Figures vindicate Paul campaign’s angry response to CBS News debate shame
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Despite being given just 89 seconds of speaking time during Saturday’s Republican debate, Congressman Ron Paul is in a dead heat with fellow top tier candidates Cain, Romney and Gingrich for the highly influential Iowa caucuses, placing second just one percentage point behind Cain amongst likely voters.
“A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away.”
Paul is undoubtedly in the strongest position going into the race, because his support is “more solidified than his rivals,” a key factor given that 60 per cent of respondents in the poll said they could still be persuaded to change their vote.
32 per cent of Paul’s backers say they are sticking with the Congressman, whereas only 25 per cent of Romney supporters and 17 per cent of Gingrich voters say the same.
Being the first event of the electoral nomination process, taking place this year on January 3, the Iowa caucuses are traditionally seen as a highly influential in determining the final GOP nominee. If Ron Paul takes Iowa he can no longer be ignored by the establishment media and will have a genuine shot at building momentum for a victorious campaign.
The results of the poll vindicate the Paul campaign’s angry response to CBS News’ treatment of the Congressman when he was afforded just 89 seconds out of a 90 minute debate on Saturday night in South Carolina.
It subsequently transpired that Paul and other candidates had been the victims of a deliberate CBS policy to restrict questions to so-called lesser candidates, despite the fact that Paul’s figures have consistently proven he is a top tier performer.
As Reason’s Seth McKelvey highlights, even candidates with significantly lower polling figures than Paul were given more time.
Despite his embarrassing faux-pas in the previous debate when he failed to remember the name of the federal agency he wanted to abolish, Rick Perry, whose support has been sinking for weeks, was given the most time out of all the candidates during the CBS News debate.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
Top Military Commander and Courts Support Right to Protest
In response to comments from those supporting the police crackdowns on peaceful protesters exercising their constitutional rights but violating local ordinances (see comments here), reader Purplemuse writes:
The Constitution supersedes local ordinances that are being used to OBSTRUCT 1st Amendment Rights. The camping ITSELF is in order to MAKE A STATEMENT – a First Amendment Right. Protesters are not camping because it is fun to expose yourself to the elements and hardship and you want to roast wienies and marshmallows and drink beer while swapping ghost stories.
Would you listen to Colin Powell, retired four-star general in the United States Army, Powell also served as National Security Advisor (1987–1989), as Commander of the U.S. Army Forces Command (1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993) when he says, “It isn’t enough just to scream at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. We need our political system to start reflecting this anger back into, ‘How do we fix it? How do we get the economy going again?’” He also states that the Occupy Wall Street Protests are “As American as Apple Pie.”
Does he go on to qualify his statement by saying, “as long as they obey local (misdemeanor) ordinances. No, he does not. He actually goes on to say that he “gets” it.
If a man, well above your rank, that you’d likely drop everything to stand up in a room to honor, “gets” that peaceful protests, by design (that’s why they are referred to as ‘civil disobedience’) infringe on ordinances and make the public uncomfortable in order to be heard, are as American as Apple Pie; do you think you could set your fear of disobedience aside long enough to defend those protesters against physical harm for exercising those American as Apple Pie Rights? If you can’t than I think you need to join the ranks of officers who simply “do as they are told” and jab petite women in the spleen with billy clubs (as in Berkeley) in order to incite a riot. (BTW: They did not succeed, Berkeley stood firm in determined peace).
(Watch Powell’s statement here).
Of course, it’s not just Powell. Veterans from every branch of the military – and across 3 generations – are coming out to support the “occupy” protests.
And in response to the Berkeley police saying that linking arms and resisting attempts to clear a space is an act of “violence”, reader David writes:
It is every citizen’s duty to resist false arrest
There is no such crime as “resisting arrest.” This is a fictitious crime dreamed up by law enforcement to accuse a citizen of a crime when they refuse to surrender to the illegal demands of the police.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that resisting a false arrest is not merely a citizen’s right, but his duty! In fact, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that if a law enforcement officer is killed as a result of actions stemming from a citizen’s attempts to defend themselves against a false arrest, it is the fault of the officer, not the citizen.
Here’s a short collection of relevant court rulings on false arrest and resisting arrest:
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
Do individuals have the right to come to the aid of another citizens being falsely arrested? You bet they do. As another court case ruled:
“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
And on the issue of actually killing an arresting officer in self defense:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
I believe that violence discredits the entire protest movement. I therefore hope that the protesters remain peaceful, even when confronted with unlawful arrests. However, as David points out, the police have no right to make unlawful arrests in the first place.
