FIrst RINO Hunt in TN is a successful one for Tea Party

On a very warm evening in January 2012, after a full day of fighting Obamacare in Atlanta, sitting in a quiet Irish pub eating fish and chips with Van Irion and fellow TPBC steering committee member Will Sturtevant has a thought.

How can we be more effective? How can we send a resounding message to all levels of elected officials? How can we target those that are giving away our country? Socialist dressed as Republicans or even Democrats!

He looked across the table at Van and myself and said what about having a RINO Hunt, being a RINO Hunter? The statement grew a chuckle at first, complete with a patriot standing with a T on his shirt, with a figurative bow and arrow targeted toward ballot box levers with RINO names on them, symbolically removing them from office with a strong block of votes. The effect that could have on the state and the country appeared to be the answer to getting our country restored to a republic. What a concept!

Target every RINO or DINO with a specific plan, put a concentrated effort together in that district or race and you have made and created the much needed change that has eluded us for years.

As with the Maggart race we can see the power of the RINO hunt.

Van eludes to this technique in the article below and we are thankful to have Will on our team.

Let’s use Wills RINO hunting techniques and I suggest let’s go DINOsaur hunting too! A few old fossils need to be extinct, with a well though out plan to get people to the ballot box!

Perhaps Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander need to be the new species hunted this November at the ballot box? Hmmmm? Again my opinion and we all know what opinions are like? Right?

Tennessee RINO Hunt

Last week’sTennessee elections brought about a minor miracle. As usual the main-stream media’s reaction is to willfully ignore or actively cover up the story. You need to know about this minor miracle because it is something that can be repeated nationwide. Also, it’s great to hear good news once in a while.

Like Tea Party groups in many states the Tennessee Tea Parties have focused most of their energy on state and local elections. Two years ago Tennessee Tea Parties helped the Republican Party take back control of both houses of the Tennessee Legislature, and the Governor’s Office, for the first time in over 150 years. After the election there was much hand-clapping, back-slapping, and hope for the future. Unfortunately the Republicans who were put into office refused to acknowledge the Tea Party as the reason for their unprecedented victory. Over the past two years the Tennessee Tea Parties presented their top ten priorities to the Republicans they put into power. All of these priorities focused on re-asserting state sovereignty over unconstitutional Federal abuses. Tea Party activists drafted legislation to implement these priorities and lobbied tirelessly to get these priorities acted upon. After two years not one single substantive bill supported by the Tea Party was passed. Rather than help the Tea Party, the Tennessee Republican Party treated the Tea Party with contempt.

After the 2012 legislative session closed the Tennessee Tea Party held its quarterly leadership conference. At that meeting the Tea Party leaders decided that the Republican leadership needed to be taught a lesson. If the Tea Party was ever going to get any respect from the Republican leadership, the Tea Party would have to PROVE to the Republicans that the Tea Party had power at the ballot box. So, they decided to go on a RINO Hunt. The Tea Party was going to prove its ability to eliminate a Republican-In-Name-Only. The higher up in Republican leadership, the better. So, they targeted the Republican Caucus Chairwoman, Representative Debbie Maggart, a four-time incumbent. She was number four in the Tennessee Republican leadership. She actively fought against Tennessee Tea Party legislation. Now she is no longer a member of the Tennessee legislature.  

Representative Maggart lost the Republican primary to a Tea Party backed challenger, despite Maggart’s huge war-chest and active support from the Republican leadership. In fact, the election wasn’t even close. Maggart lost by more than 12% of the vote. Tea Party activists drove in from all over the state to knock on doors, hand out fliers, and hold signs for Maggart’s challenger. Tea Party members from all over the state donated campaign contributions to Maggart’s challenger, even though they didn’t live in Maggart’s district. Tea Party leaders used their connections to get national Political Action Committees to donate to Maggart’s challenger.

But none of this would have been possible without a conscious decision by the Tennessee Tea Party leadership to focus their frustration on ONE Republican leader. Believe me, many many Republicans had justifiably earned the wrath of the Tennessee Tea Party. But before any names were discussed, the Tea Party leadership recognized that a focused effort was an absolute requirement. In order to ensure victory over at least one highly-placed Republican, efforts must be focused. Only after this strategy had been agreed upon were names discussed. Maggart had been one of the worst offenders within the Republican leadership, so she was chosen.

I don’t want to give the wrong impression, however. Tea Party activists still worked for other incumbent-challenging candidates. They still donated and volunteered in other districts. But state-wide efforts were focused on Maggart’s primary.

And the news is even better. Four other Republican incumbents in Tennessee were also defeated by Tea Party-backed challengers. All four had thwarted Tea Party priorities and failed to assert state sovereignty over Federal abuses.

Also, two other RINOs beat their Tea Party-backed challengers by less than a dozen votes. Recounts will be held. But even if these two RINOs keep their offices, they were definitely made aware of the power of the Tea Party.

Which leads to the most important point: Every Republican in the Tennessee Legislature knows what just happened. They were aware that the Tea Party had targeted Maggart. They were aware that the other RINOs were being targeted. Now they’ve seen the result. So, next year when the Tea Party drafts a bill and tells Republicans it is a top priority, they will pay attention. Or they will be the target of the next RINO Hunt.

It’s bad enough when Socialists run for office as socialists. It’s much worse when they tell you they’re constitutionalists, but then they thwart every attempt to re-assert constitutional government. Every state should be having RINO Hunts, until all anti-constitutionalists are purged from the Republican Party.

For Liberty,

Van Irion, Founder
 

P.S. We are proud to be able to say that the idea for a RINO hunt came from a Liberty Legal Foundation member. Thank you to Will, here in the state of Tennessee.

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.

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.”