EASIER SAID THAN DONE

A poster on the CW blog proposed, everyone involved in ‘outing’ BO should convene and decide to unify the focus. Here is my response.

jbjd // November 18, 2009 at 8:45 pm

Maddie // November 18, 2009 at 8:21 pm

JS @1:33 resistnet—see JS’s link above.

Excellent ideas….

We can do it! We need to brain-storm on how to get all groups together to pursue this 1 and only 1 goal – to expose and remove Obama! With all the patriots from all groups bombarding Congress and media non-stop, with all protests focused on 1 and only 1 issue – is Obama eligible to be POTUS? As we march along, more and more people will be educated on this issue. More people will join the war. The war gets bigger and bigger until they surrender!

This idea will only work IF everyone involved is prepared to drop ANY discussion of dual citizenship; or birth certificate vs. Certification; or social security numbers; or HI officials from the DoH; or quo warranto; or any other issue than this: Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did you determine BO is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS when you signed those official DNC Certifications of Nomination you submitted to state election officials in states that required the candidate to be qualified for the job in order to get his name printed on the general election ballot.

You already have evidence, she refused to answer the question. You have evidence, then DNC General Counsel Joseph Sandler answered written requests from voters seeking this information, by explaining, the DNC is not a public agency and, therefore, is not subject to a public records request. Yep; he took the time to write all that out but still failed to list the documentary basis for Certifying BO was Constitutionally qualified for the job. (In some states, Mr. Sandler forwarded NP’s Certification to state election officials.)

If the people who have been raking in the big bucks for carrying on this useless pursuit to ‘out’ BO were the types who would be willing to unify under a winning strategy from someone who has pointed out the flaws in their work, urging people to step back and use common sense; then they would have. No one has clicked on the PayPal button on my blog; but I have given away the complaints of election fraud to state A’sG in applicable states; that not only summarize the whole fraud, including specific examples of the absurdity of claims of legitimacy coming from BO’s camp; but also provide a viable means to expose the whole thing, based on existing laws.

I have said this before: what do you suppose would happen if every time one of these lawyers was interviewed, she or he said, ‘Why do you suppose BO/BB tried to trick the federal court into taking judicial notice that Annenberg Political Fact Check said he was for real; instead of handing the court one of NP’s signed Certifications of Nomination swearing he was Constitutionally qualified for the job?’ And held up that footnote from Hollister?

Think about how this would sound. If BO wanted the federal court to rule, he was for real, what is the strongest evidence of that fact? APFC ‘noting’ a phantom image of an unattributed newspaper image OR the word of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?
***************************************************************************************************

Then, there was this comment, to me.

#

Carlyle // November 18, 2009 at 8:40 pm

jbjd –

I was wondering about a bigger issue – Shouldn’t there be a “one stop” clearing house somewhere to settle constitutional issues? Trying to guess different avenues to persue – for different types of violations – and then no guarantee that you will be heard – something just isn’t right about that.

And – speaking of guarantees – all of the information you have provided about election rules and AG’s makes sense and is very appealing. BUT – what keeps the AG’s from just ignoring the complaints?
****************************************************************************************************

My response…

#

jbjd // November 18, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Carlyle, the one-stop shop to settle Constitutional issues is the SCOTUS. NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE SUSPECT HERE! I know people do not want to hear that but, it’s true! The Electors and the Congress did exactly what the Constitution required. BO is the POTUS. Yes; I agree he is not qualified under the Constitution. But enough people did not require such qualification that, he was lawfully elected. This does not mean, his lack of qualifications cannot be exposed, and result in his Impeachment. (Yes, I also believe, according to the Constitution,, this provides the ONLY lawful mechanism for removing him from office, in this case.)

I am right; and no matter how many people continue to fight ME on this, they are wrong. The courts have clearly backed me up; and all the temper tantrums and name calling will not change a thing.

Bob Bauer wrote a textbook on federal election law. He knew, BO could take office without vetting as to Constitutional qualification. But he did not count on my figuring out how it was done. (NP signing the Certifications; misallocating delegates; caucus fraud; silence pledged delegates from vote binding states, etc.)

I am right. Hate me; call me names; whatever. Keep asking the question: given the documents in the public record, on what basis did NP Certify to state election officials in August 2008 that BO was Constitutionally qualified for the job of POTUS, to get them to print his name next to the D on the general election ballot?
************************************************************************************************

And, finally, this exchange.

#

venice // November 18, 2009 at 9:18 pm

jbjd,

Where do things stand with the AG’s? D2i tells us there hasn’t been a word.
#

jbjd // November 18, 2009 at 9:22 pm

venice,

Hundreds of thousands of ‘pink slips’ make the news. What are a few hundred complaints to state A’sG? Are people camping out outside of the AG’s office to get word s/he is investigating? What about all of those groups out there, supposedly fighting to expose BO? Have they looked up the laws in their states to see whether they can file these complaints? In states where such complaints are not applicable, are people sending these complaints to their state officials / press to expose the fraud?

I have no idea what individual A’sG are doing. Why don’t you ask them?

Advertisements

8 Responses to EASIER SAID THAN DONE

  1. bjh says:

    Didn’t Speaker just give the oath of office to a NY23 candidate who has yet to be declared the winner of the election just so he could vote in favor of the healthcare bill? Speaker Pelosi has a pattern of abuse of power and needs to be outed.

    bjh: Hello. May I propose, given your strong sentiments, you ‘out’ her? (If you used that term but now, put on the spot, are unable to specify its meaning, let me propose this. If you think she has acted outside of the scope of the law, for example, in signing those DNC Certifications of Nomination swearing BO is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS without first ascertaining whether he is; then, download the complaints of election fraud naming her, and distribute these to your elected officials, along with a note explaining your disdain for her conduct. Of course, this pre-supposes you are not from a state in which you could file your own complaint.) ADMINISTRATOR

  2. Miri says:

    And now we know why Bauer is in the WH. His reward. His cover?

    Miri: I cannot otherwise justify that this attorney noted for his expertise in election law is now sharing offices with the same operatives who anticipate they will need his help, as investigations into the fraud that stole the 2008 election approach critical mass. ADMINISTRATOR

  3. azgo says:

    Great show Thursday night as I finally got home and listened to the recorded archive. Thank you for more education! I’m glad to hear you will be back on Revolution Radio after the upcoming holiday!

    DNC legal counsel, Joseph E. Sandler – information “is not subject to a public records request.”

    DNC legal counsel and attorney for Obama, Robert F. Bauer – “This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports.”

    DNC project, Organizing for America – Obama “a native citizen”

    Given the fraudulent activity of the DNC during the 2008 election campaign, would all of this be considered ‘specific intent to further the fraud’.

    azgo: I have to say, I have re-listened to that last show a few times and, I just loved it, for so many reasons, including this. Hearing drkate ask me why Bob Bauer did not submit Nancy Pelosi’s Certification to the federal court in Hollister inspired me to flesh out that aspect of the fraud. Wait till you see tomorrow’s post. ADMINISTRATOR

  4. njresident says:

    jbjd, Thank you so much for all you do. I think you brilliantly see through all the smokes and mirrors, and have dispensed the best, most useful info for us to take off with.
    I was trying to go after Pelosi’s fraud in NJ with all that I have gathered based on your advice. However, after preliminary inquires at the state AG’s website and at the SOS’s with my preliminary ‘complaint’ but not getting any responses, I gave up because I highly doubt that in a corrupt state such as NJ there is any hope for ‘justice’ against fraud by big officials.
    Anyway, I have started this yet untried ‘movement’ to remove O at ‘Resistnet’ (that has always been my 1 and only 1 goal). Fortunately someone brought the idea to your attention and you give us some extremely good ideas/advice. I am following your advice: focus on the Pelosi fraud scheme to get O on the ballot (although we added O’s declaring himself constitutionally qualified (he says he is a NBC) in the Az ‘candidate paper’, and Hawaii’s fatal mistake in claiming O a nbc on its 7/27/09 press release.)
    You have helped us so tremendously. Do you mind giving us your opinion on this Petition (draft) to be presented along with a ‘bill’ to a few R congress we choose to demand that they do what’s listed in the petition? Thank you.

    Senator: ____________________& Senator: _________________________
    Congressman:_____________________

    PETITION FOR HEARING REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES:
    REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

    WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of…or the right of the people…to petition the government for a redress of grievances”;

    FACTS
    WHEREAS, Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution specifies that “no person except a natural born citizen….shall be eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States”;

    FACTS
    WHEREAS, the Natural Born Citizen clause of the Constitution was inserted as a protectorent defense of foreign and domestic enemies usurping the Office of the President of the United States, and as such was defined by 1) Citizen Parents and 2)United States soil born; representing a two prong test that only Citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were specified as except from in the Constitution.

    FACTS
    WHEREAS, there is overwhelming evidences that Barack Hussein Obama fails the two prong test and is not a natural born citizen constitutionally qualified to be the President of United States because of a self revealing record by Barack Hussein Obama as only native born and from origin of birth from a father known to be a British subject under British Law; thus do not require Barack Hussein Obama’s long form birth certificate unearthed from the sealed and hidden classified state that Obama’s first act as Usurping President so ordered [Executive ORDER 13489 Presidential Record], to determine he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen qualified under the Constitutional Standard for the office of President.

    FACTS
    WHEREAS there is no RECORD in Court in the multitude of Law Suits filed, or available by FEMA request introduced into any pubic or legal Record of ANY opposition to these FACTS, the substantive way is cleared for Congress to ACT upon these FACTS, in conducting A HEARING OF INCAPACITATION OF THE PRESIDENT unqualified to discharge the duties of the office, by authority in a Senate Trial afforded by U.S. C. Art. I ,Sect. 3,clause 7, & Amend. XXV, Sect.4.

    FACTS
    WHEREAS as recent as the 106th Congress’s Judiciary Subcommittee for the Constitution in July of the year 2000 had formally undertook in Hearings a Constitutional Amendment to allow non-natural born citizens or foreign born citizens to be President and that Amendment was soundly defeated so there is no Constitutional provision that allows non-natural born citizens to be President.

    FACTS
    WHEREAS there are at least 2 Presidential Candidates who are willing to testify before Congress that they have not nor did they concede the 2008 election, and did take the oath swearing to the qualifications of the office of the President in their respective Declarations of Candidacy as Natural Born Citizens and other requirements of office being Alan Keyes and Cody Robert Judy; and that a grievance of the Election is sworn by them in suffering the right to spend their campaign monies in a fair race for President that is also recorded in Court, and is a monetary grievance of suffering, that DOES NOT preclude Congress from acting on the incapacitation of the Usurping President, Barack Hussein Obama due to the responsibility of Congress to the Constitution and as representatives of We The People in conducting a Senate Trial and calling witnesses per procedure.

    FACTS
    WHEREAS, Barack Hussein Obama swore under oath in his Presidential “Declaration of Candidate” form to the state election authority of Arizona that he is a qualified (natural born citizen of the United States) candidate seeking nomination as a candidate for the office of the President of United States from the Democratic Party.

    FACTS
    WHEREAS, Nancy Pelosi, in her capacity as the chairperson of DNC, certified under oath in the Official Certification of Nomination that Barack Obama is legally qualified to serve under the provision of the United States Constitution;

    FACTS
    WHEREAS, Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino issued a press release on July 27,2009 stating:
    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED and ASSERTED BY THE FACTS:
    WE, the undersigned, do pray and demand Congress provide relief and redress as follows:

    1. To Senate trial the charge and challenge of Fraud by Barack Hussein Obama, a self-proclaimed constitutional lawyer, on what basis did he determine that he is a natural born citizen of United States in the ‘Declaration of Candidate’ ;

    2. To Senate Trial the charge and challenge of Fraud by Nancy Pelosi on what basis did she determine Barack Obama is Constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States when she signed those official DNC Certifications of Nomination she submitted to state election officials in states that required the candidate to be qualified for the job in order to get his name printed on the general election ballot and the two different entries on which her signature rest;

    3. To Senate Trial the charge and challenge of Fraud Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, on what basis did she determine that Barack Obama is a natural-born American citizen in the July 27, 2009 Press Release. If the basis is the “original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Obama was born in Hawaii”, then demand such information “collected and maintained” for the purposes of preparing the public statement made by Director Fukino be released according to the UIPA statute Section 92F-12.

    4. To Senate Trial the charge and challenge of 2 Presidential Candidates, Alan Keyes and Cody Robert Judy swearing as individual Candidates in the oath as qualified to the qualifications of the Office of Presidency, unyielding to the Presidential Election Race, and demanding a fair election in the race they are candidates in, as declaratory witnesses of standing to the Fraud within the Presidential Race.

    Signed:
    I, as a citizen, or Group Officer of the United States do attach my signature freely and without any compelling force, in the knowledge and agreement of the above stated document.

    __________________________________ Notary: __________________________
    Citizens for upholding the Constitution
    DATED: ____________________
    GROUPS SIGNING PRESENT LEADER AND NUMBER YOU REPRESENT
    ______________________________________________ Representing # _________
    ______________________________________________ Representing # _________
    ______________________________________________ Representing # _________
    ______________________________________________ Representing # _________
    ______________________________________________ Representing # _________
    ______________________________________________ Representing # _________
    ______________________________________________ Representing # _________

    njresident: Thank you. Nice to see you again. Let me just address this portion of your rather lengthy message.

    Anyway, I have started this yet untried ‘movement’ to remove O at ‘Resistnet’ (that has always been my 1 and only 1 goal). Fortunately someone brought the idea to your attention and you give us some extremely good ideas/advice. I am following your advice: focus on the Pelosi fraud scheme to get O on the ballot (although we added O’s declaring himself constitutionally qualified (he says he is a NBC) in the Az ‘candidate paper’, and Hawaii’s fatal mistake in claiming O a nbc on its 7/27/09 press release.)

    1. Why is removing BO your sole goal? If this is based on a belief he is not a NBC then, you would have a hard time proving a negative. And even IF you could prove he is not a NBC, what then? Read “THE END GAME,” on this blog.

    2. I have cautioned many times on this blog, accusing BO of lying that he is a NBC necessarily means, you can prove he is not. I have avoided these accusations, for this very reason. Rather, I go after anyone else who said he is a NBC, given that no evidence in the public record supports such a conclusion. (See, without this evidence, he still knows whether he is a NBC. But, how did they?)

    3. HI did not make a “fatal mistake” in saying, BO is a NBC. Nancy Pelosi’s Certifications say he is. Anyone else can make that statement now, too. Besides, unless someone is in the position to rule on whether he is a NBC – and no official from the HI DoH is so situated – saying he is a NBC is just another lay opinion. (Misinterpreting statements from the HI DoH is not your fault. Several legal practitioners in the blogosphere went a little berserk on this one. Just because someone is a state ‘official’ does not mean, anything that person says is law.)

    Did we determine that NJ has no law requiring the candidate whose name appears on the ballot must be qualified for the job? Even so, you could spread the word about the fraud, neatly laid out in 1 (one) document, by downloading and distributing the complaints of election fraud posted on the front of the blog. Send these to both your state and federal officials and the press.

    Finally, a brief comment on other Presidential candidates who have claimed to be adversely impacted by BO’s name on the ballot. None of these candidates has a leg to stand on. They were not on the ballot in all 50 (fifty) states and the District of Columbia; and they could not have obtained the requisite number of electoral votes to win the election. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. sportinlife10 says:

    I can’t get unspammed on No Quarter, so have given up trying. So I can’t comment there on your work, and/but just wanted to say Thank You.

    sportinlife10: Sorry about your plight at NQ but glad you found me here. Thank you so much for supporting the work. I have taken a lot of flack lately from people who appear to prefer that I utilize a less reasoned approach to exposing the flaws of the 2008 general election cycle. But I have never ascribed to the philosophy that she who shouts loudest shouts best. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. njresident says:

    jbjd, Thanks for taking the time to comment.
    1. NBC has been clearly defined in Law of Nations and in 4 supreme court decisions; the ‘lawmakers’ have attempted to change the defintition of NBC (in 2000 and 2004?) but failed – so no other definition of nbc exists currently (plus, why did they try to change definition of nbc? because they know exactly what it is and they don’t like it); naturalized citizens swear the oath of allegiance to US only, but not allowed to be the president, whereas a nbc is allowed to be the president, a nbc must therefore have sole allegiance to US (i.e. undivided loyalty). O is British at birth, with allegiance to a foreign country, i.e. does not have sole allegiance to US! The Constitution, in effect, stipulates that one must have undivided loyalty to US to be POTUS. I think that pretty much defines what NBC is and O is not nbc and not eligible to be POTUS.
    2. True, Hawaii’s press release did not the law make, but congressmen have relied on what they said to determine O is eligible – proofs are in their replies to their constitutents (even if they were only making excuses, they have claimed that Hawaii’s words have been the basis of their belief O is eligible!) So why not hold Hawaii to the fire! What Hawaii relied on to make public statements are supposed to be available to the public! Congress can choose to order them to show the source doc to the public to see how they conclude that O is nbc. Proof is on them. Public officials can/must be held accountable to their public statements.
    3. In the petition, we are not accusing O of lying that he is NBC, just asking him on what basis he claims himself to be a nbc. Let him prove it!

    njresident: You asked; I advised. Let me emphasize a couple of points, using the numbering system in this latest comment to me.

    3. Absent evidence of illegal conduct that enabled BO into the Presidency, Congress has no legal authority to question his qualifications at this juncture. That is, unless they specifically cite to, for example, evidence referenced in the complaints of election fraud, on what basis is the legislative branch of government questioning the authority of the head of the executive branch of government? Surely, people will petition the judicial branch to stay any such investigation. Anyway, even with a justified introduction of Articles of Impeachment, the prerequisite to initiating an investigation into such eligibility; BO is under no obligation to answer to anyone. (Yes; even facing Articles of Impeachment, he need not respond. Of course, this hearkens back to the Nixon era; what would we have done if he refused to obey the decision of the SCOTUS that, he could not exert Executive Privilege to avoid handing over the tapes of WH conversations about Watergate?) Our Constitutional Republic leaves the vetting of the POTUS to us. We allowed him into office, notwithstanding he failed to establish he is a NBC or, even a C.
    2. I absolutely disagree; further, I think this makes no sense. Anyone has the right to say, BO is a NBC. The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives swore in Certifications of Nomination delivered to state election officials, he is a NBC. Plus, in HI, documents “verifying” BO was born in HI could be, an affidavit from his mother or grandmother that he was born in HI. Under HI law, this affidavit could be sufficient to obtain a HI Certification of Live Birth. Have we attempted to teach our elected representatives who maintain the fiction BO is a NBC based on Dr. Fukino’s statement, this legal distinction? Have we stormed their offices, like we have stormed the streets of the capital, or flooded their offices with copies of complaints of election fraud, regardless of whether they represent applicable states? The appropriate question to those members of Congress who claimed in writing, they based their ratification of the EC vote on the words of these HI officials is this: on what basis did NP swear BO was a NBC in August 2008? And why, when we asked her; and DNC Secretary Alice Germond; and then General Counsel Joseph Sandler, on what basis they Certified BO is a NBC, did they refuse to answer us? As for asking them to initiate investigation into NP’s conduct viz-a-viz these Certifications, she was acting as a civilian as Chair of the 2008 DNC Services Corporation Convention. Besides, her alleged ‘crimes’ are not federal questions; they are state fraud questions.
    1. Sure, Congress can attempt to legislate the definition of NBC; and you can educate them as to what you think is the appropriate definition. But finally obtaining a definition will take years and several court rulings to determine. In the meantime, we could have impeached the man by compelling one state AG to investigate NP’s Certification fraud, which would get the ball rolling. ADMINISTRATOR

  7. njresident says:

    1. Hawaii: really? even state government official has the right to say Obama is nbc solely based on the “original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Obama was born in Hawaii”, but cannot be held accountable to its own rules and regulations, namely UIPA statue Section 92F-12 – which states that the vital records “collected and maintained’ for the purpose of preparing such public statement must be released to the public? Fine if the vital records are affidavits form his mom or granny – just show them! We the people, the employer, want to see them in order to vett him. (See, we are not really challenging their ‘right’ to say BO is nbc, just holding them to their own rules to force them to release the ‘vital records’ whatever that may be.The real ‘vital records’ will tell the secrets.)

    njresident: Okay, I am not going to debate my prior responses, but I need to repeat that, pursuing HI DoH officials for evidence establishing BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS is too tangential to this outcome. As for asserting that as ‘BO’s employers, we want to vet him by viewing HI records, this statement is absurd on several fronts. We have no Constitutional right to any specific form of ‘vetting.’ Indeed, the Constitution is quite clear: the Electors elect the POTUS. Please stop dismissing the millions of your fellow citizens who cast votes for Electors for BO as the DNC Services Corporation pick for POTUS notwithstanding he had failed to produce documentary evidence that would prove he is a NBC. And nothing in the Constitution required the elected Electors – technically, these are appointed Electors, once the Governor of the state Certifies the votes cast for them, in the general election – to further vet the candidate. That is, millions of your fellow citizens determined sufficient vetting had already occurred, when they elected BO’s Electors.

    I am unclear as to which rights you refer when you claim the authority as citizens of states other than HI, to compel HI officials to adhere to ‘their rules.’

    2. You said we the people are the ones to vett a president? That sounds like a joke to me. We were trying to vett him prior to the election, at DNC, at the court, at the SOS, at the electors, at congress, on the vote counting day….everywhere! No one would listen to us, no court would act expeditiously. It was all rammed through over our loud objections! You might say too bad we failed and we have to live with the consequences. Really? Don’t we have the constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances?
    Let us say, for now, we are indeed responsible for vetting the presidential candidate (which I don’t agree at all). We failed through no fault of our own, nor for lack of trying. Now we are exercising our constitutional right to petition Congress for redress of grievances. Congress has the obligation to act on our petition.

    Again, insisting you have the right to conduct a specific type of vetting that takes precedence over the standard of vetting applied by your fellow citizens, makes no sense. Please stop trivializing the issues by pushing rhetorical questions like, “Don’t we have the constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances?’ Such insults have no place on this blog. Just because you have a right to such petition does not mean, you have the right to obtain your desired response. Or any response at all. Your recourse? Vote for another legislator, who provides your desired response.

    As to the basis on which the legislative branch can question the head of the executive branch –
    1. election fraud committed by Pelosi in all 50 states,i.e. the entire USA, so it is a federal offense. (Nancy Pelosi caused documents to be signed and distributed to forty nine of the fifty States hiding the fact Obama was not eligible for nomination or election, and outright lied to Hawaii.)

    Wrong. Just because fraud might have been committed viz a viz getting BO’s name printed on the ballot in several states does not convert what is essentially a state process – voting for POTUS – into a federal activity.

    2. perjury by Obama – self-proclaimed constitutional lawyer swore to be NBC knowing full well he is not, as evidenced by Resolution 511 he sponsored declaring nbc to be one born on US soil to 2 US citizen parents. The Resolution might not be law but he agrees to and knows the definition and it is public record! There are also evidences that he tried in vain to change the definition of nbc to suit his alleged birth/citizenship status. Are you saying a presidential candidate or a sitting ‘president’ has the right to say he is a nbc and can’t be challenged by anyone, not We the people, not Congress?
    Further more , Obama is guilty of ‘obstruction of justice’ – he refuses to show any credible evidences when we, the ‘vetters’, challenge him prior to, during and after election and up till now, by spending over a million bucks to hire attorneys to seal all his records! NO ONE BUT NO ONE can refuse to show a genuine bc to his employer and gets to keep his job! We the employers are demanding, through Congress, to vett him now because we were never given the chance to vett him! Fine if he is under no obligation to answer to anyone. No answer? No proof? He is fired by We the people, through Congress, our servants!
    Are all the laws against We the people?
    You said we are supposed to vet the pres candidate but we have no standing,no voice, no judge/court on our side and no media on our side….simply no way to vett him! Now we wish to have our grievances redressed but all the laws are on his side and there is no way we will be heard?

    This is way too jumbled to respond to.

    Yes yes, you said we can only do it by getting at least 1 state to prosecute Pelosi’s election fraud then that will be the basis for congress’s legal authority to question O’s qualification at this juncture. That may be true. I do think We have the constitutional right to have our grievances redressed and Congress is authorized by us (and obligated) to do all that is necessary to ‘redress’; even the head of the executive branch is not above the laws or above We the people.
    Congress can act fast should they decide to act.

    State attorneys don’t necessarily act at all or act fast.

    I know, I know you are going strictly by the laws and procedures…….

    I refuse to act otherwise; taking temper tantrums not only jeopardizes whatever credibility remains of the underlying claims, BO has failed to establish he is a NBC but also obscures the focus of the bona fide case that supports this claim, which is, the DNC Services Corporation has only asserted BO is a NBC but has refused to identify the documentary evidence which was the basis for their allegation. ADMINISTRATOR

  8. connie says:

    I wanted to thank you for all you do trying to uncover the real Obama. I am from Texas and was a Texas county delegate. I would like to assist you in any way possible. I know that Boyd Richie was not well liked and Glen Maxey was the man that ran against him in 06′. I have been unable to find who the previous chair was, but when Boyd came in, the current chairperson left his post early. I know that Boyd was a Kennedy cabal whereas Maxey was a Clinton cabal. What I have read most people thought Maxey was going to win. There is a real story here as we all know that Richie pulled all the right strings to get this usurper in. How did he managed as you have said for each and every state chair lie and sign off on it. This is the story and this is what I think we need to uncover. If we could do this we might be able to access the records. I have been on the phone to the Texas DNC and they answer no questions. I will continue investigating and feel free to contact me at me e-mail address if you would like to. Thanks again

    Connie: I answered your other comment extensively, on TEXAS TWO-STEP.

    Here, I just want to clarify a point you made. You write, “How did he managed as you have said for each and every state chair lie and sign off on it.” I am not alleging anyone lied. I am alleging, people swore to BO’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS without first ascertaining whether he was eligible for the job, just to get his name on the ballot. This is a distinction WITH a difference.

    As far as help, well, in general, reporting back on your efforts to obtain redress from your state officials helps by providing a more complete picture of what is going on with these election fraud complaints and/or requests for records; filing documents I post on the blog helps because it evidences the numbers of citizens demanding answers; and contributing to the kitty as you are able, helps, because I provide the documents. 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: