Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no idea if this is [still] accurate for Newsmax:
* Christopher Ruddy (director, CEO, President) owns 32.6% of the common stock. He's the guy who started the company, the CEO and President, and is also a leading contributor to the website and magazine. He's a journalist who formerly worked for the New York Post as an investigative journalist, and is a special national correspondent for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
* Michael Ruff (director) owns 25% of the common stock. He is the owner of the Icarus Investments Ltd, a venture capital company, and was formerly the president of the Dallas real estate development company Lennox Properties. He was also on the board of directors of Texas Central Bank and Citadel Technology.
* Richard Mellon Scaife (not a director) owns 7.2% of the common stock. This may be the most interesting name on the list....Scaife is the heir to his mother's vast Mellon family fortune, and is the publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. He is a well-known supporter of any number of conservative causes, and was in some hot water in the 1972 presidential elections for contributing almost $1 million to Richard Nixon's re-election. He was also one of the moving forces behind the Arkansas Project, which pushed the notion that a White House aide was killed to cover up some aspect of the Whitewater investigations (the more commonly accepted version is that he committed suicide), maintained that the CIA was used by the Clintons to run drug smuggling operations and which eventually pushed the Monica Lewinsky story into the Clinton impeachment trial. He's the popular media choice for the villain behind Hillary Clinton's remarks about a right-wing conspiracy.
Speaking for myself I don't give a damn who owns it, it is one of the most conservative websites EVER, most of the articles condemn non christian or minority activities.... the rest condemn liberals.
Well, here is a case that will be heard by the Washington Supreme Court:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 12 Washington voters sue to set aside the election of Barack Obama in Washington.
Bellevue, WA, December 10, 2008 — The Washington Supreme Court has set a date for the case Broe v. Reed, to be heard en banc on January 8, 2009.
On December 4, 2008, James (Jim) Broe and 11 other Washington voters sued Secretary of State Sam Reed in the Washington Supreme Court, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to require the Secretary to set aside the votes cast for Senator Barack Obama, because at the time of the election, Senator Obama had failed to establish that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States, failed to establish that he was an American citizen, and that he was not running under his legal name of Barry Soetoro.
Summary Of Arguments
December 10, 2008
Broe v. Reed Washington State Supreme Court Cause No. 8-2-473-8
Standing
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “standing” to sue means that the party has sufficient stake – that the party is sufficiently affected - in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy. “Standing” is satisfied if the plaintiff has a legally protectable and tangible interest at stake in the litigation.
Many of the cases challenging Sen. Obama’s citizenship status have been dismissed for “lack of standing.”
Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed claim standing pursuant to the authorization given them by the legislature of Washington in RCW 29A.68.020(2). This statute creates standing for Plaintiffs to challenge the election of a candidate who has been elected but was ineligible at the time of his election to run for the office.
The duties of Washington’s Secretary of State The Secretary of State is declared, under RCW 29A.04.230 to be “the chief election officer for all federal, state, county, city, town and district elections.” The Secretary of State is “required by law” to . . . coordinate those state election activities required by federal law. Read more
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
08A469 WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay and/or injunction addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.
Is the Washington Supreme Court the same as the SCOTUS....huh?
As long as any court takes a case and rules that Obama must be properly vetted it is a win for the entire country. Every American should know if Obama meets the requirements of the Constitution. Just because the SCOTUS denied hearing the Wrotnowski case does not mean Obama meets the Constitutional requirements to be POTUS, because there was no decison on the case itself.
And yet another case is on the Supreme Court docket: Docket for 08A524 (http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm - broken link)
Yeah yeah and when that's thrown out there will be another.....I hope you find some kind of peace in the next 8 years, all this fuss must not be good for your soul.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
