ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND HOW NANCY PELOSI STOLE THE “D” PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION, SHE WILL BE UNABLE TO STEAL THE NOMINATION, AGAIN

Some people find helpful listening to a summary of the election fraud perpetrated by the D’s in the 2008 election cycle. Then, they fill in the details by reading the blog. However you educate yourself, remember, as long as the thieves know more about our political system than you, it makes no sense to assume, they will not steal the nomination, again.

Here’s a condensed version of my last 2 (two) ‘appearances’ on Revolution Radio with drkate, wherein I try to teach my audience how the D’s, led by Nancy Pelosi, were able to steal the Presidential nomination.

…Plans had been put in place years ago to steal the D Presidential nomination. Delegates in Texas over allocated to black districts and under allocated to Latino districts? Check. ACORN hired to rig the caucuses? Check. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, agreed to Chair the DNC Convention and sign the bogus Certifications of Nomination swearing to state election officials he is Constitutionally eligible for the job so they would print his name next to the D on the general election ballot? Check. Now, if everything went according to plan, she would drop out after Super Tuesday. Six (6) months later, he would be swept into nomination by a unanimous vote on the floor vote at the Convention. And no one would be the wiser that they had stolen his nomination.

Only, she did not drop out and so, they ratcheted up the fraud.

Now, they disengaged the software identifying country of origin of campaign contributions – foreign exchange rates could account for those odd figures in the black – to fund a magic extravaganza. They hired the press to report the lie, she had no chance to take the nomination, even while winning the popular vote and more pledged delegates as the result of votes cast directly for her than for him. (And she’s racist, too.) They bribed super delegates to commit to him, measuring success in direct proportion to the cost of that support.

They subtracted delegates pledged to vote for her, and added them to him, facing the cameras with the tortured logic people in Michigan would have voted for him if he hadn’t removed his name from the ballot. They threatened her delegates in every state to switch to voting for him before the Convention.

Only, they forgot about those pledged delegates from the 13 (thirteen) vote binding states, including California, who are required by state laws to vote for the candidate voters elected them to represent, in the roll call vote on the floor of the Convention. And they didn’t count on someone like me figuring out what they were doing. But I did; and I reported to A’sG in vote binding states, ‘Members of the D party have infiltrated your state and are encouraging her pledged delegates to break the law by switching to him before the Convention. Stop them!’ And it worked.

Until, finally, the only way left to steal the nomination for him was to prevent her delegates from vote binding states, from voting on the floor of the Convention. So, Chairwoman Pelosi called off the traditional roll call vote from the floor of the Convention…

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2009/10/29/Revolution-Radio-Witness-to-Election-Fraud
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drkate/2009/11/05/Revolution-Radio-Witness-to-Election-Fraud-Part-II

Advertisements

15 Responses to ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND HOW NANCY PELOSI STOLE THE “D” PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION, SHE WILL BE UNABLE TO STEAL THE NOMINATION, AGAIN

  1. Dawn says:

    Fantastic. I finally had a chance to catch up with the radio appearances. WOW! and oh my GAWD, jbjd! I felt like I was sitting there having cawfeee in NJ with a bunch of my girlfriends talking politics. It was just great. I love how you talk so differently than you write – I am the same way:)
    Anyway – Glad you got up HA. – Thank you. I am trying my best to get people to do this – it’s like pulling freaking teeth. They say very interesting – & then are too lazy/cheap/stupid to actually DO IT.
    I stood up & tried to tell the local Woman’s political group about it and was condescendingly asked if this had anything to do with those “birthers”. I have a big circle of supposed activist contacts on FB but find if I don’t work with them one on one – we don’t get anywhere.
    I logged on last night in the last 4 minutes:( only music – I don’t know how to get on to the chat at dr. kate’s. Was the chat saved?? I want to see it! I tried to leave dr. kate a message abt this too on one of the posts.
    I have had a message from the AG’s office that they have the complaints & will advise the status. In the meantime, we sent in one of the new ones from SC from another person in my household.
    Thank you so much for those 2 radio shows. I LOVED them. Everything I wasn’t sure about is now crystal clear.
    PS feel free to edit out the personal parts of this post if you want:)

    Dawn: I wish I could find the ONE piece of evidence that could at least get people thinking. Maybe it is the fact that, in federal court, taking advantage of the opportunity to try to put to rest at last, the crazy birther lawsuits filed against him, what one piece of evidence did BO ask the judge to take judicial notice of? His statement that, APFC said there was a contemporaneous birth announcement. Only, neither BO nor APFC named that supposed newspaper; and BO did not submit the actual announcement, into the court record. No; he just wanted the judge to take notice that he said APFC said there was a newspaper birth announcement. (Or something like that.) Find that one thing that sounds ridiculous on its face and when they hear that, go on to the next ridiculous fact. And if that means, admitting to being a crazy birther, just to get them to HEAR you, well, admit to whatever it takes. ADMINISTRATOR

    • Lighting a Fire says:

      Dawn and jbjd;

      I think it would be helpful as well as possibly get some allies in your court and make certain that these complaints get acted upon expeditiously, by drafting a letter explaining the background behind the fraud; the legal complaint itself and the various statutes invoked and what you desire to happen next and send copies to South Carolina’s Senator Jim Demint and Representative Joe Wilson. I suspect they may be quite helpful in applying pressure and a spotlight on the whole issue as well as on the South Carolina’s Attorney General”s office. I certainly don’t see how it would hurt your efforts. I would first send them a certified letter with a return reciept requested as well as an e-mail and a fax and then follow it up with a phone call to their office.

      I wonder if the Republican leadership is even aware of your effforts jbjd. This would be a good way to enlist their assistance at this stage of the fight as well as set the groundwork for the next stage. Both Demint as well as Wilson have demonstrated courage and a willingness to stand up and fight against the Obama/Pelosi machine. (Demint in his support of the 9-12 projectas well as his support of Honduras and Wilson with his famous “Liar” remarks and better yet they are both from South Carolina!)

      • Dawn says:

        No, I doubt if the Rep. leadership in SC at least is aware of jbjd & this whole issue. The GOP – altho some, maybe many – believe that BO is not a NBC, and think that there IS something to the “theory” that he is not constitutionally eligible to be potus, they RUN when it’s suggested they get involved in anything that others might call a “conspiracy theory”. I know its ridiculous but I’ve had much contact with those on the local & state level & have read & communicated about this with others nationwide. They stay away from it – whether they believe it or not – because they don’t want to be labeled birthers or right wing kooks. one example – I brought this up at a large regional meeting of a Rep. club and was actually “scolded” by the club President. Needless to say I will not be back there. HOWEVER, I do think Jim & Joe might be interested if they are approached privately. I can get in touch with Joe’s office. Lighting A Fire, are you a SC resident? If so I’d like to talk to you about the AG & his office here, if you have submitted your own complaint. Thanks.

        Dawn: You have given me an idea. I will be posting another article shortly inspired by your narrative. In the meantime, try this.

        Instead of saying, ‘BO is not a NBC,’ or anything like that, say this. ‘The DNC has been telling us all along, they believe, BO is not a NBC. I, for one, am willing to take them at their word.’ Then cite, for example, the evidence Bob Bauer presented to the federal court in the Hollister case.

        All of us who object to BO’s ascension to the Oval Office on the grounds no evidence exists in the public record that he is a NBC, are hit to varying degrees with the same non-response responses as you. That is, the comebacks are based on something other than the substantive issue of whether he is a NBC. Rather, we are told, ‘I don’t want to be called a ‘Birther,’ etc. (Recall my article, “WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?.”) Keep the focus on whether he is a NBC and do not defend yourself against any other charges, such as, you are a R, or a racist, or a bitter supporter of HRC. For example, don’t begin a response with, ‘ No, I am not a …’ I often respond to my critics by saying this. ‘I absolutely respect the right of anyone to vote for a POTUS for whatever reason, even if I consider him to be incompetent for the job. But no one has the right to foist upon me a man who is not Constitutionally eligible for the job.’ ADMINISTRATOR

  2. jbjd,

    Wanted to update you on my work today in Arizona with respect to our chat last night on Revolution Radio.

    I contacted Attorney General Terry Goddard’s office this morning. The Solicitor General’s division is the entity within his office that handles election laws. I spoke with a lady who first wanted me to believe that this type of a complaint is a federal matter (more diversion) until I explained to her that there is no federal law that superceeds our election law under ARS 16-243.

    Our conversation wasn’t very long, but she did confirm that my next step would be to submit a compalint to AG Goddard regarding the matter.

    Since what I have from you is a letter to look into harrassment of State delegates in Arizona, I will now write an original complaint and reference your original letter. I’m not an attorney, so I wanted to see if you will look at my complaint before I submit it. I also want to take my time writing the complaint so that it is solid and well crafted.

    Thanks.

    AZC: See; people cannot steal your rights when you know more about your rights than they do. Please, follow up with a letter summarizing that the person in the AG’s office was not only ignorant about AZ state ballot law but also tried to fob you off on someone else instead of trying to help you figure out best venue for redress (which, turns out, was exactly where you were, that is, the AZ AG). Send copies to the press.

    Your complaint to the AG rests in finding out whether sanctions can be applied under the law to either pledged delegates who change their vote before being released by the candidate or, those people who solicited pledged delegates to change their votes in violation of AZ law. Make sure you point out that, several other vote binding states were locked out of the vote at the Convention, too. And show the AG the part of the DNC Call that tells delegates only to use their “good conscience” to vote but not to make sure they obey state laws that require them to cast their vote for the candidate the voters back home elected them to represent. Cite the fact, Governor Rendell advised viewers on FOX News, there’s no such thing as a “pledged delegate.” ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Dawn says:

    Well CRAP. We just got this via email from the SC AG’s office:
    Dear Mr. Duff,
    Please know that the Office of the Attorney General has received many letters similar to your own. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to address this issue when it was presented to them. While there is little this office can do on the state level to address this issue, we will keep this information on record should the need for it arise.
    Sincerely,
    Constituent Services
    OBVIOUSLY they did not READ the complaint! What are they talking about “the Supreme Court had this issue presented to them” ?? Not THIS issue. And what do they mean there is little that can be done on the state level? I am OUTRAGED. This is the guy who is running for GOP Gov. I have a big mouth. He might want to think twice before telling me there is nothing he can do about election fraud in his own state.
    I honestly don’t think HE read it – I think just a clerical person who assumes it’s simply about BO & his bc & is blowing us off. I am FURIOUS.

    Dawn: “Constituent Services” is not the AG. Go back; bring people with you. You know the law; and you have a good grasp of the facts. Summarize any contact in writing, and send copies to the press. SC provides a particularly egregious set of facts that point to fraud. Some clerk fobbing off voters is not how the government is supposed to operate.

    The strongest armament you have is the fact, this AG wants to be Governor. Use it. He hired that person in Constituent Services; he needs to remember his role as AG is to enforce the law, and not to thwart the citizens from petitioning him to do his job. Let me know if there’s anything else I can do, to bring that message home. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. jbjd,

    One more question. When if ever, did Hillary release her delegates?

    AZC: Excellent question. I still cannot say for sure what is the answer. I will do more research; but the best answer would come from people at the Convention.

    At some point, I need to find pledged delegates from vote binding states, who attended the Convention. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. azgo says:

    Doesn’t this makes it tough to file a complaint about the law to someone who may have broken the same law?

    HCR won the presidential preference election in Az.

    Terry Goddard AZ = State Attorney General = Obama (voted for) = 04 Jun 2008 (Commit date)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008#cite_note-dcw20080604-80

    azgo: The law in AZ says, if you are elected to represent a particular candidate in the Presidential preference primary then, you must represent that candidate on the floor of the Convention. Mr. Goddard was a super delegate. According to DNC rules, delegates must use their “good conscience” to represent the voters. Thus, Mr. Goddard should at least have used his good conscience when he expressed his support for BO. But insofar as he is a member of the executive branch of government in AZ, the chief law enforcement official in the state, he cannot avoid the political fallolut for refusing to carry out the law that applies to pledged delegates by claiming, he supported BO and so, cannot sanction those HRC pledged delegates who violated the law by voting for BO. ADMINISTRATOR

    • azgo says:

      Thank you for your answer to my question!
      Your radio shows are great – very informative! I missed the chat session last night. I’m looking forward to the next show!

      azgo: For some people, ‘listening’ to the explanation of fraud clarified the volumes of materials on fraud, posted throughout this blog. So, happy to say, it helped. During the abbreviated chat last night, we realized, not enough attention has been paid to the conduct of HRC pledged delegates in vote binding states, who switched their votes BEFORE they actually voted, if they did; or before they were actually released by the candidate (if this is even an option under the vote binding laws in their state). ADMINISTRATOR

      • linder says:

        azgo:

        I’m sure you know that AG Terry Goddard is seriously considering a run for Gov. I don’t think he has actually announced as AZ law requires him to vacate his office when running. You can use that to your advantage. Also one of the best places to release info to is the radio station KFYI.

        linder: In AZ, the problem is, there is no law requiring the candidate to be eligible for the job. And, as for HRC pledged delegates in this vote binding state, it is unclear which delegates were compelled to vote from their hotel rooms, BEFORE HRC released her delegates. I fear that the clearest recourse in AZ at this point, might consist of this.

        BO swore in the AZ primary he was a NBC. However, the strongest evidence he admitted existed he is a NBC is contained in that footnote in the Motion to Dismiss in Hollister. I wonder whether Mr. Goddard could be persuaded to look into this.

        Of course, I would also show him the complaints of election fraud filed in other states with applicable laws. But I still cannot understand why whole segments of the population fail to grasp, the only way to expose the illegalities in the 2008 election are to go after the players for election fraud, where states laws can be used precisely for this purpose ADMINISTRATOR

      • azgo says:

        Hi linder,

        Mr. Goddard is ‘almost’ seriously running for governor with a little controversy (???)

        http://freedomarizona.org/2009/06/02/goddard-i-plan-to-run-for-governor/

        ARS “38-296. Limitation upon filing for election by incumbent of elective office

        A. Except during the final year of the term being served, no incumbent of a salaried elective office, whether holding by election or appointment, may offer himself for nomination or election to any salaried local, state or federal office.

        B. An incumbent of a salaried elected office shall be deemed to have offered himself for nomination or election to a salaried local, state or federal office upon the filing of a nomination paper pursuant to section 16-311, subsection A or formal public declaration of candidacy for such office whichever occurs first.

        C. The resignation of the incumbent elective officer duly filed in writing with the officer, board or commission having jurisdiction of the office shall, if not accepted within ten days, be deemed to have become effective as of the date of filing.

        D. This section shall not be construed to prohibit a person whose resignation from office has become effective from qualifying as a candidate for another office during the unexpired portion of the term affected by the resignation, nor shall it apply to any incumbent elective officer who seeks re-election to the same office or to any other public office during the final year of the term to which he has been so elected.

        E. A person violating any provision of this section is guilty of misfeasance in office and the office held by such person shall be declared vacant.”

        http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/38/00296.htm&Title=38&DocType=ARS

        Interesting…

      • azgo says:

        jbjd,

        You said, “In AZ, the problem is, there is no law requiring the candidate to be eligible for the job”. (@”linder Says: November 15, 2009 at 03:30″)

        ARS – Article 4, Presidential Preference Election, 16-242. Qualifications for ballot; nomination paper

        “A. A person seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of president of the United States shall sign and cause to be filed with the secretary of state a nomination paper that contains the following information:
        1. The name, residence address and mailing address of the candidate.
        2. The name of the recognized political party from which the person seeks nomination.
        3. The name and address of the chairman of the candidate’s state committee.
        4. The exact manner for printing the candidate’s name on the presidential preference ballot pursuant to section 16-311.
        B. The nomination paper shall be filed not less than fifty days nor more than seventy days before the presidential preference election and not later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day for filing.
        C. Section 16-351 does not apply to a nomination paper filed pursuant to this section.
        D. Within seventy-two hours after the close of filing the secretary of state shall certify to the officer in charge of elections the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.”

        http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00242.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

        I have been wondering about this last line,

        “… the secretary of state shall certify to the officer in charge of elections the names of the candidates who are qualified for the presidential preference election ballot.”

        In my interpretation, “candidates who are qualified for the … ballot” defines who can be certified by the SoS.

        Therefore, doesn’t this say in essence ‘the candidates must be eligible for the job’ and as we know, BO signed and swore he is eligible (qualified) on the AZ nomination paper?

        azgo: Yes; sorry, I wasn’t being sufficiently technical. As I have said all along, the problem with going after BO for election fraud for swearing he is Constitutionally qualified for POTUS, given the legal requirement of qualification for office to get onto the state ballot; is that, he KNOWS whether he is qualified. So, in order to go after him for fraud, one would need to prove he lied. It is much easier to create the circumstantial case, no one could have established he is qualified before Certifying he is. This shifts the burden to the alleged wrongdoer. Now, in one state, SC, the law requires the party to swear the primary candidate is qualified for the job, instead of just the candidate swearing he is qualified to be in the primary. So, in the SC complaint for election fraud, we go after both the members of the D party who swore to BO’s qualifications to get his name onto the Presidential preference primary ballot in that state, AND the party members whose signed Certification got his name onto the general election ballot. ADMINISTRATOR

      • azgo says:

        Thank you again. I know the laws which require the state party to be responsible for the candidate to be qualified and NP ‘duly nominated’ papers are important ‘to create the circumstantial case’. BO qualified BO in AZ and that stinks, no pun intended.

        azgo: Yes, but once the fraud is exposed… no one will get away with saying, ‘I swear, I did not know…’ ADMINISTRATOR

  6. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    jbjd,

    I have finished a rough draft of my complaint to AZ AG Terry Goddard. I have focused only on the facts and did not include any speculation about possible harrassment, etc. I don’t know if I have taken the right pov here but I wanted to keep the complaint as simple and factual as possible.

    You can find a copy of the rough draft here. Please advise.

    http://dualers.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cGbY8Oafu4I%3d&tabid=71&mid=407

  7. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    Bad news, I just found a post that says Hillary released her delegates on Wednesday, the day before the floor vote at the convention. Whether or not there actually was a floor vote, the fact that she released her delegates ended her protection under our election law ARS 16-243. No need to read my rough draft now. Unfortunately, because of Hillary’s own actions, our election law was not broken.

    You can find the article on Hillary releasing her delegates here:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/27/clinton-releases-delegates/

    Interestingly, however, the video that is supposed to show her releasing the delegates doesn’t show up in my browser. I just built a new computer, so I’d be curious to know if anyone else can view the video.

  8. curi0us0nefromthe60s says:

    Here is a YouTube video where she releases her delegates. It occurs at about 1:10 into the video. She should have never released her delegates.

    curi0us0nefromthe60s: I actually found this after the radio show the other night but, here was my problem. Delegates from some states had already ‘voted’ from their hotel rooms. So, I have no idea what was the count from those states, BEFORE HRC ‘released’ those delegates. Bottom line, what good does it do to enact vote binding laws intended to achieve a certain result, that is, to make sure votes cast by citizens in those states, count, even in Presidential preference primaries; and then have to play detective to figure out whether the votes were actually counted? I do not want a political party playing so fast and loose with my state laws, especially since their presence in my state is a privilege and not a right. Remember, the Constitution says nothing about political parties. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: