© 2009 jbjd

The title of this post is inspired by a line in the last stanza from one of my favorite poems, Reluctance,  by my favorite poet, Robert Frost.

Ah, when to the heart of man
Was it ever less than a treason
To go with the drift of things,
To yield with a grace to reason,
And bow and accept the end
Of a love or a season?

I have always found giving up without a fight to be treasonous, especially when I am certain I am right.  And I am certainly right about Barack Obama.  That is, people within  the DNC selected him to become POTUS notwithstanding the evidence indicates he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.  Specifically, he is not a NBC.  Indefatigable, I have assembled this primer which, hopefully, will end the interminable farce over how best to address his Constitutional eligibility.    I name the names of those people responsible for depositing him in the Oval Office, and define the precise scope of their culpability, in anticipation that efforts to rectify this election anomaly will now be focused squarely on them.   Keep in mind that, by identifying the people with direct culpability, I am by definition ruling out everyone else.   For starters, this blameless faction includes Barack Obama.  Because even assuming he is not a NBC, without these others, he could never have gotten the job.

Recognizing the real culprits in this drama requires an understanding of the process for electing the POTUS, as spelled out in the Constitution.   Fortunately, our tax dollars paid for an enterprise that will contribute to such an understanding.  The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress published an excellent report entitled, “The Electoral College: How It Works,” which contains this concise summary on the Presidential election process.  Please, master this passage before you proceed.  (All emphasis to the original is mine.)  (jbjd note (08.05.10):  Subsequent to writing this article, I decided to stop referring to Electors using the word “College,”  as this term does not appear in the Constitution.)

When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors, chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from three to 55, for a total of 538. Anyone may serve as an elector, except for Members of Congress, and persons holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution. In each presidential election year, a group (ticket or slate) of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groups in each state, usually at a state party convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November (jbjd note:  date omitted). In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system. Maine and Nebraska use the district system, under which two electors are chosen on a statewide, at-large basis, and one is elected in each congressional district. Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December (jbjd note:  date omitted). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. (jbjd note (08.05.10):  Some states have enacted laws that  require Electors to support the nominee of the party; but no faithless Elector has ever been prosecuted for violating this oath, and Congress has never failed to ratify the vote of the Electors even when this includes the votes of these faithless Electors.) Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. (jbjd note:  Congress enacted a law changing this date to January 8 just for the year 2009.)  A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Thus, on January 8, 2009, Congress finalized the election of BO for POTUS when, exercising a procedure spelled out in the Constitution, they ratified the individual vote tallies from Electoral College votes cast in all 50 states, and the District of Columbia, which had been submitted to them via the Constitutionally prescribed process by then Vice President Cheney, the President of the Senate, who had received these totals directly from the individual state Electoral Colleges as required by the Constitution.

Immediately after this Congressional Ratification, self-identified “Patriots,” certain BO is not a NBC, flooded the blogosphere with hyperbolic rants against everyone in Congress for failing to insist on a Constitutional vetting of the man before voting for Ratification.  These so-called ‘Patriots’ referred to Congresspeople of both parties as “Traitors,” accusing their elected officials of committing “Treason” for failing to uphold the eligibility requirements for POTUS spelled out in the Constitution, even though, ironically, the Constitution itself  required Ratification once Congress was confident the Electoral College had conducted its vote in accordance with the ‘process’ prescribed by the Constitution.

In other words, Congress is not directly responsible for making BO POTUS but only for Ratifying the results of the voting undertaken by the Electoral College.  This means that they are also not responsible for the fact he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, even assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

This does not mean the Electoral College is directly responsible for making BO POTUS.

Neither the Constitution nor federal law prescribe the manner in which each state appoints its Electors other than directing that they be appointed on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  In most States, the Electors are appointed through a state-wide popular election (“general election”).

That is, voters only elect Electors in the state’s general election.

Currently, Electors are nominated to fill these positions by the political parties at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each state. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to the party. Generally, they hold a leadership position in the party. Often, they are major party fundraisers.  They may be state elected officials but, the Constitution prohibits members of Congress from becoming Electors in the Electoral College.

Whether the names of these nominated Electors then appear on the ballot depends on election laws that vary state to state.  In some states, the names of these Electors appear along with the letter “D” or “R,” along with the name of the party nominee.  In other states, only the name of the nominee appears along with the designation of the party.  But regardless of the appearance of the names on the general election ballot, voters in each state only choose the electors on the day of the general election.

Weeks after their ‘appointment’ by means of the general election, these elected state Electors meet in each state – this gathering of Electors is referred to as the Electoral College, although the term Electoral College does not appear in the Constitution – to cast votes for the next POTUS.   The Constitution is silent about the factors that go into their voting decision.  Thus, Electors are Constitutionally free to cast votes for whomever they want.  This means, they may even vote for a person who is not the nominee of their political party or, is not in the same party as the slate of Electors that won the state’s general election.  However, some states have enacted laws that require the slate of Electors receiving the largest popular vote in the state’s general election, must cast their votes for the Presidential nominee from the same political party.  In other words, in these states, if the D’s received more votes than the R’s, then the Electors for the D party must cast their votes for the D party nominee.  And every state except for NE and ME, and the District of Columbia are winner take all, meaning, all of the electoral votes assigned to that state (or the District of Columbia) must be cast by Electors of the winning political party.

Immediately after the vote of the Electoral College, self-identified “Patriots,” certain BO was Constitutionally ineligible for the job, flooded the blogosphere with hyperbolic rants against the Democrats in the Electoral Colleges who cast votes for BO without first vetting him for Constitutional qualifications.  These ‘Patriots’ referred to Electors representing the Democratic Party as “Traitors,” accusing them of committing “Treason” for failing to uphold the eligibility requirements spelled out in the Constitution.  But remember, the Constitution does not require Electors to vet the party candidate for President as to Constitutional eligibility,  being silent as to the qualification of the person Electors may elect for the job.

In other words, the Electoral College is not directly responsible for making BO POTUS but only for casting their votes for him in accordance with both the Constitution and state law, as the nominee of the D party when that party was the winner of the state’s general election.  This also means that they are not responsible for the fact he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job, even assuming he is Constitutionally ineligible for the job.

Then, the responsibility for electing an ineligible POTUS must be found in a process directly related to his nomination.


When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for
presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors,
chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state
a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of
Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from
three to 55, for a total of 538. Anyone may serve as an elector, except for Members of
Congress, and persons holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution. In
each presidential election year, a group (ticket or slate) of candidates for elector is
nominated by political parties and other groups in each state, usually at a state party
convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than
the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the election
held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 2, 2004). In most
states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential
and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular
votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system. Maine
and Nebraska use the district system, under which two electors are chosen on a
statewide, at-large basis, and one is elected in each congressional district. Electors
assemble in their respective states on Monday after the second Wednesday in December
(December 13, 2004). They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the
candidates they represent. Separate ballots are cast for President and Vice President,
after which the electoral college ceases to exist for another four years. The electoral
vote results are counted and declared at a joint session of Congress, held on January 6
of the year succeeding the election. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538)
is required to win. This report will be updated as events warrant.

26 Responses to NEVER LESS THAN a TREASON (1 of 2)

  1. juriggs says:

    I’m liking where you’re headed with this, jbjd.

    There’s a renewed determination to this movement, in my opinion. All the ranters and ravers have moved off stage right, and the serious, studious, focused players are beginning to make real headway.

    Keep up the good work, and I can’t wait to see Part Two.

    juriggs: Yes, of course you are. (Interesting how NP’s signature on that HI Certification has come into play, huh?) I keep thinking, if I can just sufficiently distill the 2008 election process then, the voters reading this blog, from whatever political bent, the ‘left” and the ‘right,’ even those Constitutional actors – the Electors and Congress – will at least agree: this was no way to run an election. ADMINISTRATOR

  2. azgo says:

    Seems to me, the “AZ presidential preference election candidate nomination paper” (2007 Dec 13) and/or presidential primary nomination papers in other states if any, would be included as “not vetted by the DNC” in that and maybe more importantly as this was the beginning of the state primaries. The DNC has “general responibility” as to “Conducting the Party’s Presidential Campaign”.

    The DNC “DELEGATE SELECTION RULES” was adopted August 19, 2006.
    The DNC “The Charter & The Bylaws” was amended December 3, 2005.
    The DNC “CALL” was adopted February 2, 2007.

    These were in place prior to the the start the presidential preference election or primary and actually adopted before Mr. Obama announced his run for president in February 10,2007.

    “He will formally announce his candidacy on Feb. 10.”

    Issued by the Democratic Party of the United States
    Governor Howard Dean, Chairman
    As adopted by the Democratic National Committee, August 19, 2006

    K. 1. Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall:

    a. be registered to vote, and shall have been registered to vote in the last
    election for the office of President and Vice President; and

    b. have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate in the Convention in good faith.

    2. It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States.”

    …”Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall:”…

    When the candidate announces his/her running for the presidency, wouldn’t this be the time that the candidates for President be vetted for their eligibility? (The rules for delegate selection were adopted and already in place.)

    azgo: Your comments evidence a real commitment to understanding as much about this process as those who would subvert it for their own benefit. So, let’s see if I can synthesize why I cannot go this route.

    I ‘know’ that the DNC ‘knew’ BO was ineligible before June 2008. But I can establish they were on notice there were issues with his eligibility in June 2008 because that’s when he set up that FTS web site, explicitly acknowledging the public questioned his eligibility as related to his citizenship status. I ‘knew’ NP did not verify he was a NBC in August 2008 before Certifying he was. But I could only establish a strong circumstantial case she could not have vetted him, and not that she did not vet him. And that case only became circumstantially air tight recently, when I de-constructed that phantom ‘newspaper birth announcement’ image on APFC. Because then I realized, back in January 2009, BO submitted to the federal court in his motion to dismiss Berg’s lawsuit (Hollister); two pieces of evidence he would have the court believe, proved he was born in HI: the COLB and the so-called birth announcement, both of which he referenced in relation to APFC. Now, I ‘knew,’ these had to be the strongest pieces of evidence he had; and neither of these was evidence at all! So, again, what did NP use to ‘support’ her determination he is a NBC, before she signed that Certification? As for ‘vetting’ him before he signed that AZ application to participate in the primary in that state, in December 2007, well, of course the D state party and the DNC ‘knew’ back then he was not a NBC. But as we later learned at the RBC meeting on May 31, 2008, their game, their rules. (“Fair reflection” ring a bell?) I could not bust NP (or AG, or HD…) until a state (or federal) law was implicated. Do you understand? If not, come back…ADMINISTRATOR

    • azgo says:

      Ah! Fair Reflection! That is number 13. “FAIR REFLECTION OF PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES”in the “DELEGATE SELECTION RULES” right after number 12. ‘PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE” as “It is further determined that these requirements are in addition to the requirements set forth by the United States Constitution and any law of the United States. This “Fair Reflection” incident is somewhat new to me as I heard about a controversy at the time, but I wasn’t aware of this “their game, their rules” as well as no doubt, probably many other people.

      PUMA – Party Unity My Ass!”
      I just learned a little more about ‘fair reflection’ on a few web sites! Did the “Ofa Party” heads commit fraud on their own rules or was this just plain unethical?

      Also is this what happened as explained in this write up by Marshall Smith during the Convention – a trick of the rules – “Democrat Convention elects Obama by Acclamation”?

      So NP knew in July of 2007, she would be nominated as Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention. This does become interesting!
      A google cached page as the original is missing;,+Democratic+National+Convention,+selected+permanent+chair&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

      “In July of 2007, Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, announced his intention to nominate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California to serve as Permanent Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver. Dean also announced that three outstanding leaders, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Chair of the Democratic Governors Association; Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, President of the National Conference of State Legislatures; and Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin, President of the National Conference of Democratic Mayors, will be nominated as Permanent Convention Co-Chairs.”…

      NP knew of her position as permanent chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention a full year before the Convention. She has been a member of the DNC for quite some time. Certainly she knew about Res. 511 as Speaker of the House and as being listed on the Congressional Record and of course, the time being a presidential campaign year.

      You are right, the DNC and NP had no documentation to “no question” prove the candidate is a NBC, before the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination was signed by her. The DNC and NP still have nothing or they would release or ask the candidate to release the proper documents by now, and it appears that they, including the candidate, quietly allowed FTS, the APFC articles, the internet web and the news media to take care of the rhetoric and the controversial “vetting” process. “Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the criteria for its candidates” the DNC and NP allowed this to happen for almost three months prior to the DNC’s Official Certification of Nomination paper as signed by NP and now well over a year without clear, indisputable, candidate provided, political party provided, court reviewed and/or court ordered official documentation.

      Do you or anyone remember just when and who sparked the initial question as to this candidates eligibility and/or did the questions begin after the DNC as “Conducting the Party’s Presidential Campaign” and/or through Tommy Vietor of the candidates campaign committee simply try to vet the candidate with the FTS B/C web page and provide information to APFC and news media outlets for the upcoming Convention as ‘to cover all bases’ for a ‘showcase nomination’?

      I still want to hold in my mind the AZ presidential preference election candidate nomination paper (2007 Dec 13) as to the idea “not vetted by the DNC” and also not vetted by the DNC when the candidate announced his candidacy for President as the requirements are different for a Senator than the President. The AZ presidential preference candidate nomination paper is Arizona law and remember NP was already the nominee for permanent chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention (Arizona Code, Title 16 – Elections and Electors, Article 4 – Presidential Preference Election, §16-242 Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper).

      azgo: Your comment is a post all by itself. Let me address just a few points.

      That AZ primary application BO signed attesting to the fact, he is a NBC, is important, but perhaps not for the reason you would prefer. The fact that he swore in December 2007, he is a NBC; and then, in June 2008, advertised that he is a “native citizen,” evidences his knowledge, there is a difference. In any future actions against him based on, say, fraud, this piece of evidence will certainly come into play.

      The principle of “fair reflection” you reference comes from the DNC rules. But “fair reflection” begins in the DNC Charter, Article Two, Section 4.

      As to the basis for NP’s determination, if any, that BO is a NBC… Remember, that COLB posted on the FTS web site was provided by HIM; the web site was paid for by HIM (“Paid for by Barack Obama,” until the nomination(?)); and the ‘authenticators,’ APFC, were his former employers. Given these circumstances, if confronted, NP would have a hard time convincing anyone, let alone an AG, that any “reasonable person” would have accepted this photocopied COLB as ‘evidence’ of anything; let alone that she is such a reasonable person. ADMINISTRATOR

      • azgo says:

        The link did not work but I have my own little copy of the DNC charter.
        Thank you for a clearer understanding on what you wanted me to understand on your comment to my long comment above! Your comment to SNK below is a great explanation also!

        azgo: Given the chasm in the past between ‘our’ knowledge of how the system works; and the superior knowledge of anyone who would want to use this system against us; it makes sense how easily they were able to accomplish that goal. But now, we understand not only what they did but also the role our inferior knowledge played in this fraud. Good. Now that we understand the process, we can share our new found understanding with everyone else. (Also, please, next time, if one of the links I provide is no good, send me the good link!) ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Hi jbjd! How much will this focus change the chances of this issue getting resolved?

    SNK: I am confused as to what you mean by, “change in focus.” I believe BO is not a NBC; and there are several different ways to expose his status. I want individual citizens to exercise their authority to address the problem. But I have found, most people are confused because they cannot see the ‘whole picture.’ So, I decided to lay out a narrative for those people who are stuck on trying to prove, he is not a NBC. There are no documents. And who would be responsible for authenticating these documents, anyway? So, I looked for anyone with a legal obligation attached to BO’s eligibility status, to establish his ineligibility. Given our current knowledge and understanding of what documentation existed at the time NP signed her Certification, it would appear to me that, she lied about his Constitutional eligibility to state elections officials. That’s fraud. And the beauty is, it doesn’t matter, technically, if actual documents ‘exist’ somewhere or, suddenly materialize that could show BO is a NBC. What matters is, what did NP use last August 2008, when she signed that Certification? ADMINISTRATOR

    • So this line of logic would create the most airtight case, in your opinion? It would have the best chance in a court?

      (Imho, but the only good use of time is to build a court case–it is a waste of time to try and educate the public at large about his lack of NBC status.)

      SNK: See, it all depends on what is the ultimate goal, to get BO out of office or, to obtain a definitive ruling on the definition of NBC. Back in August 2008, I advised people, if you want to prevent BO from getting into office, contest having his name put on the general election ballot in the state, if your state requires only eligible party candidates on the ballot. The basis of the challenge would have been that he is not a NBC but, technically, the support for that charge he is ineligible to be on that state’s ballot would have been, he has failed to produce documentary evidence he is a NBC, such as a long-form birth certificate. Of course, if he could not get onto the ballot in just one state, for failing to produce documentation tending to establish his eligibility, this would effectively have cost him the nomination. We still would not have a definition of NBC but, neither would we have BO as the D party nominee for POTUS. See what I mean? Going to court is an arduous process. My military Complaint will get you into court; I posted that last December. But a finding of election fraud can occur immediately, as soon as NP argues to an investigating AG, she does not have to respond to his or her inquiries as the basis for her Certification BO is a NBC, in order to get his name on that state’s general election ballot. Because if that happened then, the people would demand their Congresspeople take immediate action to address the issue, that is, if Congress failed to act on its own. ADMINISTRATION

      • jan C says:

        For some months I have been planning to file an election complaint in the state of WV. I have in my possession a copy of the document submitted by Mr. Obama to the State of WV containing his signature to the statement that he is a candidate in good faith and eligible to serve, in order to be placed on the presidential preference primary ballot.

        Any person can file an election complaint and there is no time limitation. He did not win the primary, neither did he win the state in the general election. Just as you say, however, he should have failed to be placed on the ballot for failing to provide documentation in support of being a nbc.

        What points should I include in my complaint?

        jan C: Hello. Here’s the thing. One aspect of this ‘election fraud’ issue I have been discussing here on this blog, is distinguishing between bringing a cause of action based on a direct accusation that
        BO is not a NBC; and a cause of action that says, no one checked whether BO is a NBC. Do you see the difference? In order to go after BO, you would have to say, he is not a NBC. I advise people to go after NP, saying she could not have determined whether he is a NBC, before Certifying to the state elections official, he is. Does WV have a law requiring the nominee for POTUS to be eligible for the job or, just the issue of eligibility only come up to participate in the primary? ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Miri says:

    jbjd: This is off the topic of your most excellent recent post (I can’t wait for part 2), but Leo Donofrio has posted an article that was sent to him by student researchers at UCONN. It’s interesting in its interpretation of natural born citizenship. According to that article, Obama could not be a natural born citizen (or even a citizen, the way I read the article) simply because of his father’s lack of U.S. citizenship. Because his father was a British subject, then Obama, too, was subject to a foreign power AT BIRTH, which disqualifies him from citizenship. As he admitted on FTS website, he was “governed” by British law at birth. I’m not a lawyer, though, so maybe I’m reading this wrong. However, Leo Donofrio seems to agree; he called this the “Holy Grail”.

    Miri: I have been asked about Leo’s work before; and I have previously tried to correct his mistakes. He opined on his blog that, unlike state courts, federal courts may not issue advisory opinions, per their authority under the Constitution. Therefore, he argued, my military Complaint, which is based on declaratory judgment, will fail. I had to point out to him, the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes precisely the suit I envisioned; and I had laid out my claims in accordance with the construct of that federal law. In a subsequent post, he now mentioned that the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act could be used to get an opinion from the court as to whether BO is a NBC.

    Leo announced a few days ago on his blog, that he had figured out under 50 USC 435; and EO 12968, enacted into law more than 11 (eleven years ago), the head of a security agency could withhold information from the POTUS. I spent several paragraphs explaining to a reader on another blog that Leo had misread this law. Actually, 435 was added to the pre-existing Code to lay out new procedures for establishing how federal employees and contractors should get access to information. The law contained this provision: if the head of the security agency determines that any of these procedures would result in a conflict with any authority granted to him under other laws or EO’s to act to preserve national security, then he could exercise his discretion to ignore any of these procedures. The accompanying EO began, as most EO’s and laws begin, with a “Definitions” section, in which the term “employee” was explicitly defined as excluding the POTUS and VPOTUS. Leo had mistakenly read the discretion clause in the accompanying Code revision to mean that, the head of the security agency could ignore that definition of “employee” if he thought national security was at risk. That is, he could withhold information from his boss, the POTUS, as he could with any other employee named in the EO. I explained to Leo that 435 was only procedural and that the discretionary exclusion which allowed him to ignore any procedures was predicated on the condition, any decision had to be based on authorities granted under other statutory schemes or EO’s. This meant, unless he could point to another law that allows the agency head to withhold information from the CIC then, his interpretation was wrong. I also pointed out that, the “Definitions” section was not a procedure but a substantive limitation on the applicability of the EO.

    Well, Leo corrected his blunder by trying to cover up his mistake. That is, he posted a new article, adding in the section of the Code that highlighted, this was procedural. Then, he told his readers, the “Definitions” section was procedural. And the head of the agency had authority to ignore this ‘procedure’ under… the oath of office wherein he had sworn to uphold the Constitution.

    Here is a comment I posted on another blog earlier this evening, in response to Leo’s latest greatest ‘find,’ which was also the subject of your question.


    Please understand that, a law review article has virtually no ‘precedential value’ in a court of law. NONE OF THESE ENDLESS HOURS SPENT ANALYZING WHAT CONSTITUTES A NBC HAS ANY BEARING ON REMOVING BO FROM THE WH ON THE BASIS HE IS NOT A NBC. Until a federal appeals court rules on whether the specific facts in BO’s case make him a NBC; your guess is as good as anyone else’s. However, if Nancy Pelosi made that Certification without any prior evidence this claim was true then, in those states that required the party nominee to be a NBC, she committed elections fraud.

    If you want to incite the uproar that will get BO out of office, instead of this endless discourse on the meaning of NBC; you could spend your time trying to get your AG to ask the state D party chair or NP this one question: On what evidence did you base your determination that BO is a NBC before signing the Official Certification of Nomination in August 2008, which you submitted to our state elections officials to get them to print his name on the 2008 general election ballot?

    Educate your state and federal officials that even BO did not claim to be a NBC on his web site, FTS, which he paid for until his August nomination; but rather, that he is a “native citizen.” Then, ask these officials, given the fact he claimed only to be a “native citizen,” what made NP think, he is a NBC? One state elections official I contacted believes, the FEC vetted him, unaware the FEC only deals in campaign finance issues!

    If you are not interacting with state and federal officials to educate them that no one vetted the candidate for Constitutional eligibility before swearing he was eligible for the job, then you will not get him out of the job.

    Stop hypothesizing whether he is a NBC. At least you can prove, the party did not confirm he was a NBC before swearing he was, to state elections officials.

    Theories as to the definition of NBC will only ‘count’ in a federal court deciding the issue. And as soon as one AG in one state raises the right question to the party, and this hits the press; or as soon as one Congressperson raises the question as to the evidentiary basis for Certification and calls for hearings on the subject of the election (read, Impeachment), this will signal the beginning of the end for BO. Because even if, at the point he faces Congressional investigation, he can produce a long form BC; Congress can then press the dual citizenship issue. And this will end up in federal court.


  5. d2i says:

    jb – great beginning to setting the foundation to go after those that committed election fraud. The noise about the BC is important, however, the “heart” of this crisis lies w/the DNC leadership, period. What documentation did Feinstein’s committee have to vote to authorize Obama’s NBC threshold? What did Pelosi have or Dean or Brazille and on and on have? The same fraudulent COLB 0 posted on his FTS website? Give me a break. Especially given the fact that he has admitted that he was a “native born citizen”. A totally different citizenship status from NBC. It’s about time someone shined some sunshine on the DNC leadership and held them accountable. You’re on the right track. Stay focused!!!

    Now, about another matter. What is your take on Cheney’s decision not to ask for a nay vote from Congress when accepting the Electoral College vote? I’d like to know what you think about this. Thanks in advance.

    d2i: Hey there. First, VP Cheney’s call for a vote on the Ratification… I think public objections to his seeming failure to call for objections are overblown. Have you ever observed Congressional ‘debate’ and voting? Any one of those 500+ legislators could have raised a “Point of Order” at any time, to get an objection heard.

    We can be angry at BO for lying to us about his eligibility to serve but, other than arousing our ire, what could he have accomplished with his lies alone? That FTS web site was his, bought and “Paid for by Barack Obama” (until the nomination). He could say whatever he wanted on that site. And he got APFC to lie for him. So what? Who are they to us? (Remember, no “privity.”) (I am not minimizing the fraud issue involving BO, that is, soliciting funds under false pretenses, etc.; but that is outside of the scope of my present focus on best ways to redress the problem of his ineligibility.) NP had the obligation to those voters in those states who enacted laws requiring the candidate to be eligible. And, as far as I know, she has refused to respond to inquiries from any of these voters, asking on what basis she determined BO was a NBC before signing that Certification. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. redhank says:

    Hi jbjd
    I received the documents filed in the Election 2008 on behalf of both the Dems and Repub for the State Certification of nomination. Curiously the Republicans filed a form which states “the following person, meeting the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States…”, while the Dems only sent a letter from Boyd Ritchie, Chair, Texas Democratic Party, that only certifies that Obama was nominated by the party. (My scanner is broken or I would post a link)
    I am going to go and look and see what the State requirements are with respect to the form and go back to the State and ask if the Dems filed a form in addition to the letter. Interestingly, the letter was notarized in Denver, not Texas, so they must have done it from the convention.

    redhank: This is excellent. Several states submitted the requisite paperwork this way. That is, the state D party chair sent a letter saying BO was the party nominee; but they also sent along that Certification by NP. Either way, DNC rules say, the nominee must be a NBC. So, verifying he is the nominee is tantamount to saying, he is a NBC. And, in TX, if only Mr. Ritchie’s letter was used to get BO on the general election ballot then, substitute his name for NP’s name on the letter to the AG. (In some ways, going after state party chairs is preferable in that, they are not insulated by the wall of armor protecting the Speaker.) (I am working on a letter, if you want to hold off on your own.) ADMINISTRATOR

    redhank: I just realized, the Certification you describe that the R’s submitted in TX; is the same one they submitted for HI, which state has a law that requires the party to vouch for the nominee’s eligibility. Interestingly, HI is the only state to which the DNC submitted the Certification explicitly vouching for the Constitutional eligibility of BO. Hmmm…ADMINISTRATOR

  7. Miri says:

    jbjd: Thanks for the (further education). I knew that I could get a logical interpretation from you. Sorry to make you repeat yourself in answer to Leo. If anything, it will bring more people here to read your plan to get this into federal court.

    Miri: You are welcome. Now, read my comment to sonicninjakitty (SNK) in which I point out the difference between getting the issue into court and, getting BO out of office. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. d2i says:

    Miri – Initially I too was thrilled to read Collin’s article over at NBC and found it a great historic read given the times he lived in. I’m a history buff of sorts so always enjoy reading such finds.

    However, after reading the post, I scrolled through the comments and came upon a very interesting piece of information regarding a response my AG gave to another citizen.

    jbjd – please take a look at this response and provide me with your thoughts. I want to schedule a visit w/my AG but before I do want to have my facts straight and your insight would be most valuable. Thanks in advance.

    From NBC Post –
    Judi Says:
    August 25, 2009 at 3:53 pm
    Response from Virginia Attorney General Mims:
    What are the State’s duties in upholding their oath to protect the Constitution with regard to elections for President?

    There is no “duty” placed upon the States, nor is there any oath given, with regard to “protecting” the federal Constitution. The federal Constitution represents a delegation of the otherwise unlimited powers of the States to form the United States government. See 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    Does the state have no duty to stop Kim Jong Il from running for President on Virginia’s ballots?

    The State has no such duty. The State simply accepts the names of the nominees of the political parties as certified by the national party chairs for the purposes of electing electors to vote for the office of President. Remember that the President is not directly elected by the people of the United States – electors are selected who vote for the individual (see explanation below)
    [Ed. Ask him why Roger Calero was remove from the ballots in five states.]

    d2i: This is perfect. Here are the applicable VA election laws under Title 24.2, Elections, Code of Virginia.

    § 24.2-525. Persons entitled to have name printed on ballot.
    Only a person meeting all the qualifications and fulfilling all the requirements of a candidate, and who has complied with the rules and regulations of his party, shall have his name printed on the ballot provided for the primary election. No person shall have his name printed on the ballot for more than one office at any one primary election. However, a candidate for federal or statewide office, or a candidate for an office being filled in a special election, may have his name printed on the ballot for two offices at a primary election.

    § 24.2-1016. False statements; penalties.
    Any willfully false material statement or entry made by any person in any statement, form, or report required by this title shall constitute the crime of election fraud and be punishable as a Class 5 felony. Any preprinted statement, form, or report shall include a statement of such unlawful conduct and the penalty provided in this section.

    Thus, given VA laws, your AG is absolutely correct about accepting the name of the nominee. That is, while the law in VA requires the candidate to be a NBC in order to get onto ballot, because that is the rule of the DNC, VA laws do not require that any state official has to check on the nominee’s eligibility. However, this has nothing to do with election fraud. That is, in a state that requires the nominee to be eligible, the party that warranties he is eligible before checking to determine whether, in fact, he is, is committing fraud. And the AG does have the statutory authority to investigate allegations of election fraud. See the difference?

    As to removing a candidate from the ballot even when the law provides no mandate for such selective scrutiny of candidates, presumably the state elections official has discretion vested in her or him by some provision within the law, to remove from the ballot the candidate she or he has clear knowledge lacks the qualifications for the office sought. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. StayAlive says:

    Following was sent to the CA Sec of State, Elections today.

    Thank you for the prompt and informative reply.

    In reading the referenced documents, it is my understanding that Barack Obama was placed on the “Certified List of Candidates for the February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Election (Elections Code 6950-6954)” because the Secretary of State on 29 November 2007 determined that Barack Obama was a “generally recognized” candidate (Election Code 6041).

    In a referenced document “Presidential Candidate Qualification Procedures Democratic Party, February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Election” under Qualifications it is stated “The candidate must be: A. A natural-born citizen of the United State, B. At least 35 years of age, and C. A resident of the United States at least 14 years” U.S. Const. art. II, Sec 1(5).”

    Click to access dempres_2008.pdf

    On what evidence was the decision made that Barack Obama met the required qualification of being “A natural-born citizen of the United States”?

    Thank you,

    (name omitted by jbjd)
    Santa Monica, CA

    StayAlive: This is beautiful. I cannot wait to see Ms. Bowen’s reply. Hopefully, she will reference either NP’s Certification of Nomination – I know this is AFTER the fact of the primary – or, a statement of certification of his nomination by the Chair of the state D party. I don’t want to get too technical but, if she made a mistake by putting the name of an unqualified candidate on the primary ballot; this is different from allowing his name on the general election ballot. Given that the goal is to compel the AG to investigate charges of election fraud against either NP (DNC) or the state D party Chair – it is unlikely that either of them was involved in getting BO’s name on the primary ballot – I anticipate he will be looking for any excuse not to exercise his discretion to initiate an investigation.

    Election fraud in CA is a felony under the CA Elections Code.

    18203. Any person who files or submits for filing a nomination
    paper or declaration of candidacy knowing that it or any part of it
    has been made falsely is punishable by a fine not exceeding one
    thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the state prison for
    16 months or two or three years or by both the fine and imprisonment.


  10. drkate says:

    Good article, jbjd, and am looking forward to your next piece.

    I wrote to my SOS in July 2008 asking the same questions and providing what I knew then of Obama’s ineligibility. The answer I received was completely unsatisfactory, and I can see this happening again in 2012. The ‘answer’ I received was that ‘we rely on the state parties to provide that information’. Well of course the state party laughed at my request and told me to get over it, Obama qualified.

    What you have written does not clearly suggest that this issue can be remedied at the state level at all, in time for the new election.

    I like the approach of naming those responsible. I do not much like the implication that Apuzzo’s case is wrong because he is going after Pelosi, Cheney, and Congress. If the procedures/process cannot be followed at that level, then they are not going to be followed at any level. The Founders had the new president sworn in in March so that between January and then a full investigation of the eligibility could be completed. Perhaps we should return to that system.

    I disagree that Obama is blameless. He knows he is ineligible, and went ahead and took the oath anyway. To me this was a test of his loyalty to the United STates, and he failed. Now he is ‘making war on the states’, constitutionally defined as treason.

    drkate: Hello. The primary goal of the work that is being discussed on this blog is to establish whether BO is a NBC and to get him out of office if he is not. And there are several ways to accomplish this goal. As I have alluded to in my responses to previous comments, I am aware that sometimes people are frustrated that the solutions I posit inadequately ‘punish’ the culprits they would have targeted. But re-focusing everyone’s attention to where this will be most effective is sometimes necessary to accomplish this goal.

    1. The SoS can only do what the state law allows. So, if the law puts her in charge of elections but does not contain a provision requiring her to vet the party candidate for Constitutional eligibility before authorizing the name of the nominee to be printed on the state’s general election ballot then, she is not required to vet. Simple as that. And the voters wrote that law, through their elected representatives and senators in the state legislature. Amending the law to include some sort of vetting function takes virtually no time. (At some point, I will post model legislation. Generally, this will call for some sort of vetting panel for all candidates who want their names on the ballot. Refusing to subject party nominees to the scrutiny of the vetting panel in no way implicates the right of the party to the nominee of its choice; it only relieves the state of the burden to put that person’s name on the general election ballot.)

    2. I wrote a reply to d2i’s comment related to VP Cheney’s conduct at the Congressional Ratification. Have you ever watched how fast votes occur in Congress? If any one of the more than 500+ Congresspeople had wanted to object to the EC vote, he or she would have raised a “Point of Order” to be heard.

    3. Again, no provision of any law, federal or state, requires any government official to vet the candidate from the major political party for Constitutional eligibility. We just have to draft that law, and make sure it does not in any way restrict the party from floating any candidate for POTUS of its choice. And we have to make sure this vetting occurs in time so that we are not spending public funds to run a primary contest with candidates ineligible for the general election.

    4. I chose the word “blameless” to describe BO’s role in this mess for a few reasons, listed in no particular order of importance. i) He did not force anyone to vote for him. ii) He did not compel state elections officials 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.” ADMINISTRATOR

    • drkate says:

      jbjd, please pardon my hasty review and comments…I have just returned from a trip and only skimmed this discussion which deserves more attention. Thanks for your reply, and I’ll come back with a more informed response once I’ve had time to review it all. Thank you.

      drkate: No apology necessary! As always, your remarks provided an opportunity for me to clarify my point. In fact, I am including part of my response to you, in tomorrow’s post. (When I say, “tomorrow,” I mean, almost Friday.) ADMINISTRATOR

  11. Magna Carta says:

    I’m having been reading about this strategy for some time. Last night i spoke to a man who has a good relationship with a couple of state reps here in Texas. One has a good access to the governor. I was trying to develop this approach because I wanted to ensure a possibility of action on the part of the AG.Anyway. Do you have a “kit” of reads and steps you would guide me on?
    Many Thanks.

    Magna Carta: Hearing from a fellow citizen activist is always an uplifting experience. (Have you read the comments from your fellow Texan, redhank?) I have been working on writing a ‘model letter to A’sG,’ which I put on hold to write this lengthy 2-part post, “NEVER LESS THAN A TREASON.” I wanted everyone to see the big picture to understand, namely, to understand why I propose certain solutions to the problem, over others. The post I am working on now is (2 of 2); I will complete the model letter when that is up. Then, I will devote the blog to answering questions about contacting the A’sG, and following up on individual progress. (Can you just clarify something for me, please? When you say, you have been reading about this “strategy” for some time, exactly what do you mean?) ADMINISTRATOR

    • redhank says:

      Hi jbjd and Magna Carta

      Here is the response that I received related to whether the Parties were required to file the form stating the candidates were qualified. As I said above the Dems only sent a letter Nominating BO, but not saying he was qualified.

      Dear XXX:

      We sent you all the responsive documents that we have regarding the certification of nominees from the Republican and Democratic Parties for the November 2008 presidential election. The parties are not required to file a particular form with our office. The state statute that governs the certification requirement can be found in Section 192.031 of the Texas Election Code.

      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

      (3) the party is:

      (A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or

      (B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

      I hope you find this information helpful.

      Ann McGeehan
      Director of Elections
      Office of the Texas Secretary of State

      redhank: See, this is perfect. I confirmed earlier, TX law requires the candidate to be eligible for the job (in order to appear on the general election ballot). You asked the SoS, whether the parties are required to file a form. She said, no. But, Certifying the nominee IS the nominee, given that party rules require the D nominee for POTUS must be Constitutionally eligible for the job; is tantamount to saying, BO is a NBC. In other words, the law says BO must be a NBC; and the party swore he is a NBC without checking first. TX put his name on the ballot. Election fraud.

      I am making final edits to part 2 of 2. When that is up, I will complete the model letter to A’sG and you can file a formal complaint and request for investigation. ADMINISTRATOR

  12. Nunly says:

    Excellent post…and WOW! The comments here are amazing. Glad Mary pointed me this way.

    I’ve always felt that we have never been able to get rid of the electoral college because this is exactly what the Dems, in particular, want to keep. They know they can gerryrig the system, just as they did in the last Primary. What they did in Texas, Michigan, and Florida was a crime and they got away with it.

    Nunly: Shalom! I know; the comments are inspiring, huh. As you can tell if you go back a few posts, I could not have finally ‘put it all together’ without the input from my readers. Please send others here. An informed electorate is tyranny’s worst enemy.

    Just a point about the EC… Using electoral votes instead of direct votes helps to equalize the power of small states versus big states. The problems we experience with the ‘institution’ result from the way in which we allow the Constitutional mandate to be carried out. After you read the second half of this article, perhaps you will see my point more clearly. ADMINISTRATOR

  13. Miri says:

    jbjd: Thanks for your comments about the Electoral College. It’s a necessary evil, imho. Otherwise, what say would smaller states have? We may as well let NY, CA, and TX choose the POTUS. btw, I am dropping your name all over the blogosphere, hoping to drum up more readers for you. What you’re doing is THAT important.

    Miri: You are welcome. And thank you. You have followed my work for some time now and so, you appreciate where this is going. I suppose others do not imagine that the whole campaign dilemma can be synthesized and solved on a blog. Wait till you read (2 of 2), tomorrow. ADMINISTRATOR

  14. avwrobel says:

    jbjd: Very nice work! Keep it up. The mechinations of the people who put Obama are unbelievable when light is shined on them. One point for all I’d like to make regarding the Electoral College. The EC makes our country somewhat similar to the Parliamentary government structure of other countries, in that in those countries there is no direct vote for Prime Minister. You vote for the party in your district, riding, etc and when the members of parliament are determined then the party with the most members gets the Prime Minister. The problem seems to be those electors (political appointees) don’t take their responsibilities seriously. They seem to be along for the ride. Before the EC certification vote each election cycle there seems to pop up in the media a little noise about how someone is going to object, but it never happens; the EC’s certification vote is mentioned in the media as a 5-second blurb, and the election becomes ‘official’. Keep up the great work with this blog!!

    avwrobel: Well, well, well, for a first-time commenter, you certainly are prophetic! Part 2 of 2 will be posted some time today; you will be pleasantly surprised that it focuses in material part, on the role of the (Electors of) the EC in this situation. And thank you for the kind words about this blog. Please, tell people about the work we do here. ADMINISTRATOR

  15. don says:

    Perhaps it’s naive, but my study shows that the electoral college was orignially meant to evaluate and alter the Democratic vote when necessary. The EC which has been tied by state legislatures to vote according to the majority vote is a joke. It’s become a kind of pass-through Democracy in violation of the intent of the EC. The EC is supposed to be a kind of “Jury” wherein the members evalutate the data and render their vote pursuant to reason, logic and common sense. Hence, the EC is the real party in interest who should ultimately vet the candidate before allowing Congress to accept the EC vote.

    don: I so hear you. I am all over the culpability of the D Electors on the EC, for this 2008 election debacle. Putting the final edits on 2 of 2, as we speak. ADMINISTRATOR

  16. magna carta says:

    I have read your theory at CW.I wanted to get as close as I could to a Legislator who might know Abbott before attempting this.I will read your stuff carefully and read Redhank’s comments.Thanks.Heading to rally in Austin.

    magna carta: Good. (I wondered why redhank addressed his last comment to both you and me.) About ready to post 2 of 2. It’s substantial. (Could you please use all small letters, as in “jbjd”? Your use of capitals on this blog won’t confuse anyone but outside… I would not want anyone to confuse me with anyone else.) ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. Good luck in Austin! Yee Haw!

  17. magna carta says:

    Thanks Redhank! I read your efforts and look very forward to sharing this info with a likeminded friend.We can share tips or work together.
    I look forward to the recomended letter that JBJD is working up.

  18. […] many months of arduous research, and several key related articles,  jbjd has zeroed in on a viable strategy for citizens of specific states to […]

  19. […] 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 […]

  20. […] a President 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 […]

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: