"Read all about it"

Archive for March, 2012|Monthly archive page

Emergency Injunction Filed with Georgia Supreme Court over Obamas eligibility

In Uncategorized on March 8, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Emergency Injunction Filed with Georgia Supreme Court over Obamas eligibility

Georgia held its Presidential Primary election Tuesday. Obama’s name was on the ballot. But they haven’t won this battle yet. Today Liberty Legal Foundation filed an appeal with the Georgia Supreme Court challenging the absurd ruling that dismissed our case from the Georgia Superior Court. (In Georgia the Superior Court is a mid-level court. The Supreme Court is the highest Court in Georgia.)

We also filed an emergency motion for preliminary injunction with the Georgia Supreme Court. Since it’s too late to have Obama’s name removed from the primary ballots, we’re asking the Supreme Court to prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying the results of the Democratic Presidential Primary election. Typically it takes about a week for the Secretary of State to certify an election. The results of an election are not official until he certifies. So, if the Supreme Court grants our motion the results of Obama’s Georgia primary election will be on hold pending the outcome of our lawsuit.

This may be our final test for an uncorrupted portion of the justice system in Georgia. As you can see by reading our filings on our website, the Georgia Supreme Court has no excuse for denying our motion. We are not asking for anything that would harm Obama in the short term in any way. We’re not asking for anything that would cost the Georgia taxpayers a dime. All we’re asking for is to have the Secretary of State wait to certify the Democratic Primary election until the Georgia Supreme Court can hear our case. If we lose our case, Obama will still get the Georgia delegates at the Democratic National Convention. But we will have been successful in getting the Court to hear the substance of our case. If we win, we will have upheld Georgia state law and the U.S. Constitution.

My point is this: because the relief we’re asking for in our motion will hurt no one, there is no reason for the Georgia Supreme Court to deny it. It SHOULD be a “no brainer.” It hurts no one to grant our motion and it hurts everyone to deny it. So, now we wait to see if the Georgia judicial corruption goes all the way to the top. Please pray with me that instead we will find an honorable Judge that will follow the law.

Van Irion

Sustainable development, a new EPA tool

In Agenda 21, Government on March 5, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Our Mayor of Bradley County and our City Mayor have made it possible for the EPA, DOT and HUD to have full reign on our community by joining with ICLEI out of Chattanooga in support of the Regional Growth Plan to promote sustainability!

Not a single vote was cast by a single member of our elected body in our region or county! All they had to do was say yes to have them in here to regulate the fool out of us!

We no longer live in a community that relies upon it’s elected bodies to set policy for our county! We are now being ruled by an NGO(Non Governmental Organization) or some type of appointed member of a committee stocked full of beneficial parties that will rule in favor of their best interest!

We have lost our way when a constitutional republic fails to stand and govern by the will of the people! And on the other hand it’s we the people that are remaining silent so that it can happen as they wish!

I have been warning you of Executive Order 13575! Obama has set into place a way to regulate most of our society and take what liberties you have away! Look back on previous blogs about this EO! It will once again show you what was in the works back then and today with very little fanfare what the plan is for the future

This story below is confirming what we knew 6 months ago! These tiny steps turn into reality while securing yet another notch in Obamas proverbial belt on his way to a forced sustainable world using the EPA as his guide!

Sustainable development: latest tool for expanding EPA’s empire 
A corrupted National Research Council gives EPA power to regulate waterways via zoning and limit farming choices in the name of “sustainability”

February 27, 2012by BONNER COHEN, PH. D.
Determined to concentrate power in the hands of largely unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington, Obama administration officials have devised a new scheme to justify expanding the regulatory reach of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 
At the request of EPA, the National Research Council (NRC) issued a report last August laying out an “operational framework for integrating sustainability as one of the key drivers within the regulatory responsibilities of EPA.”  Referencing a little-noticed Obama Executive Order (13514) from 2009, the NRC report adopts the President’s definition of sustainability contained in the order.  Under that definition, sustainability means “to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.” 
Founded in 1916, the NRC is currently administered by the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineers, and the Institute for Medicine. In developing the “operational framework” for future EPA policies, the NRC cited the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act‘s (NEPA) use of the word sustainability in describing the federal government’s approach to the environment.  “That policy is what is now described as sustainable development,” the NRC notes.
It has often been said that “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.”  The same holds true for sustainable development.  The term – never defined with any precision – has been a mainstay of the United Nations, environmental organizations, and, increasingly, federal, state and local governments.   A growing number of corporations – eager to parade their green credentials – frequently claim their products and technologies are “sustainable,” without ever telling the public what is meant by the term.  Sustainable development is also a pillar of Agenda 21.  Adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, Agenda 21 is described by the UN Division on Sustainable Development as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations Systems, Governments and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment.”
The lack of any clear understanding of what is and is not sustainable bestows a huge amount of discretionary power in the hands of regulators and other government officials acting in accordance with a term whose meaning is withheld from the public.  Small wonder that Wendell Cox, Ronald Utt, and Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation have warned that Agenda 21/sustainable development in the hands of EPA “would significantly expand the role of government in economic decision-making, impede development and economic growth, and undermine individual choice and policy flexibility in local communities.  Opponents should be concerned about efforts by the U.S. government to implement these policies, both nationally and locally.”
“EPA is already engaged in many projects that further sustainability aims, but the adoption of this framework  — implemented in stages – will lead to a growing body of experiences and successes with sustainability,” Bernard Goldstein, occupation health professor at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School for Public Health, told The Daily Caller (Aug. 4, 2011).  Goldstein, who chaired the NRC panels that drew up EPA’s sustainability framework, added that, “To the extent that the laws permit, working with other agencies EPA should be able to incorporate [sustainability] using this framework.”
That effort is already well underway.  In June 2010, for example, the Obama administration, by way of an executive order, launched its Ocean Policy Initiative (OPI).  The OPI will subject America’s waterways – oceans, rivers, bays, and the Great Lakes plus coastal and even inland areas – to federal zoning.  Under the scheme, these areas will be managed according to “coastal and marine spatial planning.”  As an unnamed administration official told the Los Angeles Times (July 19, 2010), “This sets the nation on the path of much more comprehensive planning to both conservation and sustainable use of resources.”
Similarly, the administration, on June 9, 2011, announced the creation via Executive Order 13575 of the White House Rural Council.  Like the Ocean Policy Initiative, the Rural Council is composed of more than two dozen federal agencies whose objective is to “enhance the federal engagement in rural communities.”  The executive order states that, “Strong sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years to come.”
But it will be bureaucrats in Washington — working hand-in-glove with environmental groups, suppliers of renewable energy, and other political allies — who will determine what is sustainable down on the farm.  This massive expansion of the powers of the administrative regulatory state is taking place without the consent of Congress, state and local officials, much less the residents of rural America.

Corrupt Judicial Branch harasses Van Irion, founding fathers warned of this day

In Government on March 3, 2012 at 9:22 AM

I became nauseous while reading this letter from Van Irion regarding the events of that disappointing day in Georgia regarding Obamas eligibility.

Our country is in a heap of trouble! Our founding fathers wrote the constitution to protect us from such tyrannical and maniacal attitudes toward citizen who attempt to apply the law in order to be represented and have a voice! We no longer have the power of the people. We can no longer assume that because we are American we will get a fair hearing in a high court in this country!

Our goose is cooked, stick a fork in it, we are done, fineesh!

Our dishonorable judges have lost their moral compass and have quickly become a cancer that is spreading to shield our tyrannical Kings and Queens from being accountable to the people within the confines of the Constitution!

The once sacred document, behind thick glass in a museum has been shredded and desecrated! The document exists only as a piece of tattered paper with a passing historical side bar as it’s memory!

We must stand strong with Van to continue this fight! It’s not cheap or inexpensive! He, as a representative of your conservative psyche is counter punching and is leaning back on his heels getting punch drunk from the constant barrage of blows! He is facing the battle essentially alone and is hunkering down for the assault! He is standing in the gap and giving it all he can! But to be honest with you it’s not cheap!

I dont usually do this bit I am asking you to please visit Liberty Legal Foundation website and donate any amount of money to give him and LLF the fuel to continue the fight! Only if it is 5.00 or 5, 000 dollars any amount will make a difference! He is giving his time to the fight of his life, the least we can do is send him a few dollars! Please pass this around to all your friends! Van didn’t ask me to do this but I know how important it is to have a war chest to fight this horrible corrupt regime! Thank you and as he faces these giants he will know he has our support! Please give now and freely if you are able and send around to your friends list and ask them to do the same! Our freedom is dependent on it, our Republic is worth every dime of it!

Read below and see if you will feel exactly as I do! Read this blatant disregard for our laws of this land! Contempt is not good enough. Please read and tell me how you feel in the comments section of this blog. We need to sound off on this epic failure of our government! Get busy patriots!

So much has happened recently demonstrating the lack of honor in our judicial system that I’m now forced to review these incidents in bullet point format:

The President’s attorney dishonors the Georgia Administrative Court by sending a letter directly to the Secretary of State requesting the executive branch of Georgia to take a lawsuit away from the judicial branch.
The President and his attorney dishonor the Georgia Administrative court again by violating that court’s order to appear.
The Georgia Administrative Court refuses to forward Liberty Legal Foundation’s motion for contempt to the Georgia Supreme Court, despite Georgia law leaving the Administrative court no discretion on this matter.
The Georgia Administrative court refuses to even respond to correspondence regarding our motion for contempt.
The Georgia Superior Court fails to comment on the motion for contempt or require the Administrative court to forward records, as required by law.
The Georgia Superior Court Clerk initially refuses to file LLF’s appeal document, then backs down after being instructed on the law.
The Georgia Superior Court Clerk refuses to file LLF’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction because $1 was not included with our filing. Then, when LLF hand delivers $1 to the clerk, the clerk sits on the motion for 10 days and mails it back to LLF claiming that the correct staffer didn’t get the $1. Our plaintiff gave the case number, name of the motion, and name of the staffer, who was literally pointed at in the room. Yet the clerk’s office still claims that that staffer didn’t get the $1. The motion had to be completely re-filed and was then delayed another two days before finally being filed.
The Chief Judge of the Superior Court was made aware of all of the incidents occurring in her Clerk’s office, yet she did nothing to correct the situation.
The President’s motion to dismiss was filed on his first attempt. After three days the Court notified LLF that the Court had shortened the time to file an opposition to that motion, giving us less than a day to file.
Late that same day the Chief Judge signs an order denying LLF’s motion to have Van Irion admitted as a visiting attorney in this case, preventing LLF from filing the opposition that the Court had ordered us to file 6 hours earlier. (Note that I’ve been admitted as a visiting attorney in 5 states and at every level of court, both state and federal. I’ve never been denied admission before. Further, my local attorney sponsor was a sitting member of the state’s legislature, making this denial even more shocking.) Even more outrageous is the timing of the denial, made just hours before a Court-set deadline, after the Court sat on our motion for more than two weeks.
The Georgia Secretary of State has, to date, refused to forward the record of the case to the Superior Court, despite Georgia law absolutely requiring this action and requiring that it be done as soon as possible.
The Superior Court does nothing to require the Secretary of State to forward the record of the case.
Only 90 minutes after our plaintiff files an opposition himself (because LLF was denied the ability to file it for him), the Chief Judge issues a three-page opinion granting Obama’s motion to dismiss our appeal. It seems obvious that the Court’s opinion was written before they asked us to file an opposition. Also, the dismissal was granted while the Court had not even received the record of the hearing held by the lower court. In other words, it ruled without even reviewing the record or reading our plaintiff’s opposition.
Our system of government is based upon an assumption that the people placed in high office are honorable. This is an absolute requirement for the survival of our nation. The Founding Fathers understood that when dishonorable people begin to take high office, the system of government they set into motion would begin to fail. Unfortunately America’s judicial system is proving this principle.

These are just the incidents associated with our Georgia case and we are not discussing the substance of the breathtakingly absurd rulings from any of these courts. Without needing to discuss judicial rulings, the incidents cited here demonstrate the harassment, bias, and lack of honor in the administrative operation of our courts. This bias effectively prevents those on one side of an issue to have basic access to the courts.In other words, the courts are now barring specific viewpoints from entering the front doors of the court. When we do get through we are harassed by means of the timing of orders and one-sided enforcement of procedural requirements.

Georgia is an example of what is happening across our country. Laws are being blatantly ignored by those in high office, while other laws are being used to punish their political opponents. This type of corruption reflects the practices historically found in third world nations, dictatorships, and communist tyrannies. Freedom cannot survive where such practices go unpunished.

Yet it is practically impossible to punish individuals holding high office. This is why such individuals must have honor, allowing them to resist their own selfish temptations. Unfortunately America’s high offices are now populated by corrupt people with no moral compass. Our leaders have no honor. Our Founding Fathers are being proven correct, once again.   

Our opponents are trying to frustrate and exhaust us to the point that we will give up. They don’t want their bias and dishonor to be seen in the light of day.  The corrupt individuals in high office are harassing us for our efforts. This tells us that we are having an effect. Even when we don’t win a legal battle, our efforts shine the light of truth on their corruption. That corruption is responding by lashing out at us.

We will be appealing the Georgia Superior Court’s ruling. But we need your help. We need your help to keep the spotlight on the dishonorable actions of those in high office. Please do what you can to support Liberty Legal Foundation.

In Liberty,

Van Irion, Founder
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION

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

In Agenda 21 on March 2, 2012 at 8:55 AM

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.

%d bloggers like this: