© 2009 jbjd

Ever since I came out as a Birther, people who euphemistically stood shoulder to shoulder with me to support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama during  the Democratic  Presidential primary process have banished me to the status of ‘other,’ discounting completely the caliber of work I produced throughout those months I devoted to the Herculean task of getting her  name called in the roll at the 2008 Democratic Nation Convention.  Because every time they ridicule the Birthers, they make fun of me.

Ricki Lieberman, the Democratic fundraiser and staunch party loyalist in NY, once heralded my work on behalf of her ‘girl.’  For example, she got wind of the investigation I conducted just before the DNC Convention involving vote binding states.  Voters in these vote binding states enacted laws that require delegates pledged to a candidate as the result of votes cast in the primary, must follow that candidate onto the floor of the Convention.  Through my research of all 50 states, I uncovered 13 such vote-binding states.  Further, I detected that BO and his troops were harassing HRC pledged delegates in vote binding states, trying to coerce them into changing their votes to him, in advance of the Convention.   In other words, by pressuring these pledged HRC delegates in vote binding states to change their minds, BO and his supporters were enticing them to break the law.   And I said so, in letters I drafted to the A’sG in all 13 vote binding states, which letters  I arranged to be sent by state residents.  Ricki was so impressed with my find, she featured my work in the famous email newsletter she distributes via email to party activists throughout the country.

But here is the cartoon Ricki put in the latest edition.

Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle.

As a Birther, I am now banned from posting on self-identifying PUMA blogs that once featured my work on behalf of their candidate.  Here’s what riverdaughter wrote on the Confluence:

We’re not birthers.  Sorry, birthers, we don’t care about the birth certificate.  In fact, the birth certificate issue works brilliantly for both parties.  For the GOP, whipping up a frenzy about it helps them establish a new base of supporters.  For the Obama administration, keeping the issue alive makes its detractors look like irrational nutjobs.  Take this as a warning, former PUMAs: drop the birther thing before you lose all credibility.  You are not going to dislodge Obama with the birth certificate question.  For good or ill, he’s the president for the next four years. http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/when-fooling-enough-of-the-people-most-of-the-time-stops-working/

And this, spoken during a tirade directed at the Democratic Senate Fundraising Committee, after being contacted by a fundraiser on their behalf:

Get a clue, guys.  You took our votes and forced Obama down our throats in your primary rape fantasy and we’re not ever going to forget it. ..You’ll never get a penny from me.  And you may never get my vote again.  You don’t have to be a crazy nutcase birther to know the devils by the look in  their eyes. http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/thursday-morning-news-and-note-to-the-dscc/

And this, linking to another article berating us in the NYT:

The Birthers are back. Birther prophylactic: we are not nor ever have been associated with the birther movement.  It’s a pointless distraction.  I figure that the Clinton Campaign would have been perfectly within its rights to have Obama disqualified if he were not a natural born citizen.  It wouldn’t have been character assassination.  It would have been a constittuional issue.  But Bill Clinton himself said that Obama met the minimum requirements for being president, which I interpret to mean that they looked into it and there’s no THERE there.  I don’t know why Obama needs to produce the exact original of his birth certificate to satisfy the birther crowd but I can think of a really good reason why he wouldn’t: it makes the birthers look like a bunch of complete loonies if he occasionally stirs up the issue.  Birthers, please don’t try to defend yourselves on this blog.  We’re really not interested.  http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/thursday-morning-breakfast/

The issue that appears to have united people who supported either BO or HRC during the D primary is their mutual contempt for the Birthers.  Look at what Annenberg Political Fact Check wrote on their web site, referencing those Birthers who would throw out even the image they posted of a “contemporaneous” newspaper birth announcement to discredit his HI birth:

Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat.  http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

For your information, that I identify as a Birther does not mean, there is no more value to hearing anything I have to say.  Here is just a hint of work I have done for the ’cause,’  lately.

My investigation revealed, that  image of the ‘newspaper announcement’ APFC had been touting as proof of BO’s HI birth had been boosted from another blog, posted there by an anonymous blogger.  APFC posted the phantom image on their blog and then,  without authenticating that image any further, claimed this “contemperaneous birth announcement” meant the “evidence is clear” BO was born in the U.S.  I also demonstrated that in January 2009, BO finessed APFC’s reference to that phantom announcement to try to trick the federal court in Hollister to take “notice” he was an American citizen!  And backtracking from those admissions in BO’s written pleadings to the judge, I established that, Nancy Pelosi, Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, had no documentary proof Barack Obama is as a Natural Born Citizen when she Certified to state elections officials 4 (four) months earlier, he was Constitutionally eligible for the job of President.   (See on this blog, RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’; and IF DROWNING OUT OPPOSING FACTS IS un-AMERICAN THEN IGNORING UNPLEASANT FACTS MUST BE un-AMERICAN, TOO.)  Indeed, as I explained in my posts, that photocopy of the COLB BO put on his FTS web site in June 2008 must have been the best evidence he produced to prove he is a NBC at the time NP signed those Certifications in August 2008, which went to state elections officials so they would print his name on the general election ballot.  Because that’s the same ‘evidence’ he later used to try to authenticate himself (as a U.S. citizen), before a federal court judge.  (Of course, the best evidence he could have submitted to the court in January 2009 to prove his Constitutional eligibility for POTUS would have been NP’s August 2008 Certification.)

Citizens in some states have enacted laws saying, THE CANDIDATE FOR POTUS FROM THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY MUST BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB.  If NP and the DNC  swore to elections officials in those states that BO was a NBC to get those elections officials to print his name on the general election ballot, before they actually determined whether he was Constitutionally eligible for the job, then they perpetrated election fraud.  Again, I am asking citizens in those states to call for their A’sG to begin investigation.

See, just because you make fun of Birthers does not mean, we have nothing worthwhile to say.  Nor does stifling dissent through ridicule validate anything you have to say, once you are exposed as a hack organization.

Old Clinton Hands Line Up Behind Gillibrand


  1. redhank says:

    JBJD…something struck me today as I was listening to Fox News today…think it was Brett Bair (sic)…on the Healthcare topic and using reconciliation to pass it, they blatantly said that “here we have a President who truely does not care if he is re-elected…”

    I am starting to think that that is his gig…he knows that the eligeablity loophole in some States will be closed in 2012 and he has nothing to lose by going for broke now. The Repubs won’t touch it because of the racial ramifications…but he knows he will not be able to beat this twice…

    BTW why is TD’s site blocked by wordpress…never needed a password before to get in…

    redhank: td took a hiatus. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Please use small letters for my nom-de-plume, that is, “jbjd.” Thank you.

  2. redhank says:

    I know…but strange to block access to the blog…not trying to be paranoid as perhaps she just didnt want to administrate anymore…but others like Hillbuzz have stayed open while away…

    Thanks for your article…I am also dismayed by the reaction to what I think are legitimate demands of us “birthers’ to require adherence to the Constitution.

    Maybe this will shed some humour on it…I was brought up a stalwart Catholic (Uncle is a priest, etc…)
    I was being Confirmed and the Bishop got up and asked some questions of the candidates as they do to test your worthiness…I think I was 11-12…in any case the Bishop asked us to name a martyr…I was the only person to put up my hand…I named Socrates…well clearly that was the wrong kind of martyr, but instead of telling me I was correct but in the wrong context, everyone laughed, the bishop as well when he told me I was wrong…
    Well that was the first step in my move away from the church…but the analogy is that they know it is true but it is not fitting their set of circumstances and the audience is too ill informed to know the difference…

    redhank: Funny. I loved your answer. But am Jewish; we raise our children to be ‘in your face.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  3. JBJD,

    I, Sonic Ninja Kitty, am a birther, too. I proudly stand with you and with the facts in the quest for truth and justice even though I choose to spend the bulk of my time on elucidating other important issues. (There are many fronts on this battleground, after all.)

    The Confluence can be selective in the facts it accepts. I guess for some people, ideology is so important it has to supercede reality. In regards to the Federal Reserve, I have been countered with the phrases “complete fallacies”, “conspiracy world”, and “no shred of evidence” when presenting arguments with indeed plenty of factual evidence to back them up.

    One writer also pulls the intelligentsia card: ‘you must not be as educated as I because you believe such-and-such’. This is BS. Anyone in that field is familiar with the various factions and their standings.

    I quit commenting there. Meanwhile, indicator after indicator comes out pointing to a failure of the economic ideology espoused there. I guess people have to put their own two and two together to figure out its credibility.

    Btw–I loved your work on the ‘newspaper announcement’. I mentioned it in a comment on Daily Bail. I will go back and properly credit your work now. (Apologies for being too sloppy to credit it initially.) It’s a powerful piece of information.

    SNK: You are not going to believe this. I just saw a video posted on Citizen Wells, of Chris Matthews interviewing Tom DeLay. CW asks TD, ‘So, what do you think of these Birthers?’ TD says, ‘Well, I would like to see a copy of Barack Obama’s BC.’ CM snickers. ‘What do you think he is, an illegal alien? What about that newspaper birth announcement!’ I almost died. TD calmly responds, ‘I think a newspaper birth announcement isn’t evidence in a court of law.’ (It appeared to me that, TD was accepting CM’s premise, such newspaper announcement existed and, that it was bona fide on its face.) I rushed off an email to CM, pointing him to my work on that phantom image.

    But always keep in mind, that image is a valuable indicator of BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS. That is, in a judicial proceeding that calls for the ‘best evidence’ to be introduced to make his point, he relied on this obviously fake imagery to try to get a federal court judge to take “notice,” he is for real. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Please use small letters for my nom-de-plume, that is, “jbjd.” Thank you.

    • Miri says:

      jbjd: I saw that interview of DeLay, too. Why was Matthews being so polite to DeLay, I wonder? Wasn’t that a total change of demeanor for him, considering his usual attitude towards Obama opponents, especially “birthers”?

      Miri: I only watched the clip that was posted; I stopped watching MSNBC during the primaries. But in the clip I saw, TD expressly avoided CM’s question, ‘Are you a Birther?’ (Echoes of ‘are you now or have you ever been…(a member of the Communist Party).) ADMINISTRATOR

  4. WOW!! I think your post really has good legs. It will start circulating pretty soon. (Although no chance CM will ever give a hoot.)

    And then there’s that “natural born” question….

    SNK: Which post? I wish people would read the last few posts, which consolidate the NBC focus where it belongs. That is, based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, it appears that Nancy Pelosi, as Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention, signed the DNC Official Certification of Nomination, and sent that document to elections officials in all 50 states to get BO’s name printed next to the “D” on the general election ballot, notwithstanding she had never obtained evidence tending to prove, he was Constitutionally eligible for the job. (What could he have given her, a photocopy of a COLB and a ‘note’ from Annenberg Political Fact Check confirming they posted a “contemporaneous birth announcement” on their site?) And in those states with laws requiring the major party candidate to be eligible for POTUS in order to access state ballots, like GA, TX, and HI; swearing he eligible before determining whether he is, constitutes election fraud. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. azgo says:

    The ‘Ofa Party’ is now in control[residing] in Washington. I don’t see the ‘Ofa Party’ as democrats at all. I don’t know what they are, socialists, I suppose, with a mask of being true Americans. They are ‘Of a’ party and they chose the Democratic Party. The’Ofa Party’ is not that large of a group[ie], less than 20% of the voting population last I read and I believe they are growing smaller. (Google ‘OFA’ and they finally show up on page 5 of the search, as they, themselves use the term ‘OFA”.)
    Here are some ‘Ofa Party’ member screennames at OFA.
    – Donna No Shock Barack No Drama Obama of MD
    – Vero – who loves her new President – OBAMA!!!!!
    – chabranate 4 OBAMA
    – Barack H. Obama is President
    – Kimberly Helen Hussein
    – Ben, a true evangelical for OBAMA
    – Bella Hussein Reese
    – Cheryl from Boston Feels the Gift
    – President Obama . . . I am so PROUD to be an American!
    – Jamal – It’s not Mr. Obama, It’s President Obama!
    – Connie Obama (Not held hostage by polls or media)
    – Debby, NJ…Foot Soldier ’til 2016 !!!
    – Obamamaniac Jim B – Don’t stand in the doorway – Don’t block up the hall
    – Recovering Whine-0
    – !Rhonda – We are President Obama’s Secret Weapon & We are going to keep calling and emailing the fence straggling Senators!

    Funny sorta people over there, almost like they’re hypn0tized[Riki], there are a couple of regular names though.

    The sincere ‘American’ soul of the true democratic party and the true republican party has been especially shattered in the aftermath of the fraud which occurred in the 2008 campaign and election, even now to the present time. The [some]PUMA’s and other true democrats must look at themselves, deep within themselves, get grounded, get beyond this crisis, grasp a constitutional agenda, rebuild and appreciate their own Republic and take back their party as a distinguished ‘Party’ and, as well, so does their republican counterparts and most importantly but certainly with the best intentions “dislodge Obama with the birth certificate question[riverdaughter]”.

    The author of this blog is known as the community lawyer, the educator, a patriot, logical thinker, etc., on other blogs where this author is known, people call out for this person to answer a question while this person may be helping or replying to someone else and of course always shows up to answer or the author is simply researching, investigating and writing… but most of all… jbjd is a ‘Great American’.
    P.S. – Wait before I say ‘Great American’, can I see your B/C? You may post it on the internet, so ‘yes, we can’ see it. (hehe!)
    Thanks for all of your great work !!!
    And please, keep up the good work !!!

    azgo: I am not sure what the rest of your comment means but, thank you very much for the embedded compliment. I do what I can. (I fell asleep tonight listening to Frontline on my computer. See, I spent months trying to prevent BO from stealing the Presidency. Failing that, I spent months trying to prove what he did. Now, I need to know, why. And this means understanding the financial services sector. The teacher has become the pupil. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. azgo says:

    I have been calling “Organizing for America”(OFA), the ‘Ofa Party’, in that they live in their own world and seem seperate from the true and traditional Democratic Party. They are one of those “Paid for by Organizing for America – A Project of the Democratic National Committee”….. This Communication Is Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate’s Committee” footnotes.

    azgo: Thanks for the explanation. That acronym will come in handy when I summarize the argument in support of election fraud, spread out now over the past few posts along with comments. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. redhank says:

    jbjd…I was in the financial services sector for over 25 year mostly in NY and London…and dealing directly with large multinationals and hedge funds including Soros on global transactions. Let me know if I can be of help in your research…

    redhank: Thank you. I will most likely take you up on your offer. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. juriggs says:


    If you are calling on people to contact their AG’s, do you have a list of those states that have passed eligibility laws? I’d be happy to contact my AG if CO is on the list (although I’m pretty sure it’s not), and I’d also be willing to contact people I know who live in other states, if their state is on the list.

    juriggs: I have not looked up the laws in all 50 states. (I looked up the laws in all 50 states to find the vote binding states; you cannot imagine what a task that was.) I have been trying to get people to look up the ballot eligibility laws in their own states. So far, I know that GA, TX, and HI have such ballot eligibility laws on the books. I just looked at CO; please call your SoS and ask. This would be much simpler. Then get back to me. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. d2i says:

    jbjd – I have chosen my own label which is a “Constitutionalist”. The word birther is intended to be derogatory and incendiary whereas Constitutionalist sums up my concerns regarding 0’s ineligibility.

    I remain disappointed in several of the PUMA leaders who have chosen to deem the US Constitution as irrelevant; however, I’m thrilled that they have chosen to go after the policy issues 0 continues to propose.

    Your decision to remain true to your journey of seeking and exposing the truth is what is most important and valued by so many of us. We know what the truth is. Our collective challenge is to get the right case before the court and we will succeed. Leadership can be very lonely at times BUT if one remains focused, dogged, honest and truthful then leadership can also be extremely rewarding.

    I find it sad that you’ve been banned from said sites, but it is not you who has the problem, it is the host blogger themselves. How a blogger can dismiss these very serious issues tells me a lot and I lack all desire to give them traffic.

    d2i: What bothers me about being silenced is that, I have uncovered our electoral process has been sabotaged; and I can support my allegations. But my ability to get this message out has been hampered by people who have decided that, in principle, the prospect that a Constitutionally unqualified candidate occupies the Oval Office is so unlikely as to be frivolous. Of course, that is how the D’s got away with this sabotage. I am trying to empower citizens to take control of government, rather than to just complain. As for the people who ignore the facts because they don’t care well, here is what I have been saying since the beginning of my work on these issues. I absolutely support the right of any citizen to elect a man I believe is incompetent to be POTUS. But no one has the right to impose on me a man who is not Constitutionally eligible for the job. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Miri says:

      jbjd, you said it so succintly for us that I must repeat it:

      “No one has the right to impose on me a man who is not Constitutionally eligible for the job.”

      Miri: I think the meaning of that statement is diminished, without the preceding line. “I absolutely support the right of any citizen to elect a man I believe is incompetent to be POTUS.” ADMINISTRATOR

  10. Ginger says:


    Ginger: Hello. I edited out your legal reference because 1) HI law regarding obtaining some sort of Certificate or Certification of Live Birth for both in-state and out-of-state births has been discussed previously on this blog and, more importantly, 2) HI DoH officials have admitted such papers are routinely issued. Indeed, it was this admission that prompted me to come out as a Birther! See, for example, “jbjd, BIRTHER,” on this blog. ADMINISTRATOR

  11. redhank says:

    jbjd…I am in Texas…do you have a boiler plate letter you have used/devised to approach the AG? Would be happy to pursue here…Thanks

    redhank: This is fabulous. Another reader of this blog, aware4now, actually looked up the TX law for me; here is the applicable provision (I am copying this from a4n’s comment):
    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;…

    Now, I am in the process of putting together a model letter to state A’sG. This means, summarizing the strong circumstantial case I have laid out in the last few posts, indicating NP did not confirm whether BO was a NBC before Certifying he was, to state elections officials. Also, in order to establish that both NP and the DNC have ignored requests for information as to the basis for their Certification that BO is a NBC, I need to collect these requests, which include evidence of receipt by the DNC. (So far, I have such requests for information from people living in FL and CO.) Most importantly, I want everyone to be clear that by alleging election fraud, you are not alleging BO is not a NBC. You are only alleging, in this state, only NBC’s can be on the general election ballot. And it looks like NP swore he was but had no evidence indicating the truth of her Certification.

    redhank, could you check on something while I put this together? In some states, the Certification was given to the SoS via the state D Party Chair. Could you please call the SoS and ask for copies of the Certification, as well as any letters accompanying the document, either from the DNC or the state D Party? (This information is not critical to commencing the request for investigation.) ADMINISTRATOR

    • redhank says:

      jbjd…will do tomorrow…fyi am willing to spend some money here

      redhank: Thank you. As for spending money, see, here’s the thing. We already pay for government. I mean, we pay for the salaries and benefits of the people we entrust to run the government for us, to do those things we determine are essential to our well-being but which are better performed by a central authority. For example, we want our government to ensure our elections comport with Constitutional and state law) requirements. This time, they didn’t. a4n, who is from TX, complained to the SoS. She fobbed him off by referencing something about, the Party vets its candidate. Okay; maybe he wasn’t clear; or maybe she wasn’t really listening. So, he – and you – will try again, with the AG. And you’ll hone your presentation. And this time… this time, you will be heard. ADMINISTRATORow

    • redhank says:

      also I appreciate that we are focusing on election fraud at the moment

      redhank: I looked over some comments I posted last summer on another blog, and found recommendations even back then that, we would do better to concentrate on ancillary issues to unseat BO, if we believe he is not a NBC. Back then, people were so angry! BO had just stolen the D nomination from HRC…They complained to their elected officials about things like, caucus fraud, etc. but were turned away. ‘This is a party issue.’ I remember how angry people became when I explained – this was my lightbulb moment – we have no right to vote in a primary, the purpose of which is to choose the party candidate for office. And the DNC is a private club; they can change the rules whenever they want. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN, WE HAVE TO AGREE TO PAY FOR THIS PRIVATE PARTY WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS! OR AFFORD IT SPECIAL ACCESS, MORE THAN, SAY, YOU OR ME, TO GET THE NAMES OF THEIR CANDIDATES ON OUR STATE ELECTION BALLOTS! There; I feel better.

      People have smirked at my proposal to compel the enforcement of state laws. ‘You’ll never get the AG to investigate; he belongs to a party, too.’ Tsk, tsk. He works for me; and he wants to get elected, too. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. juriggs says:

    jbjd –

    No such statute exists in CO. I researched this quite a bit back in November and December, though. Let me go through my notes and see if I happened to note anything that would be helpful.

    juriggs: I only found information for CO which, I think, applied to the primary. But I am not interested in going after fraud based on what document BO submitted to the state, for example, the sworn statement he submitted to the SoS in AZ to participate in the primary, explicitly saying, he is a natural born citizen. Alleging that such an oath constituted fraud would require an allegation that he is not a NBC; and that this is the fraud. But I am not alleging he is not a NBC (even though I believe this to be true). Rather, I am alleging, swearing he was a NBC before checking out whether he is, constitutes fraud. (And given the strong circumstantial case, it looks like NP could not have obtained proof of BO’s eligibility before swearing to the states he is a NBC.)

    May I include the evidence of your attempts to obtain from NP, any documentation she used to verify BO’s Constitutional eligibility; as evidence indicating she refuses to disclose such information, notwithstanding the law (in the applicable state) requires the nominee to be eligible in order to access the state ballot? ADMINISTRATOR

  13. juriggs says:

    jbjd –

    Of course. You are welcome to use anything I have provided, including any of our correspondence, to aid you in your case.

    I also looked quickly at my notes from AL, and here’s a statute that looks promising:

    Section 17-13-6

    Only qualified candidates to be listed on ballots.

