NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (2 of 2)

© 2009 jbjd

(UPDATED:  08.31.10: The link to the 2007 DNC notice that Chairman Dean appointed Nancy Pelosi to Chair the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Presidential Nominating Convention has been scrubbed.  Instead, I substituted the announcement of her appointment which appeared in the Denver Post.)

So, to continue, who is responsible for enabling BO to occupy the office of POTUS notwithstanding no evidence that was proffered could prove he is Constitutionally eligible for the job?  Here’s a list of the people eliminated thus far, in the order in which they were eliminated.  (Note:  After digesting the first half of this article, http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/never-less-than-a-treason-1-of-2/, a few readers objected to the scope of my exoneration. That is, they thought I was too generous in letting people off the hook.  Let me reassure everyone, I had already factored into consideration all of their stated objections.  Hopefully, these excerpts from my replies will allay any other concerns.)

1.  Barack Obama

Let me remind you, i) he did not force anyone to vote for him in the general election. ii) He never Certified to state elections officials he was the Official Nominee for POTUS of the DNC and met all Constitutional requirements of the job, to get them to print his name on the general election ballot. iii) Three months before he obtained the D nomination, he took out an ad on the internet called “Fight the Smears” – he spelled out quite plainly, this ad was “Paid for by Barack Obama” – proclaiming for everyone to see, he was only a “native citizen,” thus ‘outing’ himself as being Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

2.  Congress

This includes VP Cheney, acting in his role as President of the Senate.  Even assuming upon asking for a vote on Ratification, he failed to extend to the members an opportunity discernible to us, to register their objections, if any, to the EC process; any one of these 500+ legislators could have raised a “Point of Order” at any time, to get an objection heard.  As I said previously, Congress is off the hook because the Constitution does not require that they investigate whether the person who obtained the requisite votes for POTUS from members of the EC, is Constitutionally eligible for the job.

3. The Electoral College

For as long as general elections have provided the mechanism to appoint the state Electors; even in those states that require the Elector to vote for the nominee of the national party, no faithless Elector has ever faced legal retribution.  The reason I left the EC off the hook is simple:  the Constitution does not require the EC must determine whether the nominee of their political party is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS even if they decided to elect him for the job.http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/

****************************************************************************************************************

We have reached the point where the responsibility for electing an ineligible POTUS must be found somewhere in a process directly related to his nomination.  But before we ferret out the source of that responsibility, memorize this fact:  The raison d’etre for awarding BO the national D party nomination  was to get elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot notwithstanding getting his name on the ballot would have nothing to do with his winning the election.

In July of 2007, Howard Dean, then Chair of the DNC, appointed  Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Chair the 2008 DNC Convention.   This put her in charge of the nomination.   http://www.denverpost.com/dnc/ci_6283384

Now, what do you think it means to “win” the “election”?  Remember, voters who went to the polls on November 4, only cast votes to appoint the (slate of) Electors who would then cast votes for President on December 15.  The person who gets the most votes at that time, wins the election.  And there is no provision in the Constitution, or any Federal law that requires Electors to vote for the person whose name, attached to theirs, received the most popular votes in the general election. In fact, the only Constitutional significance to receiving the most votes cast in a general election is this.  The names of the winning slate of electors thus appointed by the voters, once their appointment by means of this general election is Certified by the Governor of the state in a Certificate of Ascertainment, are then sent to the Archivist of the United States at the Office of the Federal Register, as directed by the Constitution.

Winning” the election simply means, receiving the most votes from the appointed Electors voting in the Electoral College. (Even if a ‘candidate’ concedes the race after November’s  general election, this has no bearing on whether the Electors can elect that loser  on December 15.)

So, why did the EC cast their votes for BO on December 15?  Neither federal law nor any provision of the Constitution says they had to vote for the person who holds the party nomination.  NONE.  Oh, sure, some states have enacted laws that require the Electors to vote for the party nominee.  However, as I previously pointed out, even in those states that have enacted laws requiring Electors to vote for the nominee of the party, no faithless Elector has even been sanctioned for disobeying that law. In fact, the party demands that its Electors swear an oath to support the nominee, before the party informs the state to print his or her name onto the general election ballot.  In other words, those Electors listed on the general election ballot as “for Barack Obama” are really for Barack Obama.  And, ultimately, that’s the reason these D Electors – the party activists, the movers and shakers, the fund raisers  who are chosen as party Electors – cast their votes for him.  Because they said they would. In fact, that’s the only reason they got to be Electors in the first place.

There.  We have established there is no correlation between the votes cast for BO by the Electors in the Electoral College; and the appearance of his name on the general election ballot.

Now, let’s examine the flip side of this process, that is, the primary/caucus campaign that led up to BO’s nomination at the DNC Convention to determine what correlation, if any, there is between the results of that process and his eventual nomination.

First, understand, the way the nomination is supposed to work.  Whichever candidate wins the most delegates from votes cast in the Democratic primary/caucus process will win the party’s nomination at the national Convention.  Well, sort of.  The candidate wins ONLY IF the number of those delegates reaches the threshold required by the party.  If not then, the nominee is chosen based on BOTH the number of votes cast by his or her delegates  on the call of the roll on the floor of the Convention PLUS the number of votes of what are called the “super delegates.”

So, who are these ‘super’ delegates?  Well, they are high profile members of the party, including federal legislators, chosen in advance by members of the DNC.  (Here is a pretty good history of SD’s; ignore the part of the article that refers to whether “pledged” delegates are actually “pledged.” The authors, one a Democratic strategist and the other, an attorney, obviously never heard of vote binding states.)  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18908855

Take a look at how Ms. Pelosi tried to steer the votes of those Democratically appointed SD’s.  On March 16, when BO had just come off his lopsided caucus ‘wins,’ http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/ she told Politico the SD’s “should reflect the will of the voters.”  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9063.html (She never specified whether she meant, the will of the voters as expressed by the final delegate count in their districts; or by the total delegate count; or by the overall popular vote.)  But bombarded by cries of ‘foul’ at appearing to take sides in the battle for the nomination, by April 1, Ms. Pelosi had changed her mind.  Now she decided, these SD’s had the “right to vote their conscience.” http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/pelosi_superdelegates_can_vote.php And it’s a good thing she did.  Because according to the DNC Call, which contains the rules that governed the 2008 Convention she Chaired, even delegates “pledged” to their candidates as the result of votes cast in the primary/caucus election are not actually ‘pledged’ but only, “shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”  http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/c313170ef991f2ce12_iqm6iyofq.pdf (It’s about time they added a line reminding pledged delegates from vote binding states, “If you are from one of the 13 vote binding states then, in your state, voting for someone other than the candidate you pledged to the voters you would represent, is against the law.”)

Okay, back to the scenario facing both BO and HRC at the start of the Convention.  Recall that, neither of them had a sufficient number of delegates pledged to win the nomination at the time they entered the Convention.  So, whoever won more total delegate votes, combining both pledged and super, as the result of the floor vote than the opposition, would be the party nominee.  At least, this has been the tradition within the Democratic Party for as long as I can remember.  But not this time.  Nope; this time, BO was somehow able to take the nomination even though there was never a roll call vote on the floor! How do you suppose that happened?  Of course, without this vote, we can never know what would have been the actual count of delegate votes for either candidate. Furthermore, without a record, we will never know whether pledged delegates from the 13 (thirteen) vote binding states lived up to their obligation to vote for the candidate the voters from back home elected them to support at the Convention.

In fact, nothing in the record BEFORE the Convention indicated that in a full open vote at the Convention, his nomination rather than hers, was a foregone conclusion.  Not a thing.

For example, HRC won the popular vote.  (Did you already know that?) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html (Not at all surprising, since even on election day, polls taken of people who had just cast their votes showed she would have beaten John McCain by 11 percentage points, as opposed to BO’s 7.) http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/12/politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml Plus, even with all of the documented caucus fraud and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee bait and switch with MI votes; best guesses, BO still only managed to ‘find’ less than 35 more pledged delegates as the result of votes cast for him, than for her. http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html. (A federal court ruling in TX has allowed a lawsuit to proceed based on the under-allocation of delegates in heavily Hispanic districts, which could signal the beginning of the end to the D’s ‘complicated’ delegate allocation process in that state.)  http://www.star-telegram.com/texas/story/1558681.html

Okay.  We previously established there is no correlation between the votes cast for BO by the Electors in the Electoral College; and the appearance of his name on the general election ballot. And we have just established there is NO correlation between winning the Democratic primary contest and garnering the Democratic nomination. Then why do you suppose Chairwoman Pelosi imposed measures that were guaranteed to gag the ‘fair reflection’ of the millions of voters who had dispatched delegates to the Convention, in order to guarantee BO the nomination?  Repeat after me:  The raison d’etre for awarding BO the national D party nomination  was to get elections officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot. And, according to state elections laws, only the candidate duly nominated by the national D party at the party Convention, as Certified to by the party, is entitled to have his or her name printed on state ballots for the general election.  But didn’t we just say, the actual election occurs within the EC, and not at the general election?  Then, why were Nancy Pelosi (and Howard Dean and Harry Reid) determined to get BO’s name on the ballot in the general election?  Because they could never have gotten away with stealing the election at the point of the EC vote, when most people think they are actually casting their votes for President in the general election.

As we’ve already said, in order to get the state to print the name of the nominee for POTUS from the major political party, onto the state’s general election ballot; appropriate party officials must Certify to state elections officials, the name of the nominee of the party.  But in some states, for example, TX and GA, just Certifying the name of the candidate is not enough to get his or name printed onto the ballot.  The law in those states says to get onto the ballot, the party nominee must also satisfy all of the qualifications of the job.  But, even in those states that mandate the nominee must be eligible, there’s no law that says, the party must Certify the nominee’s qualifications.  Of course, since DNC rules require the nominee must be eligible under the Constitution, http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf (p.14, K.1 and 2), Certifying BO is the nominee is tantamount to verifying, he is Constitutionally eligible for the job.  Anyway, there’s no law in any state that says any state official has to check.

However, 1 (one) state in the union enacted a law that specifically says, the party must Certify the nominee for POTUS is eligible for the job:  HI.*

*(Correction:  After I posted this article, I learned that SC law also requires specific wording of eligibility to accompany the submission of candidate names that will appear on the ballot.  See http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/up-to-here-in-fraud-from-the-chair-of-the-2008-convention-to-the-chair-of-the-dnc/)

So, in her civilian role as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, Nancy Pelosi, possessing all of the gravitas of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives signed the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination relied upon by state elections officials to print the name of Barack Obama on the state general election ballots.  And on the Certification issued to the state of HI, Ms. Pelosi added this line:  he is “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”  http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/

But as we now know, there is no evidence she determined beforehand whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job.  http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/rumors-lies-and-unsubstantiated-facts/; http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/if-drowning-out-opposing-facts-is-un-american-then-ignoring-unpleasant-facts-must-be-un-american-too/

Which leads us to the final question:  In July of 2007, why do you suppose Howard Dean picked Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd in the line of Presidential succession, to Chair the 2008 DNC Convention?  Answer:  Perhaps to guarantee no matter the success achieved by other candidates seeking the D nomination, BO would still win the 2008 election. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/usc_sec_03_00000019—-000-.html

(Editorial Assistance Provided by d2i)

About these ads

44 Responses to NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (2 of 2)

  1. Ace says:

    Excellent.

    But the true Judas in all of this is

    HILLARY CLINTON

    It was her moral duty to challenge this on the floor of the Convention—she knew (and knows) the truth. Possibly because she feared her political demise, she betrayed the whole Nation by playing along with this crime. And is still playing along with this by, in essence, “blackmailing” the administration to obtain her current position.
    To me, she is a traitor.

    Ace: I hear you but, other than express your ire, you have failed to establish specifically the likelihood that 1) HRC definitively knew BO is not a NBC; 2) she could prove it; 3) she could have taken steps to prevent his election, with this knowledge. As for “blackmailing” anyone, well, that’s your frustration talking. I ascribe blame to those people who took concrete affirmative steps to secure the Presidency for BO, and not to those hundreds of others who might have done something to stop him.

    I also wonder whether you thought so highly of her before this that, by failing to stop BO, she let you down; or did you already dislike her and thus make of her a convenient scapegoat? ADMINISTRATOR

    • avwrobel says:

      It seems that early on (Nov ’07) (jbjd: remainder of comment deleted for lack of citations) … They should have kept on investigating Obama’s (jbjd: name corrected) murky background.

      avwrobel: I cannot post your comment because it contains no citations. I have no idea on what basis you make your conclusions. Re-phrasing this as a question will not pass muster, either, because people will interpret even innuendos as truth, somewhere down the line. ADMINISTRATOR

      • Ace says:

        I base my opinion on the fact that she formally (charges omitted).
        I’m not expressing “ire”, I’m just delivering an opinion, and nothing more, but not one drawn out of thin air.

        And as an aside, it was not her I supported, but Obama. Sadly, I contributed to his campaign.

        Ace: Next time, I cannot print your charges without cites. Do you know why Berg had to seal his case against BO? Because when anyone brings a charge of misappropriation of funds under the Federal False Claims Act, it must be sealed so as to protect the Defendant from incurring damages solely as the result of the accusation, which might eventually be ruled baseless. Berg filed incorrectly, neglecting to seal the case. When the court ordered him move to seal the case AND not to talk about it, he made this appear that there was some big secret contained in the documents. Well, this principle of sealing so as to avoid damage absent proof of wrongdoing applies on this blog, too. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Renee says:

    Great post jbjd ! As usual.

    Renee: Thank you. I worked very hard to get it just right. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Maggie says:

    Guess I’m wondering if there is something different about Michigan’s laws that made him not want to be on the primary ballot. As I recall he had himself removed from the ballot in Michigan but not in Florida (which had a similar problem).

    Maggie: You can look this up. (Hint: It had something to do with Iowa.) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. drkate says:

    Ok, I now have finished reading both articles and in a little better frame of mind.

    First, compliments on your consistently stellar research and writing.

    Second, to cut to the chase, then the sole responsibility lies with Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi? And how does one legally challenge them at all? If everyone is exonerated besides them, what really is the point? It sounds like we still have absolutely NO avenue to redress this ‘fixing’ the election.

    drkate: Thank you for the compliment.

    The point is, we do have options! Oh, sure, they are not instant fixes; but they could work pretty quickly. People are frustrated not just because they feel they have been wronged and don’t know what to do but also because they didn’t know enough about how the system worked, to stop this. Some of that anger towards others is frustration at themselves. It takes work to fix this broken system that has been taken over by a few; but they could not have snookered us if we hadn’t been so complacent about ‘letting’ them.

    Now, constrained by existing laws, we only have certain options for redress. But all of these options have as their basis, seeking to right a part of the system that went wrong. These last two articles – NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON, parts 1 and 2 – espouse the view that Congressional ratification of the EC vote did not go wrong. The EC vote did not go wrong. That is, these both were conducted according to law. What did go wrong were those Certifications to states that BO is a NBC without evidence of this. And in those states, that’s a crime. Who cares whether removing BO from office originates on the basis NP is a criminal; as opposed to the fact, he is not a NBC? (Have you read any of the posts, including readers’ excellent comments, discussing ,filing charges with state A’sG in those states that require the nominee for POTUS from the major political party to be Constitutionally eligible for the job? I am finalizing a model letter, which should be posted shortly…)

    In the meantime, people in those states where her Certification does not constitute a crime, can dissipate their angst by working to change state election laws. He could not have gotten into the White House if he could not have gotten onto the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. drkate says:

    Thanks for your reply, jbjd. It seems like Dean chose Pelosi as the most ‘immune’ official to pull this off…

    Now, assuming the model letter to the AG’s, and further filing of charges, would this be ‘after the fact’ and possibly exceed the time limits provided by state law to object? Hence actions would be dismissed based on ‘standing’ to file after the state law time frame? Is there a way around this?

    If so, then, this is still a good effort for 2012, when obama is likely to be on the ballot (if he hasn’t already secured his position for life)…

    drkate: I believe, Dean, Reid, BO, Pelosi, and other(?) determined that 1) BO would be their candidate for POTUS; and 2) the person entrusted with signing the Certifications of Nomination had to be someone whose gravitas, either by position or by reputation, made this person’s word beyond reproach. (When I say, Certification of Nomination, I mean to include not only the actual document attesting to the eligibility of the candidate, which document is intended to go to the states so that the candidate’s name will be printed on the ballot; but also, the whole nomination process, including the primary and caucus campaigns. Yes, Dean ‘selected her'; but she was a party to that selection.

    As for ‘statute of limitations,’ laws allowing challenges to getting names on the ballot contain limitations measured in days. State laws pertaining to fraud have limitations measured in years. Remember, we are alleging election fraud in swearing to a fact before determining whether it is true, in order to obtain the benefit of getting someone’s name printed on the state ballot. “Standing” is not an issue; the AG has authority to investigate election fraud. And anyone can bring the allegation of fraud to the AG’s attention. (A civil suit based on fraud, is another issue. The people with the strongest standing to allege an action in ‘fraud’ would be the pledged delegates in binding vote states.

    By 2012, we will have legislation in place to mandate appropriate screening for candidates for POTUS from the major political parties who want their names to be printed on the ballot. (At some point, I will post model legislation. I have said that this will include some sort of screening panel; and that if the political parties do not want to subject their candidates to such screening, then citizens will not use their tax money to pay for the names of the candidates chosen by the party, to appear on the ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

    • redhank says:

      I think it is interesting that Pelosi did not sign the nomination from Texas; the Chair of the Texas Democratic Party did. Also it was sent from Denver (the convention) as it was notarized there…why was this different? jbjd, have you come across many or any other States that Pelosi did not certify? Did Pelosi know it was a crime and found someone else to do it?

      redhank: This one is tricky; it depends on state law. Some states require the Chair of the state D party to submit the certification, which often is little more than a letter from the Chair, saying the DNC nominee is BO. Some states say, this must be submitted by the appropriate party official. However, even in those states that require the state Chair to submit the certification, often they did so by attaching NP’s Certification. Are you saying, the TX elections officials only received a certification from the state party Chair, which did not contain NP’s Certification? Do you have a copy of the Chair’s letter?

      As for NP, see my response to drkate. ADMINISTRATOR

      • redhank says:

        Yes…They did not get a letter from NP only the party Chair. Whereas with the Republicans they got a Certification form signed by both John Boehner and the Chair of the Texas Republican party. I have all the docs…have just got another scanner…so will try to scan and set up a link tonight or tomorrow morning.

        redhank: Thank you. These documents will be helpful when I try to explain how to proceed with complaints, for those who are waiting on me to file. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. Maggie says:

    I really enjoy reading your articles and have learned a lot. Obama was not on the Democratic ballot in Michigan. This ultimately resulted in Michigan not being counted correctly and in the end votes were taken from Hillary (who remained on the ballot) and given to Obama. (line omitted) Any thoughts on why this was truly done? By the way this event caused me and other Michigan residents a huge wake up call and we were very upset by the infringement on our rights.

    Maggie: Thank you. I cannot tell you how sorry I was, that happened to the voters of MI. Technically, your voting rights were not infringed because you have no Constitutional right to choose the candidate from the D party you would have the party run for POTUS. But you did pay for the party, meaning soiree, put on by this private club; at least you could have counted the candles on the cake. (I took out the line in which you speculate that others were involved in changing the date of MI’s primary so as to deprive MI primary voters of their voice; too speculative and attenuated, without specific evidence.) ADMINISTRATOR

  7. redhank says:

    jbjd…here is the link to the docs related to the Texas Certifications for the General Election. You should be able to get a full view of each doc by clicking on them. Sorry to link to an old blog of mine, but thought this was the easiest way.
    http://falseflagrag.wordpress.com/

    redhank: Okay, thanks; let me look at these and get back to you. ADMINISTRATOR

    redhank: You got Boyd Richie. He merely pasted his TX D Party letterhead over the DNC letterhead to copy the words of their Certification; and inserted his signature information where NP’s would have been. So, he swore BO was “duly nominated,” which, according to DNC rules means, he must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. And according to TX law, the nominee must be NBC to get his name printed on the ballot. Go get him; he perpetrated fraud. Let him try to convince the AG he confirmed BO is a NBC based on a copy of a blacked out document posted on a web site paid for by the candidate himself. (As to why the state Chair submitted this Certification rather than NP; some state laws require this Certification to come from the state party. But some state Chairs merely write a letter confirming the nomination and then attach NP’s Certification.) I will be posting the model complaint letter of fraud to the AG, shortly. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. ellipse says:

    Thank you for your tireless work. These last two posts cause me to be more optimistic than I have been since the election! I am of the opinion we don’t have years—years of more Obama, or even years in court to have him removed. Nevertheless, leaving no stone unturned, I post, research, and otherwise support and contribute to all efforts on FR that further the goal to have BHO exposed and removed, including the birther military standing issue and issues involving such corruption and/or embarrassment their exposure forces resignation.

    Not being a lawyer, but keeping in mind the goal, my informed instinct was that malfeasance having to do with the Electoral College was the quickest way to get results (I am deeply concerned about the time element.) . My thoughts ran along these lines— Wouldn’t delegates have standing? If one of the candidates wasn’t qualified to run, the electors were presented with a false choice or fraudulently induced to think they were voting for a candidate who was qualified but, in fact, was not.

    Having read your last two posts, my spirits soar. I think you have nailed it & are also looking for the most direct route to accomplish the goal. It also has the much-needed advantage of ensuring this never happens again. We are dealing with dual goals here, neither of which can take priority over the other: 1) expose Obama for the fraud he is; 2) save the country as a Constitutional Republic. What is happening to our country eclipses partisan politics. Conscious Dems/Repubs/Independents need to unite in our civic responsibility to defeat the tyranny that threatens us all. Thank you!

    ellipse: Thank you; you are exactly right! These were my thoughts when I put this together; and yes, it is so much work. But I figure, one of the reasons people became and, in large part, are still so frustrated is that, they just don’t understand the whole system. (That’s how those who do, were able to take advantage.) Now, we know as much as the people who pulled one over on us. We certainly won’t let this happen again. And this knowledge is empowering, isn’t it. (I wish more people read this blog, and could feel what we feel about this situation.) The next step is filing those complaints of fraud with state A’sG. I am putting the final touches on the model letter and will post shortly. And all it takes is one AG to investigate and then, to ask NP on what basis she determined BO is a NBC. I cannot wait!

    Yes, your instincts about the EC were good. There is much work to be done before the next general election, including writing new legislation relating to both the EC and, establishing eligibility to have the name of the candidate from the major political party appear on the state’s general election ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. azgo says:

    Great job on your article! It all becomes more mind boggling. ‘Treason’ has become a very popular word during this last year!

    Here is Article XI of the bylaws of the AZ Democratic Party. It seems to tie the DNC “DELEGATE SELECTION RULES” into the AZ Democratic Party Bylaws, (?) which, of course, would include Chapter 12.,K.,2.
    I am wondering if the Texas democratic party has the same or similar type of bylaw?

    http://www.azdem.org/about/877
    “ARTICLE XI
    DELEGATE SELECTION

    SECTION 1. Rules. There shall be rules for delegate selection for conventions and meetings of the National Committee, which are in accordance with the guidelines set by the Democratic National Committee. These rules shall be an Appendix to these bylaws and may be enacted, changed or modified separately from these bylaws, but must comply with these bylaws.”

    For fun, I also found this:
    http://www.azdem.org/about/868
    “ARTICLE II
    STATE COMMITTEE
    SECTION 3. Duties of the State Committeepersons. The duties of the Committeepersons shall include but not be limited to: …
    e) Protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Arizona.”

    azgo: On the contrary, I thought these last 2 articles, including information linked, made things less “mind boggling.” That is, I believe I have synthesized the whole fraud of BO’s nomination/election and identified the main culprits. As for these rules and bylaws, keep in mind, the DNC is a private club, whose main mission is to choose the club candidates whose names will appear on the state ballots, which choice is paid for by the states. And we wrote the laws that say that we agree to foot the bill, even when our votes are not counted or, are cut in half. ADMINISTRATOR

    • azgo says:

      Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear on my statement. I mean the whole thing “IS” mind boggling. You have uncovered more than BO being Constitutionally ineligible, you have uncovered the whole fraud of the 2008 nomination/election. I have learned from you so much more about the DNC, the rules, the charter, the bylaws, the delegate count, the fraud, etc. It’s mind boggling to know this all happened! And, exactly what you have written and researched, my mind is boggled by even more questions. How did this happen in America? How did other DNC members allow this to happen? Is the whole DNC corrupt also? Who more is involved? Will the Democratic Party recognize all of this and be responsible, work on and demand a solution for this corruption? Which AG will (with guts and integrity) investigate the election fraud? etc. etc. …

      I can’t wait for the ‘model complaint letter of fraud to the AG’.

      Hey thanks !!!… again!

      azgo: Oh, now I get what you meant. Yes; this is absolutely mind-boggling. I have been trying to de-construct this process since last summer; and as soon as I understand something, I pass it on. But along the way, I also have to correct misconceptions from other bloggers. Because people challenge ME, questioning how I can be right when so many others disagree. For example, more than 20 lawsuits were filed based on the failure of a state official, usually the SoS, to vet BO for Constitutional eligibility. When these cases failed, readers became more cynical, accusing the courts – state and federal, including the SCOTUS – of being rigged. After all, how could all of these attorneys involved in these cases, be wrong? Even the attorneys ridiculed the courts, just because their cases were rejected. Well, I tried telling people in the beginning. the courts take the principle of governmental separation of powers / checks and balances seriously. And all of these cases were based on the legal principle of mandamus, which allows the court – the judicial branch – to order the SoS – the executive branch – to carry out a ministerial duty of vetting the candidate; but only if there is a specific provision in the law – legislative branch – requiring such vetting. And there isn’t. Some attorneys misled their readers, just because they lost. ‘But the S’s of S took Calero off the ballots in some states, because he was born in Nicaragua; ask them why they did that!’ Of course, the answer is simple: just because they have no ministerial duty to check does not mean, they have no discretion to kick someone off the ballot when they know for sure he is not a NBC.

      Can you imagine if all of the blogs who question BO’s eligibility for POTUS, focused on challenging how he got on the ballot in the first place, what impact this would have on the discussion? Instead, they spend countless hours celebrating when the latest “holy grail” definition of natural born citizenship is revealed in a law review article; and I have to explain, opinions expressed in a law review article mean nearly nothing in a court of law. Because as long as people’s attention is diverted elsewhere, they are not learning how their government works, and how to fix it or change it. And I want them to learn how it works, and to help me fix it and change it. ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Patriot Dreamer says:

    jbjd, how can I help you?

    Patriot Dreamer: Best question yet, hands down. Try to find someone who has written to Boyd Richie, Chair of the TX state D pary, asking the documentation question posited by the writer of this letter to NP.

    Congresswoman Pelosi,

    First, please allow me the opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year, and express my gratitude for the chance to present this letter to you. I know that you are an extremely busy woman, and I will seek to be as brief and to the point as possible.

    On the 22nd of December last year, I received a document from the Hawaii Office of Elections that included an Official Certification of Nomination from the Democratic Party that bears your signature on it. On that document, it states in part that: “the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States (referring to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, respectively) are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” I was interested in this document because it was different from all the other Certifications of Nomination which I have received, which simply state that the candidates had been nominated at the convention. I am assuming that this difference is a result of Section 11-113 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, which stipulates that the political party of a candidate must provide a statement that the candidate is legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the United States Constitution.

    As I’m sure you know, there has been some concern on the part of the citizens of this country that Mr. Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President; and, as of yet, no evidence has been made available to the public that would allow for a determination of eligibility to be made. Because you signed your name to this document, I have been asked by other concerned citizens to make a request that you provide us access to and copies of any documents that you used when making a determination of eligibility regarding Mr. Obama’s qualifications to serve as President of the United States of America.

    Again, I thank you for your time, and eagerly await your response.

    Sincerely Yours,
    Your Fellow Citizen,

    The TX Certification, found at http://falseflagrag.wordpress.com/, was signed by Boyd Richie. As you will see, he just replaced the DNC letterhead with a TX state D party letterhead.

    If you cannot find such letter, get someone from TX to write one. And send the letter and the response, if any, back to me. Thanks! ADMINISTRATOR

    • redhank says:

      Hi jbjd

      I have today posted the following letter to Boyd Ritchie:

      Mr. Boyd L Ritchie
      Chair
      Texas Democratic Party
      505 West 12th St
      Suite 200
      Austin, TX 78701

      Dear Mr. Ritchie

      Accompanying a letter from Ann McGeehan, Director of Elections for the State of Texas, dated August 24, 2009, I received copies of all certifications of the 2008 Presidential nominees filed with the State for both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

      I am sure that you are well aware that Section 192.031 of the Texas Election Code entitles political parties to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:
      (1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

      On August 27, 2009 you submitted, on behalf of your party, a sworn Certification of Nomination of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. as the duly nominated candidate of the Democratic Party for the Office of President of The United States.
      You are probably aware of the concerns of some citizens of this country and the State of Texas that President Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President; and as yet no evidence has been made available to the public that would allow for his eligibility to be discerned. I believe Mr. Obama was probably born in Hawaii, but the requirement for eligibility according to the Constitution is that Mr. Obama be “natural born”.
      Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution states, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
      The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.
      When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, “Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority.” The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.” Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents’ citizenship.
      On his own website, Fightthesmears.com, Mr. Obama himself stated the following:
      “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British Colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. The same status governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children”
      Regardless of whether Mr. Obama retains his US citizenship, and even if he let his Kenyan citizenship lapse upon turning 23, Mr. Obama still does not meet the requirement of the Constitution for Presidential candidates to be “natural born” for the following reasons:
      1. According to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Mr. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth. And,
      2. Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, even if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
      I respectfully request as a Texas resident, having voted in the Texas Democratic Primary in 2008, a response to the following question:
      Mr. Ritchie, with all due respect, you signed your name to the Certification and were duly sworn. On what basis or evidence did you, Mr. Boyd L Ritchie base your sworn Certification of Nomination of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. and satisfy yourself that Mr. Obama was eligible for the Office of the President given that he himself acknowledges dual allegiances at birth?
      Respectfully

      I am looking forward to your draft letter to the AG and will post any response I receive to this letter as soon and if I receive one.
      nb…I do not take credit for all in this letter, I used various arguements of likeminded bloggers.

      redhank: Did you already send this letter?

      The information I wanted you to attempt to obtain from Mr. Richie was in preparation for filing your complaint of election fraud with the AG. That is, given that Mr. Richie Certified BO’s Nomination, on what basis did he determine he was a NBC? Instead, you told Mr. Richie BO is not a NBC, based on a legal argument that he was born with dual citizenship. But you don’t even know whether he was born with dual citizenship or, if he was, whether that means he is not a NBC. BECAUSE NO ONE, INCLUDING OTHER LEGAL PRACTITIONERS WHO PONTIFICATE ON OTHER BLOGS, CAN SAY DEFINITIVELY WHETHER BO IS A NBC BASED ONLY ON INFORMATION OBTAINED OVER THE INTERNET. AND EVEN ASSUMING WE HAD FACTS, NO FEDERAL COURT HAS EVER RULED THAT BASED ON THESE FACTS, THIS MEANS, BO IS NOT A NBC.

      Instead of coming off sounding like a conscientious citizen, you come across sounding accusatory and strident. Consequently, if Mr. Richie does not answer you, this might not be on account of the fact, he failed to determine whether BO is a NBC before submitting that Certification. Rather, he could argue, he thought you were a kook.

      Could you send another note, short, sweet, respectful, informing Mr. Richie – he spells his name without a “t” – you have obtained that Certification and want to know on what basis he was able to determine whether BO is a NBC, given both TX law and DNC rules the nominee must be Constitutionally eligible for the job? ADMINISTRATOR

      • redhank says:

        jbjd…I hate to tell you but they either present us as kooks or think we are stupid.
        I have sent the letter. I am not telling him that he is not an NBC, I am telling him that BO himself says that he was governed by the citizenship of his father and I further suggest that there are legitimate questions regarding whether that means he is constitutionally ineligible.

        Of course I am not a lawyer, and perhaps was not as succinct or as gracious as you might have been, but I do think I was respectful. I do not think that I need to be “sweet”. If I don’t get a response by next week I will send a respectful followup…

        In any case it is not likely that Mr Richie (sic) will respond, not because he may think I am a kook, but as he is not under any obligation to, and in fact may by doing so incriminate himself.

        I believe the right route is to attempt to get the AG to investigate him for election fraud. If you draft the letter I will send it, assuming you still want my assistance.

        redhank: Good plan.

        Interestingly, the DNC and NP have only responded when people ask for information raising the FOIA. The party rightly points out, they are not subject to the FOIA. But when people only ask for information, they just ignore them. Let me know what happens; I have also asked another commenter, Patriot Dreamer, to recruit Texans to contact Mr. Richie. I really want to include his reply – or non-reply – in the complaint to the AG.

        And I disagree that people think anyone questioning whether BO is a NBC, is a kook. I think, the fraud I laid out in these last 2 articles, shows everyone, we know exactly what we are talking about. That is, BO may or may not be a NBC; but the DNC was determined to install him into the WH, regardless of his Constitutional eligibility for the job. And the people who pulled this off are losing sleep over when we get an AG to investigate, whether they verified his eligibility for the job. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. bob strauss says:

    jbjd, What evidence, did Hawaii use, or see, that proved, to Hawaii, Obama, was eligible, for POTUS?

    The state of Hawaii requires the candidate to meet US Constitutional eligibility requirements, did the state of Hawaii vet him, or just take Pelosi’s word for it. Either way, Hawaii was negligent, and the citizens didn’t receive, what the law calls for.

    bob strauss: Did you see the image of the Certification of Nomination NP submitted to HI, right, which appeared on “IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN, IGNORING un-PLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO,” linked to in this current article? I have no idea on what basis NP swore BO is a NBC. But nothing in HI law requires any HI official to vet the candidate to determine whether the political party is telling the truth. However, I would argue, the law requiring the party to Certify, the candidate is eligible, would ring hollow if requiring such Certification did not also imply, the candidate must actually BE eligible when the party issues this Certification. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. azgo says:

    This seems to be the subchapter of Texas Election Law which requires the state chair to sign and deliver to the secretary of state a written certification.
    Seems as the D party chair left out number (1) below, “the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;” on the D party certification letter at falseflagrag.wordpress.com unless “duly nominated” means qualified for those offices prescribed by federal law.

    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm

    SUBCHAPTER B. PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

    Sec. 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE’S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

    (1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

    (2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:

    (A) the names of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president; and

    (B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and
    ……..

    azgo: Now, you have pinpointed the heart of the ballot access issue. That is, legislators wrote laws that entitled the names of party nominees for POTUS to be printed on state general election ballots AS LONG AS THE NOMINEE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB. Now, nothing in the law requires any state actor to check. Thus, the meaning is clear: if the party gives us the name of its nominee for POTUS to print on the ballot then, we will assume the party has determined its nominee is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Now, it just so happens, as you know, DNC rules say, our nominee must be Constitutionally eligible for the job. Implicit in this requirement is that, someone in the party is responsible to check. But again, there is no explicit requirement that anyone in the party has to check. Of course, state law takes precedent over the ‘rules’ of a private club. And for the state law to operate as anything more than form with no function, the party must be able to produce documentary evidence that served as the basis for its determination. So far, no one in the state has asked the party for such documentation. We hope to change this by getting the A’sG to ask the question. (Several citizens have directly contacted the party, but all of their requests have been ignored. Well, technically, only some of the requests have been ignored. That is, when asked for such documentation directly, these requests were ignored. However, when asked referencing the FOIA (federal Freedom of Information Act), party lawyers responded, as a ‘private club,’ the DNC is not subject to the FOIA.) ADMINISTRATOR

  13. redhank says:

    This is just an aside, but there was a bit of bru ha on the the date of filing the nominations…I believe they had to be in to the SoS on the 26th of August 2009 (ie 70 days ahead of the election) the Dems submitted on the 27th and the Repubbs on the 4th Sept. The State of Texas did not uphold their own laws in this regard….if you really wanted to push it neither McCain nor Obama should have been on the ballot…

    redhank: Do you have any press on this? (Yes, this is an aside but, I never know what fact or piece of information will inform the whole picture.) ADMINISTRATOR

  14. juriggs says:

    1) I’d be happy to help in drafting a letter for redhank to send to Mr. Richie, if there’s a need.

    2) jbjd, your response to azgo regarding the ballot access issue is the most clear, concise treatment of the issue I’ve seen. Those who read this blog need to copy and paste your comment into a Word document, print it out, and read it every day (I’m going to).

    In a way, we’re trying to thread the eye of a needle, and that comment provides the clarity we need to navigate that narrow space. Great job.

    juriggs: Thank you but, which comment to azgo are you talking about? I have been saying the same things, in differing ways, for some time now; people seem to come aboard at different times along the way.

    Sure, write to Mr. Richie. Every piece of evidence tending to establish (for the AG) that, the party refuses to disclose the basis for Certification, will help. Just some ‘evidence’ will help more than others. I really hope I can get more people from TX to write to him than redhank. ADMINISTRATOR

    • juriggs says:

      I’m speaking of the comment where you stated that azgo had gotten to the heart of the ballot access issue.

      I have found a TX resident who is willing to write to Mr. Richie. She says that there are many more who are also willing to write. I’m going to use the Pelosi letter as a template, and get that out the door today.

      juriggs: Thank you so much for this help. Farming out the administrative tasks in this way frees up my time and energy for the substantive work of compiling the model fraud complaint to A’sG. Is there any way we can send these Certified so that we can prove they were received? (redhank, it won’t be long now before we have everything we need to proceed in TX…) ADMINISTRATOR

  15. redhank says:

    jbjd…this will get you going…
    http://breakingtoday.com/barrlawsuit.html

    redhank: Thanks but, what publication is this? What date? Did this appear in any other publication? What was the result? Does TX print the names of the Electors on the ballot as well as the candidate? If so, they could have just omitted BO’s name. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. redhank says:

    jbjd if you are serious fine if not….

    redhank: azgo just gave me this info. Do you know the answer to the ballot question? ADMINISTRATOR

  17. azgo says:

    Here’s the results from the Supreme Court of Texas blog.

    http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/bob-barr-sues-to-win-the-texas-electoral-votes/

    Bob Barr Sues To Win the Texas Electoral Votes [Updated]

    Update 9/19/2008: In an order issued yesterday, the Court denied Barr’s request for a stay. The petition remains pending on the docket.

    http://www.scotxblog.com/case-notes/barr-petition-denied/

    “Barr Petition Denied
    September 23rd, 2008 by Don Cruse · Add a Comment

    In re Bob Barr, No. 08-0761

    As mentioned in this earlier post, the Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr asked the Texas Supreme Court to throw both McCain and Obama off the Texas ballot. The response briefs were filed yesterday
    This morning, the Texas Supreme Court denied the petition on the merits without further comment.”

    azgo: Thanks for the information. Does TX put the names of both the nominee AND the Electors, on the ballot? Are you from TX? ADMINISTRATOR

  18. kamikaz says:

    jbjd, thank you so much for your sincere effort and diligence for justice. I think you have a very good overall grasp of the fraudulent event and its consequences. I strongly believe this country need someone so special like you. Sorry, English is not my first language, but I love this country very much. I am looking forward to your next post. Thank you.

    kamikaz: Thank you so much. The most frustrating part of this work has been ‘knowing’ the DNC stole the election; and putting together the overwhelming circumstantial case that could prove it. The next post will be up momentarily and will be the model letter of election fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

  19. azgo says:

    Here’s the results to your question and more…

    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.192.htm

    “SUBCHAPTER B. PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

    Sec. 192.034. LISTING CANDIDATES ON BALLOT. (a) The names of a presidential candidate and the candidate’s running mate shall be placed on the ballot as one race.

    (b) The names of presidential elector candidates may not be placed on the ballot.”

    “SUBCHAPTER C. WITHDRAWAL, DEATH, AND INELIGIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

    (d) A vote for a withdrawn, deceased, or ineligible nominee whose name appears on the ballot shall be counted as a vote for the nominating political party’s presidential elector candidates.”

    No, not from TX, but The Grand Canyon State. I lived in Lexington for a summer while attending a Harvard class, a year before BO showed up in that territory.

    azgo: I was living in Cambridge at the time, near Harvard Square. Thank you for the ballot information. This means, if BO was disqualified BEFORE the state agreed to put his name on the ballot then, no D Electors OR candidate would appear on the ballot. Of course, this does not mean, the EC in TX could not vote for him but just that, they would not dare. (I foresee this result with the authentication panels I envision in the model legislation in my head. That is, candidates who refuse to submit their names to these panels are, of course, still their party’s nominee; only, the state will not pay to print their names on the ballot.) ADMINISTRATOR

  20. azgo says:

    Thought you might like to know…
    This could be a reason why the Supreme Court of Texas denied the Barr petition without comment.
    http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2008/09/libertarians_se.html

    See link at bottom of this article.
    Texas attorney general letter to the Supreme Court opposing the filing of the Libertarian lawsuit.

    http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/Bar%20%20Root%20Ltr_FILED_09_17_08.pdf

    … “statutory deadline of September 3,” …
    That would only be 62 days in relation to the 70 day deadline, August 26. September 3 – McCains official nomination (?).

    Wow, there is not much time for the SoS’s to have the initial ballots prepared – 25 days in Texas and ±17 days in 2008 election after McCains official nomination and certification. The ballots would have to be immediately prepared after McCain official nomination and certification and no way possible to file a complaint according to my analysis of the Texas AG’ analysis.
    Would a little brain salad surgery ‘model legislation be appropriate for Texas?

    azgo: The AG’s response to Mr. Barr’s Complaint spells out the operative word in the statute is “entitled.” Being entitled to be on the ballot if the name gets to the elections officials 70 days before the scheduled general election; does not mean, we will not exercise our discretion to put you on the ballot if the Certification arrives 8 (eight) days later. He points out that, Mr. Barr filed his Complaint only 3 (three) days before TX is required to mail out absentee ballots, for example, to people serving in the armed forces. What interests me here is that, in TX, since the names of the Electors do not appear on the ballot then, removing the name of the nominee from the major political party means, there is no D candidate on the ballot. Generally, states provide that, if the party fails to put forth a candidate in one election then, it loses its entitlement to have its candidate on the ballot in the next election. (Looking ahead, I envision that model legislation for eligibility panels will provide that, the name of an otherwise qualified candidate to appear on the ballot – this mean, has filed the requisite papers, and paid any fees – will only appear on the ballot subject to Certification by this panel. This means that, in those states like TX, which print only the name of the candidate and not the name of the Electors for the party, if the major political party refuses to subject its nominee to the authentication panel then, no designation for that party will appear on the ballot.) ADMINISTRATOR

  21. Follow the Constitution says:

    Excellent write up!

    Based on your writings here on how thw voting process works and who isn’t responsible for verifying Obama is eligible…this stuff here would blow the Defense’s motion to dismiss out of the water on the parts they claim the voters, electoral college, the senate, and now only congress can verify his eligibility. Not to mention the fact this is now a constitutional issue which the courts do have jurisdiction over.

    Follow the Constitution: Thank you. Not sure what you mean by “motion to dismiss.” ADMINISTRATOR

  22. Follow the Constitution says:

    Are you saying sole responsibility to verify eligibility for POTUS lies with someone within the DNC?

    And that States have jurisdiction over the DNC?

    Since certain people from the DNC signed these forms certifying Obama for the ballot in each State, then why could citizens just flood the State courts with civil suits for the DNC failing to verify eligibility and alleging fraud? They claim they are a “private club”, so why could we just sue the individuals that signed the certifications presented to the State?

    Follow the Constitution: The DNC do not claim they are a “private club”; I am saying that. However, when asked to produce the documentation upon which they based a determination, BO is a NBC, in those cases where citizens couched such requests in terms of an FOIA type of issue, the DNC has responded the FOIA does not apply to them as they are not a government entity. The “responsibility” to verify eligibility for POTUS only means, where the state has enacted legislation requiring only eligible party nominees may appear on the ballot, since the state did not enact legislation saying it would verify such eligibility then, it must therefore be assumed that the party would have verified such eligibility. But try to think of this not as, the state requiring the party to determine whether someone is eligible to be POTUS but rather, whether someone is eligible to have the state pay for printing his name on the general election ballot.

    I absolutely believe members of the DNC can be successfully sued for fraud in state courts; but the best situated Plaintiff to establish standing is a pledged delegate from a vote binding state, who could not carry out his or her fiduciary obligation to represent the voters who sent him or her to the Convention.

    But individual citizens can address the problem just by forcing an investigation by the AG. Then, with the money and authority of the state, the facts can be accumulated, which could be used in a subsequent suit by appropriate Plaintiffs. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. Joe Six-Pack says:

    This is getting quite amazing. On my website (www.JoeSixPack.me/orig_letter.html), I tried to point out that the electors do not have to vote for Obama:

    “…Everyone talks about the wisdom of our country’s fathers. Well one wise thing they did was to take the final vote out of the popular realm. They purposely enacted a system of delegates. What if there were obvious election fraud detected? What if the winning candidate was determined to have commited a heinous crime? What if America WOKE UP and realized that the candidates were party and media created empty shirts?

    (remainder of comment omitted by jbjd)

    Joe Six-Pack: No political campaigning here. And hyperbolic rants that identify one person as “the only hope for our country,” not only obviate the need for citizens to take any other action to improve the situation, for example, educating ourselves about how our government works; but also induces in us a learned helplessness, awaiting rescue by this one savior, versus another. However, I posted the beginning of your comment because this reinforces the concept that the Electoral College is ‘where it’s at’ in terms of the election of the POTUS. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Joe Six-Pack says:

      What you ommitted is a quotation.

      (comment omitted)

      Joe Six-Pack: Sorry, but I was confused by your comment. Was it a proposed edit to the text of the article? ADMINISTRATOR

  24. Thank you for all of your research and care around this topic, and for you rumor control in the comment section.

    marykretzmann: Thank you so much; and welcome. (What do you mean by “rumor control in the comment section”?) ADMINISTRATOR

  25. Oh – I see that as an administrator you edit the comment is people have said something that they have not backed up. I think because you try to keep it accurate – without being “one-sided” – it keeps it from sinking into vile language and name calling, too. People have to actually be able to hold a sustained thought. SO that also helps the quality control here. Most of the time political comment sections deteriorate wildly once the comment field has gone this deep.

    Your topic interested me because I read about PUMA right before the election, so I am interested in other serious irregularities around Obama’s eligibility. However,as a nation – we certainly left the gate open concerning our republic/democracy. No one listened to the whistle blowers. I think it was more important, culturally, to be PC rather than to defend our electoral process. Oh well. The system has had bugs in it for a while…

    marykretzmann: Welcome. And thank you for understanding the reason behind the edits. I have not posted rules for this blog, but I try very hard to set the tone. No name calling; no charges unsupported by credible authentication; and no slackers. That is, if you want me to interpret your state law, I need you to look up the law and send it to me. (There was a time when I could afford to do all the leg work; that not only depleted my energy for other work but also did my readers a disservice. At some point, I want you to understand as much about your state law/government as I do. Otherwise, those people who know more than you do will continue to take advantage of your information deficit.)

    There is so much work left to do. If I can help it, this 2008 election cycle will be the last time, the winner of the party primary is not the party nominee; and the nominee is not authentically a NBC. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. [...] is only to “appoint” Electors, which appointment is required by the Constitution. http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/never-less-than-a-treason-2-of-2/ And to the extent state elections officials refused to print Mr. Calero’s name on the general [...]

  27. Renee says:

    jbjd, Just read this at DrKates, posted by Kay today.
    In case you have not read it already.
    (link to Leo’s blog omitted)

    Renee: I am familiar with Miss Ticky’s work; certainly, I know all about Leo. The last time I angered Leo, he wrote me a nasty email. (Actually, he also mentioned in that email that I should have been engaging him on my blog and not privately, in an email; taking him at his suggestion, I will post some of his comments below this.) But generally, he misreads the law. Specifically, he takes it literally and not contextually. (That said, I am not offering an opinion as to whether the particular law he cites in the HI case is applicable.) As I have written previously on this blog, any HI official making the statement BO is a NBC could say, since his COLB says he was born in HI, in my mind, this makes him an NBC. Obviously, a state official without extensive knowledge about the distinction between native born versus natural born cannot make a legal analysis of BO’s status. In essence, the statement is made as a lay opinion. Claiming otherwise misses the point, completely.

    Here’s that portion of Leo’s email.

    The simple fact of the matter is that you and the whole BC crowd plays into Obama’s hands as no BC could ever make him eligible. You didn’t come up with that angle and so you are going to ignore it as much as possible. This isn’t about truth justice and the American way for you – it’s about YOU.

    And frankly, you made one good point. Unlike you, I can acknowledge a good point even if the person making it has shown personal disrespect for me. That’s who I am. That’s why this is taking place in e mail and not on your forums.

    You never understood my case or Cort’s. Your writings are juvenile thereto.

    Now go get your glory. Make it happen. I don’t have too much more to say about any of this… but I know I did what I did for the good of the USA. I worked my ass off to educate people. I worked alot harder on this than you ever will.

    Frankly, you make me sick.

    ADMINISTRATOR

  28. Hi again…
    Thank for your in depth reply to my comment. Yes – i can see your point about people doing their own leg work! And about the 2008 election – Amen!
    Anyway – are you aware of this article? (references to Western Center for Journalism omitted by jbjd)

    MaryKretzmann: Western Center for Journalism = Joseph Farah = World Net Daily. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/the-return-of-the-western_b_181270.html ADMINISTRATOR

  29. [...] This is the money holding.  The language here will inform how to bring the case that will prevent the state of Texas from printing the name of Barack Obama on the 2012 Presidential (Electors) ballot.  (Remember, we only elect Electors in the general election; but even the D’s would not steal the election for Barack Obama at the level of the vote of the Electors, in December, when people believe they elected the President in November’s general election.  See NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (2 of 2).) [...]

  30. [...] as I explained in (NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (1 of 2) and (2 of 2), technically, this made no sense.  First of all, while citizens in most states have designed their [...]

  31. [...] whose name hadn’t even appeared on the November ballot. NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON (1 of 2) and (2 of 2). (Note:  I recently learned the D’s have been pressing state legislatures to pass the National [...]

  32. A pen says:

    Interesting dissection. One problem, it assumes that the oaths sworn do not, through due diligence, hold all legally bound to uphold and defend the constitution. To be fair to the imperfection of man the law gives one a second chance. Once made aware of the illegal act the duty of all sworn is to make known the violation to the proper authorities. If they do not, which they have not, the charge is misprision of felony.

    I refer you to Art 1 sec 6 of the US constitution.

    I would caution all who may have involvement in any way with the now well known NBC issue to make your information known to the proper authorities or at least make them public. Misprision is the least charge which may be laid upon traitors. It is also the lightest penalty.

    A pen: I have little idea what you are talking about. ADMINISTRATOR

  33. Aqeel says:

    Very useful and informative blog post concerning NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON . I have bookmarked your blog for future posts.

    Aqeel: Thank you. I wrote both articles – NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (1 and 2) – so as to provide a general framework for citizens still too overwhelmed at the whole process of electing our President to understand the best means to attack what at that point they only intuitively knew went wrong. But they could not put their fingers on specifics. Back then, I mentioned the pivotal role played by pledged delegates from vote binding states. The present series, the ‘Coup Trilogy,” puts into greater focus the precise role in the theft of the WH played by hiding the votes of these pledged delegates at the nominating convention. ADMINISTRATOR

  34. [...] Electors must vote for the Presidential nominee of the political party exist in several states.   NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (2 of 2) Thus, we can also write laws mandating Electors only elect Presidents Constitutionally eligible for [...]

  35. [...] BE CONTINUED IN PART 2 OF 2.) When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for presidential [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers

%d bloggers like this: