UN and Obama prepare for March vote to take our guns

If you read no further than the copied paragraph below you have gone far enough to alert you to what OBAMA and the UN are planning come March on the International stage.

Remember, and I have told you many times. The United Nations will eventually be our international governing body. They will soon rule us from an international platform taking our sovereignty and our Constitution with it unless we stop it!

Here is the most recent list of actions the UN and your fake president will be voting on in March. If you choose to sleep, hug your gun closely and prepare to let her go!

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

Dear fellow Patriot,

Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.

You see, only hours after re-election, Barack Obama immediately made a move for gun control…

On November 7th, his administration gleefully voted at the UN for a renewed effort to pass the “Small Arms Treaty.”

I don’t know about you, but watching anti-American globalists plot against our Constitution makes me sick.

What’s worse, the UN set March 18th-28th to meet to pass the final version of the treaty that will be sent to the Senate for ratification.

You and I will only have a few short months to prepare for this battle…

If we’re to succeed, we must fight back now.

That’s why I’m helping lead the fight to defeat the UN “Small Arms Treaty” in the United States Senate.

And it’s why I need your help today.

Will you join me by taking a public stand against the UN “Small Arms Treaty” and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey right away?

Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps.

But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.

I’m sure I don’t have to tell you this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.

To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the UN, the United States of America isn’t a “shining city on a hill” — it’s an affront to their grand designs for the globe.

These anti-gun globalists know that as long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.

And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.

That’s why I was so excited to see the National Association for Gun Rights leading the fight to stop the UN “Small Arms Treaty!”

Will you join them by going on record AGAINST global gun control and sign the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey today?

The truth is there’s no time to waste.

You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.

The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical agenda.

They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the UN Small Arms Treaty into law since the mid-1990s.

But now time may not be on our side.

In fact, we’re likely to only have a few weeks to defeat them when they make their move in March.

And worse… the UN Small Arms Treaty is no longer the only UN scheme threatening our gun rights.

More and more of the UN’s radical agenda is slipping through covertly, under the cover of domestic legislation.

Not long ago, Obama told Sarah Brady from the anti-gun Brady Campaign, “I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control].  We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

In fact, Hillary Clinton’s State Department recently bragged that Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious are implementations of the UN’s anti-gun agenda!

And I’d place a wager that Obama’s M1 Rifle Re-importation Ban was also the UN’s agenda dutifully executed by his administration.

Anti-gun UN policy that NEVER received a single vote in the United States Congress!

The UN will meet soon to pass a final version of the “Small Arms Treaty” to be sent for ratification by the Senate.

But even worse than a renewed mandate, the General Assembly could vote by simple majority to implement the “Small Arms Treaty.”

This would bypass any further meetings and would allow them to insist that member states ratify the treaty immediately.

So if you and I are going to defeat them, we have to turn the heat up on Washington now before it’s too late!
1. Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?

2. Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your Constitutional rights must be opposed?

If you said “Yes!” to these questions, please sign the survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.

But I hope you’ll do more than just sign your survey today.

With your help, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue to turn up the heat on targeted Senators who are working to implement the UN “Small Arms Treaty.”

Direct mail.  Phones.  E-mail.  Blogs.  Guest editorials.  Press conferences.  Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits.  The whole nine yards.

Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.

But that’s not easy, and we may not have much time.

In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat the UN’s schemes, pro-gun Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!

So please put yourself on record AGAINST the UN Gun Ban by signing NAGR’s Firearms Sovereignty Survey.

But along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.

And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.

Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.

For Freedom,

Rand Paul
United States Senator

Here is the survey to take to send a strong message to the US Senate that our 2nd Amendment rights are not negotiable.

http://www.nagr.org/UN_RP_Survey1b.aspx?pid=br02a

Obama and baby Jesus share manger in Italian Nativity scene

And this shall be a sign unto you; You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.-Luke 2:12

Wait is that baby Jesus? Nope! Its Obama right next to Baby Jesus and the lovely queen Michelle. A new savior to the world. A leader among leaders, the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

Joy to the World the fake prez has come to save the world.

I’m having fun right now but if this wasn’t so rediculous it would be taken serious. Italy and it’s many wood crafters have elected to put OBAMA and the Michelle in with baby Jesus to express their love for the future New World Order leader.

Not my choice, but hey, they can do what they want to the sacred image of Christs birth. Right? Read the rest of the story below from the blaze.com, I’m going to Supermart today and get me one before they sell out!

President Barack Obama, riding on the heels of his historic electoral victory this week, has another accomplishment to boot: He will be included, as a character, in traditional Italian nativity scenes in Naples this Christmas. No, we’re not joking. 

The president is poised, in figurine form, to appear next to baby Jesus, other Biblical characters and numerous other politicians who are being infused into the traditional holiday story.

As noted, Obama isn’t the only contemporary figure created for inclusion in nativities. According to Euronews (see additional video here), Mitt Romney is also a newfound nativity character.

While one of the Obama designs comes complete with a crown, a depiction of the former Republican candidate comes with tears streaming down his face (i.e. a reaction to his electoral loss). KSEE-TV explains the fascinating development in detail:

Italian shopkeepers are now selling a new figurine for people to put in their nativity scenes. Shops selling nativity figurines are including miniature president Barack Obamas. Some of the figurines hold a sign that reads, “God bless America.”  Craftspeople have been carving nativity scenes in Naples since the 19th century. The scenes include figurines of important people of the times.

This year, though, isn’t Obama’s first foray into the nativity figurine business. In 2008, the president and his wife, Michelle, also appeared in the un-traditional Italian displays.

Following the 2008 election, Reuters reported that the Obamas popped up “in Italian nativity scenes…alongside the baby Jesus and wise men.” At the time, the outlet continued:

The production of handmade figurines for nativity scenes is big business in this southern Italian city and has been for centuries.
But beyond the thousands of angel, sheep, Mary and Joseph figures filling market stalls before Christmas, craftsmen say Obama has become a top seller.

Tradition requires that the nativity scene be built up over time until Christmas Eve, when baby Jesus is put in the manger as the very last element of the display.

As always, figurine-makers provide a chance to choose a more light-hearted approach for the scene providing replicas of personalities who have made the news during the last year.

Not everyone is fond of this modern interpretation of the nativity, which also includes other world leaders beyond Obama. Some believe that it sullies the image and message behind the traditional Biblical story of Jesus’ birth.

“Something as beautiful as the traditional nativity scene shouldn’t be spoiled by these figurines of personalities and I don’t think children like them,” local Pasquale Oliva said back in 2008.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-to-accompany-baby-jesus-wise-men-in-italian-nativity-scenes-yes-really/

OBAMA appoints terrorist sympathizer Al-Marayati to OSCE post

Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was chosen to represent the United States government at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) annual 10-day human rights conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM). The conference concluded last week in Warsaw and Mr. al Marayati’s appointment to the delegation may have been largely overlooked due to the furor over the threats by the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to arrest OSCE election monitors.

Al Marayati has been widely criticized for his support of Hamas and Hezbollah; both listed by the United States government as terrorist organizations. Mr. al Marayati insists the groups are engaged in providing social programs and humanitarian assistance to the residents of Gaza and Lebanon and he refuses to condemn them for their repeated acts of terrorism; cynically referring to the murder of Israeli civilians as “quote unquote military operations.”

Al-Marayatis appointment by Obama was highly criticized in Jewish media as Counter-terrorism expert Steve Emerson told The Jewish Press that “Al-Marayati’s appointment is not just scandalous but also does incalculable damage to our values as a nation whose core principles categorically reject the legitimization of a racist supporter of terrorism, and an incendiary proponent of paranoid conspiracies that provides the motivation for radical Muslims to carry out terrorism.”

Al-Marayati was recently quoted as saying at an OSCE Human Right conference in WARSAW, yes home of the largest Jewish ghettos and population centers said, “the situation of Muslims as a religious minority in America.”  He quoted President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech, in which he said, “‘it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear,’” and called for “governments to ‘stop targeting Muslims through legislation or policy, and instead enshrine the ground of religion or belief as a prohibited ground of discrimination in all realms.”

Steve Emerson, one of the premier counter-terrorism experts, and someone who has conducted extensive research into Al-Marayati’s background, told The Jewish Press,

For this administration to appoint (Al-Marayati) to a human rights organization, who has openly supported Hezbollah, claimed that the FBI has illegally incited Muslims on terrorism charges because of FBI sanctioned policies of “racial profiling,” has defended as innocent the most notorious members of Hamas who were found guilty of laundering millions of dollars to a terrorist group, and someone who has complained of ‘having the Holocaust shoved down [his] throat,’ is an outrage.

Emerson suggested  that the appointment of Al-Marayati as a representative of the U.S. at one of the world’s largest human rights conference, cries out for a congressional investigation of the larger and more heinous scandal of the unprecedented degree to which the Obama administration has embraced and collaborated with radical Muslim groups in the U.S. whose lineage derives directly from the world wide totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood movement.

The larger picture of why there are UN/OSCE “poll watchers” in Nashville Tennessee and across the US to observe our next election is becoming clearer by the day as my research is revealing.

The deafening silence from our State Legislators, Senators and our Governor Bill Haslam is becoming more understandable as the days pass. The muzzling of our elected leaders seems to be in unison and planned, perhaps suggesting complicity with Islamic extremist and the political correctness that has become acceptable as we coddle the same people that want to cripple our country.

Sprinkle in the flurry of new mosques in Nashville, ALECs model legislation, corporate funded Voter ID bill, appointment by Haslam of a Sharia Finance expert to a high level position within our own Tennessee Government with ties to sheiks and immams associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The appointment of Al-Marayati to the OSCE who happens to be in Nashville Tennessee monitoring, intimidating voters and perhaps swaying the vote any way they can.

The recent requests of the NAACP, SEIU and the ACLU to monitor our elections is suspect. The United Nations involvement in our elections, Former ACORN (True Vote) consulting with OSCE on what to look for in the way of Election fraud while being one of the worst offenders of election fraud in recent history is ascnine. The Reverend Al Sharpton sacheting his “brigades of poll watchers” into town to spew hate and promote racism would be comical if not so sad. Our elected officials allowing this to brew and spew over into our communities is rediculous and the integrity of our election potentially being jeopardized is disheartening and begs of someone to be held responsible for their open appeasement.

Furthermore, the Anti-Defamation League spokesperson had this to say about Obamas appointment of Al-Mayarati to the OSCE Commission: “It is regrettable that someone with such distorted, conspiratorial views—even with a lackluster apology—is delegated by our government to represent our country abroad,”

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, argued that the State Department is showing inconsistency by touting an individual who has defended the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations.

“One would assume that individuals selected to represent the United States at an international human rights conclave would share our government’s longstanding policy that Hamas and Hezbollah are dangerous terrorist organizations,” Cooper told the Free Beacon. “But Mr. Salam al-Marayati and his organization are long-time advocates that these deadly terror groups be removed from the U.S. terrorist list.”

“With terrorism continuing to boil the Middle East,” Cooper added, “the question is why the U.S. State Department would say he is ‘highly credible’?”

Josh Block, a former Clinton administration official who now serves as CEO of The Israel Project, said the State Department’s defense of al-Marayati lacks credibility.

“That statement, defending a person who is clearly a terrorist sympathizer and deeply hostile to Israel, calls into question the credibility of the person who gave it, and it raises a very serious question: What exactly is the U.S. government saying here?” Block asked.

“It is inexplicable and deeply concerning that a person who has suggested Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and advocated for terrorist organizations including Hamas and Hezbollah, which has killed more Americans than any terrorist group except al Qaeda, would be described as ‘valued’ and ‘highly credible’ by our government,” Block said.

The State Department, however, defended al-Marayati’s participation, calling him “valued and highly credible.”

Remember, these so called “valued and highly credible” people are inside our borders, represented by the United Nations and are monitoring our elections and may even influence the outcome or spark riots in the streets if the outcome of the election is not to their liking.

God help us America. Our best hope is that our elected officials will wake up and stop this takeover of our government and everything it represents.

Humbly my opinions and we all know what opinions are like.