    The name of no candidate shall be printed upon any official ballot used at any primary election unless such person is legally qualified to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate and unless he or she is eligible to vote in the primary election in which he or she seeks to be a candidate and possesses the political qualifications prescribed by the governing body of his or her political party.

    (Acts 1975, No. 1196, p. 2349, §11; §17-16-12; amended and renumbered by Act 2006-570, p. 1331, §59.)

    Let me know if you’d like me to look into it further. I simply don’t speak enough legalese to know what to pursue, and what to leave alone.

    juriggs: This is exactly what I am looking for – except, this applies to the primaries. Again, BO can enter himself in the primaries; but he needs the Party Certification to get onto the general election ballot. However, a case could be made that, he cannot be said to have “possesse[d] the political qualifications prescribed by the governing body of his or her political party,” if NP cannot establish, he possesses such qualifications. Hmmm… I could write a letter for AL based on this. (But see if there is a corresponding law mentioning the general election.) And thanks for the use of your letters of request to NP. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. twistedmuser says:

    Very interesting that becoming a birther caused you these issues. Honestly I am not an Obama or Hillary or any democratic supporter, but I’m not sure yet if I care about the birth thing. On the other hand, enough people screaming that birthers are nuts and that there is no reason to see a birth certificate makes me wonder. Anyway, good luck.

    twistedmuser: Welcome. I followed both the D and the R primaries; and it’s a good thing I did. Because the fact that the R nominee was John McCain, who is also not a NBC; and the machinations undergone by his fellow Senators, like Leahy, McCaskill, Clinton, and Obama to create the appearance of eligibility – remember that non-binding Senate resolution 511? – impacted my suspicions, BO was not for real, either. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. azgo says:

    Part 2, (Cont. to my last comment).

    (e) Formulating and disseminating statements of Party policy, promoting programs for the
    systematic study of public policy issues, through participation of members of the Democratic National Committee and through specific “projects administered’ under the authority of the Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee; [emphasis added]

    “projects administered’

    – Is this why the DNC adopted the FTS web site which includes the FTS ‘B/C’ page, “A Project of the Democratic National Committee …..”.

    “(h) Promoting and encouraging “Party activities” at every level, including but not limited to the
    “(iii) establishment and support of an adequate system of political research;
    (iv) “the preparation, distribution and communication of Party information to its members and the general public”;
    (v) the development and maintenance of a program of public relations for the Party;
    (vi) development of a program for the coordination of Party committees, organizations, groups, public officials and members.” [emphasis added]

    – Would “(b) Conducting the Party’s Presidential Campaign” be a part of “Party activities”?
    – Would “political research” and ‘the preparation, distribution and communication of Party information” as ‘Party activities’ be an essential element for the vetting of the candidate to make positively certain the candidate is qualified and in good standing with no doubt, as the nominee will be more than proudly showcased to the American people, as after all, the Democratic “National Convention is the highest authority of the Democratic Party”?
    – Did their “political research” rely on the FTS ‘B/C’ page and the APFC articles only in that the DNC, the Convention and NP did not produce the “Party information to its members and the general public”?
    Seems to me , that the eligibility issue was somewhat controversial (producing doubt) prior to the Convention. (see the articles below)

    “Section 10. Committees…..
    (v) the Rules and Bylaws Committee shall conduct a continuing study of the Bylaws,
    Rules and Charter and make periodic recommendations for amendment, extension or “other action”,”….. [emphasis added]

    – Would this committee or the executive have any say as to “other action” cause if there was a doubt to the presidential candidate’s qualification as per the “Call”, Part VI. “Presidential Candidates” (see below) or would it have to be up to all and any member of the Democratic Party to submit at least a question of qualification, after all, the candidate must “affirmatively demonstrate[s] that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith”.

    From the Democratic Party:

    Issued by the Democratic Party of the United States
    Governor Howard Dean, Chairman
    As Adopted by the Democratic National Committee, February 2, 2007”…..

    The term “presidential candidate” herein shall mean any person who, as determined by the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, has accrued delegates in the nominating process and plans to seek the nomination, has established substantial support for his or her nomination as the Democratic candidate for the Office of the President of the United States, is a bona fide Democrat whose “record of public service, accomplishment, public writings and/or public statements” affirmatively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States, and will participate in the Convention in good faith. [emphasis added]

    “record of ….. public writings and/or public statements”

    – Did the DNC, The Convention and NP, as chair, trust and determine the candidates FTS/BC web page to be correct and truthful prior to and/or during the Convention?
    – And to remember FTS B/C was originally, “Paid for by Barack Obama 2008. All Rights Reserved”, but also under the DNC’s “responsibility” and “duties and powers”, is the DNC also responsible for “Conducting the Party’s Presidential Campaign;”?

    End of Part 2, (Cont. to my next comment).

    azgo: Remember, any word evidencing the use of discretion cannot be contested from a legal perspective. Of course, an abuse of discretion is disastrous for the party. For example, the RBC exercised its discretion to determine that, if D primary voters in MI had seen BO’s name printed on the ballot – he had it removed – then, these many voters would have voted for him. So, they took so many pledged delegates away from “Uncommitted” and gave these to him. Further, the RBC decided, if his name had been printed on the ballot – remember, he ordered it taken off – then, these many voters would not have cast their votes for HRC but would have cast their votes for him. So,they took 4 (four) pledged delegates away from her and gave these 4 (four) pledged delegates to him. Harold Ickes argued this violated the DNC Charter. Rule 13 A of the “Delegate Selection Rules,” entitled “FAIR REFLECTION OF PRSIDENTIAL PREFERENCES,” states:

    Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants. (Cites omitted; this information is all over the internet.)

    How does this principle of fairly reflecting the will of the voter as expressed in his or her vote, reconcile with second-guessing votes actually cast for one candidate over the other? May 31, 2008. The day the D Party died for many die hard Dems. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. azgo says:

    Part 3, (Cont. to my last comment).

    And especially with regard to the eligibility issue controversy!

    – April 10, 2008, Secretary Chertoff, “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.” (And of course, born on American soil)

    – June 16, 2008, APFC article, “Has Obama’s birth certificate been disclosed?”,
    “Q: Is Barack Obama a “natural-born citizen”?” (This, their question was never answered in the article.) the article goes on, “It is hard to believe he could get this far in the electoral process and not have a sufficient answer to this question, I admit, but has his birth certificate been disclosed?”…..
    “A: Yes. His campaign made a copy public after speculation by conservative bloggers that he might not be a “natural-born citizen.”…..

    “We asked for and received a copy from the Obama campaign.” …..
    “The “secrecy” ended when Tommy Vietor at the Obama campaign sent a message to us and other reporters saying, “I know there have been some rumors spreading about Obama’s citizenship, so I wanted to make sure you all had a copy of his birth certificate.” A digital image was attached.”

    Note, Tommy Vietor message stated “citizenship”.
    So what happened to directly anwsering their ‘natural-born citizen’ question?

    – August 21, 2008, America’s Right.com article, “Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court on Grounds he is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency” (This happened days before Democratic National Convention in Denver.)

    – August 21, 2008, APFC article, “Born in the U.S.A.” “In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s authenticity.”…..

    “Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A.”

    What happened to explaining the “speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen’?

    -August 22, 2008, John Barnhart article, “Obama Campaign Removes His Certificate of Birth from Website”
    Barack Obama’s “Fight The Smears” website has now taken down and removed the “proof” of his Certificate of Birth that was supposedly from Honolulu, Hawaii.”

    Note, the next APFC article was published the week of the Democratic National Convention (August 25 – 29, 2008).

    -August 29, 2008, APFC article,
    “Q: Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?…..
    “A: No. He held both U.S. and Kenyan citizenship as a child, but lost his Kenyan citizenship automatically on his 21st birthday.”

    In this article, what happened to his British (United Kingdom and Colonies) ‘at birth’ citizenship through his father’s citizenship as the ‘at birth’ condition is an important aspect of not only all “citizenship” requirements but certainly to the determination of what a ‘natural-born citizen’ requirement is as well?

    Amen, for now !

    azgo: Yes, see? Citizen versus NBC. Again, the fact that BO taught Constitutional law; and, more importantly, that he swore to AZ he is a NBC; and then stated on FTS, he is a “native citizen”; did not escape my notice back then. These inconsistencies in the DNC representation as to his status – remember, the FTS site now belongs to them – between NP’s Certification and, for example, FTS, that give rise to a reasonable conclusion, she did not establish he was a NBC before she swore he was, to state elections officials in order to get his name printed on the general election ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

  17. azgo says:

    Thank you, jbjd for focusing my mind on NP being the Chair of the 2008 DNC Convention. I’m not sure if you have seen these documents from the DNC, “Charter & Bylaws” and the “CALL”.

    I’m not sure if this unfortunately lengthy comment is helpful or just reaching, but what I’m looking for is at what point did the DNC, the Convention and NP decide to ‘let the show go on’ as to the eligibility issue being somewhat of a controversy and with regard to themselves, their charter, rules, executive committee, their sub-committees, such as the “Rules and Bylaws Committee” and the phrases such as “Party activities”, etc., and to what effect did the FTS ‘B/C’ page and the APFC articles have on all of this, if any?

    Can I call it Charter/Bylaw-gate?

    Perhaps this is also why the evolution of the footnote responsibility changed in the sense of “general responsibility” of “conducting the Party’s Presidential campaign” from;
    “Paid for by Barack Obama 2008. All Rights Reserved”,
    and then;
    “Organizing for America 2008. All Rights Reserved”
    and just recently;
    “Paid for by Organizing for America – A Project of the Democratic National Committee”.…. This Communication Is Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate’s Committee”.

    From the “Charter & Bylaws” of the Democratic Party of the United States:


    Democratic National Committee
    Section 1. The Democratic National Committee shall have “general responsibility” for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of this Charter and to the resolutions or other actions of the National Convention. This responsibility shall include:
    (a) issuing the Call to the National Convention;
    (b) conducting the Party’s Presidential campaign;
    (c) filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President;
    (d) formulating and disseminating statements of Party policy;”…..

    Democratic National Convention
    Section 1. The National Convention is the highest authority of the Democratic Party, subject to the provisions of the Charter.” …..

    Democratic National Committee”
    Section 1. Duties and Powers. The Democratic National Committee shall have “general responsibility” for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of the Charter and to the resolutions or other official actions of the National Convention. This responsibility shall
    include, but not be limited to: …..

    “general responsibility”

    – Is “general responsibility” one of those legal phrases that if all goes well, – oh! yes, we accept all of the responsibility, and if all goes bad, – oh, we only have general responsibility and/or as “general’ is defined in my little dictionary “- affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread, – not specialized, or limited in range of subject, application, activity, etc., – (of a rule, principle, etc.) true for all or most cases, – normal or usual”?

    (a) Issuing the Call to the National Convention;
    (b) “Conducting the Party’s Presidential Campaign”;”[emphasis added]

    Is the DNC now taking responsibility for the FTS website to conform to their own Charter/Bylaws or have they been this all along?

    End of Part 1, (Cont. to my next comment).

    azgo: See what you have done? You have become a teacher. Good for you.

    Now, just to remind you, I pointed out, given that the footer on FTS evidences the DNC is paying for the page; and given that, the previous iteration said “Obama for America”; and given that this change evidences a conscious awareness of the substance of the text on that page, therefore, the DNC is intentionally taking over that FTS page saying the photocopied COLB proves BO is a “native citizen” (and not a natural born citizen). That you have found a documentary indication of such ‘ownership’ is fabulous. People need to understand how the party apparatus works.

    FYI, in order to carry out my work on vote binding states, I had to comb through the DNC Call to find out the obligation of pledged delegates with respect to voting for the candidate they were elected to represent. Then, I had to research the procedure to get HRC’s name entered into the roll call (as opposed to being called; it got real technical but if you didn’t ask for the right thing…it was as if they were trying to trick us…).

    Now, I am using their rules to establish, Certifying BO is the nominee is tantamount to swearing, he is a NBC. Because that’s what it says in the rules! Great work. Now, I need to pull all this information together to write the narrative that explains why it appears likely NP committed election fraud. (School starts in less than 3 (three) weeks. I could never have accomplished all of this during the fall…) ADMINISTRATOR

  18. don says:

    jbjd, could you please direct me to the dialogue you had with a california person earlier this year, I think, requesting data from either the AG or the SoS. I’ve searched on the Public Library of Law and failed to find the statute giving qualifications for candidates on a ballot. Thanks for your insightful research and grasp of the law.

    don: You are welcome. I cannot recall this conversation to which you are referring; however, I will try to find the CA statute. (I advise people to contact their S’s of S; in most states, these are the chief elections officials.) (Did you know that, the wording in CA law differs for R’s and D’s, regarding whether delegates elected as the result of a vote for their candidate, must vote for that candidate at the Convention?) ADMINISTRATOR

  19. StayAlive says:

    Mr. Matthews,

    I have viewed several of your shows in which you ridicule “Birthers”. However, the real issue is NOT where Barack H Obama, Jr. was born but whether or not he meets the “natural born citizen” eligibility requirements for President under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

    The same can be said of Speaker Pelosi when she affirmed in September 2008 that Obama was “legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution for President of the United States” as the candidate of the Democratic Party, http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344926/Hawaii-Dems-and-Repubs-Say-Constitutionally-Eligible.

    Lawsuits are ongoing today challenging these actions by Obama and Pelosi as being without supporting, substantial evidence and thereby fraudulent.

    It is time for Congress and/or SCOTUS to determine what are the requirements to be President of the United States under the Constitution and bring real transparency and accountability back to the Presidency. In the words of black Vanderbilt Law Professor Carol Swain,

    “I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background,” Swain said. “In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Only great men can ascend to this height, and their lives should be examined and studied for the lessons they offer.” Swain said that what is posted online for the president is a certificate of live birth. “It is the failure to release the long form that keeps suspicion alive,” she said. Swain noted that she strongly disagrees with those who want to criticize Americans, including journalist Lou Dobbs, who continue to raise the issue. Other sealed records that Swain has called for the president to release include those pertaining to his education, foreign travel and state legislative business. http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/news/releases/2009/07/30/why-obamas-birth-certificate-issue-wont-go-away-vanderbilt-expert.85536

    The Constitutional Issue is real and is not going away for this former Constitutional Law Instructor, regardless of the ridicule. If it is determined that Obama was/is ineligible, remove him, and immediately swear in Joe Biden. That’s one of the reasons we have a Vice-President.

    [ name and address deleted]

    PS – Below are certified copies of original, “long-form”, birth certificates of the Nordyke twins born in Honolulu, 5 Aug 1961, the day after Obama.
    PSS – As to the birth announcements published in the Hawaii papers in Aug 1961 …

    StayAlive: As a fellow citizen activist, I laud your efforts to present information to Mr. Matthews which may color his perspective on the gravity of this issue of BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS. I ‘snipped’ most of this letter for a couple of reasons. Primarily, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the facts contained therein; the law you cite; or, your analysis of these facts as applied to the law. But I also want readers of this blog to grasp the concept that parsing whether this piece of information is true; or that document is real; is an exercise in futility without an actual record that can be subjected to direct examination and scrutiny. For example, you devote a full paragraph to de-bunking the substance of that ‘newspaper birth announcement.’ You mention the names of people purported to have lived at the address listed. But who knows whether your information is correct? More importantly, this does not matter in an evaluation of whether the ‘announcement’ contributes to a reasoned conclusion that BO is a NBC. THE THRESHOLD QUESTION FOR THAT ‘BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT’ IS, WHERE DID IT COME FROM? APFC posted this image on their web site, proclaiming the “evidence is clear” BO was born in HI. But they also disclose, this image came from an anonymous blogger on td. DID APFC AUTHENTICATE THE ANNOUNCEMENT BEFORE PROCLAIMING IT PROVES BO WAS BORN IN HI? No. This should be the end of any analysis related to the so-called newspaper birth announcement.

    Reminding Mr. Matthews that even law professors want BO’s record revealed was an effective way to attempt to influence him to stop making fun of anyone who raises this issue of transparency. But identifying the professor is “black,” without explaining why this fact is worth mentioning, struck me as odd. ADMINISTRATOR

  20. StayAlive says:

    Identifying the professor as “black” was mentioned to avoid the allegation of racism. Being a white male I have been accused of racism for questioning the eligibility of BHO for President, in addition to many of his other actions prior to being elected President. I resent the allegation deeply.

    As to your editing of my earlier reply I appreciate what appears your rules of evidence approach. That’s also why I included the url links for the various statements.

    What are the url sites for various legal cases against Obama and Pelosi for their failure to provide adequate evidence of Obama’s eligibility for POTUS?

    Thank you and keep up the good work.

    StayAlive: You are welcome. Yes; I figured you identified the race of the professor so as to forestall accusations of racism. I wish you would explain this, the next time you identify by race. I am unaware that anyone has filed a civil lawsuit, in any state, alleging election fraud. To the best of my knowledge and understanding, the strong circumstantial evidence that could support such a charge, has only recently been developed, on this blog. ADMINISTRATOR

  21. redhank says:

    jbjd…an update…have called the SoS of Texas. I was initially put on hold and then hung up on. Upon calling back I was directed to vm of an individual and have left a message. Currently not confident I will receive a return call, but will pursue again on Monday.

    redhank: Up to you. TX has a public records law, which allows you access to all correspondence related to the filing of that Certification. If you cannot obtain the information via telephone, you could always pursue your rights under TX public records law. (Hint: When you file a request for records under this law, follow the instructions spelled out in the law. Usually, this includes citing to the specific law.) ADMINISTRATOR

  22. Miri says:

    Brilliant, once again, jbjd. My sympathies concerning your treatment by former friends and allies. It’s despicable and, if I may coin a phrase, “un-American.” 🙂

    About that NYT article that said that Bill Clinton claimed that Obama met the “minimal requirements for being president”:

    I don’t remember that but I do seem to remember Bill Clinton making an off hand comment about how a person has to be a natural born citizen to be president. Now why would he throw that out there unless he knew something?

    Besides, what the heck is their definition of “minimal” requirements? Aren’t the exact requirements in the Constitution? How does one meet them minimally?

    Miri: You made me laugh. (“Aren’t the exact requirements in the Constitution? How does one meet them minimally?”) The fact I am not listened to does not bother me; it’s the fact that, I know they would find what I am saying is worth being heard. ADMINISTRATOR

  23. Miri says:

    jbjd: Yes, reading your comments would be worth their while, but for whatever reason, they don’t want to recognize the truth of what you’re saying. I’m glad that I made you laugh. We can all use a little levity once in a while.

    Miri: I think the caliber of discourse on the subject has generally made it easier to dismiss; that is, a lot of raw emotion with little substantive support. Plus, so many people have no idea that no provision of any state or federal law requires any government official to check the credentials of the man who would be POTUS. Or that even in those states that require the party nominee to be eligible for the job (in order to get his name printed onto the state’s general election ballot), none of these states has a law requiring anyone to check. ADMINISTRATOR

  24. SteveinVA says:


    I believe I have a solid understanding of the nbc issue as a result of the fine work that you, Donofrio, Teo, and Puzo have done. I have seen Obama supporters try to argue against your cases but in every instance they have been discredited. My question to you, and others, is “what would be the argument put before the court, if a court ever heard this case, by an Obama lawyer?”. There must be something other then the 14th amendment. Are there websites that argue the legal issues in support of Obama? Thank you for your efforts.

    SteveinVA: Just because any of the people you mentioned says something, does not make it so. I cannot say conclusively whether BO is a NBC, and I do not argue the premise one way or the other. I absolutely maintain that, based on the evidence he has put forward to establish his bona fides, NP had no reasonable basis to conclude he is a NBC sufficient to sign the Certification of Nomination she submitted to state elections officials so that they would print his name next to the “D” on general election ballots. I also maintain that, given the appropriate evidence, discrediting BO based on a strict question of, was he born a citizen, is easy; but if he was born in the U.S. then, discrediting him based on an argument deriving from his status as a British subject (assuming his father is BO, Sr.) is not so simple. Because even assuming the various rationales raised by the commentators you cite have merit, ultimately, the only definition that matters is the one contained in a holding by a federal court hearing a case on point.

    As far as I know, no one representing BO, including the DNC and APFC, has ever stated as a conclusion of law based on any facts they allege, that BO is a NBC. (Recall that, both the DNC and APFC opined that, based on that HI COLB, BO is a “native citizen.” NP said he was a NBC when she signed those Certifications of Nomination but, she did not specifically cite to any facts that provided the basis for her representation. And she certainly has not provided any documentation, which omission is at the heart of my charge of election fraud.) ADMINISTRATOR

    • Anonymous says:


      Thanks for your response. It sounds like there aren’t any viable legal discussions going on, at least that you are aware of, supporting his elligability.

  25. Rich says:

    jbjd, were I you, I would abandon the term “birther” and substitute “qualificationist.”

    Rich: I hear you. But I adopted the title Birther and now, I own it. ADMINISTRATOR

  26. x.suaiden says:

    “The Birthers are back. Birther prophylactic: we are not nor ever have been associated with the birther movement. It’s a pointless distraction. I figure that the Clinton Campaign would have been perfectly within its rights to have Obama disqualified if he were not a natural born citizen. It wouldn’t have been character assassination. It would have been a constittuional issue. But Bill Clinton himself said that Obama met the minimum requirements for being president, which I interpret to mean that they looked into it and there’s no THERE there. I don’t know why Obama needs to produce the exact original of his birth certificate to satisfy the birther crowd but I can think of a really good reason why he wouldn’t: it makes the birthers look like a bunch of complete loonies if he occasionally stirs up the issue. Birthers, please don’t try to defend yourselves on this blog. We’re really not interested.”

    So, how do you feel about the birthers now? Conspiracy Theories and all???

    x.suaiden: Hello x. I have no idea whether the people who wrote these sentments disparaging “Birthers” are even reading this blog! ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply to juriggs Cancel 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: