Real marriage outlawed

The past year has seen an unprecedented surge in state legalized homosexual "marriage."

And every one of them came about through legislative decree -- against the will of the voters.

New York was the first state to fall in this current offensive, despite an intense lobby campaign led by Public Advocate.

However the fight is not over.

The state's 9th Congressional district -- a seat held by the Democrats for more than 80 years -- was taken over in a special election by Republican Bob Turner.

Mr. Turner ran on a platform of family values and a pledge to repeal homosexual "marriage."

And just recently, Republican James Alesi -- one of the three Republicans who were paid to vote against marriage -- announced he would not be seeking re-election this fall due to the pro-Family backlash.

Currently the fate of marriage in New York is being decided in the courts -- an issue of the legality of its passage -- but other states have afforded pro-Family activists greater opportunities to fight back.

Legislatures in Maryland and Washington State both forced homosexual "marriage" through earlier this year.

Thankfully these decisions can be overturned through public referendums -- if they get enough signers.

Public Advocate is leading efforts in each state to place marriage referendums on the November ballots.

I have personally been on the ground in Maryland for months coordinating the largest county in the state.

Public Advocate has contacted 1,000 local churches and has turned in over 5,000 signatures -- 1,000 collected by me in person.

And we have mail thousands more blank petitions out prospective signers -- spending more than $5,000 in the state so far.

Of course, none of that would be possible with the generous support of hundreds of thousands of pro-Family supporters.

We are facing a much tougher fight in Washington State.

The best chance the family has of winning there is Initiative I-1192 -- but the minimum number of signers is so much higher: 300,000.

And the enemy there as taken the fight to a new level of viciousness.

Homosexual activists are publishing the names of anyone who signs the Initiative and encouraging their membership to track them down and harass them.

I have budgeted three times the amount of money to run our program there... more than $15,000

I have already contact 1,000 churches there and I'm planning thousands of pieces of mail.

But let me assure you this is a fight Public Advocate can win.

The final fight facing real marriage is California's Proposition 8.

Despite its overwhelming approval by California voters, activist judges have ruled it unconstitutional.

They have ruled real marriage legislation to be unconstitutional -- and if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with them it will overturn laws in everyone of the more than thirty states to define real marriage as one man and one woman.

Public Advocate is preparing for the upcoming Supreme Court with a pro-Family Amicus Brief -- and so far more than 20,000 Public Advocate supporters have signed cover letters to be submitted alongside it.

It's shameful the way these legislators and judges have sold out to the Homosexual Lobby.

And if you and I do not turn back this sudden tide, I am terrified of how many more states will see real marriage overtaken by the homosexual agenda.

We have to show them that no matter how many tricks they pull, mainstream Americans will never give up.

For the Family,


Eugene Delgaudio
President, Public Advocate of the United States


P.S. Please prayerfully consider chipping in with a donation of $10 or more to help Public Advocate fight for traditional values.

Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk: “Barack Obama Was Not Born In Hawaii”

By George Spelvin

 “For starters, just because there is no long form birth certificate on file in Hawaii, that doesn’t rule out President Obama being born elsewhere in the United States, or even in Hawaii,” states Hawaii’s former Senior Election Clerk Timothy Lee Adams in his Masters Thesis that was signed off on by four English Department Deans at Western Kentucky University in partial fulfillment of the Requirement for Degree of Master of Arts, on June 13, 2011.
Adams was the Chief Elections Clerk (Pg. 30) for the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii.  “On a temporary contract, I ran an office that verified voter eligibility that had a staff of about fifty people,” he also told radio  host James Edwards of the Liberty News Radio Network.  “Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii,” the former elections clerk continued. “It (Pg. 31) was openly admitted by everyone in the office who was above me, at least my immediate supervisors, that there is no documentation.” Adams details the governmental databases and other means of authentication used included “NCIS, Social Security, all these other things we use on average voters; there were two people higher than me in our office, who are  under the City Clerk of Honolulu. . .” (Pg. 30)
Now Adams emphatically states in his Masters Thesis:  “. . .in my professional opinion, Barack Obama was NOT (emphasis added) born in the United States, and there is no Hawaii long-form birth certificate.” (Pg. 30, 31)  Contrast this man’s statement (a man who was vetted for military, civil, and academic service) with the Verification of Birth certified statement of State Registrar Alvin T. Onaka, signed and issued to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett on May 22, 2012. Onaka’s document says: “Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-14.3, I verify the following:  A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.”  Now Onaka’s 12 point official Department of Health document bearing the seal of the State of Hawaii also says, “Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa,” providing official authentication and documentation that the sitting President of the United States does not carry the Natural Born Citizenship status as required by Article II, Sect. 1, clause 5, of our U.S. Constitution, the higher standard required to hold the office of President!

Adams details in his 96 page Masters document the enormous amount of vicious cyber attacks, intimidations, and ad hominem attacks lobbed at him from all sorts of political and media operatives.  Because he has had male patterned baldness since his youth, this now-47-year-old man was labeled a “Skinhead,” and even neighborhood children called him that while hurling pebbles at him.  Adams credits the GLOBE Celebrity Magazine, which did four features on him, as having treated him with the most decency and professionalism.  When a youtube video of his interview went viral, and the intimidation and threats became extremely intense, meetings were held, and he virtually went silent in the Land of Free Speech.     Additionally, Adams revealed that “We had a set of documents, fifty identity documents stolen out of the office, and they were all the voting records-the ballots that people sent in who were members of the U.S. Foreign Service around the Pacific rim.”  Adams goes on, “From there, things got really, really ugly,” and he left to finish his academic requirements in Hawaii and to move to Western Kentucky University “where I teach now.” (Pg. 32).  Apparently, these government dignitaries who had mailed in their absentee ballots did not want it revealed who they had voted for as it would have made it difficult for them to hold onto their jobs!
Adams says, “A lie has been told, and when a lie is obvious, the public’s just not going to go away.” And then he says this:  “President Obama’s official autobiography is false.” How does that compute with Onaka saying, “Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you [ Arizona SoS Bennett] attached with your request matches the original record in our files”? Guess what, it does not.  And the public is not going away, either.

Face of Victim Eaten by Rudy Eugene in Miami, Graphic Images of Possible...

MnChange State Convention Ron Paul Team WINNING

Ron Paul supporters to protest GOP meeting in Marlboro tonight

By Shaun Sutner

Local Republican activists backing Ron Paul for president say state GOP leaders are undermining grass-roots activism by moving to invalidate some ballots cast this spring for the Libertarian congressman.

The state Republican Party's allocation committee is set to meet tonight at the Holiday Inn in Marlboro to discuss some issues, including whether provisional ballots will be counted and whether some delegates properly signed in at the party caucuses in April.

In the March 6 presidential primary election, former Gov. Mitt Romney received 72 percent of the vote, followed by former Sen. Rick Santorum with 12 percent. Mr. Paul received 10 percent and former Speaker Newt Gingrich received 5 percent.

At the Republican caucuses in April, slates of Mr. Paul's supporters overwhelmed many slates pledged to Mr. Romney.

The party move is mainly directed at the 5th Congressional District, which includes Mr. Romney's hometown of Belmont and where all six Romney delegate and alternate candidates lost to Paul candidates. It involves a complaint alleging that not all participants signed in.

Activists and Paul supporters say they will protest the 6 p.m. meeting.

The only Central Massachusetts Paul delegate who might be unseated is Joseph Cavallaro of Warren, who was elected in the 1st Congressional District in part with provisional ballots.
Otherwise, Mr. Paul's delegates and alternate candidates defeated Mr. Romney's candidates for all 18 slots in Central and Western Massachusetts.

Delegates will attend the August Republican national convention in Tampa. Massachusetts delegates for Mr. Paul have promised to vote for Mr. Romney if he is the party nominee, but those from some other states are expected to possibly abstain or even walk out in protest, causing problems for the party.

Provisional ballots are those cast by caucus voters who registered as Republicans with local election clerks by the Feb. 15 deadline, but who had not been recorded as party members by the secretary of state's office by the April 28-29 caucuses.

Bradford P. Wyatt of Boylston, leader of the statewide uprising against the party establishment slates, complained that any action by the state GOP to unseat Paul supporters and replace them with Romney delegates would hurt the party in the long run by furthering the impression that the party is unresponsive to activists.

“The repercussions of this are going to be long and hard,” said Mr. Wyatt, owner of a Worcester development company and a Boylston School Committee member. “They're sort of shooting themselves in the foot. You're going to disenfranchise people if you don't count the votes.”

State party spokesman Tim Buckley said in a prepared statement: “As required by the Party's delegate selection rules, the allocation committee is meeting tonight to hear directly from individuals concerning challenges filed at the beginning of this month and to hear from all interested parties. No determinations regarding any delegate challenges will be made this evening.”

But one member of the committee, state party Treasurer Brent J. Andersen of Auburn, said it is clear provisional ballots will not be included because the caucus rules do not provide for the ballots.

“The provisional ballots will not be counted. They're not in the rules,” Mr. Andersen said.

Ron Paul Supporters are Delusional!

HUFFINGTON POST

Flooding Threatens Southeast Coast Following Storm

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — Residents along the Southeast coast were warned of possible flooding Tuesday from former Tropical Storm Beryl that left up to 10 inches of rain in northern Florida and was moving northeastward before heading back toward the coast and into the Atlantic.

	Radioactive Bluefin Tuna In U.S. Traced To Japan Nuclear Disaster
	National Weather Service Head Resigns Amid Controversy
	Firefighters Struggle With One Of State's Largest-Ever Wildfires
	National Parks With The Worst Smog
	'Fair' Deal For FEMA Trailers Lawsuit?

How Ron Paul is Injecting Principle into the GOP

This column by Ron Paul activist and delegate Craig Westover in Minnesota’s Star Tribune is a response to accusations that our movement is somehow “fringe” and meaningless. Anybody who truly believes this simply hasn’t been paying attention to American politics for the last four years. Westover makes interesting comparisons, to both religious conservatives and the gay rights movement, and finishes by explaining how we’re injecting genuine limited government principles into the Republican Party:
First, let’s understand what a “movement” or a “revolution” is. All movements — the Pat Robertson Republican coup in the 1980s, gay rights, women’s suffrage, civil rights and, yes, the Ron Paul movement — follow a common pattern.
Movements all begin at the margins with people who have little or nothing to lose. Unsuccessful movements never expand beyond the sloganeering fringe. Successful movements — those with an intellectual and moral basis — mature to attract a mainstream following.
The gay-rights movement is a great example. Shirtless hunks in leather tutus and motorcycling “Dykes on Bikes” are no longer the point of the gay-rights spear. It’s the gay lawyer/gay accountant, lesbian legislator/lesbian physician — same-sex couples with kids and fundamental concerns about faith, family and freedom — who are now the face of the movement.
Focusing commentary on the remnants of the gay-rights fringe is something the media would never do. But focusing on the fringe of the Ron Paul movement is exactly what the Strib and WaPo commentaries actually do.
Libertarians today are on that cusp between being all about the T-shirt and all about ideas. I was a libertarian before it was cool and a Republican when it wasn’t cool.
As a political force in the 1970s, libertarians had little to lose… Times have changed…
Libertarians today are less about provocative issues and more about reversing the expanding scope of government. Government expansion is bad in itself, but the future consequences are worse: Without defined limits on government, our liberties, our American republic, are truly at risk…
The power of an idea, personal freedom, doesn’t lie in manufactured popularity.
What about that Paul-inspired “wacky,” “nutty” “constitutional fundamentalism” found in Republican Party platforms?
Sure, abolishing the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Reserve is not going to happen even under a President Paul. But a political party that seriously considers abolishing cabinet-level departments and unaccountable government entities is a political party that probably won’t advocate for a new cabinet-level “Department of the Internet” and is serious about monetary policy.
It’s a party that stands for something.
That brings us to the WaPo admonition that “Paulites” learn to compromise…
One does not compromise principle. It’s a cliché and a fallacy that, given two diametrically opposed points of view, the “truth” must necessarily lie somewhere in the middle.
The Republican problem is buying into the “compromise is good” argument and declaring victory for every move to the left that “could have been so much worse.”
Paulites won’t make that compromise.
Ron Paul delegates to the RNC will support the nominee. However, integral to that support is holding the candidate and the party to the fundamental principles of limited government and personal and economic freedom. Constancy to principle is the ultimate loyalty.

All that said, I urge our media friends to examine the default position that government is good and invite them to think for themselves. The Ron Paul revolution offers the media, the Republican Party and America that opportunity. Take it.

Was Taser use on pregnant woman excessive force? Supreme Court declines case.

The Supreme Court refused the case of a pregnant woman who was ticketed for speeding in a school zone in Seattle. When she refused to get out of her car, police used a Taser to shock her three times.

By Warren Richey

Washington

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up the appeal of a pregnant woman who was shocked three times with a police Taser after she refused to sign a traffic ticket for driving 32 miles per hour in a 20 m.p.h. school zone.

Related stories

• 

  How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

• Three deaths in one weekend puts Taser use by cops in crosshairs
• Feds slam New Orleans police over excessive force, racial profiling
• Supreme Court approves strip searches for minor offenses

The woman, Malaika Brooks, was seven months pregnant and was driving her 11-year-old son to school in Seattle at the time of the speeding violation.
At issue in the case was whether police acted reasonably in deploying the Taser after Ms. Brooks refused to sign the speeding ticket and then refused to voluntarily exit her car to allow officers to place her under arrest.
The justices were being asked to examine under what circumstances police use of a Taser device crosses the line from acceptable law enforcement tactic to excessive force.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

The high court also declined to hear a second police Taser case involving a woman in Maui, Hawaii, Jayzel Mattos, who was intentionally shocked with a Taser as police attempted to arrest her husband, Troy, following a domestic abuse allegation.
Both Brooks and Ms. Mattos filed suit against the police, alleging they violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force. Lawyers for the police officers argued that the officers were protected from such lawsuits by qualified immunity.
In both cases, federal judges ruled that the police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, and that the cases should proceed to a trial.
The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that even though the actions by police amounted to the excessive use of force, the law was not established clearly enough at the time of both incidents to give police fair warning that their actions were unreasonable and unconstitutional.
“We conclude that Brooks and the Mattoses have alleged constitutional violations, but that not every reasonable officer at the time of the respective incidents would have known – beyond debate – that such conduct violates the Fourth Amendment,” the Ninth Circuit said.
The high court decision not to take up the two cases allows the Ninth Circuit decision to stand.
The Taser incident with Brooks took place in November 2004. The 33-year-old expectant mother was pulled over by a police officer and issued a ticket for driving too fast in a school zone.
Under Seattle law, traffic violators are required to sign their tickets upon receipt. Failure to sign the ticket is itself a violation of the law.
After stopping at the side of the road, Brooks told her son to walk the rest of the way to school. She then told the officer that she did not believe she was speeding in the school zone and that she felt signing the ticket was an admission of guilt. She told the officer she wished to contest the charge.
Another officer and a police sergeant soon arrived on the scene. The officers insisted that unless Brooks signed the ticket she would be arrested and taken to jail. As further incentive an officer produced a Taser.
Brooks told the officer she did not know what a Taser was. She added: “I have to go to the bathroom, I am pregnant, I’m less than 60 days from having my baby.”
The officers attempted to physically remove Brooks from the car, but she held tightly to the steering wheel. One of the officers then used the Taser to deliver an electric shock to Brooks, first to her thigh, then her arm, and finally to her neck. The three shocks took place within 42 seconds.
She was then pulled from the car to the ground, handcuffed, and taken to jail.
A jury later convicted her of refusing to sign a traffic citation. No verdict was reached on a resisting arrest charge.
Brooks gave birth to a healthy baby girl in January 2005. Brooks has permanent burn scars at the Taser contact points, according to briefs filed in the case.

Cyber-Snuggly