Ron Paul Visits Helen Hall Library. 8/13/10

Ron Paul Visits Helen Hall Library

Rand Paul denies having Kidnapped a Woman in College To do Drugs

Rand Paul Feature on Fox 56 News (Lexington, KY)

Fox 56 TV feature on the recent Rand Paul GQ story. Includes a brief interview with Paul after his FOX News interview with Neil Cavuto.
Rand Paul is making headlines for allegedly kidnapping a female friend and forcing her to use drugs and worship an idol .Here is what GQ wrote:
"The strangest episode of Paul’s time at Baylor occurred one afternoon in 1983 … when he and a [brother in his liberal secret society] paid a visit to a female student who was one of Paul’s teammates on the Baylor swim team. According to this woman, who requested anonymity because of her current job as a clinical psychologist, “He and Randy came to my house, they knocked on my door, and then they blindfolded me, tied me up, and put me in their car. They took me to their apartment and tried to force me to take bong hits. They’d been smoking pot.” After the woman refused to smoke with them, Paul and his friend put her back in their car and drove to the countryside outside of Waco, where they stopped near a creek. “They told me their god was ‘Aqua Buddha’ and that I needed to bow down and worship him,” the woman recalls. “They blindfolded me and made me bow down to ‘Aqua Buddha’ in the creek. I had to say, ‘I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.’ At Baylor, there were people actively going around trying to save you and we had to go to chapel, so worshiping idols was a big no-no.”

President usurper going down!

Nile Gardiner

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.


The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown

************
The President usurper, the fraud and foreigner, the bastard from Africa, the con man from Kenya, reveals his shady character by refusing to be transparent with many important documents from his educational records to long form birth certificate. Emperor Obama must go!

A helping hand into a home

Not everyone’s a winner during a booming property market, as Adelaide mum Jane* knows only too well.

Winter 2009 was a time of precarious living for Jane and her three children, with the cold nights spent sleeping in motels and even the family car.

“We had to leave the home we were in as it was being renovated. Once the work was done the rent shot up and I couldn’t afford it,” Jane said.

“I put in over 100 applications but couldn’t find a place. I’m a full-time carer and if you’re not working it’s harder to get a lease.

“When you rent, all it takes is for something to go wrong – even something to happen to the owner – and you could be homeless.”

After months of uncertainty, Jane was referred to The Parks, Mission Australia’s Family Accommodation and Support Service in Adelaide’s western suburbs. 

Family Support Worker Helen Delaney moved quickly to help Jane prioritise her bill payments, organised for her to receive financial counselling and assisted the family into secure housing.

“Helen worked solidly to move me into a Mission Australia house,” Jane said. “She also did a lot of ringing around about bills, especially my storage bills, which kept the pressure off. If you’ve got an advocate from Mission Australia, things just go smoother, way smoother.”

Within two weeks Mission Australia moved Jane and her family into a private rental in a family-friendly suburb.

“My life is getting way better,” she said. “I have a roof over my head and it’s long-term and I’ve paid all my storage bills.

“I’m so glad we’re stable and not going anywhere and my older daughters can concentrate on school - being 13 and 11 and not having a home is very scary. And for my little one, just having a comfort zone is important. She’s now much more fun to be around.”

Jane particularly appreciated Mission Australia staff staying in contact to ensure her life was well and truly back on track.

“They kept in touch to make sure I was okay,” she said. “They don’t just get you on your feet and leave you; they make sure you’re properly solid.”

The positive outcome, according to Helen, was very much due to Jane’s determination to do the best for her family: “Her turnover from being homeless to settling into private rental took weeks. It showed just how dedicated she was to getting her life back on track.

“She is a great example of someone who just needed that extra bit of support. As we always say, ‘There but for the grace of God go I… You just don’t know where your life is going to lead you.”

* Name has been changed.

Ron Paul on The Illegal Immigration and the Border Control

Ron Paul believes that defending our borders is essential:
"We must recognize that true national defense means defending our own borders and coastlines. This is the primary constitutional responsibility of the federal government. This means it's time to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars on overseas military adventures and countless alphabet soup domestic agencies. Borders should be the number one national priority, plain and simple. Does the federal government have something better to do?"

"Some illegal immigrants, certainly not all, receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself...Mine is you deal with it economically. We're in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess."
In 2005, Ron Paul wrote:
“The ultimate responsibility for our immigration mess, therefore, lies squarely with successive presidents, not Congress. For decades our chief executives simply have lacked the political will, the manpower, or the desire to police our borders and deport lawbreakers. It’s been nearly impossible politically for presidents or candidates to suggest the obvious, namely that illegal immigration mocks the rule of law and creates huge social and economic problems. But the tide is turning, and a majority of Americans will demand real action on immigration by the next administration.”

THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE IN AFGHANISTAN – by Ron Paul

THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE IN AFGHANISTAN
Wednesday, August 11, 2010 – by Dr. Ron Paul

Last week the National Bureau of Economic Research published a report on the effect of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq that confirmed what critics of our foreign policy have been saying for years: the killing of civilians, although unintentional, angers other civilians and prompts them to seek revenge. This should be self-evident.

The Central Intelligence Agency has long acknowledged and analyzed the concept of blowback in our foreign policy. It still amazes me that so many think that attacks against our soldiers occupying hostile foreign lands are motivated by hatred toward our system of government at home or by the religion of the attackers. In fact, most of the anger towards us is rooted in reactions towards seeing their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and other loved ones being killed by a foreign army. No matter our intentions, the violence of our militarism in foreign lands causes those residents to seek revenge if innocents are killed. One does not have to be Muslim to react this way, just human.

Our battle in Afghanistan resembles the battle against the many-headed Hydra monster in Greek mythology. According to Former General Stanley McChrystal’s so-called insurgent math, for every insurgent killed, 10 more insurgents are created by the collateral damage to civilians. Every coalition attack leads to 6 retaliatory attacks against our troops within the following six weeks, according to the NBER report. These retaliatory attacks must then be acted on by our troops, leading to still more attacks, and so it goes. Violence begets more violence. Eventually more and more Afghanis will view American troops with hostility and seek revenge for the death of a loved one. Meanwhile, we are bleeding ourselves dry, militarily and economically.

Some say if we leave, the Taliban will be strengthened. However, those who make that claim ignore the numerous ways our interventionist foreign policy has strengthened groups like the Taliban over the years. I’ve already pointed out how we serve as excellent recruiters for them by killing civilians. Last week I pointed out how our foreign aid, to Pakistan specifically, makes it into Taliban coffers. And of course we provided the Taliban with aid and resources in the 1980s, when they were our strategic allies against the Soviet Union. For example – our CIA supplied them with Stinger missiles to use against the Soviets, which are strikingly similar to the ones now allegedly used against us on the same battlefield, according to those Wikileaks documents. As usual, our friends have a funny way of turning against us. Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein are also prime examples. Yet Congress never seems to acknowledge the blowback that results from our interventionism of the past.

Our war against the Taliban is going about as well as our war on drugs, or our war on poverty, or any of our government’s wars – they all tend to create more of the thing they purport to eradicate, thereby dodging any excuse to draw down and come to an end. It is hard to imagine ever “winning” anything this way.

We have done enough damage in Afghanistan, both to the Afghan people, and to ourselves. It’s time to re-evaluate the situation. It’s time to come home

Obama failing numerous natural-born tests

Worldnetdaily Exclusive Authors: Obama likely not eligible Study cites Constitutional framers, Supreme Court rulings

President Obama may not fit the Constitutional eligibility requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president, concluded the authors of a recently released book. An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principals of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.  With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's ties to communists, socialists and other anti-American extremists," was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and r esearcher Brenda J. Elliott. To receive a review copy or interview the authors, please contact Tim Bueler at (530) 401-3285 or media@wnd.com     The authors concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The book recommends further legislative and judicial debate. "It is undisputed that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president." Obama was born on August 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. Dunham was an American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kansas, and was 18 years old at the time of Obama’s birth. Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation’s elected chief to be a “natural born citizen.” That clause states: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitut ion specifically defines "citizen” but not "natural born citizen" A "citizen" is defined as: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” However, no definition of “natural born citizen” -- which is only used in the presidential requirement clause  --was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated. There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That—coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions th roughout the centuries—has only further confused the question of what “natural born” actually means. Still, the authors found that according to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements. 'Natural born' defined The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define “natural born.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil, and referred only to parentage: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” the Act states, “shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, t hat the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.   Five years later, however, Congress repealed the Act. "Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution’s 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," wrote Klein in "The Manchurian President." On July 25, 1787, Founding Father John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Jay discussed the dual loyalty concern, writing: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Jay, however, also did not define “natural born.” 'According to John Bingham, guiding tome, Obama not eligible' Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifi cations in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” "So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein. In trying to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by “natural born,” the authors wrote in "The Manchurian President" that some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day. The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787. De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . . In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. "So by de Vattel’s standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein. Obama not eligible according to some Supreme Court decisions Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a “natural born citizen.” In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), for example, the Court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage. But much of that case’s decision—which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing Constitutional righ ts—was overturned in 1868. Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the “natural born” issue: States that case: "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficien t, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens. Writes Klein: "According to this definition, and scores of other Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not be eligible to serve as president." The authors conclude that a "reading of readily available legal resources regarding the definition of 'natural born citizen” clearly indicates a series of legitimate questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency, given that Obama’s father was not an American citizen." "The resources warrant further debate," wrote Klein. "The Manchurian President" points out despite these glaring eligibility issues, the legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Senator John McCain. The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States." Obama called 'Manchurian President' Meanwhile, "The Manchurian President" bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama and his radical background and ties. Among the many finds of "The Manchurian President": A coalition of extremists, including a founder of William Ayers' Weather Underground domestic-terrorist organization, helped craft Obama's "stimulus" bill; Obama's health-care policy, masked by moderate populists rhetoric, was pushed along and partially crafted by extremists, some of whom reveal in their own words that their principal aim is to achieve corporate socialist goals and a vast increase in government powers; Extremists are among Obama's "czars" and other top advisers. New information links top advisers Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to communist activists. The book uncovers correspondence in which a communist confesses to mentoring and educating Axelrod and helping the top Obama aide to secure his first job. Obama then later worked with the same communist, the book finds; Copious research reveals more about Obama's deep ties to Ayers, uncovering for the first time where and how Obama first met Ayers - and it is much earlier than previously believed; Important aspects of Obama's carefully covered-up college years, with new details of his student career at Occidental College and later at Columbia University, are revealed; Obama's early years, including his previously overlooked early childhood ties to a radical, far-left church, are documented; Obama's association with the Nation of Islam, Black Liberation Theology and black political extremists are also revealed, with extensive new information on the subjects; Obama's deep ties to ACORN, which are much more extensive than previously documented elsewhere, are covered. The book also crucially descries how a socialist-led, ACORN-affiliated union helped facilitate Obama's political career and now exerts major influence in the White House. To receive a review copy or interview the authors, please contact Tim Bueler at (503) 401-3285 or media@wnd.com