host made a sardonic joke about the health dangers of drinking coca-cola. To remind everyone that this is a serious issue and not a joke – here’s Glenn Beck’s own Fox News reporting on how aspartame has been linked to a “wide range of cancers” in studies involving rats. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176258,00.html

On Friday, Glenn Beck ^[1] announced on his radio show that he will be taking a brief leave of absence for medical reasons. “There is something wrong with my voice, and we’re not sure what it is,” Beck said ^[2], according to a transcript on his website. “They’re going to be doing CAT scans and MREs or MRIs and PET scans and they’re going to be doing blood work like crazy.”

As a Mormon, Beck is forbidden to drink coffee, but he drinks a large amount of Diet Coke.

In July, the Fox News host admitted that he is suffering from macular dystrophy, an eye disorder that causes vision loss. “Yes, I have a problem with my eyes,” Beck told an audience ^[3] of 6,000 in Salt Lake City. “A couple of weeks ago, I went to the doctor because I can’t focus my eyes … So I went to the best doctor I could find… he did all kinds of tests, and he said I have macular dystrophy.”

Glenn Beck may not know it, but it is almost certain he is another victim of Rumsfeld Plague ^[4]. On September 29, the New York Times published a long article about Beck. “His Mormonism forbids coffee, but he consumes a lot of Diet Coke and chocolate,” writes Mark Leibovich ^[5].

Coca-Cola began putting the “sugar substitute” aspartame in Diet Coke in 1982. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death.

In 1999, the Independent on Sunday discovered that the maker of aspartame, Monsanto, uses genetically engineered bacteria to produce the “sweetener” at its U.S. production plants. Aspartame is made by combining phenylalanine, which is naturally produced by bacteria, with another amino acid. To make the bacteria produce more phenylalanine, Monsanto has genetically engineered them. “Increasingly, chemical companies are using genetically engineered bacteria in their manufacturing process without telling the public,” said Dr. Erik Millstone ^[6], of the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University, and a member of the National Food Alliance, told the newspaper.

FBI brings bomb dogs to hospital demonstration in effort to smear dissent against state kidnapping of children on political grounds as domestic extremism ~ Feds Treat Baby-Snatch Protesters Like Terrorists…

- Prison Planet.com – http://www.prisonplanet.com -

Feds Treat Baby-Snatch Protesters Like Terrorists

Posted By admin On October 11, 2010 @ 5:22 am In Featured Stories, News In Focus, Paul Watson Articles | 7 Comments

FBI brings bomb dogs to hospital demonstration in effort to smear dissent against state kidnapping of children on political grounds as domestic extremism

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com ^[1]
Monday, October 11, 2010

In an effort to chill free speech and smear those who dare to stand up for their constitutional rights as terrorists, the FBI sent bomb-sniffing dogs into Concord Hospital New Hampshire on Friday to coincide with a protest against the snatching of a baby by the DCYF, which was partly justified on the basis that father Jonathon Irish was affiliated with the Oath Keepers organization and owned guns.

The court-ratified affidavit used to rip newly born Cheyenne Taylor from her mother’s arms, which was confirmed on Saturday by the Union Leader ^[2], cites Irish’s association with the Oath Keepers, a peaceful group of current and former police and military professionals committed to disobeying unconstitutional orders, and also Irish’s ownership of guns, as two justifications to take the baby.

The affidavit in support of the decision to take the child states, “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers and had purchased several different types of weapons, including a rifle, handgun and taser,” confirming that political beliefs were, amongst other reasons, one of the primary factors behind the snatching of the baby.

In reaction to the controversy, half a dozen people gathered to show their support for Jonathon Irish and Stephanie Taylor at a demonstration on Friday at the hospital.

Despite there being no threat, no warning and no genuine purpose, “FBI bomb-sniffing dogs were at Concord Hospital on Friday after demonstrators gathered to protest a newborn being removed from her mother’s care by the state,” reports WMUR 9 News ^[3].

“The hospital said there was no threat made….The FBI left the hospital without finding anything threatening,” adds the report.

In other words, the feds wanted local news to report on the bomb sniffing dogs in order for the public to make a connection between the demonstrators and violent terrorists, while also attempting to legitimize the seizure of the baby in the first place by creating contrived paranoia and suggesting that a protest involving less than a dozen people was a genuine terror threat.

By manufacturing a non-existent bomb threat, the feds were keen to send a message that people who oppose the lucrative government child abduction racket, where babies are seized in return for massive cash incentives and the children sold on to transnational corporations like Dyncorp and Halliburton who run sex slave rings ^[4], are domestic extremists.

Devvy — We must stop vote fraud on November 2, 2010 — 10/10/10

By: Devvy

October 10, 2010I became aware of electronic vote fraud and the stealing of our elections back in 1993. Like tens of thousands of Americans, I keep pounding on this issue. We have the right to fair and impartial elections.

As someone who ran for Congress and was cheated, I know what it’s like. It’s unacceptable and un-American. Shame on “Americans” whose blind loyalty to a political party is more important than honesty and integrity to the degree they are participants in rigging our elections.The elections are November 2nd — less than a month from now. There are some key races that should be very close according to polls. John Dennis can beat Nutty Nancy Pelosi and Sharron Angle can beat Harry Reid. However, if the machines and scanners are preprogrammed, no amount of money and votes for them will bring a win.It isn’t just motivating people to get off their backsides and vote, it’s all about the machines and scanners that will decide the outcome.

In addition to being a precinct watcher and other suggestions – dare I repeat myself for the millionth time — candidates must audit the vote the day after they allegedly lose.The Motor Voter Law of 1993 opened the flood gates for vote fraud. No?Watch this short video: DOJ Whistleblower: Obama Administration is Planning November Vote FraudDOJ mandate is to leave illegals and deceased folks on the voting rollsVoting by snail mail and on the Internet is utter stupidity to save a few bucks and a giant invitation for fraud. Millions of illegals are voting for Democrats when they have no right to vote in any election.

I have never been a supporter of absentee ballots except for individuals in the hospital, military and restricted categories. I’ve always been a supporter to make Saturday voting day so people won’t use and abuse absentee ballots. Make election day a Saturday. That will bring voters to the polls who actually want to exercise their right to vote. Individuals who work on Saturday can still be given the allotted time by an employer to go vote…

You Are a Secret Conspiracy Theorist by Liam Scheff

You Are a Secret Conspiracy Theoristby Liam ScheffRecently by Liam Scheff: Five False Predictions of the AIDS Establishmentby Liam Scheff You! Yes, you, sane and calm, worldly-wise and down-to-earth. You’re not a conspiracy theorist, are you?Of course not! You don’t go along with plots to hatch and scheme and plans to deceive? Do you?But do you ever deceive? Do you personally ever participate in deception?

Well…everybody fibs now and then, right? No? But what about a real deception? You’re not part of one of those…Would you know if you were? What if most deception is self-deception? Is it a philosophical question? No, it’s a real-world problem.So, are you a conspiracy theorist?But what is a conspiracy? What is conspiracy but deception between two or more individuals or parties? In simplest terms, a “conspiracy” is first and foremost an untruth, or deception – a lie – told by one person, or by many people, to another person, or to many people. Have a gander: “The arguments for a conspiracy theory are indeed often dismissed on the grounds that no one conspiracy could possibly control everything. But that is not what this theory sets out to show. Quigley is not saying that modern history is the invention of an esoteric cabal designing events omnipotently to suit its ends. The implicit claim, on the contrary, is that a multitude of conspiracies contend in the night. Clandestinism is not the usage of a handful of rogues, it is a formalized practice of an entire class in which a thousand hands spontaneously join.

Conspiracy is the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means.” ~ Carl Ogelsby [Read all about it]Oh, but you’re not a “Conspiracy Theorist,” are you?Sure you are! You’re soaking in it! You’re paying for the privilege.

Will posting comments here put YOU on the government’s watch list?

Will posting comments here put YOU on the government’s watch list?

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | October 10, 2010 | David CodreaPosted on Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:46:16 PM by Neil E. Wright

Several developments have occurred in recent days that indicate something as innocuous as visiting pro-gun rights websites that are critical of government Constitutional compliance, and especially participating in comments and forums, can results in heightened law enforcement scrutiny and even as a supporting criteria for “legal” intervention.On Friday, I told WarOnGuns readers I was aware of a child welfare case in New Hampshire where one of the criterion for removing a child from its parents was an ostensible membership of the father in what protective services was characterizing as “a militia known as the Oath Keepers.”

Long-time readers know we’ve discussed Oath Keepers–specifically not a militia group–many times, including attempts by the Department of Homeland Security, the Southern Poverty Law Center, opportunistic politicians, and certain media outlets to conflate them with violent haters. For this, and other reasons, I told WoG readers I was deferring to Rhodes to take the lead on this, and maintaining contact with him behind the scenes.He has since issued this report, used as the basis for a WorldNetDaily story by Bob Unruh.

It appears the father in question’s tie to OathKeepers was that he commented on their forums. A danger, per Rhodes: But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody. Talk about chilling speech!

Excerpt

Obama has the book thrown at him: Moment a missile narrowly misses the U.S. President’s head

This is the astonishing moment a book was apparently hurled at the head of U.S. President Barack Obama during a campaign rally in Philadelphia.The flying missile narrowly missed hitting the President today.It is not clear what the book was, where it came from in the crowd, or why it was thrown at Mr Obama – who did not appear to notice the danger.But it is expected that there will be fallout from the security breach as the Secret Service investigates how close the President came to danger.

The rally was clearly an eventful one – other images showed a naked man being led away in handcuffs by police.It is not clear if the man was involved in the book-throwing incident – or why he was not wearing any clothes.The bizarre incident recalled the moment in 2008 when an angry Iraqi journalist hurled a shoe at then-U.S. President George Bush during a press conference in Baghdad.The surprisingly nimble Mr Bush ducked the shoe – and the moment became immortalised with online parodies and internet video games.But the incident was also marked with controversy as U.S. media questioned why the Secret Service – whose members are supposed to be willing to take a bullet for the President – were not close enough to Mr Bush to deflect the attack.

It is expected that the same questions will be asked about today’s incident.

Excerpt