Orders all food to be destroyed with bleach
Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
Friday, November 11, 2011
It is the latest case of extreme government food tyranny, and one that is sure to have you reeling in anger and disgust. Health department officials recently conducted a raid of Quail Hollow Farm, an organic community supported agriculture (CSA) farm in southern Nevada, during its special “farm to fork” picnic dinner put on for guests — and the agent who arrived on the scene ordered that all the fresh, local produce and pasture-based meat that was intended for the meal be destroyed with bleach.
For about five years now, Quail Hollow Farm has been growing organic produce and raising healthy, pasture-based animals which it provides to members as part of a CSA program. And it recently held its first annual “Farm to Fork Dinner Event,” which offered guests an opportunity to tour the farm, meet those responsible for growing and raising the food, and of course partake in sharing a meal composed of the delicious bounty with others.
But when the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD) got word of the event and decided to get involved, this simple gathering of friends and neighbors around a giant, family-style picnic table quickly became a convenient target for the heavy hand of an out-of-control government agency. And Monte and Laura Bledsoe, the owners and operators of Quail Hollow Farm, were unprepared for what would happen next.
SNHD official Mary Oaks raids picnic without cause or warrant, orders destruction of dinner food
Laura Bledsoe explains in a letter to her guests written after the fact that two days prior to the event, SNHD contacted the farm to say that, because the picnic was technically a “public” event, the couple would have to obtain a “special use permit,” or else face a very steep fine. Not wanting to risk having the event disrupted, the Bledsoes agreed to jump through all the demanded legal hoops even though their gathering was really just a backyard picnic.
But the day of the event, an inspector from SNHD, Mary Oaks, showed up and declared that all the food the Bledsoes would be serving was “unfit for consumption,” and that it would have to be destroyed. Though there was no logical or lawful reasoning behind this declaration, and the Bledsoes had complied with all the requirements, Oaks insisted that the food be discarded and destroyed using a bleach solution.
One of the so-called reasons for this action included the fact that some of the food packaging did not contain labels, even though labels are not necessary if the food is eaten within 72 hours. Oaks also cited the fact that some of the meat was not US Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified, that the vegetables had already been cut and were thus a “bio-hazard,” and that there were no receipts for the food (which was all grown on the farm, not purchased from a grocery store).
You can view pictures of the event, as well as video footage of Inspector Oaks raiding the party, at the following link:
http://www.reallyvegasphoto.com/Eve…
Unaware of their rights, the Bledsoes initially complied with Oaks’ unlawful demands and destroyed the food. But shortly thereafter, Laura’s husband Monte remembered that they had an emergency contact number for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) on their refrigerator.
Shocked that they even had to resort to this desperate measure, the Bledsoes called FTCLDF for advice and spoke with General Counsel Gary Cox, who instructed them to ask Oaks for a search and arrest warrant, which of course she did not have. The Bledsoes then asked Oaks to leave the property, upon which she allegedly stormed off in anger and screamed that she was going to call the police.
Police eventually arrived, but unaware of why they had been called and what the alleged crime was, they, too, left and offered their apologies to the Bledsoes. Fortunately, the Bledsoes were able to improvise with the chef to create a whole new meal for their guests, which ended up turning out to be a type of blessing in disguise, according to Laura.
The entire shocking incident serves as a reminder to know your rights when it comes to food and health freedom. Without a proper search or arrest warrant, so-called health inspectors or law enforcement officials have no business on your property. And if they ever try to pull a stunt like what happened at Quail Hollow Farm at your gathering, you have every right to demand that they vacate your property as well.
Sources for this article include:
Be sure to read Laura’s full account of the raid here:
http://www.quailhollowfarmcsa.com/3…
And check out the video footage captured at the event, including footage of SNHD inspector Mary Oaks, here:
http://www.reallyvegasphoto.com/Eve…
They are here! Hot off the Press!
Yes the Ron Paul Mask is here and they are flying out of the warehouse as fast as we can make them.
CLICK HERE TO ORDER
Ron Paul Masks Are Here! Custom-over-sized, full-face latex- masks, with material-stretch-straps and padded-foam-inserts!
All the wonderful creations of DDI are the most intensely original over-sized masks you’ll find anywhere! Hand poured and painted in incredibly vivid colors, each Deluxe Mask appears to be absolutely alive with movement and must be seen to be believed!
We searched the Internet for the best Ron Paul mask we could find and we could not find anything worthy of Ron Paul’s campaign until I found DDI. They were just getting ready to go to press with their mask and we negotiated a deal to distribute them as soon as we could see the final quality. Well we saw them and here they are act now before our stock runs out.
More info
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
September 23, 2011
Editor’s note: The latest videos are located at the bottom of this post.
Infowars.com correspondents Darrin McBreen and Aaron Dykes are on the ground in Denver, Colorado, covering a massive martial law take-over drill now underway.
More than 100 federal and state agencies are currently involved in Operation Mountain Guardian, billed as a drill to simulate a terrorist attack based on events in Mumbai that killed 164 people in 2008.
Infowars.com will post video reports all day. McBreen and Dykes have filed several reports as of this morning:
Abigail Phillips
EFF
June 26, 2011
Efforts to harness law enforcement resources in the service of copyright enforcement continue apace. Last Thursday, the so-called “illegal streaming” bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (although that’s still some way away from becoming law). The bill would increase criminal copyright penalties to allow jail time of up to five years for infringing a copyright by “publicly performing” the copyrighted work, such as playing a sporting event broadcast or motion picture. (Currently, the maximum criminal penalty for unlawful public performance is a fine and/or prison sentence of up to one year.) Fortunately, there are limitations on when the new criminal penalties would apply. For example, only 10 or more unlawful public performances within a 180-day period would trigger the provisions. In addition, the current criminal statute contains basic thresholds such as a requirement that the infringement be willful.
The basis for the bill appears to derive from a list of legislative requests issued earlier this year by the Obama Administration’s IP Enforcement Coordinator, including a recommendation to establish that online streaming of infringing content can be punished as a felony. The push to increase penalties from misdemeanor (which they are now) to felony (which they would be under the bill) apparently is being driven in part by a belief that law enforcement will be more motivated to prosecute crimes that have more severe penalties, no matter that the criminal laws are supposed to be designed to deter and punish bad guys, not instigate good guys. We have to question the judiciousness of devoting spare government resources to prosecuting this kind of activity. It seems to us that illegal public performance is the kind of economic concern that can be effectively managed through existing civil remedies. Moreover, criminal copyright prosecutions need to show all the elements of civil copyright infringement, something civil courts are traditionally much better versed in.
In general, a “public performance” of a work under the Copyright Act occurs when a work is performed before a substantial gathering of people (for example, a concert) or when the work is transmitted in a way that it can be accessed by members of the public, even if individuals receive the performance in different places or at different times (for example, a TV broadcast).
As an initial matter, it’s hard to narrow the kinds of activities such a bill could potentially encompass. Practically speaking we wouldn’t expect to see most of these pursued or prevailing; however, uncertainty and the fear of prosecution and defense expenses could well discourage innovation in online services and lawful speech.
For example, while the legislation conceivably could capture hosting platforms like YouTube and caching services like Akamai, the lack of volitional conduct on the services’ part likely exonerates them. Presumably, too, one who merely embeds or links to a video would not be deemed to be making a public performance. Although at least one court has found copyright infringement where a website streamed content inline from another website, we believe that case was wrongly decided. On the other hand, ongoing law enforcement efforts to invoke provisions of the criminal law to seize domain names of websites that link to streaming content suggest that linking may yet be a target.
Online video distributors and providers of subscription TV services who rely on statutory licenses may have more pronounced concerns given that a violation of those licenses might appear to risk triggering the felony provisions. Likewise, copyright holders may use the threat of prosecution as leverage against broadcasters who transmit content pursuant to a license under dispute.
As for the individual who believes she is making a fair use of copyrighted work, she’ll want to be pretty confident or hope she can argue other thresholds in the bill are not met. It doesn’t seem likely this is the kind of activity prosecutors will pursue; then again, who wants to take a chance on five years’ jail time?
June 26, 2011
Alex confronts the efforts of the corporatist and bankster warmongers to take their destabilization campaign into Pakistan and crank up the conflict in Libya.
Press TV
June 26, 2011
A top former British intelligence official had misled the public about the former Iraqi regime’s weapons program to pave the way for war, it is now revealed.
Sir John Scarlett
The then Prime Minister Tony Blair had assigned Sir John Scarlett to write the notorious dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) on September 2002.
But, Scarlett, who was head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, sent a memo to Blair’s foreign affairs adviser referring to “the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional”.
Joint Intelligence Committee was duty-bound to give impartial intelligence-based advice to ministers, but in this case, intelligence has been misrepresented to make the case for war.
The former intelligence official Michael Laurie had told the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war that it was widely understood that the dossier was intended to make a case for war and misrepresented intelligence to this particular end. Now, Laurie’s claimed are evidenced by the disclosure.
Later, it was found that Scarlett had willfully made up the intelligence to look as credible as possible and render a war on Iraq as certain. He was awarded by Tony Blair the post of foreign intelligence agency’s chief in spite of all this.
Scarlett’s memo was sent to Sir David Manning, Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser, in March 2002 after an early draft of the dossier had been drawn up covering four countries with “WMD programmes of concern”: Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, had commented that the paper “has to show why there is an exceptional threat from Iraq. It does not quite do this yet.” In response, Scarlett suggested that the dossier could make more impact if it only covered Iraq. “This would have the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional,” he wrote.
Clare Short, the Labour cabinet minister who resigned after the war had started, said: “Those words show that John Scarlett was in on the deception from the beginning and was being duplicitous deliberately.”
Elfyn Llwyd, parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru, said: “It is clear to me that John Scarlett was not an objective player in all of this.” Llwyd asked why Chilcot had neither published the Scarlett memo nor questioned Scarlett about it. “It again calls into question the credibility of the inquiry,” he said.
The memo, released under the Freedom of Information Act, has been described as one of the most significant documents on the dossier yet published.
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
A bill that would criminalize invasive TSA pat downs in Texas has risen like a phoenix from the flames, with Governor Rick Perry being forced to include the item on the agenda for the current special session of the legislature, setting the stage for what could potentially become a watershed moment in the battle to peel back a federal power grab that has characterized the advance of big government.
Despite initially shirking responsibility by erroneously claiming that the bill did not have enough support to pass, Governor Perry was forced to place the item on the special session agenda yesterday, meaning TSA workers could face a year in jail or a $4,000 fine if they “touch the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person, even through that person’s clothing for the purpose of granting access to a building or a form of transportation,” according to the text of the legislation.
Under the terms of the Texas Constitution, Perry has the authority to forward bills for the consideration of the special session, and that’s precisely what he did yesterday, announcing, “Legislation relating to prosecution and punishment for the offense of official oppression of persons seeking access to public buildings and transportation.”
Following Perry’s announcement, sponsor of the bill Senator Dan Patrick stated, “The people’s voice has been heard in Austin. Thanks for the literally thousands of calls & e-mails. This is a “Come & Take It Moment” again for Texas… Once again Texas will take a stand that will reverberate around the nation.”
Absent the dirty tricks that shot down the progress of the legislation the first time around, the bill should have no problems in getting enough votes to be passed – the majority of state Senators support SB 29, with a number still undecided and just two against. The schedule for the special session is due to run until June 30, but Perry also has the authority to extend this deadline.
The real test will be how the federal government reacts to the passage of the legislation, a response which is likely to be characterized by two separate arguments.
One – the feds will simply claim that the bill is superseded by the Supremacy Clause of the US constitution, arguing that states cannot regulate the federal government, and will order TSA goons to continue groping Americans. This will kick start a massive states’ rights battle, but TSA workers will still be reticent to abuse their power for fear of lawsuits. However, if they pursue this route, the feds won’t have a leg to stand on. The Supremacy Clause merely states that the Constitution is supreme, not that the authority of the government is supreme. Indeed, if anything the Supremacy Clause works in favor of the anti-pat down bill because it reinforces the protections guaranteed by the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Two – the government will adopt an altogether more aggressive approach and repeat their threats of financial terrorism by resolving to impose a federal blockade to prevent flights operating out of Texas airports. This tactic was used to kill HB 1937 before it could even reach the Senate last month following the circulation of a letter written by DoJ Attorneys that threatened to cancel all commercial flights in the state. The power of the federal government to impose a de facto “no fly zone” over Texas is non-existent. If this is attempted, Texas airports could simply replace all TSA workers with private screeners and give the feds a symbolic middle finger. What’s more likely to happen is some kind of compromise deal, but TSA agents would still be less likely to carry out grope downs for fear of lawsuits.
Years of growing outrage over TSA grope-downs and naked body scanners has culminated in this momentous showdown. The outcome of this fight will determine the course of this issue for years to come, and will shape whether the TSA becomes a literal occupying army in a Sovietized America, or whether the organization itself and the Homeland Security takeover in general withers and dies.
URGENT – Contact the undecided Senators on this list and urge them to show their support for Senator Dan Patrick’s TSA Anti-Groping bill — SB 29.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars
Monday, June 20, 2011
Every indication suggests that Bilderberg-approved Texas Governor Rick Perry is set to become the frontrunner in the Republican race to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency, illustrating once again how a shady, secretive and undemocratic global elite holds the reigns of true power while Americans are distracted by the delusional notion that they have a genuine choice in 2012.
“Perry has said he will announce his decision soon. One member of his campaign team said he was closer than ever to joining the race and he was testing the prospects in the early caucus and primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. If he does stand, Republicans at the New Orleans conference predicted he would become the frontrunner of a so-far uninspiring field,” reports the London Guardian.
Texas Governor Perry, a protégé of Karl Rove, is very good at acting like a down-home populist, but that’s all it is – an act. Perry is George W. Bush 2.0.
While spewing Tea Party-style rhetoric about secession, shooting coyotes and courting the favor of Christian evangelicals, behind closed doors Perry has been quietly selling out Texas to globalist interests, auctioning off highways to foreign companies to turn them into profit-driven toll roads.
“Speculation that Perry is the Bilderberg group’s ace card was prompted by the current political climate, which can largely be gleaned from the fact that Perry is a longtime, unwavering supporter of the NAFTA Superhighway and related infrastructure projects,” wrote AFP’s Jim Tucker earlier this month. “These pave the way for the Bilderberg-supported North American Union (NAU) proposal that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico.”
Perry has also given enthusiastic support to former Mexican President Vicente Fox’s efforts to turn Texas into a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. He also aggressively promoted the Rockefeller Foundation-backed HPV vaccination campaign in Texas that has led to deaths worldwide. David Rockefeller is a prominent Bilderberger, attending each annual meeting without fail.
Perry attended the June 2007 Bilderberg conference in Istanbul, Turkey, and in doing so violated the Logan Act, a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.
Look beyond the rhetoric and study what Perry has actually done in his role as Governor – he’s the ultimate globalist – his every action illustrates how he’s the diametric opposite to the image of the Tea Party populist that he attempts to portray. That’s why he’s the perfect pick for the globalists, someone who can suck in the trust of the American people only to stab them in the back upon becoming president, just as Obama did before him.
Bilderberg has proven its kingmaker role time and time again not just in US politics but worldwide. Bill Clinton was a little-known Governor of Arkansas before he attended a Bilderberg meeting in 1991 and went on to become President a year later. Similarly, British Prime Minister Tony Blair attended Bilderberg before his election in 1997. According to Euro Weekly News, Maria Dolores De Cospedal’s attendance at Bilderberg 2011 in St. Moritz Switzerland also “augurs a victory in Spain’s next general election” for her Partido Popular party.
Obama himself was reportedly vetted by Bilderberg when he infamously disappeared to a secret location with Hillary Clinton in June 2008 in Northern Virginia, at precisely the same time and location the Bilderberg Group were convening in Chantilly. Bilderberg luminary James A. Johnson was also responsible for selecting Obama’s running mate Joe Biden, having also previously selected John Edwards as John Kerry’s right hand man in 2004 after Edwards had impressed Bilderberg elitists Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller with a speech he gave at the globalist confab in Italy that year.
In a comparatively weak GOP field, the establishment cannot take any chances in allowing Ron Paul to gain momentum as the only candidate who has a real chance of defeating Barack Obama.
As polls have shown, out of the Republican candidates, only Ron Paul has a realistic hope of success in a hypothetical run off against Obama – the other candidates are equally unpopular as the President.
Despite the fact that Mitt Romney has been anointed by the establishment as the Republican favorite, a May CNN poll found that he would lose by 11 points if he got the nomination and went head to head with Obama, whereas Paul only trails the President by 7 points.
Bilderberg’s continual influence in picking US presidents and potential vice-presidents again serves up a reminder that the real power structure steering the planet goes beyond teleprompter-reading puppet presidents and rests in the hands of multi-generational globalists, central banking moguls and the CEO’s of the world’s biggest corporations, all of whom routinely attend the Bilderberg Group confab every year.
Watch the clips below in which Rick Perry’s connection to the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union is documented, as well as Alex Jones’ protest of Perry’s globalist agenda.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.