The Georgia CP is having its state convention today and tomorrow. An impressive line up of speakers will be there including talk show host Steve Deace, talk show host and former Congressional candidate Jody Hice, and Pastor Joe Morecraft.

I didn’t get to go today due to work, but I plan to be there tomorrow so I’ll come back with a report.

…Contained in this major dump are several thousand private forum messages, personal emails, internal organization notes, names, phone numbers, home addresses and other information on all of their members and supporters. It’s time for these cowardly suit and tie white supremacists to sleep with one eye open. Scared much?

In addition to finding the usual racist rants and interactions with other white power groups, we also found a disturbingly high amount of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul. According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors. Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist “Ron Paul Papers” and receiving financial support from other white power groups (pictured with Don Black from stormfront.org). Hard to believe Ron Paul draws some support from the left and the occupation movements, especially now that it is confirmed Ron Paul hangs out with straight up racist hate groups.

We put extra effort in ruining the life of A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso. On top of being on the board of directors of A3P, former $cientologist, and high ranking Ron Paul organizer, he also is the account owner of german nazi forums and store nsl-forum.org, rhs-versand.com.

This claim has been circulated many places on the web, but I have yet to see specific messages to back up the claims.

The data dump is here for those who want to do their own investigation.

Tom Knapp writes:

A couple of disclaimers:

•  I don’t think anyone is going to mistake me for a Ron Paul apologist. I’ve been critical of Paul for various reasons, including but not limited to the issues raised by “the newsletter controversy.” Believe this: If I find anything credible anywhere directly connecting Paul to A3P and organizations of its type, I’ll shout it from the rooftops.
• I’ve only spent a few hours researching the dump, running searches on strings I would expect to shed light on the claims above.  There’s a lot of data to sift through, so what I’ve found so far may very well not be the final word on the subject.

Those two things said, I’ve found nothing really substantiating the two claims in the communique quote above. To wit:

1. A “disturbingly high amount of members” of A3P “are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul.”

   This is a pretty fuzzy claim in the first place, insofar as “disturbingly high” is a subjective evaluation and “involved in campaigning for” can mean a lot of things.

   What I found were several references to A3P members attending Paul campaign events; a couple of references to A3P members talking with low-level Paul volunteers whom the A3P people perceived as “with us” or “pro-White;” and one suggestion that a film/video guy who had done work for the Paul campaign be approached about doing the same kind of work for A3P.

   None of the campaign events mentioned were portrayed as Paul intentionally addressing A3P-type audiences — it was stuff like “we went to see Paul speak at CPAC” and “we went to Paul’s GOP convention rally in Minneapolis” and so on.

2. “Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors.”

   The closest thing I found to Paul “meeting” with A3P members were references like “managed to get my picture taken with Paul when I attended the Minneapolis convention rally.”

   I found references to A3P’s board of directors, and I found references to conference calls, but I found no references to Paul or his campaign being involved in said conference calls.

Does this mean those two claims are false? NO, it doesn’t. I may have missed something. Like I said, it’s a lot of stuff and I’ve only spent a little time sifting through it.

But those claims are strong enough that the burden of proving them falls on those making them. If the material to substantiate the claims is there, someone who can find it needs to highlight it and point it out instead of just leaving it buried down in the pile of garbage it’s embedded in.

Here’s the picture I get from my limited swim through the A3P sewer:

The A3P types consider the Paul movement, and the wider “paleo” movement (other referenced people, pubs and groups in the dump included Pat Buchanan, Thomas diLorenzo, The American Conservative magazine, the John Birch Society, et. al), to be “implicitly pro-White” (their terminology) and are attempting to build a “bridge” (their terminology) between those movements and “explicitly pro-White” (their terminology) groups including (named in the dump) A3P, White News Network, Stormfront, et. al.

I don’t think that belief on the part of A3P types is entirely unreasonable, given that the Rothbard/Rockwell “paleo strategy” which Paul used to raise money in the 80s and 90s was intended to specifically cater to such tendencies.

On the other hand, I think the A3P types are probably:

1. Under-estimating the extent to which Rothbard, Rockwell and Paul were using the “paleo strategy” to cynically exploit them — suckering them for political “seed money” and so forth — as opposed to genuinely make common cause with them; and
2. Seriously over-estimating the extent to which the now-existing Paul movement, which is not, for the most part,  a product of the “paleo strategy,” is composed of people likely to be sympathetic to the A3P-type fringe.

So far, I’m not seeing anything that constitutes a serious indictment of Paul, his campaign, or the movement surrounding his campaign — or at least nothing above and beyond other long-known plausible indictments of any or all of the three.

But, once again, this is just my initial impression, based on limited time and limited skills for digging through the dump. If anyone else is finding or seeing anything I’m missing or mis-interpreting, by all means let me know in comments, via contact form, etc.

As a side note, while I consider myself a member of Anonymous (expect us!) and while I’m happy to see A3P exposed, I was not involved in this operation nor did I have any foreknowledge of it.

If anyone has found more incriminating information in the data dump to back up the way it was characterized in the hackers’ message, please put sourced data in the comment section here.

In regards to some of the longer standing claims,

“Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage”

Progressive blogger Punk Patriot writes

Ron Paul is NOT anti-woman. Dr. Paul is a licensed physician who practiced obstetrics and gynecology prior to entering politics, assisting in the delivery of more than 4,000 babies over the course of his medical practice. He does personally hold socially conservative Christian values and believes that life begins at conception, but unlike many others in the Republican party he believes the federal government has no right to impose his socially conservative values on the entire nation. Dr. Paul consistently opposes a federal ban on abortion and believes quite reasonably that the question should be left up to the states (video here and here). Dr. Paul voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, a bill designed to criminalize the transportation of pregnant minors across state lines with the intention of the minor obtaining an abortion. Dr. Paul voted against the misleadingly titled Population Planning Bill, a bill designed to forbid dispersal of aid funds to international women’s health groups that also perform abortions even though they are already prohibited from using those funds to cover abortion services. Dr. Paul also voted against the equally misleadingly titled Child Custody Protection Act, another bill intended to prohibit the transportation of a minor across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and obtain access to abortion services. Those are pretty progressive politics for a socially conservative pro-life Christian.

Ron Paul is NOT anti-gay. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell proclaimed, “[w]ithout Ron Paul in this race, we would never hear one sensible thing said about marriage equality on the presidential debate stage… and no American politician is in a position to change more minds about marriage equality than Ron Paul. He is not speaking to the converted; he is speaking to conservative Republicans, he is speaking to evangelical Christians, he is going into the halls of the staunchest opponents of marriage equality in this country and he is telling them a truth so clear and so powerful that he is surely changing minds.” Dr. Paul opposes a federal ban on gay marriage, and believes “[a]ll voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law.” In fact he doesn’t just believe it, he expressed it on Fox News at a Republican presidential debate broadcast when he would have had much to gain politically from pandering to evangelical homophobia. Dr. Paul voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Resolution, a 2006 joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in the U.S. consists only of the union of a man and a woman and that federal and state constitutions can not be construed to require marriage or legal incidents of marriage be conferred in other unions. Dr. Paul voted to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. When interviewed by arch-conservative John Lofton on his evangelical right-wing radio program The American View, Ron Paul eloquently defended a position of tolerance for people of all sexual orientations in a situation when it would have been politically beneficial for him to confirm the bigoted views of the listening audience. LOFTON: “Let’s shift gears here to another topic: Homosexuality. Do you believe it’s a sin?” PAUL: “I’m not as judgmental about that, probably because of my medical background.” LOFTON: “Do you believe that God says it’s a sin?” PAUL: “Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way, but I think everybody’s God’s child too, so I have trouble with that.” Repent America, an evangelistic organization in the extreme theocratic right wing that is “focused on the public proclamation of the Gospel to further the Kingdom of God”) have even used this interview in attack ads against him because he does not believe homosexuality is a sin.

Ron Paul is NOT anti-black. Nelson Linder, President of the Austin chapter of the NAACP, a member of Dr. Paul’s constituency who has known Dr. Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist and stated that the reason he was being attacked as a racist in the press was that he was a threat to the establishment (audio). Ron Paul is the only candidate from the two major parties who has consistently opposed the “War on Drugs,” which the NAACP has rightfully denounced as the last bastion of institutionalized racism in America. Dr. Paul is the only candidate from a major party who has vowed to issue a Presidential pardon to all nonviolent drug offenders (1:38 into this video), the disproportionate majority of whom are disadvantaged minorities unfairly targeted by law enforcement for the color of their skin (A black man’s view on Ron Paul being racist: Part 1, Part 2).

