YouTube Blog: How to shape up your video marketing strategy in 2012

YouTube Blog: How to shape up your video marketing strategy in 2012

How would you like to have 7% of all the buying traffic come through your Youtube channel?

Learn more about them and the market they're in!

Obama accused of disrespecting court, state, Americans

Obama accused of disrespecting court, state, Americans

(WND) - One of the attorneys who fought a court case over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court says he fears that even if the U.S. Supreme Court declared Obama unqualified, he’d simply ignore the ruling and continue issuing orders.

But those who observed a court hearing today in Atlanta say it could be the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign, because of the doubt that could surge like a tidal wave across the nation.

The comments came today from Leo Donofrio, who led the pack in filing lawsuits over Obama’s 2008 election and his subsequent occupancy of the White House.

He was commenting on today’s hearing before a Georgia administrative law judge on complaints raised by several state residents that Obama is not eligible to run for the office in 2012. That hearing went on after Obama and his lawyer decided to snub the court system and refuse to participate.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

A decision from the judge, Michael Malihi, is expected soon.

The Georgia residents delivered sworn testimony to a court that, among other things, Obama is forever disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state because his father never was a U.S. citizen. Because the Constitution’s requirement presidents be a “natural born citizen,” which is the offspring of two citizen parents, he is prevented from qualifying, they say.

The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated, while his supporters say he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.

In Georgia, the law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Donofrio’s case – like all the others that have reached the Supreme Court – simply was refused recognition.

“That President Obama’s attorneys didn’t show respect for the court, the citizens, the secretary of state, and the statutes of Georgia reveals the true character of the administration as being completely and utterly against state’s rights,” Donofrio said. “The federal government is growing out of control with every administration and this action today is a loud announcement that this administration is going to do what it likes, and you can imagine that their response to this judiciary would be exactly the same if this had been the U.S. Supreme Court.”

He said if Georgia does decide to keep Obama off its state election ballots, he won’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, “because if he were to lose there, his entire administration would be void, including his appointments to the Supreme Court.”

“If Obama were to appeal in Georgia, only this election is in play, and only as to Georgia’s ballots, but if he loses in Georgia, appealing to the SCOTUS brings in his entire eligibility, and the legitimacy of his current administration,” Donofrio warned.

“My personal belief is that if the U.S. Supreme Court held that he was ineligible, he might simply ignore the ruling, and test the will of the nation, just as he is testing the will of the state of Georgia,” he said.

The White House today was absolutely silent about the issue. The Georgia case is far different from the lawsuits over the 2008 election, in which judges virtually unanimously ruled that they could not make a decision that would remove a sitting president, no matter the circumstances.

This hearing was about concerns being raised, as allowed by Georgia state law, that Obama is not eligible for the office of president and therefore should not be allowed on the 2012 election ballot.

“If the judge’s recommendation – and I’ve been told that it’s going to be to disqualify Mr. Obama as a candidate – is followed by the secretary of state, Mr. Obama has got a real problem,” said Gary Kreep, of the United States Justice Foundation.

His organization pursued several of the lawsuits over Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices simply decided they wouldn’t be bothered with such issues as the constitutional eligibility of a president.

“He’s thumbed his nose at the court. He’s thumbed his nose at the secretary of state in Georgia. He’s thumbed his nose at the people and said, ‘I’m above it all. I’m above the law,’” Kreep said.

Kreep’s cases have outlined out there is precedent in the U.S. for the removal of a sitting chief executive because of an issue over ineligibility.

Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had warned Secretary of State Brian Kemp yesterday that he needed to simply call off the hearing, and he and Obama would not participate.

Not only did Obama not participate, there also was no comment.

On a day when Obama was campaigning in Arizona and Colorado, he released formal statements about the retirement of Congressman Brad Miller, and the retirement of Gov. Bev Perdue.

But WND calls to the White House brought only the instructions to e-mail a question to the media affairs department. WND did but got no response. WND also contacted Obama’s campaign headquarters, to receive instructions to email a question. WND did again, but again got no response.

Jablonski, the Atlanta attorney representing Obama, also declined to return WND messages left at his office today.

Mario Apuzzo, who also shepherded a case to the Supremes, said Obama, by not showing, “actually failed to meet his burden of proof, to show that he is eligible and should be placed on the ballot.”

“For him to just ignore due process here is really telling a lot,” he said, noting, “This decision will have a ripple effect.”

“He’s not above the law. That’s a very important thing here. He’s a private person running for office, so he had no business not showing up. So the court can enter the judgment, and then the secretary of state does what he wants with it. And this will have a ripple effect for other secretaries of state, for other states, for the public. Also for any case that could be pending in the Supreme Court, where the issue of Mr. Obama’s eligibility is implicated,” he said.

“It’s a really important milestone that has been reached.”

Apuzzo warned that an administrative law judge certainly wields authority in such cases.

“We had a legitimate hearing in a legitimate court where this private person, Barack Obama, was asked to come there and satisfy the basic Georgia election law ballot procedure, and he doesn’t show up. Nor does he send an attorney. We don’t see this on television yet, but I can’t imagine this not being major news. It boggles the mind that a sitting president who is running for re-election doesn’t show up at a state’s legitimately constituted proceeding to make sure that he is indeed eligible to be on the ballot,” he said.

Charles Kerchner, on whose behalf one of those cases went to the Supremes, said, “Obama thinks he is a king and thus not subject to the election laws of Georgia and the United States Constitution. He will soon learn otherwise.”

He continued, “As the Georgia secretary of state said in warning Obama and his attorney if they did not show.up for the court hearing today … if they do that, they will do so at their own peril.”

Kreep, who has fought battles in both state and federal courts over the issue, said a ruling that would remove Obama’s name from the Georgia ballot would be a “tremendous victory for … America.”

“If the judge issues a default and rules that Barack Obama will not be on the Georgia ballot, and if the secretary of state upholds that, then Mr. Obama, having told the court to essentially stick it in their ear, he wasn’t going to participate, wasn’t going to recognize their power – he’s going to have a tough time convincing some other court to overturn the ruling, because he waived his right to object to it by not appearing,” he explained.

“That’s a big deal to judges. A judge may or may not agree with another judge’s ruling, but when one party waives their ability to object, judges are very reluctant to get involved, because the party has basically said, ‘We don’t care what you do, we’re not going to abide by it.’ Judges don’t like that. They don’t like to be blown off,” he said.

He said the election outcome also could be decided because of not being on a ballot in even one state. And he said there’s more to come.

“I can tell you from my own personal knowledge that there are challenges going on in other states. Van Irion has one in Arizona and one in Tennessee. We have one in Illinois that is has gone under the radar. We’re going to be filing similar challenges around the country. We’ll be filing one within a week and another right around the end of the month,” he said.

Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-accused-of-disrespecting-court-state-americans/

Obama accused of disrespecting court, state, Americans (WND) - One of the attorneys who fought a court case over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court says he fears that even if the U.S. Supreme Court declared Obama unqualified, he’d simply ignore the rulin ...

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist Sues Obama Over NDAA

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist Sues Obama Over NDAA 1/2

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist Sues Obama Over NDAA 2/2

On the Tuesday, January 24th edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex talks with Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, author and Middle East expert Chris Hedges about his lawsuit challenging the legality of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which Obama signed at the end of 2011. Hedges is the author of The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress, Collateral Damage, American Fascists and other titles.
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/

Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist Sues Obama Over NDAA 1/2 Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist Sues Obama Over NDAA 2/2 On the Tuesday, January 24th edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex talks with Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, author and Middle East expert Chris Hedges about his lawsuit challengi ...

Sen. Rand Paul on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano -1/23/12

Sen. Rand Paul on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano -1/23/12

“It must have been the steel in his spine that set off a screener device at the Nashville airport…”  Judge Nap

Sen. Rand Paul On The Record with Greta Van Sunsteran 1/24/12

Sen. Rand Paul on America Live with Megyn Kelly - 1/24/12

Sen. Rand Paul on OutFront with Erin Burnett CNN - 1/23/12

Sen. Rand Paul on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer CNN - 1/23/12

Sen. Rand Paul on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano -1/23/12 “It must have been the steel in his spine that set off a screener device at the Nashville airport…”  Judge Nap Sen. Rand Paul On The Record with Greta Van Sunsteran 1/24/12 Sen. Rand Paul on America Live with Megyn Kelly - 1/24/12 Sen. R ...

Breaking News: Cancer Drugs Make Tumors More Aggressive: Infowars Nightly News

Cancer Drugs Make Tumors More Aggressive: Infowars Nightly News

Guest Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com will discuss breakthrough research that suggests chemotherapy can be more dangerous than helpful, as findings show it can multiply the chances of tumors and the presence of cancer in patients.

S. L. Baker
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
January 19, 2012

When natural health advocates warn against mainstream medicine's arsenal of weapons used to fight cancer, including chemotherapy and radiation, their concerns often revolve around how these therapies can weaken and damage a person's body in numerous ways. But scientists are finding other reasons to question some of these therapies. It turns out that while chemotherapies may kill or shrink tumors in the short term, they may actually be causing malignancies to grow more deadly in the long term.

For example, Natural News previously reported:

(http://www.naturalnews.com/029042_cancer_cells_chemotherapy.html) that scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Comprehensive Cancer Center and UAB Department of Chemistry are currently investigating the very real possibility that dead cancer cells left over after chemotherapy spark cancer to spread to other parts of the body (metastasis). And now comes news that a little-explored specific cell type, the pericyte, found in what is called the microenvironment of a cancerous tumor actually may halt cancer progression and metastasis. And by destroying these cells, some anti-cancer therapies may inadvertently be making cancer more aggressive as well as likely to spread and kill.
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-news-cancer-drugs-make-tumors-more-aggressiv...

Cancer Drugs Make Tumors More Aggressive: Infowars Nightly News Guest Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com will discuss breakthrough research that suggests chemotherapy can be more dangerous than helpful, as findings show it can multiply the chances of tumors and the presence of cancer in patients. S. L. B ...

What if Freedom Were Temporary? by Andrew P. Napolitano

What if Freedom Were Temporary? by Andrew P. Napolitano, December 09, 2011

What if our rights didn’t come from God or from our humanity, but from the government? What if the government really thinks we’re not unique individuals with immortal souls, but just public property? What if we were only entitled to our natural rights if it pleased the government? What if our rights could be stripped away whenever the government considers us to be its enemy?

http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2011/12/08/what-if-freedom-were-temporary/

What if Freedom Were Temporary? by Andrew P. Napolitano , December 09, 2011 What if our rights didn’t come from God or from our humanity, but from the government? What if the government really thinks we’re not unique individuals with immortal souls, but just public property? What if we were only ent ...

Exclusive: Jesse Ventura Demands Fox Retraction for Snipers Lies

Exclusive: Jesse Ventura Demands Fox Retraction for Sniper's Lies 1/3

Exclusive: Jesse Ventura Demands Fox Retraction for Sniper's Lies 2/3

Exclusive: Jesse Ventura Demands Fox Retraction for Sniper's Lies 3/3

Former Governor: Incident "never happened...someone is out to destroy my credibility"

Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
Saturday, January 7, 2012

Following claims made by US Navy SEAL Chris Kyle that he punched Jesse Ventura for badmouthing US troops during a wake for a slain soldier in Coronado, California, Ventura has denounced the story as an outrageous lie, asserting that the event never happened.

Kyle, who has been the subject of numerous television interviews over the past few days while he promotes his new book, is a sniper marksmen who has been made into somewhat of a poster child for US military involvement in the Middle East following his tales of killing hundreds of Iraqi insurgents.

Kyle claims that he met Ventura in a bar in Coronado in 2006 while Ventura was in town to speak to a new class of SEAL graduates at nearby Naval Amphibious Base Coronado. Also present were family members holding a wake for Michael Mansoor, one of the first SEALs killed in Iraq. Kyle claims Ventura began loudly objecting to the war in Iraq before calling the troops "murderers" and saying "we deserved to lose a few guys".

Kyle then claims he punched Ventura, knocked him to the floor, and quickly ran away.

Infowars today spoke with Tyrel Ventura, Jesse Ventura's son, who related to us how Ventura is shocked, heartbroken and saddened about how a fellow Navy SEAL could invent such a hurtful and abhorrent lie.

The event never happened, Ventura has never met Kyle, and the whole story is a transparent hoax seemingly designed as an attempt at character assassination given Ventura's very public recent battles with the federal government, in particular his fight with the TSA, and his vehement anti-war stance, Tyrel told us after talking with his father.

Ventura explained that he has only ever visited the bar in question with groups of friends, and the notion that the story if true would not have already become public in the space of over five years is plainly ludicrous.

Ventura labels the story a total fabrication and is beyond heartbroken that a fellow service member and Navy SEAL would invent such outrageous lies designed to defame him and help sell a book. He adds that it is incredibly vicious to claim at a wake he would insult the family members of a slain soldier, which is one of the worst slurs that could be made against anybody, not to mention a former Navy SEAL like Ventura.

In his Facebook response, Ventura makes reference to another false claim that had to be retracted about him supposedly tail gating in California last week, suggesting that there is an organized effort to "destroy my credibility".

Such actions may be an effort to pre-empt the possibility that Ventura could enter the presidential picture as a candidate for the Libertarian Party. Tyrel Ventura told us that Jesse is completely blown away that the establishment is now coming after him by way of manufactured hoaxes and cynical acts of character assassination in a bid to politically discredit him.
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-jesse-ventura-blasts-navy-seal-punch-hoax/

Exclusive: Jesse Ventura Demands Fox Retraction for Sniper's Lies 1/3 Exclusive: Jesse Ventura Demands Fox Retraction for Sniper's Lies 2/3 Exclusive: Jesse Ventura Demands Fox Retraction for Sniper's Lies 3/3 Former Governor: Incident "never happened...someone is out to destroy my credibility" Paul ...

NDAA Is A Hoax: You Can't Legalize Tyranny

Uploaded by TheAlexJonesChannel on Jan 4, 2012

President Obama quietly waited weeks to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation on New Year's Eve after publicly threatening to veto the bill that, among other things, authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens.

Obama's signing statement tries to reassure observers that he wouldn't use the "law" to detain citizens, but that is an illusion; his signing statement is meaningless, and the establishment occupying Washington have pulled a hoax on The People in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to enslave them.

But you can't legalize tyranny. One of the nation's most well known legal precedents, Marbury vs. Madison, set in 1803, makes clear that any "law" that is "repugnant to the Constitution is null and void."

The blatant unconstitutional powers enacted in the legislature and executive branch is backfiring, however. This crowning act of tyranny is awakening people to the true intentions of Big Government in its takeover. The NDAA is so openly in violation of the American way, that Obama had to play lip-service to it in his signing statement language, even as he gave it the power of law.

Critics in the ACLU and Human Rights centers have abandoned their comfort zones and attacked the president from the left for crossing the Rubicon on rights, as they rightly should.

Now is the time for more to join that call; for Americans of all stripes to speak out against so-called "laws" that enable blatant political targeting of dissidents and declare a war against the citizens of this country. Make no mistake, if we sit idly by and let this precedent become accepted-- like the Patriot Act, with the appearance of law-- more and more unconstitutional legislation will obviously take hold.

Uploaded by TheAlexJonesChannel on Jan 4, 2012 President Obama quietly waited weeks to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation on New Year's Eve after publicly threatening to veto the bill that, among other things, authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens. Obam ...

Recipe for a Revolution

Recipe for a Revolution

Uploaded by StormCloudsGathering on Dec 19, 2011

In history there are events which stand as milestones marking points of no return.

Usually, however such moments are only visible in hind sight.

Recipe for a Revolution Uploaded by StormCloudsGathering on Dec 19, 2011 In history there are events which stand as milestones marking points of no return. Usually, however such moments are only visible in hind sight. ...

ALERT! Obama can now make YOU "disappear!" - Signs NDAA on Eve of 2012

ALERT! Obama can now make YOU "disappear!" - Signs NDAA on Eve of 2012

Uploaded by ppsimmons on Jan 2, 2012

Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be 'covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

====================================
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
====================================

ALERT! Obama can now make YOU "disappear!" - Signs NDAA on Eve of 2012 Uploaded by ppsimmons on Jan 2, 2012 Subtitle D--Counterterrorism SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) ...