Source of info:

I want to personally thank the authors of many of these quotes as they are very important to spreading the news of the happenings in our country. Please visit these sites often and offer them support, public information is our greatest weapon against this onslaught. The complete rendering of the leftist press to remain silent on this issue is beyond my understanding. Thank God the first amendment is still intact….for now.

http://www.inquisitr.com/384565/obama-delegate-to-osce-human-rights-conference-called-israel-911-suspect-supported-hamas/

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/wap/Item.aspx?type=0&item=160909

http://sheikyermami.com/2012/10/03/scandalous-obama-regime-sends-mu-bro-operative-salam-al-marayati-to-warsaw-human-rights-conference/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/obama-picks-islamic-supremacist-defender-of-hamas-and-hizballah-to-represent-us-at-human-rights-conf.html

Texas AG puts foot down over UN poll watchers in letter to Clinton

Text of the letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

October 25, 2012

The Honorable
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Madam Secretary:

Yesterday you received a letter from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) asking that the U.S. Department of State take steps to ensure the OSCE’s election observers are not “restrained in their activities” while in the State of Texas. It appears that OSCE is under the misimpression that the State Department can somehow help its representatives circumvent the Texas Election Code. Texas law prohibits unauthorized persons from entering a polling place—or loitering within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance—on Election Day. OSCE monitors are expected to follow that law like everyone else.

As you know, Texas election laws govern anyone who participates in Texas elections. The fact that representatives of the United States joined the U.S.S.R, Yugoslavia, Romania, and other OSCE member-nations in signing a document at a 1989 conference in Copenhagen has absolutely no bearing on the administration of elections or laws governing elections in the State of Texas. Yet the OSCE invokes the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document to seek your help ensuring that its representatives are not “restrained” by Texas law. If the OSCE wishes to visit Texas during election season, we welcome the opportunity to educate its representatives about the State’s electoral process. But OSCE is not above the law and its representatives must at all times comply with Texas law when they are present in this state.

While the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document cited in the OSCE letter is legally irrelevant and will have no impact on the State’s administration of the November elections, for the sake of accuracy you should know that the letter misconstrues OSCE’s own governing documents. Indeed, the OSCE claims that requiring its representatives to comply with Texas law somehow contravenes paragraph 8 of the Copenhagen document. That is false.

In fact, paragraph 8 specifically stipulates that OSCE representatives may only observe elections “to the extent allowed by law.” As you know, in the United States that means both state and federal law. The OSCE’s letter states only that its observers are committed to compliance “with all national laws and regulations.” This statement may simply reveal that the OSCE is unfamiliar with our nation’s federalist system. On the other hand, it may reveal that the OSCE does not consider itself restrained by state law. Texas needs OSCE’s assurance that its representatives will abide by Texas law when they are present in this state. We have not received that assurance.

In addition to my desire to defend and enforce Texas election laws, I am also concerned that an unnecessary political agenda may have infected OSCE’s election monitoring activities. The OSCE has published policy recommendations and other reports that raise objections to state laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting, prevent voter registration fraud, and require voters to present a photo identification at the polling place. The OSCE may object to photo identification laws and prohibitions on felons voting—but our nation’s Supreme Court has upheld both laws as entirely consistent with the U.S. Constitution. And perhaps ironically, the OSCE representative leading the mission to the United States hails from the Netherlands, which has a photo identification law for voters. According to the Dutch government’s official website: “checking identity documents helps fight fraud.” Why the OSCE appears to now question voter identification laws in the United States is beyond reason. Perhaps it is just politics. Regardless, the OSCE’s perspective on Voter ID is legally irrelevant in the United States.

Indeed, contrary to the principles of “political pluralism” articulated in the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document, the OSCE has recently coordinated with a number of plainly partisan organizations in the United States. This appears to reflect a concerted effort to politicize an initiative that was previously perceived as an international information exchange program. While Texas may welcome visitors from any nation or international organization who wish to learn more about the steps the State has taken to protect the integrity of state elections, we need not open our doors and accommodate an international effort affiliated with partisan organizations in the United States that wish to suppress electoral integrity.

The case in point is OSCE’s coordination with Project Vote, an overtly partisan organization that was founded by and closely affiliated with ACORN. As you know, ACORN collapsed in the wake of a national voter registration fraud scandal that resulted in multiple criminal prosecutions for violations of state and federal election laws. Just this week, Project Vote boasted that it was advising OSCE on which issues to study—and which states to monitor—this election cycle. In light of Project Vote’s history of voter registration fraud and its more recent failed attempt to enjoin Texas election laws that were enacted to prevent fraud, no legitimate international body would affiliate with Project Vote. Consequently, OSCE’s affiliation with this dubious organization necessarily undermines its credibility and the independence of its election monitors.

Rather than work closely with domestic partisan organizations to advance their shared political agenda, the OSCE should consult the report that President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State James Baker issued as co-chairmen of the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform. As you know, President Carter is one of the world’s most well-known election monitors. Given President Carter’s experience in this area, it is noteworthy that the report he authored found: “The electoral system cannot inspire confidence if no safeguards exist to deter and detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.” Apparently the Netherlands agrees with that assessment, which is why the Dutch government similarly requires voters to present a photo identification before casting their ballots.

The United States Constitution authorizes the States to regulate the conduct of state and federal elections within their borders. In Texas, the Legislature has exercised its prerogative to implement laws that preclude felons from voting, prevent groups like Project Vote from questionable voter registration activities, and instill confidence in the electoral system by requiring voters to present a photo identification. While we welcome international visitors who wish to engage in a legitimate information exchange, we have no interest in being lectured by the OSCE about how best to conduct the State of Texas’ business.

Unlike the unelected bureaucrats at the OSCE, our State’s leaders and decision-makers were duly elected by Texas voters. Elected members of the Texas Legislature enacted the Texas Election Code to ensure our State’s elections are free, fair, open, and reliable. The Election Code does not authorize OSCE’s representatives to enter the polling place and nothing in a document that may govern the OSCE’s conduct has any impact—legal or otherwise—on the conduct of elections in the State of Texas. If the OSCE does not wish to follow the laws that govern everyone else present in the State of Texas, including the voters who elect our State’s leaders, then perhaps it should dispatch its representatives to another state.

In closing, I have a simple request: Please work with the OSCE to ensure they agree to comply with Texas law. If they refuse to do so, OSCE’s representatives may be subject to legal consequences associated with any violations of state law.

Sincerely,
Greg Abbott
Attorney General of Texas

Obama, Clinton grant UN “poll watchers” diplomatic immunity, Texas AG says “bring it”

BCN Note- A showdown between Lone Star Texans Attorney General Abbott, Governor Rick Perry and Communist, Marxist and Socialist Barrack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton is quickly heating up over UN Monitors from the OSCE observing our elections.

As attention to this battle intensifies the fangs are coming out and the real reasons the United Nations are in our back yard is starting to come to light!

Obama granting this OSCE “poll watching” group “full diplomatic immunity”, meaning they are above the law and not required to follow our state election laws speaks volumes of why they are in our country.

When groups like ACORN (True Vote) although defunct are still very active under another name, ACLU, NAACP, SEIU, Al Sharpton you know there is an agenda. It seems this UN/OSCE delegation which has now grown to 150 or so has turned from apolitical to partisan. Recent research has revealed that the constitutional voter ID laws are the fuel that is igniting their increased presence in Tennessee and the US.

It is evident that their continued and increasing presence at polling places all over the US is going to fan a possible revolution if Obama loses that will be preceeded with a massive deluge of lawsuits challenging our elections and they will have the strength of an international body at their backs. Mark my word it’s clear as crystal.

Please read the article below and visit the New American website for many more outstanding articles. It was so informative I wanted to keep my rants short.

Sunday, 28 October 2012 15:00
Obama Backs UN-linked Election Monitors, but Texas Stands Firm
Written by  Alex Newman

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13415-obama-backs-un-linked-election-monitors-but-texas-stands-firm

As the national scandal over United Nations-linked “elections monitors” in the United States continues to grow after Texas threatened potential prosecutions, the international outfit deploying “observers” demanded that the Obama administration come to its aid. The U.S. State Department promptly claimed that the UN-affiliated monitors would have “full” diplomatic immunity. But in the Lone Star State, officials fired back and upped the ante: Don’t mess with Texas.

On October 23, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a strongly worded letter to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) warning that its representatives could be prosecuted if they violate state law or are found within 100 feet of a polling place. Among the most serious concerns was the fact that the UN partner organization was working with discredited far-left radical groups to supposedly seek out conservative “voter suppression” schemes — mostly state laws aimed at preventing election fraud.

In a statement, the OSCE also said it would monitor “compliance” with unspecified “international obligations” supposedly applicable to the United States. The controversial organization, which includes as members the governments and dictators ruling Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and other nations, responded to Texas with its own letter to the U.S. State Department warning against any efforts to “restrain” its personnel.

“The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable,” complained Janez Lenarcic, chief of the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) monitoring operations. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.” (Emphasis added.)  

The Obama administration responded to the controversy by purporting to offer the international “elections monitors” supposed “diplomatic immunity” — essentially claiming that they were above the law, even in Texas. The two monitors for Texas, scheduled to be deployed in Austin, are Conny Jensen from Denmark and Melanie Leathers from the United Kingdom, documents show. In an October 26 press conference, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland claimed that “in general, we give them protected status.”

The spokesperson also claimed there were “no sovereignty issues” involved, emphasizing, as Texas’s attorney general did, that the OSCE obviously has no authority over the states it chooses to monitor. “They have said that they do not intend to violate any laws while in the United States,” Nuland claimed. “So we are going to let the conversations go forward between the OSCE and Texas and see how that goes.”

In the Lone Star State, however, officials did not take kindly to the international whining or the Obama administration’s response. “No UN monitors/inspectors will be part of any TX election process,” tweeted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, in support of his chief law-enforcement officer. GOP U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz, a popular conservative who made opposition to UN schemes a key part of his campaign, also saluted Abbot for standing up to the scandal-plagued international outfit.  

The Texas attorney general, meanwhile, remained defiant despite State Department pronouncements and OSCE complaining. “UN-related vote monitors warn Texas: Don’t mess with us. My response: BRING IT,” Abbott tweeted in response. He also quoted Sam Houston saying: “Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.” Following the tweets, Abbot also sent an official letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laying down the law. 

“It appears that OSCE is under the misimpression that the State Department can somehow help its representatives circumvent the Texas Election Code. Texas law prohibits unauthorized persons from entering a polling place — or loitering within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance — on Election Day,” the attorney general explained to Clinton. “OSCE monitors are expected to follow that law like everyone else.”

Of course, as Clinton already knows, Texas election laws govern anyone and everyone who wishes to participate in elections held in the Lone Star State, Abbott said. “The fact that representatives of the United States joined the U.S.S.R, Yugoslavia, Romania, and other OSCE member-nations in signing a document at a 1989 conference in Copenhagen has absolutely no bearing on the administration of elections or laws governing elections in the State of Texas,” he warned.

If the OSCE wants to visit Texas during the election, Abbott said the state would welcome the opportunity to educate its representatives about state elections — perhaps it could be useful to OSCE member regimes like the brutal communist tyrant ruling over Belarus. “But OSCE is not above the law and its representatives must at all times comply with Texas law when they are present in this state,” he added.

The 1990 OSCE governing document signed by the representatives of the U.S. government and cited by the international group in its pleas with the Obama administration is “legally irrelevant” in Texas and “will have no impact” on the way the state administers its election, Abbott pointed out. However, the attorney general still added that, even according to that agreement, observers are required to follow applicable law. In other words, the OSCE is making “false” claims.

In addition to misconstruing its own governing documents, in its letter to the Obama administration, the OSCE promised only to follow all “national” laws and regulations. “This statement may simply reveal that the OSCE is unfamiliar with our nation’s federalist system,” Abbott observed in his letter to Clinton. “On the other hand, it may reveal that the OSCE does not consider itself restrained by state law.”

In either case, Texas needs assurances from the OSCE that it intends to strictly comply with all state laws. So far, Abbott said, those assurances have not been forthcoming. There are other problems, too, however.  

“In addition to my desire to defend and enforce Texas election laws, I am also concerned that an unnecessary political agenda may have infected OSCE’s election monitoring activities,” the state’s top law enforcement officer explained, citing the international outfit’s objections to efforts aimed at preventing registration fraud as well as state laws requiring voter ID. “The OSCE may object to photo identification laws and prohibitions on felons voting — but our nation’s Supreme Court has upheld both laws as entirely consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

Ironically, Abbott added, the OSCE’s U.S. election monitoring boss, diplomat Daan Everts, hails from the Netherlands, which requires that all voters present identification to help combat fraud. “Why the OSCE appears to now question voter identification laws in the United States is beyond reason. Perhaps it is just politics,” the letter stated. “Regardless, the OSCE’s perspective on Voter ID is legally irrelevant in the United States.”

Meanwhile, the attorney general also took the opportunity to blast the OSCE yet again for meeting with “plainly partisan” U.S. organizations. Among the American groups working with the OSCE are the NAACP, the ACLU, and assorted splinter groups like “Project Vote” formed after the taxpayer-funded, Obama-linked organization ACORN collapsed in disgrace amid charges of massive voting fraud.

In letters and meetings with the international monitors, those groups warned of alleged efforts by conservatives to “disenfranchise” minority voters. The OSCE promised to follow up on the half-baked accusations, drawing widespread criticism and ridicule across the country.

“This appears to reflect a concerted effort to politicize an initiative that was previously perceived as an international information exchange program,” Abbot wrote. “While Texas may welcome visitors from any nation or international organization who wish to learn more about the steps the State has taken to protect the integrity of state elections, we need not open our doors and accommodate an international effort affiliated with partisan organizations in the United States that wish to suppress electoral integrity.”

Of particular concern, Abbot said, was an organization known as Project Vote, which recently boasted that it was helping to advise the OSCE on what issues and jurisdictions to “monitor” this election. “In light of Project Vote’s history of voter registration fraud and its more recent failed attempt to enjoin Texas election laws that were enacted to prevent fraud, no legitimate international body would affiliate with Project Vote,” the attorney general wrote. “Consequently, OSCE’s affiliation with this dubious organization necessarily undermines its credibility and the independence of its election monitors.”

Abbott also took the opportunity to provide some constitutional education for Clinton and Washington, D.C., which seemingly view Texas and other sovereign U.S. states as mere provinces subject to the whims and dictates of the federal government. In the Lone Star State, at least, officials apparently know that the United States was founded under a system in which the central government has limited and specifically enumerated powers. 

“The United States Constitution authorizes the States to regulate the conduct of state and federal elections within their borders,” Abbott’s letter continues. “Unlike the unelected bureaucrats at the OSCE, our State’s leaders and decision-makers were duly elected by Texas voters. Elected members of the Texas Legislature enacted the Texas Election Code to ensure our State’s elections are free, fair, open, and reliable.”

Finally, the attorney general emphasized again, Texas’ election laws do not authorize OSCE representatives to enter polling places. If they do, there will be consequences. Nothing in any OSCE governing documents has any impact — legal or otherwise — on how elections are conducted in Texas, Abbott warned.

“If the OSCE does not wish to follow the laws that govern everyone else present in the State of Texas, including the voters who elect our State’s leaders, then perhaps it should dispatch its representatives to another state,” Abbot concluded. “In closing, I have a simple request: Please work with the OSCE to ensure they agree to comply with Texas law. If they refuse to do so, OSCE’s representatives may be subject to legal consequences associated with any violations of state law.”

Analysts and activists across the country promptly showered praise on the state of Texas and its officials for standing up to the controversial international scheme while protecting state sovereignty, constitutional values, and the rule of law. However, more than a few experts also warned that the UN and its affiliates were becoming increasingly threatening. If America hopes to maintain its freedom and sovereignty, it must continue to resist any and all efforts to impose or even legitimize purported international “authority” over the American people.

TN “It’s not working” campaign hopes to ignite fire across US at early polls

Dear Fellow Tennesseans,

I want to express great urgency in this letter to you. We are at an extremely volatile and pivotal time in our country’s survival. We are on the brink of collapse and the freedoms we now enjoy may be no more in the near future. Please continue to read and while reading be plotting out in your mind how you are going to spread this message to others.

This is not about endorsing a particular candidate. This is not about whether you are a Democrat, a Republican or Independent. This is about saving our country and getting our country pointed in the right direction again and quickly. It has to start with removing this sitting president from office with the power of the vote. Step 1 has to start with replacing Obama as our president, period. We must look at the most viable way, decide who that candidate is for this term and vote accordingly.

I have heard over and over I won’t vote one way or another or I just won’t vote. This is a pitiful excuse and by doing so allows the Obama regime another 4 years. We as Americans will continue to clean up this country after this election, but we must unite to save our country today, the here and now, in real time. We can start mapping out our future course the day after the election and hold the next President accountable as well and if he doesn’t fall in line we look at presenting a candidate for the next 4 years. A split vote or a no vote at this juncture will not be the best thing for our country right now.

Believe me, I too am all about getting sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. I too am sick of looking at the most viable candidate and holding my nose at the ballot. This dilemma is partially our fault because we have not spoken loud enough to make the needed change. We as Patriots have failed miserably to raise up a candidate from within our own ranks. We have also failed to support an alternative candidate into the Presidency. This election cycle has left me with a dilemma too but with much thought and internal strife I have come to the conclusion, Obama and his progressive communistic socialist type leadership has to go.

We must put our our full effort into this campaign. We need great numbers and alot of activity to get this man out of office.

Please pass this message along to everyone you know. Call, text, email or Facebook all your friends and tell them to get out and vote on October 17th, 2012! It’s the most important thing you can do as an American who loves their country.

You already know what must be done.

We can’t wait four more years..

To put people back to work
To pass a responsible budget and begin reducing our national debt
To drill for our own oil and gas
To restore respect for religious freedom and freedom of speech
To show respect to our allies overseas
To stop federal control of every part of our lives.
We can’t wait to elect a new president.

In Tennessee early voting starts on Oct 17th. Why wait to make your stand? Join us in sending a message to the rest of the country with these 3 easy actions.

The Tennessee plan that can be easily adopted by other states:

1.  Vote on October 17th, the first day of early voting in Tennessee

2.  Encourage your friends and family in TN to join you in voting on October 17th.

3.  Encourage your friends and family in other states to vote against the president as soon as their state allows.

On October 17th we will see you at the polls.

We Can’t Wait! 

Pass this along quickly!

US Arms Trade Treaty: UN appoints Iran to key role in negotiating away your 2nd Amendment rights

BCNews note: Iran? Are you for real? Iran, with their lifelong stellar record on human rights has been put in charge of treaty enforcement that could eventually lead to us losing our guns and right to own them? Really? Is this the same UN that the Chamber of Commerce created several years ago? I’m sitting here with my tounge hanging out wandering what in the heck is going on? Why is the UN anywhere near our border with this bull?

Then I think again and it astounds me that we still give the Chamber of Commerce so much credibility in light of their Frankenstein type creation! Did anyone, even the Chamber think that they could create such an animal with such fangs. Then I think well everything the Chamber of Commerce does somehow points right back to the United Nations as if by design, as if they were trying to take over the world and replace her with some type of alternative plan. A plan so deviant even our neighbors couldn’t blame on the Chamber!

Where does it stop? When does someone say enough is enough? When does some brave soul say the UN has no right in our country so get the hades out!

Do we hand our guns over to a foreign entity at the behest of the Chamber that is in every community in the US and seemingly and well disguised as red white and blue as apple pie? Some are saying even if our senate repels this treaty our “gun info” will still be in the hands of the UN for global monitoring! Folks, better wake up! I have been told many times by many people “by golly if they come after my guns, then I’m gonna get mad” well, they are after your guns and will be real close to getting them as soon a July 27th, 2012.

Our two Senators in Tennessee Alexander and Corker cant seem to give anyone a straight answer when asked if they are going to vote on it or not! Senators this is a no brainer! This is the gem in the crown that keeps our nation and it’s people free! This is our second amendment rights! Please! What is so difficult about this.

A United Nations treaty on the trade of conventional arms could give enemies of the U.S. access to the records of American gun owners, say critics. (AP)
UNITED NATIONS –  A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations — with Iran playing a key role — could expose the records of America’s gun owners to foreign governments — and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial.

International talks in New York are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International USA say would rein in unregulated weapons that kill an estimated 1,500 people daily around the world. But critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.

Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not,” LaPierre said. “It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty,” he warned in an exclusive interview with FoxNews.com from the halls of the UN negotiating chambers.

“It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty.”
- Wayne LaPierre, National Rifle Association

The world body has already been criticized for appointing Iran to a key role in the talks, even as Tehran stands accused by the UN of arming Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s bloody crackdown on rebels. The Obama administration in 2009 reversed Bush administration policy by agreeing to take part in the talks. But in another exclusive interview with FoxNews.com, the top government official on the issue under President Bush says he’s seen nothing new to convince him the U.S. should be at the table today.

While the treaty’s details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel, said Greg Suchan, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs from 2000 to 2007.

Suchan also highlighted ongoing concern that the treaty may end up giving foreigners access to U.S. gun-ownership records.

On that score, LaPierre, who serves as NRA executive vice president, warns that the “UN’s refusal” to remove civilian firearms and ammunition from the scope of the treaty amounts to a declaration that only governments should be gun owners.

But he revealed he was set Wednesday to tell the UN gathering that 58 U.S. senators had signed a letter saying that they would refuse to ratify any treaty that includes controls over civilian guns or ammunition.

Ratification by two-thirds of the Senate is necessary before an international treaty negotiated by the executive branch can become U.S. law. But the treaty could still go into effect elsewhere once 65 countries ratify it. Such a development could change the pattern of world arms transfers and reduce the U.S. share, which stands at about 40 percent of up to $60 billion in global deals.

The Bush administration opposed a 2006 UN General Assembly resolution launching the treaty process, but President Obama decided the U.S. would take part on condition the final agreement be reached by consensus — thereby giving any of the 193 participating states an effective veto.

The safeguard is insufficient for opponents of the U.S. participation, not least because UN talks invariably involve compromise.

“The administration swears they have a whole bunch of red lines, and they will block consensus if anyone crosses them,” said Suchan, now a government relations consultant as senior associate with the Commonwealth Consulting Corporation in Arlington, Va.

“But the dynamics of international negotiations are that once you get 90 percent of what you seek, you say, ‘Maybe there is a way we can finesse the final 10 percent.’”

A clause permitting arms transfers solely between UN member states would allow UN member China to object to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, a non-UN member that China considers to be a renegade province.

This would be highly problematic for the U.S. at a time when Beijing is engaged in an unprecedented arms buildup.

Another fear is that Arab or other states critical of Israel may use any treaty language on human rights standards to argue against U.S. arms transfers to the Israeli government – much in the same way they currently use the UN Human Rights Council to repeatedly condemn Israel.

Suchan said U.S. arms trade law is seen as the global “gold standard” for regulating arms transfers, but doubted many countries would be willing to raise the bar that high. Instead, the treaty that emerges is expected to set a lower global standard – which Suchan said would have the effect of reducing Washington’s ability to press for voluntary arms embargoes against rogue states.

“We might want to urge a country to not sell arms to a state whose government is particularly odious,” Suchan explained.

“But that government could then ask whether the sale is prohibited under the Arms Trade Treaty – and if it is not, they would argue they are meeting the international standard.”

U.S. gun lobby concern focuses on the emphasis the treaty places on governmental – as opposed to individual – rights to guns, LaPierre explained.

“They’re trying to impose a UN policy that gives guns to the governments – but the UN doesn’t in turn make moral judgments as to whether these governments are good or bad,” he said.

“If you’re the government, you get the guns, if you’re a civilian, you don’t. But this will just end up helping evil governments and tyrants.”

For LaPierre, the emphasis he sees at the UN on governmental rights reflects what he believes is a wider international tradition that contrasts with the historical American emphasis on individual rights.

“The UN view is that governments – not individual citizens – ought to protect people,” he said, signaling that this principle permeates the draft that negotiators are currently working with.

LaPierre says the treaty that is likely to emerge will have the effect of squeezing individual gun owners in the United States and elsewhere by imposing on them an onerous collection of regulations.

“If they get this through, then what comes along is the institutionalizing of the whole gun control-ban movement within the bureaucracy of UN – with a permanent funding mechanism that we [in America] will be mainly paying for,” he said.

“The world’s worst human rights abusers will end up voting for this, while the Obama administration has not drawn a line in the sand like the previous administration did. Instead, it is trying to be a part of this train wreck because they think they can somehow finesse it. But, to me, there is no finessing the individual freedoms of American citizens.”