[..]

Ron Paul is NOT in league with Christian Reconstructionist theocrats who would make laws respecting an establishment a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Dr. Paul voted against the National Day of Prayer Resolution, a concurrent resolution to “recommend that United States’ leaders call for national days of prayer and urge all Americans to seek God through humble prayer and fasting.”

[...]

Ron Paul DID oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for exactly the reason quoted in the article: “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.” Dr. Paul DOES NOT oppose civil rights and fully supported the Act’s repeal of Jim Crow laws, but he was deeply disturbed by the expansion of the power of the federal government over the behavior of private individuals.

Ron Paul DID co-sponsor a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade, for the same reason he voted against a Constitutional ban on abortion: he believes it to be out of the jurisdiction of the federal government.

A number of UNATTRIBUTED newsletters with Ron Paul’s name in the title did come out in the early 1990′s containing baldly racist and homophobic material. His response to that material is telling : “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.” This can easily be confirmed by looking into publications and recordings directly from Ron Paul himself from both before and after the newsletters in question, including the following three-part recording of an educational program about juror’s rights from 1989, in which Dr. Paul expresses his reading of and admiration for staunch abolitionist Lysander Spooner while simultaneously defending the principle of jury nullification of unjust legislation: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

Regarding immigration, VDARE (dedicated to limiting immigration) writes

Now, at last, Paul has finally given a comprehensive discussion of his views on immigration—in his latest book Liberty Defined, where he lists his positions on fifty different issues.

But what he—or the left-libertarian faction that seems to have his ear/ byline after the strange death of Rothbardian paleolibertarianism—actually says about the issue of immigration is a profound, and in fact tragic, disappointment.

The article concludes that “Ron Paul needs every vote he can get in his insurrectionary candidacy. In spurning immigration patriots, he has blundered.”

Finally, as to the claim

“…A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso. On top of being on the board of directors of A3P, former $cientologist, and high ranking Ron Paul organizer…”

As with the claim that Paul has had phone conferences with the A3P board of directors, I’d be interested in seeing more concrete evidence that Kelso is a high ranking organizer for Ron Paul.

Although he is currently running for president and serving in the US House as a Republican, Ron Paul ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian and remains a life member of the Libertarian Party. In 2008 he endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin in the general election.

If one believes that the problem is out-of-control government trampling our Bill of Rights, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the lack of Christian morals among our civil magistrates, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the slaughtering of over 50 million innocent unborn babies, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is honesty and integrity in the White House, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is out-of-control federal spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the United States catering to the evil machinations of the Security Council of the United Nations, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is more and more outsourcing of America’s manufacturing jobs and products, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes that the problem is ever-burgeoning deficit spending, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is the banksters at the Federal Reserve, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the problem is illegal immigration, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution. If one believes the United States gives away far too much foreign aid, Newt Gingrich is definitely not the solution.

Newt Gingrich? Really?

Baldwin goes on to further detail his case against Gingrich, as well as Santorum and Romney, and to elaborate on why he supports Ron Paul.

Paul, who was the 1988 Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year, as he did in 2008. Baldwin actively supported Paul in 2008 and is doing so again this year, and in return Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin in the 2008 general election.

Meanwhile, 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr, who famously backed out of Ron Paul’s joint appearance with Baldwin, independent Ralph Nader and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney because he would not appear on stage with “people like Cynthia McKinney,” has endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Recent Barr columns include The bizarro world of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum (published yesterday), and several previous columns expressing his support for Gingrich.

Barr, Gingrich and McKinney all represented Georgia in Congress.

More of Baldwin’s article here.

A West Palm Beach businessman defrauded investors of $2.5 million and used some of the cash to pay for his presidential campaign, the Securities and Exchange Commission said this week.

The SEC’s civil suit says Daniel Imperato, 53, schemed to portray his company, Imperiali of West Palm Beach, as a thriving organization “when in fact it was nothing more than a shell corporation.”

Imperato hired telephone salesmen and found 60 investors to buy stock in his company. The pitch sounded promising: Imperiali claimed to own a stable of television and telecommunications companies poised to generate $350 million in profits on $500 million in revenue in 2009.

“In reality, Imperiali’s portfolio companies had no operations, no products or services, and no revenue,” the SEC’s suit says.

H/T George Phillies

The woman stood at the corner with a sign reading, “Homeless – Two Children – Please Help.” She resembled an average housewife without signs of drug or alcohol abuse. I stopped for the red light, opened my window, and asked her if she knew of a rescue mission in the area. She named a couple of homes that help folks but said they were full.

I asked her about her children. She replied that they were with her sister. I didn’t have any cash to give her (only had my credit card), but I gave her a Gospel tract with our church address imprinted. Then the light changed to green and I had to move on. But her forlorn face remained in my memory.

Then last night I read of the homeless with a photo of a nice looking woman with a baby in her lap and a small boy sitting next to her, apparently on the ground or pavement, mother and son holding signs reading, “Homeless – Please Help.” The article, “Middle-class homelessness hits new high in U.S.” told of a 38 percent increase in homelessness in the last three years, that there are now an estimated 1.6 million children, or one in 45 children, out of their homes (American Free Press, 1/23/12)..

McLain goes on to talk about what he considers the causes of the problem: US taxes and regulations driving jobs to foreign nations such as China, banks selling homes without down payments and then foreclosing on them as the economy took a downturn, the willingness of consumers and company owners to do business with China, and the government supplanting churches and civic societies in providing charity/welfare. Read the whole thing.

Last night President Obama delivered his constitutionally required State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. The speech contained a little bit of hope and a great deal of the Obama kind of change.

The hope occurred in the opening and closing, when he reminded us of the sacrifice of the troops and how he ordered the Navy Seals to kill Osama Bin Laden. The speech also contained some truth – at least in the section that took us back to the Great Depression and WWII – and pointed out that we were once a great nation.

Hope and truth were very scarce for the rest of the speech.

The president listed many problems that confront the nation and then proposed changes for each of them. He failed to point out that virtually all of the problems happened because of government action in the first place. The speech’s proposals will make each of the problems, and the pain of dealing with them, much worse when someone finally has the courage to confront them.

His solutions are more government programs, more government spending, more government debt, and more force used against business and even other countries, with no understanding that market forces and not governments decide capital allocation.

The speech addressed taxes, trade, off-shoring of manufacturing, outsourcing of jobs, housing, energy, education, and savings from the winding down of wars.  A brief look at each of these areas follows:

Taxation:

In the area of taxation the president abandoned his bring-us-together approach and said that we should all pay our fair share, and that includes those who make over $1 million per year. Those people should pay a minimum of 30% of income in tax, and he made no distinction as to capital gains or regular income. Perhaps he should have mentioned that they already pay over 30% of regular income as tax. He did not mention, but he must know, that increasing the tax rate on capital gains will actually hurt the economy in the long run by chilling investment and thereby costing jobs and reducing revenue. There is no problem that a government program can’t make worse.

Trade, Off-shoring of Manufacturing, and Outsourcing of Jobs:

Problems of trade, off-shoring of manufacturing, and outsourcing of jobs can all be solved or at least helped, the speech said, by simply adding new government programs to pay companies to stay in America or to return to America. The alternative should they not return would be to punish them with minimum rate taxes on overseas profits to prevent other countries from competing for the jobs with low tax rates.

Washington hates nothing like it hates actual competition. Through the passage of various free trade agreements the world has been opened to American companies, and that genie cannot be returned to the bottle by force.

America should withdraw from those agreements; but in the meantime, American workers will compete for salaries, education, etc. with the world’s workers. A worker in America at $20 per hour will compete with a better educated or at least more technically trained worker in China or India for a fifth the wages.Instead of preparing the US to compete by getting our currency on solid footing and removing regulations and taxes that make us less competitive, the president proposes to force those who will not agree to accept his proposals.

War and Savings:

The president assumes that, like Iraq, the war in Afghanistan will wind down and therefore the US will save money. That is a very big assumption because of what appears to be war coming from the Iranian crises, perhaps on an even wider scale than Iraq and Afghanistan. If the money can be saved, however, it will be used to fix infrastructure and pay down debt. Now let’s see—we have a $1.5 trillion deficit each year, so how can we pay down debt? The very idea that it would happen is really standup comedy.

Energy:

The speech expressed the president’s concern for our lack of domestic energy production. He proposed to – guess what – that’s right: reward and incentivize his chosen companies and punish the others. What a hypocrite. He just disapproved the Keystone XL Pipeline that would have delivered 700 thousand barrels of crude per day to US refineries. That might have cost one of his friends like Warren Buffet money, so better to rob taxpayers and do it by force.

Education and Housing:

The speech had the expected sections for education and housing, again with no concern or awareness of market forces. He proposed to force students to stay in school until age 18 and pointed out that 20 states already are guilty of forcing such involuntary servitude. Why give the government even more time to indoctrinate your children?

In the housing area, the speech called for more federal control and more money to the banks and mortgage companies who caused the housing problem in the first place.-

In summary, the president said the system is unfair in the area of taxes, mortgages, etc. Everybody should pay their fair share, and he decides what that share is.

Well, he is right about the system being unfair and slanted in one direction. It is slanted toward the banks and has been for about 100 years (but is especially slanted now). The Federal Reserve prints trillions to bail out banks that are too big to fail, thus leaving the American people at the mercy of fraudulent or failing financial companies.

How do we now save this economy and get the nation on the road to recovery? We don’t, at least not without a great deal of pain. Like a seed that falls to the ground, it has to die and be reborn before it becomes a tree.

Last night, the president did not appear to be much of a “bring us together” kind of leader. The nation is wallowing in the terrible problems of debt and war and is desperate for a leader to rise above it all and unite us. Instead of uniting us, the president appears to be divisive and venal. The captain of the ship of state has allowed the ship to hit the rocks on his watch. When we rush to the rails to see the wreckage he says move along folks, nothing to see here, just go back to your cabins and I’ll take care of it.

Should we reward him for that with a second term? I don’t think so; but what of the Republicans, are they any better? No, with the exception of one man the Republicans are no better.

What if we considered the candidate of  the Constitution Party? Well, that sounds like change I could believe in.

Howard Phillips, founder of The Conservative Caucus (TCC) and its Chairman since 1974, has resigned, saying that recent health problems required that he “direct my energies on my health, my family life, my spiritual priorities, and my writings.” He affirmed his gratitude “for the opportunities God has given me to work with such fine people and I remain wholeheartedly supportive of the important work and mission of this organization.”

Phillips, now 70, led TCC through successful battles to block ratification of the SALT II Treaty, begin the SDI missile defense program, repeal the Catastrophic Coverage Act, prevent passage of Hillary Clinton’s socialized medicine scheme, and persuade the House of Representatives to impeach President Bill Clinton.

He visited all 50 states in campaigns against the Panama Canal treaties, SALT II, and the nuclear freeze. He also held organizational meetings in all 435 congressional districts during the early years of TCC.

His leadership in TCC’s Victory Over Communism project included support for anti-Communist freedom fighters in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, repeal of the Clark Amendment, Congressional approval of the MX missile, a 600-ship navy, and even a visit to Eastern Europe and the Baltic states as the Soviet empire began to show signs of collapse.

Phillips is a graduate of the Boston Latin School and Harvard, having served as President of the Harvard Student Council. He was one of the founders of Young Americans for Freedom.

Prior to founding The Conservative Caucus, he was Republican Chairman of Boston and campaign manager for Richard Schweiker’s successful 1968 Senate campaign in Pennsylvania.

During the Nixon administration, Phillips headed the President’s Council on Youth Opportunity and the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), and won nationwide conservative acclaim when he attempted to eliminate the OEO programs.

The Constitution Party (originally named the U.S. Taxpayers Party) nominated Phillips as its candidate for President in 1992, 1996, and 2000.

TCC’s Board of Directors expects to choose a new Chairman early in 2012, with Darrell Castle serving as interim Chairman. Castle was the 2008 Vice-presidential nominee of the Constitution Party.

Wikipedia notes that Jewish by birth and a native of Boston, Massachusetts, Phillips converted to evangelical Christianity in adulthood and has been associated with Christian Reconstructionism.

Phillips first campaign for president in 1992 ended in a seventh place finish. The campaign received 43,369 votes for 0.04% of the total vote. In 1996 the Phillips campaign finished sixth with 184,656 votes for 0.19% of the total vote. In the 2000 election he received 98,020 votes for 0.1% of the total vote and a sixth place finish.

Phillips’ original intention was to have Pat Buchanan run for President; however, when Buchanan did run for President outside the Republican Party in 2000, it was as the Reform Party candidate.

The 2008 ticket that Castle vas VP on, led by Chuck Baldwin, got the party’s best result yet, 199,750 votes, and was endorsed by Ron Paul.

Wikipedia also notes

Buchanan’s 2000 Reform Party running mate Ezola B. Foster switched her membership to the Constitution Party in 2002. Buchanan stated on the September 7, 2004 edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, “There is a chance I would vote for [Michael] Peroutka.” However, he later penned an endorsement of President George W. Bush in the pages of The American Conservative.

U.S. senator Bob Smith announced his switch from Republican to the U.S. Taxpayers Party in 1999 to seek its 2000 presidential nomination. Smith later claimed that anti-New World Order ideologues within the party resisted his candidacy due to his Roman Catholicism. He continued his campaign as a non-partisan independent but ceased the campaign soon thereafter and returned to the Republican party to assume a Senate committee chairmanship. In 2008, he began writing editorials on the Constitution Party’s web page, fueling speculation that he would seek its presidential nomination again, although he had endorsed Rep. Duncan Hunter for the Republican nomination. He requested that his name be withheld from consideration in a March 2008 letter to CP supporters.
Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist ran for Congress with the American Independent Party in 2005, but has since rejoined the Republicans.

Author and WorldNetDaily columnist Jerome Corsi launched a brief campaign for the 2008 nomination but in July 2007 decided to return to writing. Former Reagan Administration official and Christian activist Alan Keyes had actively sought the Constitution nod after ending a bid for the GOP nomination.

…

In 2010, former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo ran for governor of Colorado as a Constitutionalist. He received 36.8% of the vote finishing in 2nd place. Despite losing the election, Tancredo managed to secure major party status for the Constitution Party in Colorado, as that state requires a party to surpass 10% in a gubernatorial election to qualify for such status.

In 2010, former Republican Representative Virgil Goode (VA-5) accepted an appointment to the National Executive Committee of the Constitution Party.

Most people in the Palmetto State know Robby Wells as the former assistant football coach at the University of South Carolina and at South Carolina State. But his next challenge may be the most difficult to win.

Wells announced Monday morning he is running for president as an independent  and believes a vote for him is a vote for real change.

“It is time for Americans to move in a new, positive direction. It is time for America to elect a third party candidate for president.

Wells announced back in November his intent to run. He said he will represent the Constitution Party after being recruited by several small parties. He said he is tired of the back and fourth bickering between Republicans and Democrats.

Wells was previously running for the nomination of the Reform Party, but has switched to the Constitution Party–claiming he was “recruited”.

Secretary of State Kris Kobach is both the defendant and his own attorney in a lawsuit now before a federal appeals court over how Kansas deals with small political parties.

He planned to argue the state’s case Wednesday morning before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. The Constitution Party of Kansas wants to regain its status as a recognized political party and is challenging the refusal of the secretary of state’s office to allow people to affiliate with the party when registering to vote.

In order to gain state recognition in Kansas, a party must collect 16,776 petition signatures from registered voters in Kansas or 2% of the last vote in the last governor’s election.

“Nonpartisan” — sometimes called “independent” in other states — voters have reached their highest share since 1985, which is as far back as available voter registration data goes.

As of last month, about 16 percent of active Nevada voters — 171,000 people — were nonpartisan, up from about 14 percent in 2000. In 1985, just 7 percent of Nevada voters were registered nonpartisan.

The article also suggests that many members of the Independent American Party of Nevada, a far-right political party aligned with the national Constitution Party, are people who were intending to register as non-partisan.

On the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” comes another draconian bill designed to give the federal government the power to turn American citizens into enemies of the state for virtually any reason it deems necessary. Stephen D. Foster, Jr. has the story.

“Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”

Foster goes on to say, “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

Read more…

In an e-mail about the news, Wells writes:

I will be joining the Constitution Party tomorrow, and seeking their nomination. I have been an independent since I announced back in November. Since then, two parties have been recruiting me, and I have chosen the Constitution Party.

When asked if he would continue his run for the presidential nomination of the Reform Party, presumably the other party he mentions above, Wells says, “I am only seeking the nomination of the Constitution Party.”

Wells’s name was listed on the Reform Party website’s list of presidential candidates, but has since been removed. Only fitness model Andre Barnett and Earth Intelligence Network CEO Robert David Steele remain as candidates for the party’s nomination.

According to Politics1, in addition to Wells, other candidates seeking the Constitution Party presidential nomination include businessman J.L. Mealer, Tea Party activist Laurie Roth, and retired Navy commander Bill Tucker.

Former Republican Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia is considered a potential candidate.

The Constitution Party National Convention will be held April 18-21 in Nashville, Tennessee.

At this point the individuals on the list have not necessarily agreed to have their names on the ballot. The Secretary of State’s office will contact each one and ask if they wish to be listed.

The fourteen names include former Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia, who is believed to desire the Constitution Party’s presidential nomination, although he hasn’t formally announced. The other names are: Philip Berg of Pennsylvania, Laurie Roth of Washington state, Todd Palin of Alaska, Wiley Drake of California, Ed Noonan of California, George Peabody of Hawaii, Marvin Ampelman of Massachusetts, Max Rieske of Michigan, Diane Beall of California, Walter Nayakik of Alaska, Veronica Piva of California, D. Clark Ambassador for Christ (that is his legal name) of California, and Robert Sisilo, who is a U.S. citizen who is not registered to vote and who lives outside the United States.

So, is Todd Palin running for President? No evidence suggests that. The AIP-CA does not need the approval of the candidates in order to submit their names to the Secretary of State. It is highly unlikely, though, that Palin will allow his name to remain on the ballot. Berg, Beall, Noonan, Rieske, Drake and Goode are all likely to give their consent to be listed on the ballot.

Subject: PRESS ADVISORY: THIRD PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, ROBBY WELLS, WILL HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE IN COLUMBIA, SC ON JANUARY 16, 2012 ANNOUNCING THAT HE IS JOINING A PARTY.
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:53:52 -0500
From: robby@electrobbywells.com
To: info@electrobbywells.com

To whom it may concern,

Attached is a press advisory of the Third Party Presidential Candidate, Robby Wells, announcing his press conference in Columbia, SC on Monday, January 16 at 11:00am at the Hilton Columbia Center located at: 924 Senate St., Columbia, SC 29201.

Mr. Wells, an Independent Candidate, will announce his intentions of joining a party.

Robby Wells, a former college football coach, will bring strong leadership to the nation in a time when America needs a new, positive direction.

The Presidential Candidate’s most recent interview on FOX can be viewed at:www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/politics/010312-3rd-party-presidential-candidate-robby-wells-visits-fox-35

His campaign web site can be viewed at: www.electrobbywells.com

Any questions can be answered at:
e-mail: info@electrobbywells.com
phone: (704)606-2859

Thank you,

Nicole Miller – Campaign Manager

While most Americans were celebrating the holidays, President Barack Obama quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” into law. Obama had initially said he would veto the bill which contains the draconian language authorizing the US military to seize and incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc. Of course, Obama quickly changed his mind after the bill passed both houses of Congress.

When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t.” See this report:

http://tinyurl.com/6pqx4bg

Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative” talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al., should be ashamed of themselves!

Other alternative parties have also spoken out against this legislation.

Ganesha, an artwork depicting the Hindu god with an elephant head, is an “abomination” according to members of the Kootenai County Constitution Party who protest the public unveiling of the four-armed sculpture in downtown Coeur d’Alene.

Kootenai County is in Idaho and Ganesh, the Hindu diety the sculpture depicts, is known as the Lord of Success and Remover of Obstacles.

The recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the reaction–or better, lack of reaction–by the GOP’s Presidential candidates is a perfect example of how it will not matter to a Tinker’s Dam which Republican candidate wins the nomination, unless that candidate is Congressman Ron Paul. This is what so many people within the so-called Religious Right and establishment GOP just do not understand: they do not understand the fact that America is in the throes of a burgeoning police state. They have buried their heads in the sand for so long that they wouldn’t know what tyranny looked like if it came up and bit them on their blessed assurance! They have totally drunk the propaganda Kool Aid that purports that the biggest threat to our liberties comes from the Sand People. Our Founding Fathers were a much wiser lot, of course. They understood perfectly that the biggest threat to our liberties comes from Washington, D.C., not Baghdad, or Tehran, or any other foreign entity.

Read more…

The district Mack is running in has been represented by Republican Lamar Smith since 1987.