UN/OSCE sending “poll watchers” to monitor US election, TN included

Breaking News:

The United Nations and the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) will be sending a 44 multi-national delegation to the United States to monitor and observe the US election process for human rights violations, voter suppression and election fraud.

The NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and others have sent a letter to Daan Everts of OSCE to warn of “a coordinated political effort to disenfranchise millions of Americans- particularly traditionally disenfranchised groups like minorities.”

Giovanna Maiola, a spokeswoman for OSCE, said that the monitors will “observe the overall election process, not just the ballot casting. They are focusing on a number of areas on the state level, including the legal system, election administration, the campaign, the campaign financing [and] new voting technologies used in the different states.”

Why only 44 state delegates? Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Mexico, permit international observation during elections. Maiola said that OSCE will only observe in polls in states in which international access is permitted. This only adds up to 48 states mentioned, my guess is they will attempt to monitor states that have an international waiver, defying state law, perhaps in a few swing states not mentioned.

News of the UN-affiliated observers comes one day after Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Joel Pollak reported that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights has warned Americans not to elect Republican candidate Mitt Romney as the next president. Alluding to Romney’s refusal to ban waterboarding in interrogation practices of terror detainees, Ben Emmerson of the UN said that electing Romney would be “a democratic mandate for torture.”

The ACLU, SEIU and True the Vote (ACORN associated) are sending 300 plus attorneys and thousands of volunteers across the nation to observe the voting process that in their opinion will “disenfranchise minority voters and not allow them to cast their vote.”

These plentiful leftist organizations along with the United Nations are making it very clear to the world that anyone getting elected but Barrack Hussein Obama is not going to be acceptable and they will do everything within their power to make sure that Obama is elected, even using international bodies to do so.

Armenian Gayane Horhannisyan and French observer Nicolas Teindes will be doing the duty as UN/OSCE observers in Nashville Tennessee and Frankfort Kentucky. In neighboring Georgia and Alabama the delegation assigned is as follows: Spanish observer Isabel Menchon-Lopez and the United Kingdoms James Morrison will do the honors in these states. The 44 person delegation assignment posted does not specifically address which one will go to which state, but be reassured they will be there.

In summation, one word “UNBELIEVEABLE!” We live in the United States a completely sovereign nation with our own election process that has served us well for many generations. For the most part it has gone unscathed and has done what it is constitutionally supposed to do, leaving us with a peaceful and serene transition.

Now I feel that our political system along with our Nation has been hijacked by a fake president with his race baiting, racist, war mongering, hate promoting, peace abating, clan of Socialist, Marxist, Leninist and un-American thugs are going to create a huge disruption at the polls this Novemeber 6th, 2012 that could possibly plunge our nation into a deep crisis and perhaps a revolution.

Think about it? The ACLU sending out 300 plus lawyers across the nation, the NAACP and Project Vote have petitioned the UN and OSCE(a human rights and voter fraud international watchdog) to watch our voting process. Something smells!

What if the election were to go to Romney and the Socialist favorite Obama loses? This raises the questions of why are these international delegates, attorneys and race baiters so heavily involved? In my personal opinion, I am convinced that the vote and the count will be protested and the election process will be halted and Obama will remain the fake president for an indefinite period, mass riots will break out, martial law will ensue, the Obama civilian police force and the US military activated, our guns pulled and our rights as humans suspended indefinitely. A recount of the vote by “international bodies” with international pressure to reinstate the Marxist dictator and the vote overturned. Obama nominated as the next president and the UN “calling him up” to be a world leader with supreme power over the New World Order. Before I lose you, I’m a blogger and activist, I’m supposed to inject likely scenarios based on my opinion and research. You want get it in the mainstream media, that’s for sure.

I know this reads like a sic-fi movie thriller straight out of Hollwood but im afraid it is a very likely scenario in our midst and these leftist guerillas within our own nation are imparting their will on our civil nation.

Let it be known, this scenario and possible future unrest will not come from the right, the patriots of this country. It will ignited by the aforementioned above. True Americans love this country and are willing to protect her. We do not need a fight in the streets and all restraint should be exercised but how much can this nation stand? War is hell and should be avoided at all cost. The left is setting this country up for it’s demise, the puzzle pieces are falling together and the spark they create on election day may be more than a free nation can bare.

In light of this recent news, I am curious as to how our State elected representatives will react to this news. I know a few will read this blog. Is it time to man up or woman up? If those who lead this state choose not to intervene and stop this potential disaster, are they to blame? Will inactivity by our state leaders be viewed by the citizenry they represent as passive and complicit? Only time will tell! We will see.

Thus far, I have not been able to find any public reactions to this debacle by our Tennessee elected representatives, but the news is young and has just surfaced, it may take a little more time for them to respond.

Will our State Representatives Eric Watson, State Representative Kevin Brooks, our Tennessee State House Leader, other reps, Congressman DeJarlais, Congressman Fleischmann, State Senators Mike Bell, US Senator Lamar Alexander, US Senator Bob Corker, Governor Bill Haslam and other State Representatives step up and re-establish our State and National sovereignty from the UN? Call them and demand they act. I hope they react. I honestly hope so, because I feel the safety and security of our state depends on it.

I want to also thank Karen Bracken, a national patriot watch dog for sending me the email detailing the UN/OSCE delegate and their assigments. I also would like to thank Brietbart.com and their staff for providing many of the quotes from the above article.

I have provided an unusually long list of sources for this info as I expect many will dismiss this as too far out there to believe. So for those many naysayers who refuse to believe that our country has been hijacked and many within do not want this country to exist in it’s current form, read and decide for yourself as our nation crumbles.

Sources of info:

Complete list of UN delegates set to monitor US elections in at least 44 states.
http://patdollard.com/2012/10/complete-list-of-where-u-n-poll-watchers-will-be-stationed/

LA Times reports Texas Attorney Greg Abbott wants UN/OSCE poll watchers to stay out of sovereign states.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-texas-battles-outside-poll-watchers-20121026,0,4451838.story?track=rss

Texas AG warns will have UN poll watchers arrested at the polls
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/24/texas-attorney-general-warns-un-poll-watchers-to-keep-their-distance/

Alabama State Legislator calls for new legislation blocking future UN poll watchers
http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/7253

Alabama Speaker of the House says No to UN poll watchers in his state
http://mobile.al.com/advbirm/pm_103078/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=tmh2RLro

Texas AG puts Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that UN is not above state election laws.
http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/texas-attorney-general-demands-hillary-clinton-political-un-060207413.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US

From Dickmorris.com reports ACLU/NAACP inked request to UN to step in and monitor US elections.
http://lesliejo1952.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/from-dickmorris-com-un-sending-poll-watchers-to-us-elections/

Texas AG says to UN Poll Watchers “dont even try it!”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/texas-tells-un-poll-watchers-dont-even-try-it/

Brietbart News reports on UN Poll Watchers
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/21/UN-Affiliated-Group-To-Monitor-Conservative-Voter-Fraud-Workers-at-U-S-Polls

Malihi, Kemp issue final decision on Obama eligibility case, to appeal

ATLANTA – On Tuesday morning, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp (r) issued a final decision, adopting Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi’s initial decision contending President Barack Obama meets the eligibility requirements to appear on Presidential Preference Primary ballot.

On Friday, Feb. 3, Malihi issued his decision in three challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility.

During the Jan. 26 hearing Malihi noted neither Obama nor his Attorney Michael Jablonski appeared or answered and said ordinarily the court would enter a default judgment against a party that fails to participate in any stage of the proceeding.

“Nonetheless, despite defendant’s failure to appear, plaintiffs asked this court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence,” wrote Malihi, adding, “The court granted plaintiffs’ request.”

Malihi (l) also said, “By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski,” and stated his decision was based entirely on the law as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented.

His order was in two parts.

The first part addressed plaintiffs David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Attorney Orly Taitz.

The second part addressed all the plaintiffs, including those represented by Taitz as well as plaintiff David Welden, represented by Attorney Van Irion, and plaintiffs Carl Swensen and Kevin Powell, represented by Attorney Mark Hatfield.

In Part I, Malihi basically discredited the eight witnesses and said he found their testimony, as well as the exhibits tendered, “to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.”

He stated, “None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony,” and said none of the written submissions had any probative value.

In conclusion, Malihi stated, “Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”

In Part II, Malihi addressed the claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to run in Georgia’s presidential primary election.

Malihi said he considered, for the purpose of analysis, the following facts: 1) Obama was born in the United States; 2) Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of birth; and 3) Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.

It was the plaintiff’s contention, because Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the office of President of the United States.
Malihi said, “The court does not agree.”

Citing a 2009 Indiana Court of Appeals case, Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny] v. Governor of Indiana, in which plaintiffs argued “there’s a very clear distinction between ‘citizen of the United States’ and ‘natural born citizen’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”

Pointing out the Indiana court rejected the argument that Obama was ineligible, Malihi stated, “[C]hildren born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents,” and said, “This court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny] persuasive.”

While plaintiffs argued the term natural born citizen was defined in 1875 in Minor v. Happersett, Malihi said the Indiana court explained that Minor did not define natural born citizen.

He went on to say, “In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this court agrees. The Minor court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.”

Citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, with which the Indiana court agreed, Malihi said the court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien parents, became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.

Malihi stated, “The Indiana court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth.”

He wrote, “For the purposes of this analysis, this court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen,” and concluded, “President Barack Obama is eligible for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

Using Malihi’s analysis, anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

In other words, according to Malihi, children born within the United States to illegal aliens, tourists and/or terrorists are natural born citizens and are, therefore, eligible to become President of the United States.

Malihi’s conclusion is more analogous to saying: All dogs are mammals and all cats are mammals and therefore, all cats are dogs.

Over the weekend, Taitz filed a petition with Kemp to set aside the recommendation issued by Malihi and find Obama ineligible to appear as a candidate for President of the United States on the Georgia ballot.

Taitz cited a 2000 Georgia case, Haynes v. Wells, which she said establishes the precedent “that a candidate seeking to hold office through an election in the state has the affirmative duty to prove their eligibility.”

Taitz said a 2008 Malihi decision in O’Brien V. Gross, from which she quoted, “The burden of proof is entirely upon respondent to establish affirmatively his eligibility for office,” relied on Haynes.

Since neither Obama nor Jablonski appeared, Taitz asked, “On what basis did Judge Malihi consider Obama to be born in this country? Did he consider him born in this country based on his wild imagination? The only thing Obama provided was an empty chair. Did the empty chair testify under penalty of perjury in front of Judge Malihi … that Obama was born in this country? Did the empty chair provide Malihi with any evidence, with the original birth certificate or a certified copy?”

Taitz went on to state Malihi’s reliance on Ankeny “is a  travesty of justice and an embarrassment to the state of Georgia.”

Taitz stated Malihi was required to base his decision on what was in the record and his introduction of an obscure Indiana case was used to advocate for Obama rather than judge the case on the record at hand.

Hatfield sent a letter to Kemp via e-mail prior to Kemp issuing his final decision to point out “several significant flaws in Judge Malihi’s findings and conclusions.”

On behalf of his clients, Hatfield requested that Kemp render a decision that treats Obama no different than any other candidate seeking access to the Georgia ballot that fails and refuses to present evidence of his or her qualifications for holding office and disregards the authority of our judiciary.

Now that Kemp has issued a final decision in the matter, Hatfield stated, “[W]e are going full bore and taking it up on appeal.”

Irion has also indicated his client will be filing an appeal. 

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

ABC NEWS: Ga. Judge Orders President to Appear at Hearing ( to face off with Van Irion)

Its short, sweet and simple! The article below that is! It is in typical fashion of the leftist news corps! Oh, if I must report it let’s discredit everyone around and allow the case! After all, the King must not be disturbed from his daily affairs! Oh the peasants are stirring it up again!!! Off with their heads! Tax their death and place my trash upon their graves! Please allow me to be in the presence of this ABC reporter who is so inconvenienced to tell this story! Good day!

Ga. Judge Orders President to Appear at Hearing
January 20, 2012

A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and can’t be president.

It’s one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama’s name off the state’s ballot in the March presidential primary.

An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.

The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president’s lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

Judge whacks Obama over eligibility: The POTUS goes down to Georgia

Obama went down to Georgia and he was in bind and way behind looking for an election to steal! He came upon Van Irion sitting on a stump, he said boy let me tell you what! I’m the best election stealer in the world! I bet you this election box made of gold, Im the best there ever was!!! Round the mountain run boy run, devils in the white house with the election won! Your busy in the briar patch handing out dough…..I’ll bet you once you son of a buck, your butt will be in Georgia showing your true identity! Ok, that was a poor attempt at a Charlie Daniel classic! But, the POTUS OBAMA WILL BE MAKING HIS WAY TO GEORGIA THIS WEEK TO FACE OFF WITH VAN IRION! This is going to be fun!

WORLD NET DAILY REPORTS:

A Georgia judge has refused a demand from Barack Obama to quash a subpoena to appear at a series of administration hearings Jan. 26 at which residents of the state are challenging, as allowed under a state law, his name on the 2012 presidential ballot.

WND reported this week when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.

“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.

Judge Michael M. Malihi, however, took a different view.

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order, released today.

“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.’”

Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.

It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.

The schedule for the hearings was set by Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

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

Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for the cases, argued that he should be exempted.

“Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate Two or ObamaForgeryGate. I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting president is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals,” Taitz said.

She told WND that it’s been 40 years since any court issued such a ruling concerning a president.

Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had gotten a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the goal apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s eligiblity, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn’t be able to say much about it.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.

Hatfield also had filed with the court a “Notice to Produce” asking for Obama’s documents and records.

He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama’s  long-form birth certificate.

Also, required are medical, religious administrative and other records about Obama’s birth; passports, applications and related records; college and university applications; bar association applications and materials; details on the citizenship of Obama’s father and other documents.

Taitz had filed an opposition to the motion to quash, taking Obama directly to task over what many consider an important constitutional question – the eligibility of a presidential candidate.

“It is noteworthy, that [the quash request] comes on the heels of his extended 17 day Hawaiian vacation, which cost U.S. taxpayers 4 million dollars. Mr. Obama has earned a dubious distinction as a Vacationer in Chief, Tourist in Chief, Partier in Chief and a Golfer in Chief due to his endless vacations, parties and rounds of golf. Considering … it is not too much to ask for Mr. Obama to show up once at a hearing and present his original identification records, which were not seen by anyone in the country yet,” she argued.

Obama’s attorney, Jablonski, also had argued that the state should mind its own business.

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argues.

Taitz’s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she’s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.

“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.

Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”

In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.

Barack Obama
Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.

Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.

It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.

The Georgia hearing apparently will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.

There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states.

The image released by the White House in April:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural born citizen”  is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

Van Irion stares down Obama over his eligibility next week in Georgia!

The court date has been set! January 26th, Thursday, 9 am in Atlanta Georgia! Address below! Let the showdown begin! Join Van Irion and myself as he takes on the titans from DC and I get to witness history be made! If there is enough interest we may get together a caravan of people and send them that way to offer support! Go VAN go!!!

Donny,

In one week we will be in Georgia arguing that our Constitution be upheld, that only candidates with two U.S. citizens parents be on the ballot for President.

The hearing starts at 9am at the JUSTICE CENTER BUILDING, 160 Pryor St, Atlanta, GA – COURTROOM G40 on the ground floor.

Please be at the hearing if you are able. Also please email and let us know if you plan to be there so we have some idea of how many of our members to expect.

If you have been following the news on this issue, you may know that three different parties will be heard on the same day. Liberty Legal Foundation and our client David Welden is going first. WND ran an article today summarizing fairly well the issues and parties.

Our strategy is to keep it simple. The qualifications for President are that the candidate be:

a natural born Citizen
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution (this no longer applies because there are no citizens that were alive at the time the Constitution was adopted),
and be the Age of thirty five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
We concede Obama fulfills the last two qualifications. However, Obama can never fulfill the first qualification because his father was never a U.S. Citizen. Interestingly, the Senate website explaining these qualifications says,

“This… requirement raises the question of whether someone born to American parents outside of the United States would be eligible to hold the office.”

The official government website explaining the qualifications for President says that both parents must be “American”. It does not say “an American parent”. That the Congress has not pursued this issue is a travesty to our Constitution. Every member of Congress is a co-conspirator to the fraud being perpetrated on the American people.

The reason the Founders included this extra qualification for President is extremely important, today more than ever! No one can deny that the worldview and opinions of the parents greatly influence the worldview and opinions of the child. In Obama’s case, as we read in his book Dreams From My Father, this is made abundantly clear. Obama’s father held deep resentment towards the Western world, including America and transferred that outlook to his son. All of the policies of Obama that weaken America make sense through this lens. Going around the world apologizing for our country, transferring our resources overseas, pushing policies that stifle the free market and prevent job creation – these are all a direct result of Obama not being a natural born citizen. This is exactly why the Founders created the highest standard for our highest office.

Next Thursday our argument will be very simple:

Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen

The Constitution requires that both of Obama’s parents be U.S. citizens

Obama is therefore not Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President

Accordingly, the Secretary of State of Georgia can not place Obama’s name on the ballot

Please help us be successful next Thursday. Be at the hearing to show your support. Pray for Judge Malihi and for Van as he argues the law before him. If you can’t be at the hearing, please help by spreading the word about Liberty Legal Foundation. The greater our membership, the greater our influence. Please continue to encourage your friends and family to join us.

In Liberty,

Dawn Irion

Co-Founder
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION
 

 
Thank you to all who support Liberty Legal Foundation. Without your generous support, this work would not be possible!
Liberty Legal Foundation is an non-profit organization that relies entirely on donations to continue our fight to restore Constitutional limits on government. Please consider making a donation to help us cover our administrative and legal costs. You may make checks payable to “Liberty Legal Foundation” and mail to 9040 Executive Park Dr, Ste 200, Knoxville, TN 37923. Donations can be made online by clicking the link above.

SIDE BAR

We don’t normally send out two messages in one week. However, we have been doing a great deal of research in preparing the Obamacare Amicus Brief and would like to share some of it with you. Please look for this important message tomorrow.

 
Important Technical Note!
 
If you have never logged in to your member profile before, you will need to go through the process to reset your password. Go to http://libertylegalfoundation.org/lostpassword/ and enter the email address you used when you joined Liberty Legal Foundation. From there, carefully follow the instructions you will receive by email. You will receive one email in order to approve the password reset. You will then receive a second email with your new password. If you have any trouble please email us at help@libertylegalfoundation.org.
 
 

Help spread the word!

Check out our online stores for Liberty Legal Class Action gear.

Certification Class Action

Immigration Class Action

Obamacare Class Action

Your purchases are another way you can help support the work of Liberty Legal Foundation.

 

Share This Newsletter

or  Forward-to-a-Friend

 

 
Got a Question or Comment?
 

 

Send Van an email!

Visit us on Twitter!
Visit us on Facebook!
Contact Us:
Phone/Fax: 423-208-9953
Email: help@libertylegalfoundation.org