Source of info and we thank him for his generous contribution!
Steven Edwards is a UN-based freelance journalist

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/11/un-arms-treaty-could-put-us-gun-owners-in-foreign-sights-say-critics/#ixzz20Ms11rMk

U.N. To World: You Have No Human Right to Self-Defense

U.N. To World: You Have No Human Right to Self-Defense

You are dead wrong to think the United Nations does not want to eventually control everything you do! It starts with our guns, then our food, then our economy, then our schools, then our environment! It is in the progress now and our locally elected officials are giving it all away!

The very skilled UN using HUD, the EPA and the DOT to implement the UNs Agenda 21 local comprehensive plan! Your mayors have signed on with ICLEI out of Chattanooga to push a Regional Comprehensive plan to our County! They are giving it away and not thinking twice about it!

Prepare your life now! It is fixing to change drastically because of the careless decisions they are making with our futures! We can’t ignore their actions! We must act and act quickly before it is too late! The most effective and quickest way to stop them is to vote them out and replace them with honest, loyal citizens can save this county, otherwise just turn in your guns now before your front door is smashed in and all them taken away! We are very close to this day folks! It just on the horizon, mark my words!

Thwarted by the demise of its global gun ban treaty, the United Nations declares the human right of self-defense null and void

by Dave Kopel

America’s 1st Freedom, pp. 26-29, 62-63.

Self-defense is a privilege that governments may choose to grant or withdraw. You have no human right to self-defense. If a government does not impose repressive restrictions on gun ownership—more severe than even the laws in New York City or Washington, D.C.—then that government is guilty of violating international human rights.

So says the United Nations in its latest assault on the Second Amendment.

This July, the National Rifle Association and other pro-freedom groups won a tremendous victory at the U.N. Small Arms Review Conference when they helped block the creation of a global gun control treaty. Winning a very important battle, though, is not the same as winning a war. Since then, the global gun prohibition movement has already opened up a major new front in the war on our rights.

This fall, the General Assembly of the United Nations will be considering a new Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty is backed by many governments, as well as by the world’s leading gun prohibition group, International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). Once the final language of the treaty is approved by the General Assembly, the treaty will be open for signature and ratification by all nations.

At the highest level of generality, the Arms Trade Treaty is based on a very good idea: prohibiting the sale of arms to countries that use them to violate human rights. It would be a good idea, for example, if all nations refused to sell arms to the dictatorships in Burma, Zimbabwe or Cuba, all of which have an atrocious record of human rights violations. (And all of which, like other modern nations that are extreme violators of human rights, have extreme laws against citizen gun ownership.)

However, any nation that has a conscience can already ban arms exports to such evil governments. Conversely, nations such as China, which currently supply arms to human rights abusers all over the world, have a long record of flouting the treaties they sign, so it would be foolish to expect that a new treaty would stop their arms exports to their favorite tyrannical allies.

The Arms Trade Treaty will, however, increase international pressure to cut off arms sales to Israel. Although Israel’s human rights record is far superior to any of its neighbors (and superior to the large majority of U.N. members), the United Nations condemns Israel much more than any other nation for supposed violations of human rights.

The Arms Trade Treaty can also be used to attempt to suppress the sale of civilian, police or military arms to the United States. The reason is that the U.N. is working to declare that all American gun laws, as well as the right to self-defense, are violations of human rights.

THE U.N. HAS appointed University of Minnesota Law Professor Barbara Frey as its “Special Rapporteur on the prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons.” A “Special Rapporteur” is a U.N.-designated expert and researcher on a subject.

Notably, the title the U.N. gave to Frey required her to look exclusively at how small arms are used to violate human rights—and to ignore how small arms are used to protect human rights, such as when used to resist genocide. But the one-sided nature of Frey’s research mission was consistent with her own views; Frey is a member of IANSA and participated in a 2005 strategy meeting in Brazil designed to support the gun prohibition referendum in that nation.

On July 27, Frey issued her final report, declaring that there is no human right to self-defense and that insufficient gun control is a violation of human rights. (The report, “Prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons,” is available on IANSA’s website, http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf.)

On Aug. 21, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights endorsed the Frey report in total and recommended that the full Human Rights Council (HRC) do so.

It’s important to note that the U.N. Human Rights Council, despite its name, is composed of some of the worst human rights violators in the world, such as Cuba and Saudi Arabia. The U.N. rejected efforts by the United States to join the Human Rights Council, and instead allowed dictatorships such as China and Pakistan to join.

It is all but certain that the Human Rights Council will follow the lead of its sub-commission and adopt the Frey Report as an official statement of HRC policy on human rights. At that point, the global and American gun prohibition lobbies can then begin to attack American gun laws because they “violate human rights.”

According to Frey, governments have an affirmative human rights obligation to protect their subjects from violence. This obligation includes much more than simply making and enforcing laws against crime. According to Frey, the “due diligence” obligations means that:

“It is reasonable for international human rights bodies to require States to enforce a minimum licensing requirement designed to keep small arms and light weapons out of the hands of persons who are likely to misuse them. … The criteria for licensing may vary from State to State, but most licensing procedures consider the following: (a) minimum age of applicant; (b) past criminal record including any history of interfamilial violence; (c) proof of a legitimate purpose for obtaining a weapon; and (d) mental fitness. Other proposed criteria include knowledge of laws related to small arms, proof of training on the proper use of a firearm and proof of proper storage. Licences should be renewed regularly to prevent transfer to unauthorized persons.”

BY THE FREY/HRC standards, every American jurisdiction is a human rights violator because its gun laws are not severe enough. Even in New York City or Washington, D.C., the government does not require a gun license applicant to prove that he or she has “a legitimate purpose.” Once New York City or D.C. finally let you buy a shotgun, you can use it for any legitimate purpose—sporting clays, gunsmithing practice, collecting or even self-defense (assuming that you somehow can retrieve the locked gun in time to use it against a home invader).

At every gun store in the United States, buyers must pass a background check under the National Instant Check System (or a state equivalent). Most states do not require a separate license for handgun purchases and even fewer require a license for long gun purchases. Only a few states mandate that a person who simply wants to continue owning the guns he already has must renew a license from the government every few years. The absence of mandatory, periodic licensing for continued possession of one’s own guns is another human rights violation, according to Frey.

Similarly, the vast majority of American states allow children, under parental supervision, to use firearms; the family, not the government, decides when a particular child is ready to take his or her first shots with the family’s .22 pistol or rifle. Yet this, too, is a human rights violation, according to Frey and the HRC, since the government has not specified a minimum age for a gun license.

The Frey/HRC rules declare almost all American self-defense laws to be human rights violations. The Frey report declares: “When small arms and light weapons are used for self-defence, for instance, unless the action was necessary to save a life or lives and the use of force with small arms is proportionate to the threat of force, self-defence will not alleviate responsibility for violating another’s right to life.”

Moreover, “Because of the lethal nature of these weapons and the jus cogens (a mandatory norm of general international law from which no two or more nations may exempt themselves or release one another) human rights obligations imposed upon all States and individuals to respect the right to life, small arms and light weapons may be used defensively only in the most extreme circumstances, expressly, where the right to life is already threatened or unjustifiably impinged.”

Under international law, a jus cogens standard supersedes any contrary rule. Thus, Frey and the HRC are declaring that their restrictive view of self-defense trumps any contrary state, national or international law.

The laws of all American states allow the use of deadly force against certain violent felonies (include rape, torture and mayhem) when the person being attacked reasonably believes that no lesser force will suffice. Yet Frey and the HRC will allow the use of deadly force only against a life-threatening attack, and not against other violent felonies.

Thanks to NRA leadership, 14 states this year have adopted “Castle Doctrine” laws that state that a person may use a firearm (that is, deadly force) against a violent felon without having to calculate whether lesser force might suffice. The large majority of American jurisdictions state that a person who is attacked in his home need not retreat when attacked, and some jurisdictions also apply the no-retreat rule in public spaces. Yet all of these American protections of the right of self-defense are violations of human rights, according to the adopted report of the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur.

YOU MIGHT WONDER HOW the U.N.’s claim that gun control is a human right, and that suppression of self-defense is a human right, can be reconciled with the actual human right of self-defense. Such a reconciliation is impossible, so the U.N., speaking through its Special Rapporteur, has simply declared that THERE IS NO HUMAN RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE.

The Frey report admits that most criminal justice systems acknowledge self-defense, but the report claims that self-defense is merely a government-granted exemption to criminal liability, and that this exemption must be very narrowly construed.

Frey and the U.N. assert that the traditional sources of international law do not support the existence of a right to self-defense. However, this premise is false.

The United Nations’ own Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes, in its preamble, a last-resort right of self-defense against tyranny: “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”

To list all the sources of human rights law that recognize the right of self-defense would take many thousands of words, but the error of Frey’s assertion can easily be seen simply by looking to three of the great philosophers universally regarded as founders of international law.

Hugo Grotius (Dutch, On the Law of War and Peace): “When our lives are threatened with immediate danger, it is lawful to kill the aggressor, if the danger cannot otherwise be avoided … We must observe that this kind of defence derives its origin from the principle of self preservation, which nature has given to every living creature.”

Emerich de Vattel (Swiss, The Law of Nations): “Every nation, as well as every man, has, therefore, a right … to preserve herself from all injuries: and this right is a perfect one, since it is given to satisfy a natural and indispensable obligation … It is this right to preserve herself from all injury that is called the right to security.”

Francisco Suárez (Spanish, 26 volumes, including De Legibus ac Deo Legislatore): Self-defense is “the greatest of rights,” encompassing individual protection against criminals, as well as community self-defense against tyrants.

The only way that the United Nations can use international law to deny the right to self-defense is to ignore the fundamental sources of international law itself. Yet many American officials, including some Supreme Court justices, have taken to using international law in defining the scope of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Professor Frey and the misnamed U.N. Human Rights Council are creating the tools that could, in the hands of judges or other government officials who are hostile to the Second Amendment, be used to decimate both our right to arms and our right to self-defense.

Dave Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute. His website is http://www.davekopel.org.

Obama eligibility hearing blow by blow

This guy did a pretty good job of describing the events and he was quick too! Before I got home it was done! I’ll put my observations out once I get some sleep!

By Craig Abderson, The National Patriot:

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am  EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.

Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.

After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.

Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.

Game on.

5 minutes.

10 minutes.

15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.

20 minutes.

It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.

Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?

Certainly not.

Court is called to order.

(Van Irion is the first to make his argument)

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.

Carl Swinson takes the stand.

Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.

2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.

Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.

RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.

Dreams From My Father entered.

Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.

Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.

This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

David Farrar takes the stand.

Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.

Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.

Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.

Next witness takes the stand.

This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.

Linda Jordan takes the stand.

Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

Next witness.

Mr. Gogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.

Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of Connecticut . Obama never resided in that state. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.

Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.

Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.

Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.

Taitz takes the stand herself.

Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.

Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.

Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.

And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

What can we take away from this?

It’s interesting.

Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.

One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.

WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?

Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.

One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.

What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.

It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.

Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.

Obama vs Van Irion eligibity venue changed again

Important Hearing Information

The court has changed the location for the hearing again. The new location is:

230 Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 850

Atlanta, Georgia  30303

If you can’t be at the hearing, watch it online.

ARTICLE II SUPER PAC WILL PROVIDE GAVEL TO GAVEL LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE FROM THE BALLOT CHALLENGE HEARING ON JANUARY 26TH

Leo Donofrio, attorney and long time researcher and defender of the Natural Born Citizen Presidential requirement, filed an Amicus Brief with the Georgia Court this week. You can read his brief on his website. The brief is very extensive. I would like to point out a couple interesting excerpts, both from page 25:

“More interesting, perhaps, is that the letter (from John Jay to George Washington) is concerned with the capacity of Commander In Chief… Considering that he called for, “a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government”, it makes sense that the natural-born citizen clause was designed to guarantee a singular allegiance to this nation. Anything less would not be a very strong check at all.”

“If the natural-born citizen clause was intended as a unification of jus soli, and jus sanguinis, we would expect to have at least one Supreme Court decision in our national judicial history, which confirms that the natural-born citizen clause does, in fact, require a unified allegiance , via birth in the country to citizen parents. Minor v. Happersett is that case.”

On Thursday I will be arguing that Minor v. Happersett requires the Georgia Secretary of State to only place names on the ballot of Presidential candidates that are born of two citizen parents. Please join me in person, by video and/or in prayer to support that our Constitution be upheld. Please also continue to encourage your friends and family to join us as Members of Liberty Legal Foundation.

In Liberty,

Co-Founder
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION