and you'll receive our popular
newsletter with latest news,
videos, commentary & more.
Help Us Spread The Word!
HELP US GO VIRAL!!!!
We no longer have the
luxury of time.
Guest Users: 3
Congressman was afforded less than six minutes speaking time and asked when he was going to drop out
By Steve Watson
January 24, 2012
During Last night’s NBC hosted GOP debate in Florida, Ron Paul was once again roundly ignored and dismissed as a potential candidate.
Paul spoke for less than 6 minutes out of the hour long debate. He was skipped over completely on three questions when everyone else got to speak, and was not offered the chance to respond to several attacks on his policies from the other candidates.
In comparison, Romney and Gingrich were afforded close to 35 minutes of speaking time, not even taking into account the now ubiquitous bickering between the two that viewers had to once again endure.
When Paul did want to speak he had to raise his hand and wave at the moderators like he was a troublesome fourth grader at the back of the classroom.
Editors Note: I cannot believe anyone would support this cretin. Come on. ONE DONOR gives him $10 MILLION out of nowhere to corrupt the process so badly NEWTY gets thrust into first place!? There is NO WAY 40% of the people of South Carolina voted for this creep. No Friggin Way! WAKE UP you guys. You say you're sick of business as usual and you would support a total embodiment of business as usual?
* * * * * *
Newt Gingrich receives $5m boost as he releases Freddie Mac contract
Republican candidate's $1.6m fee from mortgage company becomes focus of Romney attacks after South Carolina defeat
By Ewen MacAskill and Dominic Rushe
January 24, 2012
Newt Gingrich previously denied he had ever worked as a lobbyist
for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Photograph: David Goldman/AP
Newt Gingrich received a major financial boost on Monday when the family who donated $5m to an organisation supporting his campaign earlier this month gave another $5m.
The money came from Miriam Adelson, wife of Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino and hotel owner, revealed Nevada political journalist Jon Ralston in his Las Vegas Sun column.Details of the donation emerged as Gingrich made public his contract with the government-backed mortgage giant Freddie Mac, which many Republicans blame, alongside sister organisation Fannie Mae, for playing a key role in the subprime mortgage crisis.
'Defendant has failed to enlighten the court with legal authority'
By Bob Unruh
January 22, 2012
A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.
WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.
“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order, released today.
“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.
“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’”
Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
By Minister Voddie Bauchman
Grace Family Baptist Church
January 16, 2012
"Voddie, because I have a great respect for you and your opinion I would really like to know why you are voting for Ron Paul ? I have not liked some of the things I have heard him say and I am wondering if I missed something?" -Pamela Wolfe (via Facebook Fan Page)
Since posting a passing comment on my Facebook fan page about Ron Paul, I have been inundated with questions and concerns about my support of the Texas Congressman in the current Republican Primary race. In one of my many political posts (frequently, I post videos, news articles, etc., in an effort to show the importance and influence of worldview), I simply stated that I voted for Dr. Paul in the last election, and planned to vote for him again.
The result was hundreds of comments; more than any other post I’ve ever submitted. Most of the comments were positive. However, several were extremely negative. Some vowed never to follow, or support my ministry any further, while others simply communicated their dismay. Still others, like today's questioner, just asked honest questions. As a result, I’ve decided to explain my position, and this seemed like the best place to do it.
Let me say ahead of time that I do not believe that politics will save America. Nor do I believe there are any perfect candidates. There never have been, and there never will be. Moreover, it is not my goal to answer every objection to the Paul candidacy as I know that there are those who, for various reasons, will not be persuaded, and more importantly, that’s not my job. My goal here is to offer insight in to my own reasoning as I wade through another political season and make a personal choice.
April 7, 2011
The White House has released President Obama's long-form birth certificate, saying the document is "proof positive" the president was born in Hawaii.
The release marked an unexpected turn in the long-simmering, though widely discredited, controversy over Obama's origin. Obama's advisers have for the better part of three years dismissed questions about the president's birth, directing skeptics to the short-term document released during the 2008 campaign. But as the issue gained more attention at the state level and particularly in the 2012 presidential race, Obama said Wednesday that it was starting to distract attention from pressing challenges like the budget.
Editors Note: Regardless of whether or not you believe Obama was eligible to be president or not, we supposedly live in a country where those who don't believe so have a right to absolute proof.
If you'll remember, the first "real birth certificate" produced was nothing but a laser printed copy of a birth record. It was not an original birth certificate that in 1961 would have been filled out with a typewriter. They insisted the laser print of the birth record was sufficient and "was the birth certificate."
Then a good buddy of Obama, who became the Governor of Hawaii, swore he'd make sure everyone saw the original birth certificate. Guess what? When he got into office he suddenly announces there isn't one!
Then, suddenly, the White House produces what appeared to be the "real long-form birth certificate" but they would not allow anyone to see the actual original document. They only released a digital scan that turned out to have all manner of fishing things about it.
Now FINALLY, it appears a Georgia judge is demanding to see the original documents. You cannot tell if a document is forged by looking at a digital scan. So, if all goes well, which is doubtful, we will soon have a look at the so-called original birth certificate and hopefully this issue will be settled once and for all.
* * * * * *
January 16, 2012
In just ten days, Barack Hussein Obama will be held accountable to the American people after nearly four years of dodging our demands for his long-form birth certificate.
At stake: His citizenship eligibility to be President of the United States…
YOU READ THAT RIGHT. A Georgia Judge has issued what appears to be a subpoena demanding that our beloved Campaigner-in-Chief Barack Obama appear in court January 26 AND finally provide the American people with proper documentation proving his citizenship eligibility to be President of the United States…
Thanks to the continued support from you and your fellow American Patriots, we’ll FINALLY know the truth about the smoke-and-mirrors surrounding Obama’s birth, and, ultimately, his citizenship.
In an order written January 3, 2012, Malihi ruled that Georgia state law is very clear – any candidate for federal or state office must meet the qualifications of that office and that Georgia electors have the right to challenge those qualifications in court. As a result, Malihi flatly denied Obama's motion to dismiss and scheduled a hearing for January 26.
Now, FINALLY, we can expose Barack Hussein Obama as a fraud forced upon America by the leftist fundraising lobby in order to shove Amnesty down our throats and throw our borders wide open.
This video is not sponsored or endorsed by the Ron Paul campaign. It was made by two supporters who believe in the cause of liberty.
By Bev Harris
Black Box Voting
January 14, 2012
In a major step towards global centralization of election processes, the world’s dominant Internet voting company has purchased the USA’s dominant election results reporting company.
When you view your local or state election results on the Internet, on portals which often appear to be owned by the county elections division, in over 525 US jurisdictions you are actually redirected to a private corporate site controlled by SOE software, which operates under the name ClarityElections.com.
The good news is that this firm promptly reports precinct-level detail in downloadable spreadsheet format. As reported by BlackBoxVoting.org in 2008, the bad news is that this centralizes one middleman access point for over 525 jurisdictions in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, KY, MI, KS, IL, IN, NC, NM, MN, NY, SC, TX, UT, WA. And growing.
As local election results funnel through SOE’s servers (typically before they reach the public elsewhere), those who run the computer servers for SOE essentially get “first look” at results and the ability to immediately and privately examine vote details throughout the USA.
By Mike Adams
January 12, 2012
It’s a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals want to vote for Ron Paul (a Republican) over President Obama? Maybe because they want freedom instead of tyranny, it turns out. Because if you’re a total slave to the police state, it doesn’t really matter whether you’re on the left or the right, does it?
Here, I give you ten solid reasons why even liberals and progressives are supporting Ron Paul. And by the way, I don’t worship Ron Paul or any individual. What I honor is the principles that Ron Paul stands for — the very same principles President Obama has outright abandoned in his broken promises and disturbing reversals against the American people. Out of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has the ethical and moral strength to carry out his office from a place of principle rather than betrayal.
#1) Ron Paul supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the War on Drugs. Obama does not.
Remember when Obamapromisedhe would decriminalize marijuana, but now his own administration continues to raid legal drug dispensaries in California? That’s a classic Obama lie: Say one thing to get elected, then turn around and do the exact opposite.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, openly supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the failed War on Drugs. Although he doesn’tpromoterecreational drug use (and neither do I), he understands that treating weed smokers as hard-core criminals is ethical, morally and economically wrong. See my related article on Snoop Dogg and his recent drug bust in Texas: http://www.naturalnews.com/034612_S
Congressman proves once again that he has a broader appeal against Obama than Romney does
By Steve Watson
January 13, 2012
Not only did Ron Paul come second in the Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire Tuesday, figures published last night by the New Hampshire Secretary of State show that Paul also finished runner up in the Democratic primary as well.
Paul received 2,273 votes, compared to Mitt Romney’s 1,808 and Jon Huntsman’s 1,228. The clear winner was, obviously, Barack Obama with 49,480 votes.
Although the primary was not a competitive vote, the figures are very interesting for several reasons.
First of all, the figures show that 11,516 Democrats out of the total of 60,996 that voted in New Hampshire voted for someone other than Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee. That means that almost 19 percent of Democrats voted against the Obama presidency.